Does Brahmin Bashing really deserve its due?

[Mad Indian]

If you have taken reservation , you got something for nothing and hence by definition you are a freeloader.

anyway to you and @Mad_Indian ( against whom I have a 2000yr head start ) ... Take this video and stop crying victim

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rey8B-yu5Y

You are the one whining about reservation despite knowing that you are already over represented in the govt and I am the one playing victim?

Irony of the castist retards

 

[Mad Indian]

Before I reply, you dint answer my question, do you agree or not that if any one group is over represented over others(which is why we have democracy in the first place)- it will be bad for everyone else?

@Mad Indian

Your point is that there is discrimination in institutions, and it can be corrected by having more people from OBC and SC/ST in all those institutions. And you feel that proportional reservations will help in achieving that.

Yes, that is the only viable "short term" solution.

But where do you stop? How many sub-divisions can you make? If you speak about discrimination, favouritism and nepotism, there are a variety of discriminations that are practiced.

We stop at the point where its impossible for any one to exploit anyone. Simple.

Reservation of 69% has been working well in TN. The 50% reservation in the central institutes is a step in the right direction though it will take atleast 25 years(the time it takes for the top levels of bureaucracy to have atleast some presence of the OBCs and SCs) from now for it to have the actual intended positive effect

A certain renowned IT company in Bangalore was known to have a lot of Tamil management, and they were known to recruit Tamilians, whenever possible. In one of my former companies, a lot of people on the sales staff were Malayalis, and they were known to recruit Malayalis whenever possible in the sales team. A lot of Kannadigas say, "Bangalore belongs to us, and we should recruit only Kannadigas, why allow outsiders to infest our city?" I know a person in Mumbai who made a comment once that he prefers "not to recruit Marathis" because they have "poor work ethic" and he wanted to recruit people from "North India" (UP/Bihar/etc.)

.


Again, as I said, the private companies don't owe anything to the public to be egalitarian unlike how the govt institutions do. My private hospital can choose not to treat someone I dont like, but a govt hospital cant. If I am working in a private clinic AND a govt clinic at the same time, I can refuse treatment to someone in the private clinic(we do have right to choose our patients) while I am obligated to treat everyone in a govt clinic.

There is a company in Pune where I have a good SC friend (originally from UP). His SC father (from UP) told him over the phone one day, "Beta, you have reached a senior level where you are responsible for interviews and recruitment. Try to ensure that our people get in - don't recruit Brahmins." My SC friend chastised his father and reminded him that his manager and his manager's manager were both UP Brahmins, and told his father that "Pune is not your rural UP, caste shit doesn't work here, get out of all this, this is a meritocratic company, this is not like your railways job".

Again, this is what I said too- the changes come with urbanisation and growth in economy and maturation of society as a whole. It will take another 50 years to reach this level of maturity into everyone. So what should we do till then? Let the lower castes be screwed over by an all upper caste bureaucracy?

Going further, we speak of "OBCs" as an omnibus term. A Gowda HR manager in Bangalore may want to recruit other Gowdas, not a Jat or a Yadav (though they are all OBCs in the broader Indian perspective). Lets talk about Muslims: in my current company, the Bangalore office has around 60 employees (mainly sales and consulting guys). There is one Muslim among those 60 people. Going by "proportional representation", there should have been 12 Muslims.

Again, "private" enterprises. They dont owe a thing to the public. I would say the same thing about a Muslim enterprise recruiting only muslims. I said the same thing regarding the controversy in Kerala regarding the advertisement for hiring "Christains and Muslims only"

And yes, as @jus pointed out, its actually Muslims and OBCs who are most screwed in the present day(atleast pre OBC reservation anyway). But atleast Muslims got their own reservation - Pakistan. Were the lower castes given anything similiar?

And regarding your point that OBC is a general term and that Gowdas might not employ another OBC like Naidu/Reddy/Rao , I agree. But again, the difference is that the community of Gowdas are at the same level of societal mobility as the community as that of the Reddy/Naidu/Rao etc,. So , if you look at their distribution in the govt offices, you will find their representation to be fairly proportionate of their popn. So, "even if" they do engage in such behavior, no caste comes out on top over the other because everyone is equally screwed/benefitted

I hope you get my point. Also, the whole point of this representation is to prevent any unfair injustice due to over representation.

