The Brahmin, with his upper caste collaborators, doesn’t just control the state and the corridors of power, but also exercises monopolistic clout over the flow of capital in the country. As members in the boardrooms, along with the Banias, they direct over 90% of India’s capital.
The key players in the nationalist project, the landowning castes and the mercantile castes from various nations now submerged in India, along with the Brahmins have expanded their economic power several times since independence.
The key source of accumulation and power in rural India, land, still remains majorly in the control of a handful of castes in each region. Sometimes, as much as 85% of agricultural land is owned by one caste in a particular state.
Recent global studies of wealth inequality have pointed out that over 95% of wealth in India is owned by a mere 10% of the population. Who else but the Brahmins and the upper castes own this wealth?
You could say the Brahmin is both the head and the belly of the Indian economy, in a manner of speaking. He decides what India produces, because he controls the organized sector which in turn colonizes the unorganized sector.
He also decides what it consumes, because he leads India’s middle class which is barely one-fifth of the population and should rightly be called upper class because of all the power it wields, socially and politically, composed as it is of the traditional aristocracy
like the Brahmins and other savarnas, and the handful of ‘shudra’ dominant castes in each state who had benefitted immensely from the colonial apportioning of the largest, the most productive chunks of land to them.
This was borne out by the situation that unfolded after the ‘demonetisation’ event two years ago: I had done some rough calculations based on the SECC 2011 (Socio-Economic Caste Census-2011) consumption figures, and the Rangarajan and Tendulkar Committee estimates of the poverty
line, and concluded that all the Bahujans in India spend around 6 times less than what the Brahmins and upper castes spend. In other words, every Brahmin-upper caste individual spends around 20 times more than every Bahujan individual every day.
These are at best guesstimates, severely hampered by the lack of caste-wise data, but they do give you a picture of the larger Indian reality. ~ roundtableindia.co.in/an-excerpt-fro…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Ambedkar was perhaps the last thinker to speak about its imprint, how the Brahmins have been a disaster for India as an ‘intellectual’ class, as a ‘governing class’. But what India’s social and political scientists have been doing, or not doing, for the last 70 years is very
strange. You don’t find the academia or media or civil society talking about the Brahmin ever. It’s not that they don’t talk about caste, or dominant castes or upper castes in particular.
You’ll find reams of stuff on Bhumihars, Rajputs, Kayasthas, Khatris, Patels, Marathas, Jats, Reddies, Kammas, Lingayats etc., and politically significant OBC communities like Yadavs, Kurmis, Lodhs, Vokkaligas, Thevars, Ezhavas etc.
~ Can the term brahminical be applied to anyone but a Brahmin? The term rests on the presumption of knowledge of the essence of the Brahmin. If you know what it takes to be brahminical, can you become a Brahmin?
You can become a Christian, a capitalist or a Marxist or an astrologer if you want, after gaining knowledge of what they are. But you can’t become a Brahmin even if you think you know all the answers to that.
One could say, you could learn all about Arabs or the French or the house of Windsor but could never become any of them either. But as Anu Ramdas says:
The Brahmins do not have any racial distinctness to be classified as a racial group separate from the rest of Indians,
~ In India caste is in class. The Mandal commission for Backward Classes also found convergence between caste and class. According to Indiaspend, the victims of lynching are almost entirely from poor families.
Therefore, the 'Ansari' victims of mob lynching in Jharkhand are in all probability Pasmanda Muslims from the weaver community (poor and low caste). In a few instances the 'Ansari' surname is also used by upper caste Muslims.
Similarly, lynched victims Pehlu Khan, Junaid, Umar, Akbar from Rajasthan and Haryana are all Meo Muslims (called Meo in Haryana and Mev in Rajasthan). Meo/Mev Muslims are Pasmanda Muslims.10 They are a traditional pastoral community that rears milch cows.
~ Article 21 which mandates that ‘no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law’ is a great protection given not only to the citizens of this country,
but to every person living in this country either temporarily or permanently. This right is as extensive and diverse as life is and covers all its facets. This is one of the branches of Constitutional law which was very widely expanded and is being expanded.
Though initially the courts were a little hesitant, and satisfied with giving a narrow interpretation of the word ‘life’ and the phrase ‘personal liberty’, later, it came up with a very broad concept
~ Unfortunately, this right to life is much abused and trampled upon by the State. Almost all actions of the police in depriving the people of life and personal liberty go unnoticed by the agency of law and unpunished by the courts.
The violations of this fundamental right go on with impunity. In the name of curbing violent or extremist activity, several thousands of people in this country are shot dead in blatant violation of law.
People are picked up from their homes, working places, or educational institutions and shot dead. Several people are picked up in normal course as a measure of ‘interrogation’, irrespective of whether they are involved in any crime or not,
there's very little reliable data on inter-caste marriages in india.. all kinds of anecdotal wisdom is thrown around as 'knowledge'.., according to the census 2011, the percentage of inter-caste marriages is 5.8% of all marriages..
even that can't be trusted as completely accurate, but that's a little more believable.. the census also says that the rate of inter-caste marriages is higher in rural areas than in the metros.. so there.. that challenges two popular myths -
that there are more inter-caste marriages in cities.. and that the cities are more progressive than the villages (it also bolsters a theory i'd shared many times here - that it is the cities which are the cesspits of caste now, from where it percolates to the villages)..