#brahminism

...imagine being on Tumblr on a fine day, and you see the most absurd bio on a blog:

"25 M, Leftist, White and from KKK family, but not a practicing Christian!"

or even better:

"30s, Marxist, anti-racist, descendant of Confederate generals and plantation owners, love antebellum aesthetics"

ya well the Indian diaspora and urban elites, on here and elsewhere, claim to be "leftist/Marxist/anti-caste" but proudly (shamelessly) state in their bios that they're a "Savarna" ~ to the un-initiated, that's not just a benign cultural descriptor but a claim to supremacy by virtue of birth; the term literally means "with varna" or "with caste" which distinguishes them from Dalits and Adivasis who were and still are violently, forcibly placed outside and beneath this feudal system

and WORSE: some openly state their specific feudal subcastes like iyer/iyengar etc in their BIOS (meaning that's among the first things they want u to know about them) while also smugly quoting anti-caste icons and leaders like Babasaheb Ambedkar, Phule, Periyar and so on

...It’s basically like quoting Malcolm X’s most radical speeches while having "Son of a Klansman" in your bio...you CANNOT make it make sense!

I mean, what exactly is the point of identifying yourself as uppercaste anyways?

asking about or telling anyone your upper caste status in a general context is in EXTREMELY poor taste at best, and a violent exclusionary practice at worst!

...you are essentially telling any Dalit or Bahujan person reading ur bio that your "politics" are a game/aesthetic, and you’ll never truly give up the cozy safety and status of your supremacist identity

When a dominant group makes a habit of explicitly declaring their caste status to "acknowledge my privilege and avoid appropriating the struggle of Dalits, Bahujans and Adivasis 🥺" they're shifting the baseline of default safety...

Let's be real about who actually gets to feel safe dropping their caste background into a bio: while a Dalit or Bahujan person might list their identity out of pride and reclamation of dignity, risking dehumanizing stigma, systemic trolling, and digital lynching, a savarna does it casually, shielded entirely by the baseline hegemony

Also something most "savarnas" themselves often don't know: uppercastes are a minority population in India, with only 3-5% of whom are brahmins, yet they're EXTREMELY overrepresented in positions of power and media by design

also, oh my goodness! stating you're iyer/iyengar/rajput/gujrati brahmin etc is next level pathetic and disgusting! it's soooo much worse than saying ur from a KKK/confederate family because the KKK etc simply did not have the persistent millennia-old structural hegemony that Indian caste systems have!

like, the KKK etc are a relatively modern, overt hate groups, and most people recognise them as such. Caste apartheid on the other hand is a deeply normalised, entrenched, systemic, and religiously sanctioned hierarchy that has brutalized people for thousands of years, and continues to do so to this very day!

Putting "Iyengar" or "Savarna" in your bio while aesthetics-shopping for leftist politics is peak cognitive dissonance, one cannot "reclaim" a label that inherently denotes ritual purity and supremacy over other human beings

they do this because, to the "desi" diaspora and urban elites, caste has been repackaged as "quirky cultural heritage" ~ they want the cultural capital of being a "traditional, intellectual" brahmin (the food, music, aesthetics) and they also want the social capital of being a "radical leftist" who reads anti-caste and communist literature..

please be real and humble yourselves y'all! you simply cannot dismantle a system while proudly flashing its highest badge of privilege! If you're quoting Ambedkar or Periyar, the very first thing you should learn is that the annihilation of caste requires shedding caste identity not flaunting it like some vintage accessory

if your "leftism" doesn't include active, uncomfortable renunciation of your own inherited supremacy, your "leftism and anti-casteism" is merely a pathetic shameful cosplay

Hi anon!💕

Thank you for asking this question! Hope you don't mind the long answer!

(if you wanna learn about my spiritual journey, I talked about it in this post)

My connection to god, Krishna, is what makes me a hindu. Pursuing spirituality has done wonders for my mental health as a whole and made me more compassionate towards myself and the world. Krishna's philosophy has made me more leftist and marxist than anything else.

Reconciling my faith and political ideology has been challenging, having the knowledge that brahminism is what poisons the very roots of this country and hinduism. The global rise of fascism and late stage capitalism has made it worse.

Hinduism as a whole cannot be defined, there is no one way to follow it, that is part of what I like about it. One can practice it however they want, that freedom is unique. There have been non-brahminical hindu sects and movements in the past which were later suppressed by brahmins (pancharatra vaishnavism is one). Ultimately the end goal remains moksha and in bhakti tradition, it is becoming one with god.

Also bhakti tradition and movement emerged as a social reform movement where it emphasized devotion to a personal god and rejected the caste system and social hierarchy as well. (The path I follow is that of bhakti). Many poet saints emerged during this time period.

A non brahminical practice of hinduism can be done. Currently, Ayyavazhi and Lingayats sects are few I have heard of (I need to do more research on them still) they reject the caste system and call for social justice. The paths are infinite, just as all the rivers lead to ocean, all paths lead to god/moksha, this is also what makes hinduism essentially secular. Neo-vaishnavism is also another sect that is anti caste and non brahminical

Chaitanya mahaprabhu, founder of gaudiya vaishnavism (or krishnaism) was one such social reformist, he was a brahmin by birth but his movement had a strong non-casteist and inclusive social impact, often challenging the rigid Brahminical orthodoxy of his time. (You can read more about him here) :

(Now this is my theist rant) Krishna was a social reformist of his time, he defied the status quo, he was a cowherder in his childhood faced discrimination for it later in life and chose to do away with discrimination in his time, everything about him is unique. He is called Vasudeva, which means "the god that dwells in everyone", so a system as discriminatory as the caste system should not exist in the first place as everyone comes and returns to the source itself, which in bhakti tradition is god. He built dwarka and made sure nobody faced injustice or discrimination on any grounds, he accepted those who were rejected by society (the 16k women for example), he can even be perceived as genderfluid and pansexual, he isn't bounded by anything. This is why I love him.

For me being anti brahminical and anti hindutva is not so in conflict when I remember that. The systems of discrimination were all man made and my love for God strengthens me to fight harder against these systems and against those who discriminate and spread hate.

I have witnessed casteism and bigotry in my own family and had a long journey before finally being able to accept that hinduism can be non brahminical, fighting hard to reform and approach a non brahminical way is what I can do to make it easier for people to practice it without facing all that discrimination. I am an obc (non creamy layer) myself, but the fact my own mother would tell me to not sit with my sc/st friends has only reminded me that the society is still very much casteist, it makes me fight harder against the current hindutva fascism and talk about caste discrimination even more.

Also, I am so sorry that happened to your family anon, I can understand how you feel. Sadly, casteism has only increased because of hindutva fascism and I think it is important for everyone especially hindus to fight against it and call it out.

Anti-caste Consciousness Beyond The Borders Of The Indian Subcontinent

This act of refusal was a strategy against being shaped into compliant subjects within a hierarchical order.

But it is right to ask if the Musalmans are the only sufferers from the evils that admittedly result from the undemocratic character of Hindu society.

Are not the millions of Shudras and non-Brahmins, or millions of the Untouchables, suffering the worst consequences of the undemocratic character of Hindu society?