For ex, the recent case of the Dalit girls gang rape case in SP , if the police were composed of Dalits, Yadavs , UCs, and other OBCs, then the police officers trying to save their Yadav brethren would not have happened.

Of course my company is an American MNC so reservation doesn't apply here, but I'm just telling you about the bewildering array of questions that will come up - the can of worms that you will open up by talking about proportional reservation. Will you give proportional representation and reservation on a linguistic basis? On a linguistic-caste basis? On a religious basis? Where does it end? Where do you stop?

I am not in favour of any "proportionate representation". I only brought it to bust the UC castist bigots' nonsense and their BS victimhood.

I am yet to see any victimhood moron to argue against my points. All they have done are play victimhood further and engage in ad hominems.

Remember that if you speak of proportional reservations, you have to include religious demographics and distribution too in your calculations. Is that acceptable to you?

Again, I am not in favor of proportionate reservation system. The present reservation is fine. It might need a few tweaks but fine nonetheless.

But, if the UC bigots are to play victims of reservation crap, then we should give heed to their cries and should adopt proportional reservation so that no upper caste is unfairly made to compete for mere 50% seats with the rest 100%. They should be given their own 15-20% as per their population

Regarding creamy layer: your logic about rank for medical seat is correct. If you ask me why FCs ask for creamy layer when it will hit them hardest, I don't know - all I can say for myself is, I want creamy layer implemented because it is the fair and right thing to do. For example, you are part of the creamy layer now, and your future son/daughter does not deserve reservations. If your daughter gets a rank of 200 in general, she has to go with whatever she gets with that rank. Because, if she eats up a radiology seat with an "OBC rank 50", she will deprive an OBC carpenter's daughter from getting that seat. That is not fair.

Let me assure you that the reason for the UC bigots' demand for "creamy layer" has nothing to do with altruism, just like their meritocratic crap has nothing to do with egalitarianism. Not everyone has your noble intentions. Seriously, if they were that noble to begin with, why do they oppose reservation and cry victimhood despite knowing how well they are represented in the govt already? Also, as I asked, the supposed prime "benefactors" of the "creamy layers" the non creamy layer OBCs and SCs are actually very much against the creamy layer. Why would they oppose it if they are to be the prime benefactors? Because they are not.

It was only when I interacted with a SC senior of mine did I fully understand how sinister this whole "creamy layer" crap is. Till then even I thought it was necessary and I supported it. Thank god the creamy layer nonsense does not apply to his communties yet, the people who need the maximum social mobility right now

@jus why do you think creamy layer is so important for our UC bigots?

And at the end of the day, if you look at it in the strictest economic sense, @Singh is right that classical right-wing economics has no place for reservations. But I agree that complete classical RW economics is impossible anywhere, and certainly not in India.

I agree. So what? The politicians of India will take another 500yrs to bring in a true capitalist country. Should the lower castes be screwed over until then?

I wont need reservation for my caste in two cases-

1. Either I should not face any kind of discrimination whatsover , from whomever may be in the bureaucracy(impossible in the current state of the Indian society) or

2. Even if I face discrimination from the bureaucracy based on my caste, it should not impede my social/economic progress like starting a new business or a factory, because the discriminatory bureaucracy cant do jack shit about it(a truly right wing economy)

Socialism without reservation is actually nothing but neo-castism 2.0. Before independance , the society and the government decided what work everyone does and instituted caste system. Now that that has been destroyed, they want socialism and a govt in one community's control to enforce/control what others should do with their money(taxes), life, business(regulations and licenses)

How will socialism without reservation be anything other than caste discrimination 2.0?

We have reservations, which were introduced for a certain purpose. We cannot roll them back and have a "true RW economy". What we can and should do however, is to ensure that reservations don't end up giving unfair advantage to the same people's family, generation after generation. With the concept of creamy layer strictly implemented, more and more people will automatically get out of the ambit of reservations.

