Vilified as if it’s nobody’s business during 74 years of India’s post-Independence history as a Secular Democratic Republic, the Brahman is among India’s smallest minorities at barely 4 per cent of the country’s 1.4 billion population, matched only by even fewer Christians at 2.3 per cent, Sikhs at 1.72 per cent and Parsis at just about 69,000 ... and vastly outnumbered by the ‘ever-victimised’ martial Muslim (14 per cent) and Kshatriya (20 per cent) and the quota-entitled, ever-deprived, Dalit and OBC, at almost 58 per cent.
Why then is the Brahman painted a monster?
How exactly is he privileged like nobody else is?
Does birthmark really determine his standing in the social order, or is it his economic wherewithal, both of which are preponderously modest, if not non-existent, in his case?
‘Caste,’ the strata-marginalising status symbol imported from Portugal, that placed the Brahman high up on the social ladder of colonial India based on the privilege of birth and occupation, has really been the colour-blind brushstroke that painted the Brahman black in the country we know as India today. This, when the scriptural and daily ritualistic practices of his life could never have been painted more white.
This was not necessarily the case in the early modern era under the Mughals and European frontier colonists in the courts of both Badshah Bahadur and Company Bahadur.
Neither was this the case under the medieval Sultans, who ruled over large swathes of India, following the decimation of Vaidik (followers of Vedic doctrine) and Baudhik (followers of Buddha doctrine) heritages where the Brahman originally belonged.
For the Brahman, throughout India’s unusually long and eventful history, has been defined and respected for his ideal, which is Varna - strictly in an acknowledgement and identification of his remarkable ability to communicate in highly polished speech, and not by exhibiting the biases of his creed.
So, here’s how it began.
As the ancients trailed the caravan routes to define history’s oldest civilisation, they crafted chants and folksongs in the natural rhythm of the footsteps of man and his domesticated beast. That’s exactly how the coarse dialect born and articulated on the caravan trail came to be known as Prakrit or shud~ra (small or scattered), spoken by herdsmen whose speech was born of the feet of the eternal divine that pervaded the spheres of earth and heaven.
Over time, the wise and the articulate among those commoners set up way stations by the river bank on the edge of the forest, that we know of as hermitages or asrams (asa+aram; aram: resthouses for asa: horses and elephants), where the caravans passed by.
And here, their long and arduous treks having come to halt, the worthies began to look up at the heavens to find meaning of life by joining the dots of the night sky. That’s when, along the way, their intense gaze and exciting mind game of fixing nature or Prakrit, gave birth to a high degree of refinement in taste and speech, bringing to life the language of the divines that steadily rose up from the ramblings of the feet to the twists of the tongue.
And that language of the gods came to be inherited as shud-dha (pure) or Sanskrit (refined or gathered action) in the elevated minds of wayfarers, we now know of as the Brahman. Who then is the Brahman really? Is it only a turn of his tongue that elevates him from the hoi-polloi stuck in their ways of the world, their words rhyming the rhythm of footsteps and the wheeling of creaky carts?
Ancient India’s lawgiver Manu emphasised the importance of speech while defining what makes the twice born, the Brahman. The meaning of everything, said Manu, is controlled by speech. Speech is the root of everything. Everything is set into motion by speech. A man who robs that speech robs everything.
A Brahman must not tell a lie. Even when provoked, he should not speak ill, nor should he brag about the gifts he has received.
He must refrain from oppressing any living being, should pile up merit as ants pile up an ant hill.
He is a resolute, gentle, controlled, nonviolent man who does not associate with cruel people.
He should receive alms, even from a person of ill deeds, but should never request alms beforehand.
He should accept gifts from anyone and everyone to rescue dependents or honour guests, but not to satisfy himself.
He should dwell in the state of equanimity, constantly meditate in solitude on what is good for his soul.
From the earliest time of human memory to the age of yesterday’s corporate colonisers, and today’s technology tsars, scholars across class, communities, cultures and civilisations have identified the Brahman as a simple, pious man, given to good manners, good speech and human best practices.
Here's a sampling of how they have defined the Brahman.
Abiu-Al Raihan Muhammad Ibn Ahmad Al Beruni, the first Muslim chronicler of India’s customs, and author of India (1030 CE):
The Brahman must have ample intellect, a quiet heart, truthful speech, much patience.
He must be a master of his senses, a lover of justice, of evident purity, always directed upon worship, entirely bent upon religion.
But the men above all who can rise above their time, can dispense with names and epithets, that are only instruments of human imperfections.
In this state, intellectus (comprehension) and intellgense (ability to acquire knowledge) unite with intellectum (faith seeking ability) so as to be one and the same thing.
Edward Moore, among the first British chroniclers of the Indic way of life and author of The Hindu Pantheon (1810 CE):
All priests are Brahman, but not all Brahman are priests. The pundit is a learned Brahman, a philosopher.
The natural duties of a Brahman are peace, self-restraint, zeal, purity, rectitude, patience, wisdom, learning and theology. The word Brahman means theologist or divine.
Margaret Elizabeth Noble, later Hindu revivalist Sister Nivedita of Swami Vivekananda’s order (1867-1911), in Footfalls of Indian History:
It is the poor, frugal Brahman, living in penury, in deep rural pockets of Bengal who has preserved the (pothis) scriptures and civilisation of ancient India generation after generation in the face of relentless persecution.
It was entrusted upon the Brahman to spread far and wide across the cultural and social landscape of India. He became the wayfarer who preserved the Indic way of life across diverse countries and languages such as Kashmir, Malaya (Kerala), Bengal, Gujarat, Afghanistan, Assam, Maharashtra, Bihar, Nepal, Kannad, Cholamandala (Tamil Nad), Punjab, Ceylon (Sri Lanka), Indonesia and Vietnam and much of what is now Central Asia.
What then is the fault of the Brahman to be so manhandled and mauled for his piety and, above all, for speaking the Truth? For, nowhere does the mark of birth, colour, creed or community define the twice born, the Brahman, the way he has been described by the alien.
Even God, the one and only al~Lah, in his sermon to his last Messenger, borrowed a leaf from the Brahman’s eternal way of life, describing the faithful believer, the momin, thus:
‘Successful are the believers, who are humble in their prayers, who avoid profane talk, and give alms in earnest, who restrain their carnal desires, who are true to their trusts and promises, and diligent in their prayers. These are the heirs of Paradise.
Those who walk in fear of their Lord; who believe in the revelations of their Lord; who worship none besides their Lord; who give from what they are given with hearts filled with awe, knowing that they will return to the Lord: these vie with each other for salvation and will be the first to attain it.’
~al Mu’minun
~ al Qur’an
Brahmanvad, then, makes sense. Immense sense in today’s selfish, entitled world where people of unrefined tongues constantly hurl invectives at one another to drive home a point.
Back to Essays