Outlook, March 30 issue carried an interesting cover-story, which talked about how the brains behind the success of almost all the major politicians are Brahmins. To a prejudiced mind, it could be termed as almost eulogising Brahmins.
My take on this story is carried in the Letter section of the present issue of Outlook and goes as follows:
Your cover story Backroom Brahmins (Mar 30) has dared to put forth a brave and thought-provoking thesis, which no publication would touch upon, lest it be accused of "propagating Brahmin supremacy and caste politics in these modern times". Political correctness aside, I wish this thesis was extended/tested with other occupations also. I am no historian or social scientist, but I think such a study would bear out the fact that the much derided caste system was actually a functional division based on personality traits and types—horizontal rather than vertical.
Rahul Gaur, Gurgaon
Rahul Gaur, Gurgaon
I am really of the opinion that the caste system in its origin must have been a great psychological tool to categorise personalities for optimum utilization of societal resources.
It is only with centuries of abuse perpetrated by petty self-interests that it degenerated in to a vile tool and created water-tight jackets of castes in which any osmosis was rendered impossible.
This is a touchy but interesting issue. Your enlightened opinions are awaited.
2 comments:
y only politicians all great indian cricketers(gavaskar,dravid,ganguly,shastri,tendulkar)also most indian cinema actors(hrithik roshan,ajay devgan,and theatre personalities are brahmins.mere coincidences???
i feel categorizing pn basis of religion is nonsense.Krishna greatest politician in indian history was yadav,whereas chanakya the political rather kutnithagaya was brahmin.so i mean i dont see any logic in believing brahmin gene makes a better politician or a better crucked thinking machine...
I haven't read the original article in Outlook. But I can well imagine the contents from the conclusions / title of the article. As in your letter I do congratulate the magazine for their very frank and bold "Outlook".
This discussion has reminded me of a small sequence in one of the Harry Potter books - the very first one I think, where the hat sorts the kids into their houses.
Should we not take this "caste" bit much in the same way? We should belong to the caste we are capable of representing, whether by interests or by characteristics - not solely by birth. Castes become rigid when generation after generation individuals choose or fall into the same "caste" as their forefathers - the "sorting" then loses its importance and caste is looked upon as an inheritance rather than an acquired or chosen representation.
This is becoming a long comment, nevertheless, I can't omit mentioning here that religion is something entirely different and more personal, even private if one choses to make it that way. Casteism is not related to religion, at least should not be. It is merely a categorisation of people based on their likings and capabilities wrt their professional life. The 4 broad categories - Academics, Money, Security and Labour are still the same if we care to look at them as they are and not demand apologies from lyricists and producers and stage protests against poetic use of harmless little words ( ref: Aaaja Nachle and Billu Barber).
:) - long discussion... phew.. let us stop at this.
Post a Comment