Talk:Anti-Brahminism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 5/8/2006. The result of the discussion was keep.


Wikiproject_Hinduism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

Brahmin is a Grima and have intrinsically mastered the art of manipulating and using people for 4000+ Years. --known-- 13:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


Anti-Brahminism is not haterness towards people but the foolish traditions like denaial of lower people to temples,schools and publicplaces.It was necessary at that time to reform hindusim from caste and other bad things.No one hate Brahmins but their traditions and haterness towards lower cate(though i mentioned lower caste they are no lower but same as all)

I don't think its right to equate all rejections of Brahman culture and tradition as anti-Brahmanism. Of course anti-Brahamism does exist, but to suggest that separatist movements that simply want another system or culture are Anti-Brahman is unfairly categorizing it. If the article wants to link itself to anti-Semitism and such topics, it needs to focus more on hate that lacks justification. One way to find this distinction might be to create a section that outlines the possible causes.

Also, I don't think Anti-Hinduism is directly related to this topic.

128.100.219.132 18:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, the links appear to be coming from the same group of thinkers. Are there any other perspectives on the term?

I forgot to put in the four tildes on my last talk.128.100.219.132 18:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Comments from 172.184.163.189

The following comments were posted into the main text of the article. I've moved them into the discussion page. Anirvan 19:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The 'information' in this page is NONSENSE. Anti-brahmin movements and organisations oppose and challenge the domination and hegemony of the minority brahmin people over the rest of the people of India. These anti-brahmin organisations do not hate/vilify brahmins. They simply expose and challenge the existing injustices and cruelties perpetrated by the brahmins using their self-proclaimed'caste superiority' as an excuse.
Anti-Hindus are not Anti-brahmin and vice versa.
Khalistani seperatists belong to an entirely different religion- They are sikhs and they want a separate country for all sikhs. They may be 'generally' anti-brahmin, but they are also anti-hindu, anti-muslim, anti-christian and anti-India as a whole!
Please read about Periyar EV Ramaswamy , who was one of South india's greatest anti-brahmin revolutionary and who fought for the freedom of the oppressed 'lower' castes.
172.184.163.189 18:29, 21 March 2006


No their not. Ever read what the idea of Khalistan is about? It's a common misconception that Khalistan is supposed to be a land for only Sikhs. Its meant to be a land for all religons where everyone is treated equally, something Sikh's haven't generally experienced in India. And by no means are they "anti-muslim". Khalistan fighters even went to Pakistan to get training and Khalistan was supported by Pakistan. And no, Khalistani fighters are not "anti-hindu", "anti-muslim" or "anti-christian". But yes, they are anti-India.(99.234.206.11 (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)).

[edit] POV edits by ISKapoor?

User:ISKapoor undid a number of changes I made to this article which attempted to distinguish between anti-Hindu and anti-Brahmin sentiments. He changed this:

Anti-Brahmanism is hostility toward or prejudice against Brahmins, often as a result of historical injustices permeated by the Hindu system of caste and varna, which had Brahmins at the helm. Anti-Brahmin tensions exist in some of the states in India. There is also a significant amount of literature which is anti-Brahmin. Anti-Brahmin sentiments are sometimes encountered in:

to this:

Anti-Brahmanism is is hostility toward or prejudice against Brahmins as a religious, or ethnic, which can range from individual hatred to institutionalized attempts to vilify Brahmins. Anti-Brahmanism is common in some of the states in India. There is also a significant amount of literature, generally anti-Hindu, which is anti-Brahmin. Anti-brahminism is often encountered in these regions.

Some of the anti-Hindu groups are also based in Maharashtra.

The edit removes context (e.g. why anti-Brahminism exists), includes red herrings (e.g. the suggestion that Khalistani separatists are primarily anti-Brahmin, rather than more broadly anti-Hindu; or that the persecution of the largely Brahmin Kashmiri Hindu population is motivated by anti-Brahmin sentiments, rather than broader anti-Hindu sentiments), and adds spelling and grammatical mistakes (e.g. "or ethnic", "is is", lowercased "brahminism").

He also changed this:

Some critics of Brahmanism focus on Brahmins' historical exploitation of other groups, and contemporary caste disparities:

Some critics link Brahmanism with Hindu nationalism or the Indian government:

to this:

Here are some example of vilification of the Brahmins.

The edit makes use of POV statements like "vilification of the Brahmins," removes context, deletes link descriptions, and adds a number of links of low relevance (e.g. Khalistan links, and a cached copy of an old message board posting).

Would it be ridiculous to undo these changes, and revert back to the previous version?

As far as I can tell, User:ISKapoor is attempting to drown out any rational explanations of why victims of historical or contemporary Hindu caste oppression might express sentiments against the high-caste Brahmin community. As a Brahmin, I obviously find knee-jerk anti-Brahminism offensive, but it's ridiculous to pretend that there aren't any reasons for it, or that all anti-Hindu sentiment is specifically anti-Brahmin. Anirvan 19:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. When I first read this page, I was stunned at how it made no distinction between hatred and rejection, as well as Hindu and Brahman. The original article was much more NPOV and even informative, as it wasn't clouded with emotional language and opinion. 128.100.219.132 15:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Justifying hate

It is possible to justify anti-semetism. I have seem many anti-Jewish publications. However an article on anti-semetism is worthy of being on Wikipedia.