The reason for "reservations" is "social mobility". It is impossible to achieve it without giving reservations "generations" after "generations". You need to give reservation to a poor man's son to get a clerk position(note that in some cases, this alone will come under creamy layer) and you have to give reservation to a clerk's son to make him a district collector(.ie a low ranked IAS officer) and you have to give reservation to a district collector's son to make him into a secretary of some important ministy(.ie a high level IAS officer). Then may be, the "secretary's son" wont need reservation anymore. This is how reservation is supposed to function

@Energon You asked me one day about the "social mobility" and economic development. Here I have given a very small example of what I meant. I will explain in detail next time.

That will put a lid on this debate, for good.

The only way we are going to get rid of reservation is by removing caste system.. The only way to do it is by encouraging intercaste marriages with reservation or some other benefits for the intercaste married couples. We have to incentivise intercaste marriages in a way that future "arranged marriages" are intercaste marriages, unlike the present day where every marriage is same caste marriage.

Anyone who is actually egalitarian should be trying to end the source of reservation- caste discrimination. IMO, anyone who is claiming to be egalitarian for the purpose of removing obstacles for his own castes should be humiliated for the piece of garbage he actually is

 

[Virendra]

Guru Teg Bahadur accompanied Raja Ram Singh (who was sent by Aurangzeb) against Ahom king. Its not clear whether Guru Teg Bahadur fought in that battle along Ram Singh, but they did lead to peace accord between Raja Ram Singh and Ahom King.

History for you:
Battle_of_Saraighat

Guru went there in Spiritual capacity, because Ram singh (and many hindus of that era) believed that Guru would be able to protect them against the so called 'black magic', which Ahoms were reportedly going to use against them for sure.
It was on request of a Hindu General and heeded by the Guru because there were many Hindu soldiers in that campaign.

Sikhs at that time were not so potent and organized as a military power. "At that time" it was wise to not confront Aurangzeb like an fanboyish commando.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[AnantS]

Guru went there in Spiritual capacity, because Ram singh (and many hindus of that era) believed that Guru would be able to protect them against the so called 'black magic', which Ahoms were reportedly going to use against them for sure.
It was on request of a Hindu General and heeded by the Guru because there were many Hindu soldiers in that campaign.

Sikhs at that time were not so potent and organized as a military power. "At that time" it was wise to not confront Aurangzeb like an fanboyish commando.

Regards,
Virendra

Virendra, agreed that Guru went on request of Ram Singh who was sent to fight Ahom as a punishment by Aurangzeb. But it could also be questioned why not Guru coaxed Ram Singh to bee on righteous side which was Ahom who were merely fighting to retain their independence? I gave this this example because as a counter to calling all Brahmins as oppressive/cunning who helped Mughals/Invaders. That one act by an individual without knowing context/or the conditions, should not be used to portray all community as bad. In-fact one community which suffered most killing from invader and vilifying is Brahmans. Why because that is the one community which "most of times" staunchly opposed conversions. So they were the first ones to be slaughtered and made example of by Invaders. If Brahmins/or Kashatriyas converted or killed, it was slightly easy for the whole other communities too be converted as the unifying factor broke down. Case in example Kashmir Brahmins who became muslim due to forcible conversions and later its effect on rest of population and other example in Kerala where Brahmins voluntarily converted to Christianity or Islam and made other people too convert. Or Rajput Kings conversions to Islam and its effect on rest of population of its Kingdom.

Casteism exists in India even in those religions where Brahmins do not exist(including Sikhism and Christianity(Kerala)). If Brahmins were cause caste-ism, those religions should not have caste-ism. Just like in Europe/America elitism exists, caste-ism from being mere division of work according to one's ability became a means to preserve and promote elitism in India. And like many other things in India, we took this concept to too another extreme of untouchabilty, again just like elitism to racism in Europe/America.

Neverthless, the impact of peace accord was such that, even later King Ranjit Singh sent soldiers to train and help Ahom against intruders from Myanmar.

