The >piece by singer T.M. Krishna titled “The big paradox” intrigued me. Though it was an opinion piece, I felt there were some sentiments that had to be addressed with an appropriate perspective. Since I am apolitical, I am not looking at a political or a personal response, but an intellectual response with facts and questions that needs to be shared.
The common thread running through the piece has been a sense of vagueness and a lack of solid data to back the claims made. The first premise that the author makes in his piece is that of the sense of “protectionism” that Brahmins exhibit with regards to their customs and traditions. This is made to look as if it is exclusive to the Brahmins, but in reality this feature runs across all communities within the Indian social system across castes. Whether it be the Yadavs, Jats, Dalits or Nadars, all of them are protectionist in nature of their traditions and practices. While it is valid for us to debate whether these traditions need to imbibed through an informed debate, I don’t see why only a particular community is being mocked for being protectionist.
The second premise that the article propagates is the idea of “Brahminism” which is very narrow in its scope. The fact that the article, in its own philosophical narrowness, chose to ignore “philosophical explanations” because the author feels “they are excuses”, in itself shows that he is not willing to have an open-ended debate. I would have appreciated if the author had the meticulousness to pin point philosophical explanations and counter argue them on valid points. It would make the debate more refined and articulate. The fact that the article says that Brahmins in contemporary India represent “control, power, hierarchy” is a sweeping generalisation and the “passion” that the voter seems to exhibit only towards Modi is also not accurate. For example, 17 per cent of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) vote in the 2007 assembly elections came from the Brahmins. This is 5.2 per cent of the overall population in a State in which Brahmins constitute 10 per cent of the population (i.e., the Brahmin voter turnout percentage was more than 50 per cent just for the BSP, which is significant). >Why did the Brahmins support Mayawati in UP (when there was no Modi wave) in huge numbers and get her into power in 2007 even though she is a Dalit? Why did the Brahmins by and large support Dr. Manmohan Singh in 2009? Was it because he supported the aspirations of the Brahmin?
Brahmins across the spectrum have long been “tactical” voters, especially in the Hindi heartland and this is not a Modi-centric phenomenon as the author seems to suggest. It is purely based on the quality of the candidate that is available. Evidence points to the same and they change their views depending on the situations across the country. To call this as a voting renaissance is not convincing because they have been tactical voters for long. To label the entire community castiest, as the article mentions, is even more ludicrous and politically naive considering the evidence I have shown suggests they don’t vote by caste. In essence, both the elements of the paradox that the author claims are flawed in my view.
The argument falls flat completely in the last two paragraphs. To assume that the Brahmin would vote for Modi because he embodies whatever the Brahmin aspires to and because Modi is fair in colour is another sweeping observation. Firstly, Mr. Modi is not by any means fair compared to the Gandhis, so to allude the appeal based on fairness purely is a misconception, since the voter (based on fairness index) should have voted the Gandhis forever. The appeal for Modi, as per news reports, is not because he is an embodiment of a Brahmin; >it is because he brings a brand of governance model which is attractive to the educated young Indian . To attribute this to “neo Brahminism” is not accurate since Modi is neither a Brahmin nor does he represent the aspirations of only the Brahmins (since he seems to capture the minds of large sections of educated Indians across castes). In addition, to smear South Indians as being colour-prejudiced in their electoral choices is another unwarranted comment. It also belittles the political acumen of the South Indian which is obviously not just limited to looks. I think one needs to remind the author that the same South Indians had elected mass leaders (Anna, Kamaraj, M.K. Karunanidhi, etc.) who were not as fair as the Brahmins, with strong electoral mandates.
In my view, Brahmins are not infallible by any means. They have their own shortcomings in their own ways as other communities have. History has numerous lessons for various communities, including the Brahmins, which the communities need to absorb over time. However, what irks me is the irresponsible sweeping generalisations of a particular community, without any valid data to prove otherwise. In today’s era of 24*7 media, people will fight back if sweeping generalisations are made, including the dormant Brahmins.
This entire piece is about linking the idea of Brahminism to Modi when there is no correlation whatsoever. To vent your personal and ideological preferences for people through a shallow argument vis-à-vis Brahminism is unbecoming of one of India’s finest musicians. I have no issue with debating through the proper analogies and would agree to all the shortcomings if they were validated responsibly.
The paradox lies not in the Brahmins, but in the way the author tries to show he is objective yet projects the Brahmins the way he wants to suit his own goals.
sriram2424@yahoo.com
