article source : [ evilaryan.wordpress.com ]
MYTH 11: BRAHMINS WERE COWARDS AND COLLABORATED WITH ISLAMIC & BRITISH RULERS
Brahmins were heavily persecuted like other Hindus during Islamic rule. Bakhtiar Khilji massacred tens of thousands of Buddhist monks and Hindu Brahmins during his conquest of Bihar. Malik Kafur’s army slaughtered over 13,000 Vaishnavites including thousands of Brahmin priests who bitterly resisted the Sultanate army’s invasion of Sriranganam. The Madurai Sultanate perpetrated several atrocities on Brahmins during it’s rule. The Brahmin minister of Vijaynagara- Gopanna Nigoyi played a key role in helping Kumara Kampana, the Vijaynagara general, in defeating the Madurai Sultanate. The Tughlaq dynasty as well as the Lodi dynasty too heavily persecuted Brahmins during their rule. The Mughals briefly reversed this policy under Akbar but Brahmin persecution along with persecution of Hindus in general, began again under the rule of Aurangzeb.It was under the Brahmin warrior Bajirao that the Mughal Empire virtually came to an end.
Bajirao’s son Peshwa Balaji Bajirao oversaw the greatest expansion by the Marathas. Balaji Bajirao’s son Madhavrao restored Maratha power after a crushing defeat at Panipat where Sadashivrao (cousin of Balaji Bajirao) and Vishwasrao (son of Balaji Bajirao) lost their lives fighting bravely for Hindupad Padshahi.The 1857 rebellion was spearheaded by Brahmins- Nanasahib Peshwa, Tatya Tope & Rani Laxmibai. Mangal Pandey who began the mutiny too was a Brahmin.Several Brahmin freedom fighters (eg. Lokmanya Tilak, Chandrashekar Azad, Shivram Rajguru, Chapekar brothers etc) took part in the freedom struggle. In fact, approximately 70% of the freedom fighters who were executed by the British during the freedom struggle were Brahmins.Post independence, many Brahmins have served the Indian army with distinction.These facts obviously fall on deaf ears of the propagandists who are only concerned about furthering their insidious propaganda.
MYTH 12: BRAHMANISM DESTROYED BUDDHISM AND IS DOING IT’S BEST TO DESTROY SIKHISM
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
One of the most common methods of proving Buddhist persecution is by citing Pushyamitra Shunga’s alleged persecution of the Buddhists.This fable appears in the Buddhist text Ashokavadhana which states that Pushyamitra destroyed tens of thousands of stupas after being persuaded to do so by a Brahmin minister.What the Hinduphobes will never admit is that the very same text describes Pushyamitra as a descendant of Ashoka and as belonging to the Maurya family. The very same text also claims that Ashoka had 18,000 followers of the Ajivika sect slaughtered only because a member of this sect had drawn a picture showing the Buddha bowing at the feet of Mahavira.This fact is conveniently disregarded by Neo-Buddhists who use the very same text to cite Brahmanical persecution of Buddhism.Some of these Neo-Buddhists even go on to claim that Adi Shankara destroyed Buddhism with the use of violence! A chucklesome theory indeed! In reality, Buddhism relied heavily on state patronage and when this patronage reduced, things began becoming tough for the Buddhists. Several tales of persecution were woven by the Buddhists during these times when Brahmanical rulers refused to patronize the Buddhist monks!By the time Adi Shankara had toured the country, Buddhism was already on the decline- Shankara merely accelerated this decline. Apart from defeating Buddhist scholars in debates, Shankara also defeated multiple scholars belonging to various sects within the ‘Astika’ fold (eg. Mimansa) and spread the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta across the length and breadth of India.
The sounding of the death knell for Buddhism came with the arrival of the Islamic invaders of India- something that even Dr. BR Ambedkar, the prophet of the Neo-Buddhists, admitted in his book ‘The decline and fall of Buddhism’;
“There can be no doubt that the fall of Buddhism in India was due to the invasions of the Musalmans. Islam came out as the enemy of the ‘But’. The word ‘But’ as everybody knows, is the Arabic word and means an idol. Thus the origin of the word indicates that in the Moslem mind idol worship had come to be identified with the Religion of the Buddha. To the Muslims, they were one and the same thing. The mission to break the idols thus became the mission to destroy Buddhism. Islam destroyed Buddhism not only in India but wherever it went. Before Islam came into being Buddhism was the religion of Bactria, Parthia, Afghanistan, Gandhar, and Chinese Turkestan, as it was of the whole of Asia.”
Dr. Ambedkar carried on;
“The Mussalman invaders sacked the Buddhist universities of Nalanda, Vikramshila, Jagaddala, Odantapuri to name only a few. They razed to the ground Buddhist monasteries with which the country was studded. The monks fled away in thousands to Nepal, Tibet and other places outside India. A very large number were killed outright by the Muslim commanders. How the Buddhist priesthood perished by the sword of the Muslim invaders has been recorded by the Muslim historians themselves. Summarizing the evidence relating to the slaughter of the Buddhist Monks perpetrated by the Musalman General in the course of his invasion of Bihar in 1197 AD, Mr. Vincent Smith says, “….Great quantities of plunder were obtained, and the slaughter of the ‘shaven headed Brahmans’, that is to say the Buddhist monks, was so thoroughly completed, that when the victor sought for someone capable of explaining the contents of the books in the libraries of the monasteries, not a living man could be found who was able to read them. ‘It was discovered,’ we are told, ‘that the whole of that fortress and city was a college, and in the Hindi tongue they call a college Bihar.’