 

[Virendra]

Virendra, agreed that Guru went on request of Ram Singh who was sent to fight Ahom as a punishment by Aurangzeb. But it could also be questioned why not Guru coaxed Ram Singh to bee on righteous side which was Ahom who were merely fighting to retain their independence?

Ram Singh was no longer a teenager by that time that he could be coaxed by the Guru who had no formal authority on the former. Besides, that campaign was actually Aurangzeb's punishing way of forgiving Ram Singh for letting Shivaji's slip through. The man firmly believed Ram Singh had colluded with Shivaji. Anyway those are different topics altogether.

I gave this this example because as a counter to calling all Brahmins as oppressive/cunning who helped Mughals/Invaders. That one act by an individual without knowing context/or the conditions, should not be used to portray all community as bad.

I agree and I don't blame anyone in particular. We're all the product of our times. Everybody has to share the blame. But those holding the strings, a little more than others. That includes ruling classes - Rajputs/Kshatriyas or whoever - and intellectual classes like Brahmins.
Why brahmins?
True that brahmins were not supposed to dig their heels all the time at borders of India. But they were supposed to unite the society, spread the right message, root out the wrong practices or beliefs, bring balance. Why was the Indian society completely oblivious and taken a back by the tide of Islam, while muslim powers had been keenly studying and observing India for long, like a hunter does for its prey. It means we missed a move, we got stagnant somewhere and we stopped doing a few things the right way. There's no other way that we'll fall out of the game after beating the likes of Alexander and Huns.
The politico-military war with Islamic powers was seen (with whatever degree of success), but the ideological war of Hinduism with Islam was not seen. May be the people at that time didn't feel the need to study Islam given the rabid ways of its followers; barely appealing. But that again was actually the more pressing reason to indeed study it, scout it, sense it. No study, no debunking, no preparation.
It seems a macro level, proactive strategic thought process in dealing with such challenges wasn't in place on our chessboard.

In-fact one community which suffered most killing from invader and vilifying is Brahmans. Why because that is the one community which "most of times" staunchly opposed conversions. So they were the first ones to be slaughtered and made example of by Invaders.

Brahmins were the thinking heads of the society. To force Islam on a more sophisticated civilization you have to cut its thinking head.
Brahmins could have fought Islam if it was only on religious plane. But Islam was and is a full fledged military-political-religious-social organism. No caste/section of Indian society could have fought it successfully all alone.

If Brahmins/or Kashatriyas converted or killed, it was slightly easy for the whole other communities too be converted as the unifying factor broke down. Case in example Kashmir Brahmins who became muslim due to forcible conversions and later its effect on rest of population and other example in Kerala where Brahmins voluntarily converted to Christianity or Islam and made other people too convert. Or Rajput Kings conversions to Islam and its effect on rest of population of its Kingdom.

Agreed but I don't see plenty of examples on the part highlighted. Actually the lack of it is what contributed to the long spelled Indian resistance.

Casteism exists in India even in those religions where Brahmins do not exist(including Sikhism and Christianity(Kerala)). If Brahmins were cause caste-ism, those religions should not have caste-ism. Just like in Europe/America elitism exists, caste-ism from being mere division of work according to one's ability became a means to preserve and promote elitism in India. And like many other things in India, we took this concept to too another extreme of untouchabilty, again just like elitism to racism in Europe/America.
Neverthless, the impact of peace accord was such that, even later King Ranjit Singh sent soldiers to train and help Ahom against intruders from Myanmar.

You left out Islam with its Ashrafs and Ajlafs. Have nothing more to say.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[Rowdy]

Baskaro yaar .... bahut ho gaya ....

 

[Simple_Guy]

Ram Singh was no longer a teenager by that time that he could be coaxed by the Guru who had no formal authority on the former.

Then why he took this guru with him? Either Ram Singh respected him or he did not. And if the Guru was truly opposed to the Mughal invasion, he could have simply declined to join this army.

Going through Google Books, I read that Brahmin status in Rajasthan was lower to Rajputs, because of their long resistance to the Islamic onslaught. Another reason is the Rajput proximity to Charans, and the fact that Rajput warrior-saints like Pabuji Rathore, Ramdevji Tomar, and Gogaji Chauhan, were worshiped by lower castes without the need for Brahmin intermediaries.