It is true that the Jews are rich and influential. It is also true that the Jews have done what other wealthy people have done.

That does not justify promoting hate against them. There are reasons why a lot of people hate Jews. The success of the Jews is one of them.

I know about caste oppression. I have read numerous articles and books on them. I have to tell you this: Most, if not overwhelming majority, of caste oppression cases reported involve dalits and the members of land-owning castes. Not Brahmins.

Most of the Buddhist Acharyas were Brahmin. First anti-vedic religion (Lingayat) was founded by Basava, a Brahmin. Believe it or not, there would not have been any Sikhism without the active participation of many Brahmins, some of whom are among the Sikh shahids. Ambedkar's wife was a Brahmin. Many Dalit leaders have a Brahmin wife.

Why doesn't anyone hear about these facts? Why have these facts been suppressed?

There are groups and individuals opposed to Hinduism. Some of them need to identify specific people to hate - and the most visible of the Hindus - the Brahmins are there for them.

Hate is hate. Let it be acknowledged, let it be discussed fairly.

--ISKapoor 22:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi ISKapoor. You don't address a single one of my concerns (removal of context explaining the roots of anti-Brahmin sentiment, the repeated conflation of anti-Hindu and anti-Brahmin sentiments, the deletion of link categories and descriptions, inclusion of low-relevance links, and grammar and spelling mistakes). You seem to suggest that it's OK to delete references to Brahmins' oppression of members of other castes because (1) Brahmins aren't the only ones who have been involved in oppressing Dalits, (2) Brahmins have been involved in the development of other religions, and (3) a few male Dalit leaders have Brahmin wives. The "suppression" of information about high-profile Dalit-Brahmin marriages is indeed tragic; perhaps it might make for an interesting sentence or two in an article about changing attitudes toward inter-caste marriage, but it's not immediately relevant to this article. You suggest that anti-Brahmin sentiment is just a kind of confused anti-Hindu sentiment, but that entirely fails to explain why members of other Hindu castes would bear anti-Brahmin sentiments; one can't talk about anti-Brahmanism without talking about the role of caste. Erasing historical context and conflating different types of prejudices is confusing and POV. Anirvan 00:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


ISKapoor, this is in response to your latest revert, and subsequent edits. You still don't explain why anti-Brahmin sentiments exist, choosing to focus on what anti-Brahmanism isn't, instead of what is is, and why it exists, as if you can't believe that there can ever be home-grown anti-Brahmin sentiment. You also state four (!) times that anti-Brahmanism is supported by non-Indian organizations. You state that "Justification of anti-Brahmanism has now been incorporated in the curriculum of some states in India, and many intellectuals feel comfortable with anti-Brahmanism." What are those justifications that you allude to, but don't name? What is it that these intellectuals believe? You're too busy fighting a mute straw man to actual name and describe caste oppression. It's like trying to describe American black power or black supremacy movements, without ever referencing the history of racism that led to their development. I'm also puzzled by your attempt to compare the experience of Brahmins in India to that of Jews in Europe, as if members of the highest Hindu caste in a majority Hindu nation were in the same position as members of a persecuted minority religion.
I don't want to get into an edit war with you. Would you like to take this to a dispute resolution process? Anirvan 05:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


I've written a suggested alternative version of the article so I can show what I'm trying to do. I also submitted this article to the Mediation Cabal. Let's have a third-party look at this. Life's too short for a pointless edit war. Anirvan 18:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


