warriorextreme
Senior Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2010
- Messages
- 1,866
- Likes
- 3,033
I am a born to a brahmin father and mother and I disagree with you...Brahmins did not prevent conversions in fact they assisted speedy conversions..to give an example do you know that even eating bread was considered as against hinduism by brahmins and whoever ate bread(pav) was considered adulterated(batlela) in Maharashtra...Even if they found out that a piece of bread was found in a well they would declare whole family as christian and these families had no choice but to accept christianity.Brahmins came into the white man's conscious just prior to the 1857 Mutiny (First Indian War of Independence). A huge number of British. Clergy had reached India to convert India into Christain country. It was Brahmin who prevented them, hence their dislike for them. Additional fuel for fire was added by likes of Max Muller, who was hired by British East India company to translate Indian Sanskrit literature into English. He was German by origin but worked for the British East India Company. The idea was to subvert the Indian religion from within. It did not succeed fully. Yes Max Muller did translate Sanskrit literature but became an admirer. His early writings are different from his later life admiration. He became an instructor at Oxford for British Civil Servants who were proceeding to India and his lecture on record admired what he saw in India.
British conscious was spoiled by Muslim intellectuals also. They disliked Brahmin, again they were stumbling block in the complete conversion of India to Muslim for seven hundred years. Brahmin were picked by them for real atrocities. Still they survived and kept the flame of Hinduism burning.
Here even the history was subverted by the British. As the recently arrived clergy were openning schools to train clerks, which were urgently needed, they turned to a Muslim intellectual in 1850 to 1870 in the name of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan. He was a English educated judge and an intellectual, who first the Moghul King Bahadur Shah pampered and then the British liked him and appointed him as judge in Agra. He was given the job of writing history for school text books. He and other Muslim scholars wrote India's history which was to the British liking. Sir Syed ignored the great Indian nation and culture prior to the Muslim conquest. He glorified Muslim rule from 1100AD until the British conquest. That is why Akbar although a callous person is called Akbar the Great. Or blotted out the atrocities of Aurangzeb by calling him a pious man, taxing only to fill the treasury which had been emptied by his builder father. Not a word is said of how he promoted his military generals - by how many temples they destroyed and how many Hindus they converted. Again Brahmin without a sword stood in their way of whole of the nation being converted. That is the history we study even today.
Yes, without Brahmin there would be no Hinduism. He is one bulwark of our culture and heritage. Too bad he did not learn the use of sword.
By the way I am not a Brahmin. I am a Vaisya of trader class.
Very handful of brahmins were progessive thinkers and actively started social reforms.
But this is thing of past now, only handful of brahmins remain castists today and most of them have gradually changed themselves to more liberal citizens of India.