Another thing: is it true that Brahmins were exempt from paying Jaziya by sultans?? What was the reason for that?

 

[Simple_Guy]

Ram Singh was no longer a teenager by that time that he could be coaxed by the Guru who had no formal authority on the former.

Then why he took this guru with him? Either Ram Singh respected him or he did not. And if the Guru was truly opposed to the Mughal invasion, he could have simply declined to join this army.

Going through Google Books, I read that Brahmin status in Rajasthan was lower to Rajputs, because of their long resistance to the Islamic onslaught. Another reason is the Rajput proximity to Charans, and the fact that Rajput warrior-saints like Pabuji Rathore, Ramdevji Tomar, and Gogaji Chauhan, were worshiped by lower castes without the need for Brahmin intermediaries.

Another thing: is it true that Brahmins were exempt from paying Jaziya by sultans?? What was the reason for that?

 

[Virendra]

Then why he took this guru with him?

Answer is in the same post.

Either Ram Singh respected him or he did not.

Ofcourse Ram Singh respected the Guru. The latter would not accompany Ram Singh if that were not the case.

And if the Guru was truly opposed to the Mughal invasion, he could have simply declined to join this army.

Again, answer is in my post. Raising your sword is not the only way to oppose something and is definitely not the right way at all times/conditions. Our ancestors were not so fanboyish and simpleton after all.

Going through Google Books, I read that Brahmin status in Rajasthan was lower to Rajputs, because of their long resistance to the Islamic onslaught. Another reason is the Rajput proximity to Charans, and the fact that Rajput warrior-saints like Pabuji Rathore, Ramdevji Tomar, and Gogaji Chauhan, were worshiped by lower castes without the need for Brahmin intermediaries.

Yes there was a bit of under-rating. But no Brahmins were never low castes in Rajasthan. The inner (political) and outer (military) cataclysms were affecting the place and Rajput states had formed out of the same churning. They were not caste driven but clan driven states and military ruled states, for contemporary reasons obvious to both of us.
So yes, brahmins fell slightly on backfoot in these martial and violence frequented states. But that is circumstantial and not indicative of policy in any way. It is irrelevance, not discard.
There's no reason to assume that Rajputs had no regard for Brahmins or vice versa.
There are plenty of cases where Brahmins were acting as Raj gurus for Rajput Kings and Rajput Kings themselves acting as Priests in temples. So much so that Mewar's Guhilot house is even said to be of Brahmin origin (a debated topic).

Another thing: is it true that Brahmins were exempt from paying Jaziya by sultans?? What was the reason for that?

Haven't come across any such examples. Though if there's no military cover for defense and then some Brahmins bid for peace with an invading horde it wouldn't seem blasphemous to me. Apad Dharma ...

Regards,
Virendra

 

[Simple_Guy]

Few extracts from different books:

The brahmins acquiesced and aided in the collection of a poll tax called jizya, from the non-Muslim Indians, and in return for this service, were usually exempt from payment of the jizya themselves.

Firoz Tughlak extended the scope of the jizya by levying it on the brahmins also, who had previously been exempt from this tax.

In an Islamic state all non-Muslims were requiredto pay jizya, but in India it 'had never been levied from Brahmins,' reports Afif. 'They had been held excused in former reigns....

 

[Simple_Guy]

Although first reason of aiding in jaziya collection cannot be the one, because then the other classes that were employed by the Islamic rulers would also have been exempt.

Like Khatris in Punjab, Kayasths in UP, Prabhus in Deccan, etc.

 

[Virendra]

Few extracts from different books:

Firoz Tughlak extended the scope of the jizya by levying it on the brahmins also, who had previously been exempt from this tax

Interesting. Talking of Jaziya, one possible reason why some rulers would exempt Brahmins is that Brahmins had knowledge based occupations and their dominance in society was not as much in monetary sense.
Financially, there would be other castes who would have steadier and healthier flow of income.
That is just my guesstimate.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[Virendra]

One more thing i wanna add... I don't have any problem with these Brahmans do some ritual things for stones,except some fan-boys started to claim our Vedas/Upanishad have Bullet trains & 5g mobiles etc ...