I wanted to document that I deleted ISKapoor's new history of attitudes toward Brahmins section of the article, an attempt to discuss the positive historical importance of Brahmins in various non-Hindu religions, and the growing role of non-Brahmins in contemporary Hindu religious life; both of these further obfuscate the obvious questions: what is anti-Brahminism, why it exists, what the various types of it are, and how it impacts the average Brahmin.
ISKapoor focuses solely on the positive, seeming to suggest (by omission) that Buddhists, Sikhs, Christians, and Jains in South Asia have uniformly positive views toward Brahmins or Brahminical Hinduism -- a very slanted and dubious assertion to make in light of South Asian religious history, given that he labels the section "History of attitudes towards Brahmins" (without qualifications), and that some of the anti-Brahmin links cited elsewhere in the article come from Christians and Sikhs. If some Sikhs and Christians are opposed to Brahmins or Brahminism, then why aren't the reasons they give cited or explored?
He also focuses on the role of non-Brahmin Hindus in contemporary Hinduism, which would definitely make for an interesting section in an appropriate article, but seems to be intended here as a way of saying "non-Brahmins can indeed be part of Hindu religious life, so caste oppression doesn't exist" so as to undercut the reasons given by some non-Brahmin Hindus for their anti-Brahmin sentiments.
Anti-Brahmin sentiment in South Asia is primarily a reaction to historical and contemporary caste-based oppression -- the cause of anti-Brahminism that ISKapoor persistently fails to mention, let alone discuss at any length. He's more focused on whitewashing history, showing anti-Brahmin sentiment as incredibly common ("Justification of anti-Brahmanism has now been incorporated in the curriculum of some states in India"), but actively resisting attempts to list or explain those "justifications." Creating a section that boils down to "everyone likes Brahmins, and caste oppression doesn't exist" fails to do justice to an article on anti-Brahmin sentiment. Some of ISKapoor's contributions might make for a series of interesting separate articles, but they're of low relevance in the context of an article on anti-Brahminism. Anirvan 17:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I am thoroughly familiar with Buddhist, Jain and Sikh texts. There was no anti-Brahmanism in Sikh texts until the British-sponsored Tat Khalsa movement initiated a revision of Sikh tradition. An examination of history is needed to identfy the factors behind hate.
Justifying and sugar-coating hate, (which is not spontaneous rather promoted by interested organizations) should not make hate acceptable. It should be represented factually, without bias, and without attempts to camouflage it.
Practically all instances of upper-caste atrocities involve members of OBC communities and the dalits. --ISKapoor 02:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  • In my opinion*, both articles (by ISKapoor and Anirvan) are lacking, but the one currently on display (ISKapoor) definitely comes across as conspicuously biased and lacking in any real information. Many of the references (all?) point to the same website and therefore give little impression of any real anti-brahman `trend'. Surely, organisations such as the Dravida Kazhagam cannot be construed as completely `Anti-Brahman', if ISKapoor's definition of Anti-Brahmanism is taken into account. The main reason for the formation of the DK was social, religious, and political *equality*. If this has, indeed, degenerated into Anti-Brahmanism, then references must be provided to substantiate it. Moreover, as Anirvan said, it would be nice to have a section on the impact of this trend on the average brahmin. First and foremost, however, the existence of this trend must be established.--Srikanth srinivasan 19:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

If you want a third party to look at your article you can use WP:3O or WP:RFC. The Mediation Cabal is for mediation when you have an actual dispute, not when you need a third opinion. --Fasten 17:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I closed the cabal case today due to inactivity.

I did however make some recommendations for action by the editors.

In terms of the underlying issue on it comes down to this: there are two fundamental views of anti-Brahmanism:

  1. That it is a natural reaction to class issues inside of India
  2. That is a form of racism promoted by people with anti India interests

The article currently reads as bad propaganda for the second viewpoint. To correct this without starting a revert war I recommend that remaining editors do the following in the following order:

  1. Create a section arguing clearly for the 2nd point of view. That is create a verifiable sub article on this theory quoting its major proponents
  2. Pull from the main body of the article all the defenses of anti anti Brahmanism and simply relay facts about who, why, when, where, what....
  3. Create a section arguing clearly for the 1st point of view. That is create a verifiable sub article on this theory quoting its major proponents. There is already a fairly good start to this User:Anirvan/Anti-Brahmanism

I have been trying to edit this article but run up against debate-less reverting combined with personal attack. I am considering to open an RfC, but this article has such a long history and is essentially in limbo because any attempt to cleaning it up seems to be worn down. I think these are extremely good suggestions, but what does it help if noone executes it? Gschadow 03:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Today's condition of brahmins

  • Today brahmins are remained very most few. They fought against cruel traditions also example is Lokmanya Tilak. Brahmins must be conserved. They should be given protection because they are not doing any cruelty on any of the caste. Inversely today they are hated and injustised by government and most of the communities in india. Their life has became critical.
      And I think end of brahmins means end of indian culture.

No Indian culture will bloom after Brahmins as a people become one with the others with strict intermarriage between the castes. Brahmins should marry non Brahmins for the good of India.

Sorry old bean, ain't gonna happen anytime soon. Learn to live with it, or don't. Either way, don't rant on wikipedia please.btw I agree with you about the conservation of Brahminical culture. However, it rests on selective breeding of Brahmin clans and should remain so (I'm a Tili myself).(Netaji 22:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC))

What is the % of intercaste and interreligious marriages in Brahmin community?Unsolicited 07:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

    • agree with the selective breeding principle, but please do not make it sound like it is elitist.

[edit] dalitstan links

all i have to say is dont use chowk.org or dalitstan.com links. both hate sites have been banned since 2001. and it isnt wise to use "papers" presented by morons with no justification. just becuase it is there on the net doesn mean it can be used a source. plz list credible sources.

