The prevailing trend in India today is to blame Brahminism for everything that goes wrong. However, the so-called Brahminism was created “of the Brahmins, for the Brahmins, by the Brahmins”—primarily to preserve their self-identity, which was largely linked to ritual purity. They undertook this endeavor with full awareness of the risks involved and were willing to bear the costs associated with it.
When others borrowed this “socio-political” identity—which, as Johannes Bronkhorst argues, “should not exclusively or even primarily be thought of as a religion, but as a socio-political ideology with a variable religious dimension” [How The Brahmins WON: From Alexader to the Guptas, [New Delhi, Manohar Publishers, 2025, p. 4]—they were neither prepared to take on the risks nor willing to pay the price it demanded. The endurance of Brahminism, which continues to shape the identity of Brahmins also going beyond them, can be attributed to two factors: flexibility and mobility. Though it remained a Brahminical socio-political ideology, it never became a rigid dogma. Brahmins maintained the ability to adapt and change while preserving their identity. Their lack of immovable property or territorial power allowed them the freedom to relocate when necessary, ensuring their survival even under challenging circumstances.
When others attempted to adopt this ideology to assert their socio-political identity, they struggled to bear the associated risks and costs. Unlike Brahmins, who rarely held significant wealth or political power and thus could move freely, others—such as Kshatriyas, who were mandated to rule specific territories—could not afford such mobility. The same applied to landholding communities. Devoid of wealth, power, and numerical strength, Brahmins survived solely on their specialized skills, excelling in their vocations wherever they went. As a Tamil proverb states, “”கற்றவர்க்கு சென்ற இடமெல்லாம் சிறப்பு “—”The learned are honored wherever they go.”
This expertise was not a birthright but a necessity imposed by their vocation. Anyone willing to invest time, energy, patience, and passion could develop similar skills. Another Tamil poem illustrates this point: “Even within the same community, the eldest is not always called to lead; rather, the one who is learned is followed, even by King.” [ஒரு குடி பிறந்த பல்லோருள்ளும் ; மூத்தோன் வருக என்னாது; அவருள் அறிவுடையோன் ஆறு அரசும் செல்லும் ] The poem ends with a striking observation: “Among the four varnas, if the highest must follow one lower in the hierarchy, it is due to knowledge, not birth.” [வேற்றுமைத் தெரிந்த நாற்பாலுள் கீழ்ப்பால் ஒருவன் கறக்கின்; மேற்பால் ஒருவன் அவன் கண் படுமே]
Many scriptures emphasize that Brahminism, though a privilege, comes at a high cost. This does not mean Brahmins never misused their privilege for personal gain—they are human, not divine, though they claimed divinity to their birth. Lacking physical strength, wealth, or political power, they relied on their intellect. In times of crisis, they invoked “Apad-Dharma,” a principle allowing deviations from normal dharma for survival.
However, they were not alone in this practice. Others sought their services for similar purposes, ensuring that Brahmins retained their influence. Yet, when it came to preserving their identity, they rarely compromised, even if it meant standing alone. Even today, isolated Brahmin families can be found in villages, surviving on the goodwill of others. But when their identity is threatened, their flexibility and mobility enable them to adapt rather than succumb to pressure. This explains the significant Brahmin diaspora in the West.
However, they were not alone in this practice. Others sought their services for similar purposes, ensuring that Brahmins had their share of influence. Yet, when it came to preserving their identity, they rarely compromised, even if it meant standing alone. Even today, one can find isolated Brahmin families in villages, surviving on the goodwill of others. But when their identity is threatened, their flexibility and mobility enable them to adapt rather than succumb to pressure. This explains why there is a significant Brahmin diaspora in the West.
Historian Manu Pillai describes them as “pen-wielding mercenaries,” surviving through their intellectual pursuits rather than physical strength. While this phrase may suggest opportunism, it also unintentionally acknowledges their historical role as custodians of knowledge. Unlike traditional mercenaries who wield weapons, these Brahmins wielded knowledge—producing, preserving, and transmitting scriptures, literature, and histories that later scholars, including critics, would rely on. Their intellectual labor extended beyond self-interest, shaping the very foundations of many traditions and academic disciplines.
Ironically, many scholars who label Brahmins as “pen-wielding mercenaries” operate in much the same way—offering their expertise, shaping narratives, and adapting to the ideological and institutional demands of their time, all while being compensated for their intellectual work. In critiquing Brahmins, they often fail to recognize that they, too, function as intellectual mercenaries—trading ideas for patronage, adjusting positions for relevance, and navigating power structures much like those they criticize. What they denounce in others is often a reflection of their own practice.
Moreover, Brahmins remained true to the dharma of mercenaries in one crucial way: they were hired for their knowledge, compensated for their expertise, but never bound in absolute allegiance to any single power. They refused to be a permanent intellectual army under any ruler, maintaining a distinct independence that ensured their survival. In doing so, they not only preserved their own heritage but also laid the groundwork for the very academic traditions that sustain their critics today.
For example, much like a one-man army, V. O. Swaminatha Iyer dedicated his life to collecting and printing ancient Tamil manuscripts, rescuing them from extinction. His tireless efforts earned him the revered title “Tamil Thatha” (Grandfather of Tamil).