But if u want to topple the Caste system totally Brahmin's are top of the food chain (of Caste),without cracking top u can't make India caste free.
Btw I'm Atheist i dislike all religions equally

I have no problems with caste system, as long as it NOT birth based and rigid. I would prefer varna system.
I see modern society as closer to ancient varna system, when compared to medieval caste system.
Having any segregation is fine, but if it causes the society to divide (instead of organize) and leads to discrimination; then it is one of the biggest evils ailing us.

 

[Virendra]

What&how? can u give an example.

Son of doctor is engineer, daughter of cop is professor and like wise. That is what I meant for proximity with varna system, I know it is not that cose but still.
By the way this caste-varna muddle leaves one more thing out - Gotra. Some other day ...

 

[Virendra]

So anybody can choose any profession. That's what varna system means to you?

Like I said before :

...I know it is not that close...

...modern society as closer to ancient varna system, when compared to medieval caste system...

Don't try to put words in my mouth.

 

[AnantS]

<<Quick reply>>

Ram Singh was no longer a teenager by that time that he could be coaxed by the Guru who had no formal authority on the former. Besides, that campaign was actually Aurangzeb's punishing way of forgiving Ram Singh for letting Shivaji's slip through. The man firmly believed Ram Singh had colluded with Shivaji. Anyway those are different topics altogether.

No, Ram Singh's parents believed in Guru Teg Bhadaur. l Mughal troupes led by Alam Khan Rohilla had once arrested the guru and several disciples. Raja Ram Singh interceded and arranged for the guru's release. Delhi was not happy, hence "punished" Ram Singh. So why could not Guru coax Ram Singh, since latter revered former?


I

agree and I don't blame anyone in particular. We're all the product of our times. Everybody has to share the blame. But those holding the strings, a little more than others. That includes ruling classes - Rajputs/Kshatriyas or whoever - and intellectual classes like Brahmins.
Why brahmins?
True that brahmins were not supposed to dig their heels all the time at borders of India. But they were supposed to unite the society, spread the right message, root out the wrong practices or beliefs, bring balance. Why was the Indian society completely oblivious and taken a back by the tide of Islam, while muslim powers had been keenly studying and observing India for long, like a hunter does for its prey. It means we missed a move, we got stagnant somewhere and we stopped doing a few things the right way. There's no other way that we'll fall out of the game after beating the likes of Alexander and Huns.

Wrong presumptions.
Brahmins equally formed the fighting class, more than often the ruling class. Mohyals, Shahi, Bhumihar, Chitpavan, /Brahm Kashatriya etc are fighting class of Brahmins. Mohyal class of Brahmins were strictly forbidden from performing any "karam kands" for others and still are. What reasons you are quoting are just usual commie version of history that has been fed to us. Think this way, the sheer number of invasions in India simply chipped away economy, fighting population, quality training with time. It was just question of time and luck, who & when they could penetrate India

The politico-military war with Islamic powers was seen (with whatever degree of success), but the ideological war of Hinduism with Islam was not seen. May be the people at that time didn't feel the need to study Islam given the rabid ways of its followers; barely appealing. But that again was actually the more pressing reason to indeed study it, scout it, sense it. No study, no debunking, no preparation. It seems a macro level, proactive strategic thought process in dealing with such challenges wasn't in place on our chessboard.

Bhakti movement and sufi to an extent came into existence because of effort put in by few people from both sides of community. The islamic rulers were ruthless to crush both and promote only those with bigoted agenda. Virendra, the genocide of the Brahmins was very ruthless, the Brahmin community suffered tremendously in (already less)manpower strength.

Brahmins were the thinking heads of the society. To force Islam on a more sophisticated civilization you have to cut its thinking head. Brahmins could have fought Islam if it was only on religious plane. But Islam was and is a full fledged military-political-religious-social organism. No caste/section of Indian society could have fought it successfully all alone.
Agreed but I don't see plenty of examples on the part highlighted. Actually the lack of it is what contributed to the long spelled Indian resistance.