[edit] Regarding Syrian Christians

I recommend you read the article on nasranis or syrian christians of Kerala. They existed much before the arrival of the christian missionaries. The Syrian christians have some link with the Brahmin families such as a Kalli, Kalikaavu, Pakalomattom and Sankarapuri. There are people belonging to these families who still uphold their family names to identify their ancestory

[edit] The Carvakas

Shouldn't the history section say something about the fiercely anti-Brahminical views of the Carvaka school? Metamagician3000 02:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If you find that documented (I have no idea what a Carvaka is) go ahead and add the stuff. Bakaman Bakatalk 02:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping to prod someone with more expertise, but a lot was made of this when I studied Indian philosophy. Metamagician3000 02:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The Carvaka school of thought is anti-Brahmin. User:Babub may know more about this, but he also is a Brahmin (though well versed in Hindu philosophy). He's your man, you should make a query on his talk page. I myself am a Brahmin but I care little for philosophy, liking more the historical documents like the Ramayan and Mahabharat and some parts of the Rig-Veda.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Define anti Brahminism

Dear friends let us not put any comment in the article which amounts to hate perception among us and gives misleading picture of Hindu Society.The term anti - brahmin has many connotation one of which is being against Brahmin-- The people.But other side of it is being against Brahminism -- The Philosophy.People who were Anti--Brahmin need not be against Brahmin-- the people.Holy|Warrior 11:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Please provide non-partisan sources to prove this. By very definition anti-Brahminism means "those" who are opposed to Brahmins. There may be other interpretations of the word put there by missionaries etc. to try to lure other castes into christianity but they don;t apply to the main meaning, which is hatred for brahmins. By your logic, people could say that anti-muslim means being against Islamic fundamentalism, not just muslims. However, it is accepted that anti-muslims means hate for ALL muslims, not just against the unfortunate few who pervert the teachings of the Prophet (pbuh) and Holy Koran to justify terrorism etc. Thus, it follows that the logical meaning of anti-Brahminism means hatred for Brahmins and the Brahmin jaat.Hkelkar 11:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Plus, i think what you're talking about is accurately called "anti-casteism". There should be a separate article on that. I would be happy to contribute to it.Hkelkar 11:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes in broed terms Brahminism = Casteism = Orthodox Hinduism. HW  16:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page move suggested

I want to suggest the page be moved to Brahminism and discuss anti brahminism as a section of it.Editors plz express your views.Holywarrior 07:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No. Anti-Brahminism is distinct from Brahminism. Nobody asks that article on antisemitism be moved to Judaism, or anti-christianity be moved to christianity. if anti-X has historical and cultural resonance, it should be a separate article from X, as is the case here.Hkelkar 11:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Plz don't compare the situation as it may not be useful.HW 11:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Situation is perfectly comparable and quite useful in fact.Hkelkar 11:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Hkelkar. Brahminism is a fantasy, anti-Brhaminism is like anti-Semitism.Bakaman Bakatalk 17:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree too. Why is an "Anti-XXX" not notable if it exists and if "XXX" is notable enough article. Anti-Islam, Anti-Christianity and any other anti ideology is worthy to have an article if it is widely known. Of course it is comparable. How isn't it? GizzaChat © 03:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Let us apply common sense here --- Won't the existence of Brahminism as an article make this redundant.HW 09:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
No, anymore than the existence of Jews as an article would not make anti-Semitism redundant.Hkelkar 09:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Forum of Inquilabi/Indian/Revolutionary leftists

Not a reliable source. I might as well quote Hindu Unity.`Bakaman Bakatalk 16:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes if it is written by a person of Ilaiah's calibre. HW  16:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ilaiah is not an authority on Hinduism. Therefore he cannot be quoted on matters of Hindu scriptures.Bakaman Bakatalk

He is a world wide acclaimed authority on anti brahminism. HW  16:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

He's not an authority on Hinduism, so his quotes on Manusmriti should be disregarded. You still did not qualify him to be an authority on Hinduism.Bakaman Bakatalk 16:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Read my above comments WELL.Read manusmriti TOO. HW  16:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Bakaman Bakatalk 16:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC) Removed as per WP:BLP see diff. HW  16:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

He still cannot be quoted at length, unlike say David Frawley, Koenraad Elst and the like.Bakaman Bakatalk 16:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
BAKA wikipedia is not your bpkamal where everything will happen according to your will.Infact all are equally quotable  HW  16:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
bpkamal? Whatever that is. see WP:RS and WP:ORBakaman Bakatalk 16:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Also look at false authority and exceptional evidence/claims.Bakaman Bakatalk 16:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Baka see WP:SFDDGFHJHKJJ ,WP:FGDGFMHJGJK,wp:ghfhygumnbnh and yes WP:redtr applies here,phps WP:tyry is relevant.Thanx. HW  16:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ilaiah is definitely not an authority on anti-Brahmanism. He is an authority on committing anti-Brahmanism, not writing about it since he is (self-professedly) an anti-Brahman.Shiva's Trident 16:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OR? Neologism?

I consider putting this article up for deletion again. The way I see it its a neologism, arbitrarily gathering diverse political elements to single category. Furthermore, all references to dalitstan.org needs to be scrapped, since that site is an obvious spoofing. --Soman 06:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "you consider"? You are perfectly free to nominate anything for deletion, but considering you have been at wikipedia for a loong time, don't you think such articles as the present one can do with some positive criticism rather than deletion. Your another attempt to have Hindu politics deleted is worth recalling to mind here. BTW, I agree that dalitstan links must be removed. Babub→Talk 13:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article is extremely confusing.