Despite being blamed for everything wrong in India—and even for distorted interpretations like the Nazis’ Aryan purity ideology—Brahmins often remain silent. They understand that adopting an ideology without fully grasping its risks and costs will not yield the same success. Unlike Brahminism, which evolved as a flexible socio-political identity, other communities have not added an “-ism” to their names—there is no “Reddyism,” “Yadavism,” “Patelism,” or “Mudaliarism.” Their inherent power structures prevented them from embracing the same flexibility and mobility. A Tamil proverb humorously illustrates this: “Seeing the Brahmin, even a donkey went to another country.” [பாபான பாத்து கழுதையும் பரதேசம் போச்சாம்]
Brahminism has historically adapted to changing socio-political landscapes, which is why it has survived despite challenges. For example, Brahmins in Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Bengal have evolved distinct customs and roles based on local contexts. While critics argue that Brahminism is rigid due to its association with hereditary priesthood, they overlook how it has continuously redefined itself—moving from temple rituals to education, administration, and modern professions. If Brahminism were truly inflexible, it would not have sustained itself through centuries of societal upheaval, including colonial rule and post-independence reforms
Unless everyone completely abandons Brahminism—which they steadfastly uphold—merely blaming these ‘pen-wielding mercenaries’ will not resolve India’s socio-political challenges. Today, religion is being politicized, and politics is being communalized. Yet, despite their limited influence, Brahmins continue to serve as society’s shock absorbers, absorbing blame without allowing it to affect them personally. Even when they face consequences, they have the flexibility and mobility to adapt and survive.
This resilience can be compared to prayaschitta—the penance they perform for the sins and karmas they absorb from others in exchange for offerings (dana). A Brahmin priest conducting ancestral rites must take on the departed’s negative karma but can later purify himself through ritual penance. Critics may dismiss this as a transactional practice done for money, but the psychological burden it imposes is rarely acknowledged—even by their own community, which often excludes them from auspicious rituals.
Similarly, when Brahmins are blamed for ‘Brahminism,’ they largely remain silent, yet the psychological burden of this blame becomes another form of Brahminism for them.
This is not a defense of Brahminism but a reflection on the irony of blaming it without acknowledging its inherent demands. Those who criticize Brahmins often fail to recognize their own role in borrowing aspects of the ideology without fully understanding its implications. If Brahminism is to be reformed or abolished, it must come from within, as it has always been a self-defined identity. External pressure or criticism, however justified, will only reinforce it rather than dismantle it. Brahminism persists not due to rigid dogma but because of its adaptability—something many of its critics fail to replicate.
I do not claim to be a scholar, but I have learned from many. While I could cite numerous references to support every point in this article, I choose not to. My approach is rooted in present realities rather than historical analysis based on texts that are open to interpretation and speculation. Scholars, in proving their theses, often rely on textual evidence and attempt to construct historical narratives from the top down. As a layperson, I prefer to understand the world from the ground up—through lived experience rather than academic debate.
To illustrate this complexity, I share two real-life incidents I personally witnessed.
Before moving to my current ashram, I lived with my mother in a small town. We had a Dalit neighbor who was an atheist and strongly anti-Brahmin, yet we maintained a friendly relationship. When his father passed away, he followed family tradition and invited a Brahmin priest to perform the last rites—ironically, a priest whom Brahmins themselves would not engage. Later, he immersed his father’s ashes in the Kaveri, again adhering to Brahminical rituals. Curious about this contradiction, I asked why he, as an atheist and opponent of Brahminism, had done so. He admitted, “I don’t personally believe in all this, but I don’t want to take a risk with the unknown. If I refuse the rituals and something happens to my family, I’ll be blamed. That, too, affects me psychologically.” Yet, when his daughter married, he did not engage a Brahmin priest and conducted the ceremony according to his personal convictions.
In another instance, a Dalit friend arranged his son’s marriage, and multiple Brahmin priests officiated the wedding, adapting the rituals to suit their customs. However, when someone in their family passed away, they never engaged a Brahmin priest. When I inquired about this selective use of Brahminism, he explained, “Marriage is an auspicious occasion, and we don’t want to take any risks—we want a blessed married life. But for funerals, our local tradition requires an animal sacrifice, which Brahmins cannot be involved in. To appease the departing soul, we must perform this ritual ourselves.”
Both men were Dalits, but their practices reflected their regional traditions—one from southern Tamil Nadu, the other from near Karnataka. Yet, in both cases, Brahminism—or at least elements of it—was selectively adopted when convenient. This raises a crucial question: Was Brahminism imposed on others, or was it borrowed when needed?
Scholarly debates on the history of Brahminism may continue, filled with uncertainties, but the ground realities of the present cannot be ignored. Societies evolve, shaping and reshaping ideological frameworks to fit their socio-political and religious needs. The selective engagement with Brahminical traditions, even by its vocal critics, underscores this complexity.
The real question is not whether Brahminism should continue but whether its critics are willing to examine their own structures of power, privilege, and identity. Reform does not happen by pointing fingers—it begins with self-reflection. Brahmins cannot prevent others from adopting their socio-political framework, with its religious dimensions. Thus, they have no choice but to wait patiently for time to reveal who is truly responsible, who needs reform, and who is merely scapegoating others.
To conclude, this article is not intended to shield Brahmins from criticism but to offer a more nuanced perspective. If Brahminism is to be reformed or abolished, it must come from within, as Brahmins themselves have always shaped its evolution. External pressure will only reinforce their identity, ensuring their survival—just as it has for centuries. At the same time, it is crucial to recognize that while shaping Brahminism, they have also been pioneering reformers in many areas of Indian society.
One notable example is their leadership in temple entry movements for Harijans. Alongside others, many Brahmins actively supported these initiatives and worked closely with Mahatma Gandhi in various aspects of the freedom struggle. Those who seek change must first understand the rules of the game they wish to alter.
For related theme also see: https://dayanandbharati.in/brahminism-a-socio-political-ideology/
Ashram, 15-3-2025
Leave a Reply