Every community had the thinking heads. What lacked was effective co-ordination or even co-operation. The Indian society had so much bad blood within themselves that they found better to help foreign invader than align with their own. For eg Mohd Bin Qasim succeded in invading because Jatts of Sindh aligned with Qasim. Jatts were quick to give away Hindu religions and adopt Islam in that region. Rajputs remained loyal and servile to Mughals and did not form alliance with Marathas. Or Alexander and King of Ambi.

Today India is on same path once again.

You left out Islam with its Ashrafs and Ajlafs. Have nothing more to say.

I left out many religions, because every religion exhibited similar characteristics.

 

[Virendra]

<<Quick reply>>
No, Ram Singh's parents believed in Guru Teg Bhadaur. l Mughal troupes led by Alam Khan Rohilla had once arrested the guru and several disciples. Raja Ram Singh interceded and arranged for the guru's release. Delhi was not happy, hence "punished" Ram Singh. So why could not Guru coax Ram Singh, since latter revered former?

That is your theory on why Ram Singh was punished. I have mine.

Wrong presumptions.
Brahmins equally formed the fighting class, more than often the ruling class. Mohyals, Shahi, Bhumihar, Chitpavan, /Brahm Kashatriya etc are fighting class of Brahmins.

Where did I say that Brahmins didn't fight? My point was that Brahmins had to mobilize and equip the society against Islam ideologically, as well as keep the Hindu house in order too. So that there were no chunks in armour for Mullahs to detect.

Mohyal class of Brahmins were strictly forbidden from performing any "karam kands" for others and still are.

No idea how 'karam kand' is relevant in this debate.

What reasons you are quoting are just usual commie version of history that has been fed to us.

I have a mind of my own and nobody feeds it except me.

Think this way, the sheer number of invasions in India simply chipped away economy, fighting population, quality training with time. It was just question of time and luck, who & when they could penetrate India

Ok then, we end our introspection. Root cause analysis result - bad luck and bad timing.

Bhakti movement and sufi to an extent came into existence because of effort put in by few people from both sides of community. The islamic rulers were ruthless to crush both and promote only those with bigoted agenda. Virendra, the genocide of the Brahmins was very ruthless, the Brahmin community suffered tremendously in (already less)manpower strength.

You don't fight Islamic invaders with Bhakti and Sufi. These things can heal and somewhat unit the society spiritually. But they can't fix a politico-militarily broken India together to face such odds.
For example - many times even the larger armies on Indian side got defeated by fewer invaders. Why? Same reason. That army was an assemblage of different sections of society, brought together in a last moment rush. No co-ordination, no unity of command, no unity of loyalty, no synch of plan(s). You throw ten times as many people that way, will get same result. Defeat.
In case you have misgivings, I'm not here to bash or blame Brahmins. Do you really think we have nothing to introspect in our past failures or that Brahmins share no part of it?

Every community had the thinking heads. What lacked was effective co-ordination or even co-operation. The Indian society had so much bad blood within themselves that they found better to help foreign invader than align with their own.

Right, so why did the society not put aside bad blood and unite in front of a larger evil? Our house was not in order. Yes or No?

For eg Mohd Bin Qasim succeded in invading because Jatts of Sindh aligned with Qasim. Jatts were quick to give away Hindu religions and adopt Islam in that region. Or Alexander and King of Ambi.

Firstly Sindh was periphery so influences and mixtures are obvious.
Second, Sindh wasn't a pure Hindu dominion even before Islam. There were Buddhists and Jats who were more tribal in practice. Coming to Kashtriyas or Administrators, there was Dahir's dynasty ruling the place. No clans like Rajputs. Meaning no deep resistance. Dynasty gone, system gone i.e. organize resistence gone.
Jats didn't convert quickly. Jats converted but not all of them. Only those who had their back against the wall.
When ruling class is evaporated with the dynasty, Buddhists were either supporting invaders or neutral/peaceful and Brahmins influence hadn't been much - how could the Jats hold it all alone!!
Jats were hardy. Invaders had to keep grilling Jats as late as Ghazni and Ghori (likes of Gakkhars). What does that tell you?
Qasim succeeded because he was fighting with one Kingdom Sindh of a reactive people. If he were up against proactive India, he would've tasted defeat.