From reading this article, a person would have no idea that people of different castes might be using resentment as an excuse for harboring anti-brahmin feelings. Indeed, this article scarcely mentions how brahmins relate to other castes whatsoever. This article reads as if it were written by a Brahmin with wounded feelings. --Roger Williams 11:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Links and refrences: It is very stupid to link Dalitistan and other anonymous links. Dalitistan is registred in the US and the owners as well as the article writers are anonymous. From their language one can say, they are not even Indians. Why give link to them, therby giving them some credibility and publicity which they don't have by themselves. If you want to give reference , refer to real people, real organizations, real political/social organizations and web sites maintained by real people, however hostile they might be towards brahmins. - Vijayaraghavan


No I disagree, this article is lucid and perfectly right!

[edit] Article Cleanup Co-Ordination Point

Cleanup Co-ordination
This article has recently been tagged as requiring cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.

The article may have been flagged as needing cleanup because it has been suggested that:

  • the article needs formatting, proofreading, or rephrasing in comprehensible English.
  • the article has multiple overlapping problems.
  • the article is very short and might need expanding, removal or merging with a broader article

For a full list of possible problems see Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

As part of the cleanup process, the automated bot PocKleanBot has generated this notice as a focus of cleanup efforts, and also contacted several contributing editors of the article to bring their attention to the problem. You should use this section to discuss possible resolution of the problem and achieve consensus for action. Only when there is a consensus that the article is now cleaned up should you then de-list it by deleting the cleanup tag from the article, this causes the article to drop off the monthly cleanup-needed list page.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Conclusion

I've just removed the conclusion. This isn't an editorial page. Here it is as I removed it. (I'm user Shouta, not logged in.)

==Conclusion==

Then because all anti-Brahmin movements are also anti-Hindu, it is possible to analyze that to weaken Hinduism, one has to attack the Brahmin community, which has served as the clergy of Hinduism. All anti-Hindus portray Hinduism as "Brahminical" and while denying persecution of Hindus by outsiders, blame almost all of India's problems on the Brahmin community (e.g. Neo-Buddhists.) Because the anti-Brahmin is an anti-Hindu, they see India as a union of Hindus and are antagonistic towards Indian unity as can be observed by all separatist groups, which are all non-Hindu (e.g. NLFT.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.211.233.78 (talk) 06:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Attempt at Establishing Neutrality

This article is still in bad, bad shape and the deletion debate should be brought up again. It is still a bunch of POV and very poorly written.

I think the only way this article should stay as encyclopedic entry is if it reports the issue as an allegation and then delivers the evidence only by what is referencable. Remove all allegations and put them in quotes. Instead of "Tamil cinema is full of Anti-Bramin slander", say "Anti-braminism is alleged of the following Tamil films: [and list the titles of the films and the sources of the allegation (WP:NOR). I am going to add several templates to it. I think the Project Hinduism should take this to highest priority to dispose of this matter. The whole way in which this is presented and discussed unfortunately sheds a very bad light on Hinduism. Gschadow 20:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, this is what I shaped out of the material present in the definition and the History section. I have made these edits in good faith, trying to establish neutrality.

Anti-Brahmanism, also known as Anti-Brahminism, refers to the hostility and prejudice towards members of the Hindu Brahmin caste. It ranges from individual hate-attacks to institutionalized attempts to vilify Brahmins. Anti-Brahmanism is allegedly carried out mainly in the Indian subcontinent where some sections of the media and polity are alleged to engage in propagating a hostile view of Brahmins. Just as Brahmanism is an exonym for some forms of Hinduism with derogatory connotations, the word "Anti-Brahmanism" is an exonym applied as a reaction. Thus, "anti-braminism" is alleged of the criticisms of Brahmins and the caste system as a whole, which had been raised out of mainstream Hinduism, such as Ramakrishna, Swami Vivekananda (also associated with the Bengali Renaissance). The label "anti-brahminism" is occasionally applied to such criticism against the caste system reflected in the laws and policies of India and its states, and against the presentation of the subject in the media and taught in the curriculum of schools. Also "anti-Brahminism" is alleged to receive support by organizations which are opposed to Hinduism or India. While doing away with Brahmins as a cornerstone of the Hindu religious is not anti-Brahminism, the expressed hatred for Brahmins individually or collectively is.
History
The hot-spot of the debate about Brahmanism vs. Anti-Brahmanism is Tamil-Nadu where it is alledged that certain "Dravidian political parties" are engaging in Anti-Brahmanism. As in other indian states, such as Bengal the criticism of Brahmins and its reaction has emerged in the late 19th century, such as in the Bengali Renaissance, which is to an extent linked with the confrontation of western ethics brought by the British colonial powers and the attempt at formulating a genuine Indian response. This gives rise to a point of view in which "Anti-Brahminism" is seen as a repudiation of Hindu traditions and heritage (Tamil, Bengali or otherwise) under the influence of the Western culture.
Buddhism
Criticism and reforms of the cast system have had a long history in India irrespective of the later colonial influence by the west. For example, Buddhism and Jainism, and these older debates are re-opened in the wake of the modern confrontation. For instance some members of the Dalit Buddhist movement (triggered by Ambedkar) raise sharp criticism against Brahmins as a group, and which can be seen as a hostile propaganda.
Christianity
Older traditions of Indian Christianity has not consistently rejected the cast system or repudiated the Brahmin caste. For instance, in Kerala, some forms of Christianity has assimilated certain traditions of the caste system. Later Christian missionaries in India however have opposed the caste system and with it the Brahmins as a focus of critique against Hinduism and contrasting Christian apology. A Jesuit missionary Roberto de Nobili (1577-1656) started claiming to be Brahmin, when he realized that his claim of being a Kshatriya has not been very effective. Christian missionary activity was (naturally) most successful at the fringes of the Hindu religion, which is the the dalits and the tribals. As with the Dalit Buddhist movement, the Dalit Christian movement excercises sharp criticism against what they represent as Hindu and especially Brahmin opressors, which in turn is considered "Anti-Brahminism" by those who consider themselves target of the sharp Dalit criticism.

This is not perfect, some polishing and adding references could be helpful, but I urge people to not just revert my changes. I have removed some material which I felt was tangential discussion, but I tried at all times to be faithful to anthing that elucidates the penomenon for the purpose of a neutral encyclopedic entry. Gschadow 20:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Attempt has Failed

Rumpelstilsken has wholesale reverted my changes commenting them as "fundamentalist NLFT propaganda", what is that? I am clueless about NLFT and have nothing to do with propaganda. I have no time for such nonsense. The good thing is any inquisitive mind will research the history of any Wikipedia article and can form their own conclusions. The debates about certain Wikipedia editors of South-Asia related content and this editorial: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/395 taught me not to waste my time fighting over such nonsense. But to expose the issue, I am going to engage in a few rounds of rv-wars, just to prove the point. Gschadow 04:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not disrupt wikipedia to make a point or admin will intervene.Rumpelstiltskin223 04:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not disrupting. I have made a good faith attempt at establishing NPOV on a page and you wholesale reverted my edits. I have contributed, you have reverted. The history shows that. So I have nothing to hide. I will protect my good-faith attempt at helping the NPOV until a better constructive attempt is offered. If till that time we rv a few more times, I do not care. Gschadow 04:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
so you express an intent to rv war, which is highly disruptive. Please stop disrupting wikipedia and contribute constructively and provide references for your edits (you have provided zero references so far). Rumpelstiltskin223 05:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Once again, I have offered a constructive change to resolve a recognized NPOV issue. You are welcome to dispute any change I made, but all you did was reverting and making a false accusation. I trust the system and that the situation is clear. I see you have at this time avoided to overstep the 3RR rule. Why don't you consider the specific changes I made and say what instead should be done to resolve the NPOV issue? Gschadow 05:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding references, I did add references to other Wikipedia pages. I have also not taken any references out either. Instead, I have quoted factual statements which were POV by "it is alleged" etc. markings. I have even offered a mediating point referring to the strong propaganda of Dalit (e.g. the dalitistan page) to show how that might come accross as "anti-brahmin". In short, I am making a good faith attempt. I will likely decide very shortly that this is not worth my time though. Again, the good thing is that the record always shows clearly the truth of the matter. Gschadow 05:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Never Give up Hope

I have made more edits trying to clean up the article's POV and tangential claims that do not stand up scrutiny and do not to the matter. I am fully prepared that this will again be reverted. Curious what I'll be accused of next :) Gschadow 05:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if you started doing some research and citing sources instead of touting lazy quasi-intellectual gibberish then your edits won't be so disruptive. Thaa Rumpelstiltskin223 05:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
You are being incivil and the rules require me to warn you to stop this. You have initially been calling me Vandal, which is not supported by the policy, then you called me a fundamentalist and associated me with an terrorist organization, this constitutes personal attack. Calling attempts at moderating POV "quasi-intellectual gibberish" is also personal attack. Stop this behavior. Gschadow 06:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Secondly all I am attempting to remove unsupported claims on your part. You use non-neutral (inflammatory) language on tangential matters (Christian missionaries) and your recent references to newspaper articles do not support the claims you are making of specifically anti-brahmin communal violence. If you want you are welcome to delete this article. This is obviously your quest, so you are the one who needs to do the research and present the point in a manner worthy of Wikipedia. You need to support any and all claims you are making by reliable references. This is clearly not happening. I am now opening an RfC. Gschadow 06:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