Rajputs remained loyal and servile to Mughals and did not form alliance with Marathas.

Very generalized and sweeping statement for transactions running centuries long. Rajput-Maratha relations are a lot more diverse than that.
Rajputs were not just some war lords, but statesmen too. Marathas wanted to replace Mughals in north, over the toes of Rajputs. There was ego between the two.
Moreover, the way Marathas pillaged entire Rajputana in years of its drought. I'd say they couldn't expect anything different after that.
These are different and wide topics debated many times previously as well. Would leave it for some other time and thread.

Enemy is always going to be ruthless and genocidal; it is enemy after all. For how long will we keep blaming their cruelty, instead of introspecting why it happened to us in the first place?
That includes, but is not limited to Brahmins.

 

[Vikramjeet]

What this fight all about? It is a fact that Islamic armies had better military machines and Islam is an organised religion with emphasis on Unity of its camp followers against non believers. With this, neither Brahmins nor Kshatriyas had any chance at all. Those who blame Brahmins should read European History first as unlike Hinduism which was never unified under some Church , Eastern Europe had one Church with one language and yet Turks overran large parts of Balkan.
Things like Crusades came because of nature of Christianity. Let us get this fact that except Zoroastrianism , no pagan religion can match islam and Christianity in
1. Ideological consistency
2. Unity of followers
3. Duty to fight other people on basis of religion.

 

[Vikramjeet]

I can also go on in endless debates but I know debates are mostly useless particularly with Indians who have amazing obstinacy and have grown up on myths. But in short,

1. We should understand that pagans have always yielded space to Abrahmics in all respects. In Sub saharan africa, Two americas and Australia, it has been quick due to uncivilized nature of people there but in europe, North africa, Central asia and West asia, it has been a bloody affair for centuries. So next time talking about failure, do remember that India in 1900 was only pagan nation or civilization to escape after being in grip of Abrahmics for centuries.

2. There was no such thing as Hindu identity or Indian identity. There were multiples states and a brahmin of any state thought for welfare of his state, a Rajput for annexing more territories, a vaisya for conducting trade and such. Religion pervaded life of all but they had no identity in terms of religion, language. Just some geographic identities.

3. Since Hinduism is not like Christianity, talks of United Hindu front are nonsense. Even Christians could become united only at few times while mostly their states too thought about taking advantage of trouble of other states. Byzantine empire was overran by Turks and unified Christian identity could not do anything.


4. Our defeats were not surprising. We had numerous states each very small as compared to Chinese states and they did not have top notch armies due to lack of technological innovations, horses and centralised states. Even Middle east was defeated by Turks. Also, those who waste no time in chest beating should know that once Turks settled in India, they too were smashed by armies from Central Asia. Taimur easily crushed Tughlaqs, Babur made Lodi army a joke and Nadir with less armymen sacked Mughal capital. Durranis defeated Marathas. There is a pattern that armies coming from outside have defeated those based in India( native or foreign).

5. Things are relative, you can not blame Mauryans for not laying down railways. Similarly, when pagans at all places have lost ground and even united Christian identity could not do much to halt expansion of Islam, it is sheer nonsense to indulge in too much self criticism.

Real questions are- Why indian states were not large like Chinese? why India did not innovate like Europe?

 

[Jatt.Hindustan]

NOt really, http://www.filedropper.com/breakingindiawesterninterve-rajivmalhotra_1 Go read that

The attack plan is women, minority religions, and caste.


Real questions are- Why indian states were not large like Chinese? why India did not innovate like Europe?

Lol wtf? Lalitaditya Muktapida - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Is up to Russia and Jerusalem not large enough?

What about up to phillipines, e. asians still practice 4 varna system due to US.

Europe whole paradigm comes from India, look up charak samhita.

Nothing mroe to say I have to go..

A sfar as manusmriti goes guru sahib already tells us all about it: Sri Dasam Granth Sahib