In contrast, you haven't sourced a single one of your edits at all, except use weasel words to whitewash the facts of this phenomenon. You have repeatedly assumed bad faith from everybody, have been intellectually dishonest in your edits and haven't contributed to this article at all. The references I cited clearly verify the text to which they refer, and I do not need to justify them to a WP:TROLL . By all means, post an RfC to this article and let some real wikipedians arrive. Maybe that will save me from the hassle to deal with editors with an agenda to abuse wikipedia for the spreading of hate propaganda.Rumpelstiltskin223 08:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

I am requesting an outside review on how to move forward with this article. I have been trying to address well-known POV issues on this article, and I am being worn out by Rumpelstiltskin223 and another user who do nothing but reverting any edit without engaging in debate about detail. This article is basically in limbo as it seems everyone who has tried in the past to address the POV with any moderation has been consistently worn out. I am seeking advice on what to do next. Should it be deleted again? Earlier moderation attempts have failed, the deletion vote ended up keep with strong suggestions to clean up, but there is no progress to be made. I and others feel that the article contains inflammatory material and is not well supported. There are references which support some aspects of the phenomenon in question, but the points are overstated and also tangential parenthetical material seems to aquire more importance than the elucidation of the phenomenon. How can one possibly resolve this? Gschadow 06:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You and what "others"? You are the only POV-pusher here that I can see.Rumpelstiltskin223 08:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I would really like to give a comment, but can you summarize the situation for me? Also, I'd like to remind editors to refrain from calling each other "POV-pushers", or any other names for that matter. It seems to run contrary to Wikipedia's idea of civility. .V. 21:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into it. The problem is, as you already noted, that one can't even give a summary of the problem which would remain undisputed. There is no consensus and no amicability here. You can see that both in the content and style of the article as well as in the very heated fire directed against you if you try to lay hands on it to bring in a more neutral perspective. That said, my main concerns are (1) mostly original research which presents a certain perspective on newspaper article and cursory (slanted) reading of history, just about none of this is supported by respectable literature, (2) extreme and confrontative language with unsupported emotive words such as "to villify", "angry", "their attempt to eradicate [us]", and (3) absence of anything to put what is said in context. Some description of the phenomenon may actually have merit, but the way this is done is, as I believe you can see, very bad style. The issue can be fought over by two extremes as has happened before, but even an attempt at presenting both points of view fails. Most importantly, attempts to edit out unsupported emotive words are being reverted almost instantaneously with untrue Edit Summaries (such as "added context" to a simple revert). I do not know what to do with that, the only hope is that readers will scrutinize for themselves before taking any of this seriously and in the worst case proceed to physical violence. I think the world should look and comment, and not leave it up to a few south-asian extremists. Gschadow 05:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. I've read the article in full, and I have to say, reading it makes me cringe. I rarely see original research like this. The first paragraph, for example, makes several accusations and cites no-one. The entire article is jam-packed with long stretches of unsourced claims. This is the first major issue with the article. When the OR is this bad, it has to be cleaned up first before anything else.
There are certainly neutrality issues with the wording, as you've stated. I'd recommend that the OR should be cleared up first. I personally think that anyone claiming this OR should be in better hustle to get some sources. The time spent arguing to keep OR in an article should rather be spent finding something to support the claims made here.
Don't get me started on the sources that already exist. "Brahmanization Proved False" is an inaccurate title; I see nothing of proof here. I'm not familiar with the subject, as I probably already stated, and I can't see how this news article proves it false. If that's the case, I don't see how the description of the link could possibly be neutral. I'd also like to see more sources than just newspaper articles.
Perhaps the most disturbing thing is the "Section of Unsourced and damaging Allegations", known in this article as "In The Media." There's a list of newspapers which are alleged to support this phenomenon, some of which have names tagged to it. I hope that the person who created that knows that unsourced libel can be deleted at any time -- and I think that calling someone and their publication essentially "racist" counts as that. By all rights, that unsourced material could be removed. So whoever wants to keep that better get in gear and find some backup for the claims. Wikipedia doesn't exist to smear people or their publications. As it stands, those are baseless accusations.
So yes, I agree that there are serious issues with this thing. OR needs to be fixed badly, and in my opinion, should be the first thing to be corrected. .V. 05:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments and agree completely. Should one just start over? Delete the whole thing and replace it with something else, more concise and shorter? Given the past experience, the moment I lay hands on this, it will be reverted right back. Gschadow 23:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
PS: another user has once tried to rewrite this, and his attempt is here: User:Anirvan/Anti-Brahmanism. I think he was trying to help, but guess he too was worn down. Do you think one should try just adopting his proposal? I just have no idea what to do against the reverter. Gschadow 23:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
That user's rewrite is actually very good. While reading the article in its current form, I found it very confusing, as I am not thoroughly versed in this issue. But that revised article you linked to is so clear that someone completely unfamiliar with the topic can understand it. Finishing what User:Anirvan started would be a good ideas. As for the reverts... more people will probably show up to this RfC, and I believe that many will agree to this. Once consensus has been established, that's what the article contains. .V. 23:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Or we could revert to a stable version before the anti-Hindus and Tamil movie watchers came around and messed the page up. A revert that goes back a couple of months when this page actually looked good. I'll be bold and do it.Bakaman 00:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Not too bad. I think the problem is mostly solved. .V. 04:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure??? When did you check, .V.? Which version did you see? I just now have put the long standing WP:NPOV template back and the "reliable sources" warning. Then I went in and marked all those many places where those who care for the subject need to do something to support their claims or else remove them. This time I knew better than to edit any text, because I have no POV to push. If people want to claim something, they must support it, and that is with reliable sources (WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS). I also put the "clarifyme" tag on some places where I think they are going off on a tangent and it's just very unclear what is being said at all. (I wish there was a "whatsyourpoint" template :). Gschadow 05:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Heh, I probably should have been clearer. This roll-back answers quite a few issues, and is certainly better than the last version. In fact, it's far superior. It still needs sources, as you've mentioned, but much of the worst is gone. .V. 06:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I am going to remove these fact tags. Gsc seems to have littered the page with these tags, infact some come right after sources. This is actually stupid. Obvious facts dont need sources.Bakaman 16:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Once again, the people who are making these unsupported claims have just reverted, you are consistently acting like an edit-warrior, wiping out any change that others make in an attempt to get this article up to Wikipedia guidelines. All these standards are being violated (WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS). I have not littered but marked up where you have to fix the article. There is nothing "stupid" about the requirement to support your claims. Rewrite what you want to say and put specific support there. You have next to nothing. The only credible source is that 1960 publication from Berkeley. Gschadow 20:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Having nothing to add to the page and tagging the page with graffiti makes you the edit warrior. On top of that, it seems after I left this page (in novmber) that the page descended into varying periods of dalitstan cruft and tamil movie plots. Edit-warrior? If I wanted this page suitable for my POV, it would contain lots of anti-Tamil Gov't (though I myself am Tamil) and would denounce Ambedkar, mullahs, and missionaries. Going after Brahmins by vandalizing this page and then putting up rfc smokescreens aint gonna work.Bakaman 22:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
After reviewing the edits it seems that the POV is being pushed by Gschadow more than any one else --- Safemariner 05:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I would hesitate to assign blame here, especially when issues of POV are being thrown around. Perhaps the article has too many fact tags, but that can all be worked out as time goes on. In my eyes, the worst part of the article was the section of accusations, and that seems to be gone now. Granted, there needs to be more sources, but I think the article in itself isn't nearly as POV as before. .V. 05:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The edit conflict between Rumple and Rrj

I've noticed there's a paragraph going back and forth between these two users. [[2]]

I'd like to point out that neither revision has sources. Reverting an unsourced paragraph over and over is not going to accomplish anything; only the collection of sources for these statements will. .V. (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There is genetic proof to debunk "space age aryan brahmin" and other pseudoscience theories. Periyar is no historian or an expert on genetics, therefore his polemic should not enter this article.Bakaman 17:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is incredibly biased

This is far worse than just undue weight. Andries 22:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-Construction Please

This article is in need of revision. As it stands, it appears like propoganda and not an objective article. My suggestions are the following: 1. Please read articles by David Frawley, Fancsoi Gautier and others on Anti-Brahminism before constructing this article 2. Re-start this article from scratch 3. Give source for every example of Anti-Brahminism to establish credibility for article. 4. Show by solid examples as to why Anti-Brahminism is a legitimate claim and how Brahmins are being oppressed today and how they were hstorically an oppressed group throughout Indian history (siteing sources such as Parashu Rama legend and Puranic stories as well as records from historians from ancient, classical, and medieval ages) - this may require more detailed research that only an academic would perhaps have the resources for. 5. Instead of including arguments against or justifiable reasons for Anti-Brahminism, creat a separate article on Brahmin Oppression and link to that article (and vice versa). Both sides have legitimate claims and both sides should back them up with proper source material. I believe with two separate articles, the rw wars will cease. Terr E. Dactyl 03:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments moved from article to discussion

It is not worthy to have such a big Talk page on this issue. This article simply contains lies, hatred and defames. Every Indian who reads daily news paper every morning would testify this.

For those who don't know anything about the life in India , Please read Dr.T.M.Nair's Life story which was published in tamil daily Dinamani about 20 years ago and find out how brahmins treated others.

This article 'Anti Brahmanism' indirectly claims that Brahmins are completely innocense of caste based discrimnation. Why isn't not told directly? Because it is a pure lie. It is as simple as that. All "bullifying Villifying" are the consequences of centuries long discrimnation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.108.80.62 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Relevance

The section that details the early Brahmin Buddhists doesn't appear to have relevance to Anti-Brahmanism. Also, the early Christian conversions paragraph isn't relevant. I'll remove the sections if no-one provides a convincing argument. Addhoc 22:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] genocide?

why does the wikipedia category genocide link to anti-brahminism?maybe a separate article can be made about persecution of hindus during islamic rule or the goa inquisition,and that can be linked to the genocide category,but this i am afraid doesnt fit the bill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.18.132 (talk) 11:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)