“Such was the slaughter of the Buddhist priesthood perpetrated by the Islamic invaders. The axe was struck at the very root. For by killing the Buddhist priesthood, Islam killed Buddhism. This was the greatest disaster that befell the religion of the Buddha in India….”
While Neo-Buddhists consider Ambedkar’s views on Brahmanism and Hinduism as the gospel truth, they remain silent on his unfavorable views on Islam as it damages their attempts to forge ‘Dalit-Muslim unity’- The same unity that has proved disastrous for the Dalits whenever it has been attempted!
Neo-Sikhs too, frequently claim that Brahmins did whatever they could to eradicate Sikhism. This is just another fantasy which can be easily disproven with facts from Sikh history.Out of the 36 contributors to the Adi Granth, 16 were Brahmin. Some of the Brahmins who contributed to the scripture include Jayadeva, Ramanand and Surdas. The writings of the Bhatts prominently feature in the Adi Granth. The Bhatts were bards in the court of the Sikh Gurus. They composed several hymns in praise of the Gurus. Bhai Singha Purohit who rescued Bibi Viro, the daughter of Guru Hargobind and later sacrificed his life fighting against the Mughals was a Brahmin. Bhai Gurdas, the first Jathedar of the Akal Takth & the original scribe of the Adi Granth was a Brahmin.
Bhai Sati Das & Bhai Mati Das who attained martyrdom along with Guru Tegh Bahadur, were Brahmins. Pandit Kirpa Ram who taught Guru Gobind Singh the Vedas & the Puranas was a Brahmin. Several other Brahmins distinguished themselves fighting for the Khalsa and later the Sikh Empire under the great Maharaja Ranjit Singh.All these sacrifices by the Brahmin community for Sikhism have now been totally forgotten by the Neo-Sikhs while the alleged betrayal of the sons of Guru Gobind Singh by Gangu Kaul (a character whose very existence is disputed by learned Sikh scholars) is constantly used as a stick to beat Brahmins with.Today, because of Neo-Sikh hatred of Brahmins, many Sikh Brahmins have deserted the religion en masse.
MYTH 13: SANGAM TEXTS WERE ALTERED BY ARYAN BRAHMINS TO SHOW VEDIC THEMES
This is such a vacuous allegation by the Dravidian nationalists that it is impossible to even reply to it without losing a few brain cells. Therefore, I do not even think I should even attempt to reply to this claim. Even the legendary American conspiracy theorist Alex Jones would probably not come up with something as ridiculous as this!
MYTH 14: KUMARI KANDAM AKA LEMURIA WAS AN ‘EGALITARIAN’ CIVILIZATION, FREE OF BRAHMINS
Dravidian nationalists aka Dumeels/Lemurs who ridicule people who believe in concepts such as Ram Setu, themselves believe in ‘lost continents’ such as Kumari Kandam, which they claim contained an ancient Tamil civilization ‘free of any Aryan Brahmins’.The very concept of Kumari Kandam comes from Kanda Puranam which is a 15th century translation of the Skanda Purana which is in short- An Aryan Brahmin text!What’s more, the text even claims that in Kumari Kandam, Brahmins were respected and the Vedas were recited daily!Lemurs/Dumeels probably don’t know this- If they read this they could be in for a rude shock!
MYTH 15: MANUSMRITI IS PURE EVIL AND IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL SOCIAL PROBLEMS IN THE NATION
When a confrontation between two caste groups takes place, the Indian liberal fraternity blames the Manusmriti for it. On the other hand when an Islamic terrorist attack takes place, liberals spring to the defence of the Qur’an claiming that the attack is a result of ‘misinterpretation of the text’ and that the text in reality ‘preaches peace’.There is no proof at all the Manusmriti was even used by every single Indian dynasty in the first place! Medieval era literature even seems to suggest that the Yajnavalkya Smriti was more commonly used than the other Smritis.
The Manusmriti is just one of several smritis (law books) and nowhere does it even hold as important a place in Hinduism as the Quran does in Islam or the Bible does in Christianity.A comparative study of these three texts makes one realise that the Manusmriti, no matter how harsh some of the injunctions are, is in fact better than both the Quran and the Bible. However, the Manusmriti is scapegoated for any social problem in India while the other two texts get a free pass from our ‘honest liberals’.The founder of the Arya Samaj- Dayananda Saraswati believed that text was interpolated and only what is in accordance with the Vedas should be accepted;
“I believe in that part of Manu Smriti which is not interpolated (appended later) and is in accordance with the Vedas.”
MK Gandhi too held a similar view and stated that several parts of the text are consistent with Vedic teachings while some parts are not and that only parts that are consistent must be accepted while the other parts of the text must be dismissed as spurious and ignored. Gandhi added that there is no need to criticise and demonise the entire text.Having been raised as a Hindu, the first time I ever heard of the Manusmriti was when it was mentioned by a leftist in a debate. Hardly any Hindu that I know has ever heard of the Manusmriti, let alone read it. Anti-caste warriors should be able to prove a link between the Manusmriti and casteism (even casteism by non-Hindu religious groups like Christians to whom the Manusmriti does not even apply) before making such bizarre claims.
Myth 16: Brahmins created Manusmriti and other texts to dominate society and oppress lower castes
Many ancient Dharmasastras in fact prohibit Brahmins from holding land and wealth! Far from letting Brahmins ‘dominate’ society, it places heavy injunctions on Brahmins who seek to become powerful and even seeks to punish them.The very fact that epics such as the Mahabharata feature Brahmins such as Dronacharya and Sudama living in penury until they are helped by Kshatriyas like Bhishma and Krishna respectively, shows how much Brahmins could ‘dominate society’.In ancient India, one’s caste was determined on the basis on one’s qualities, conduct, character and duties.In the dialogue between Yudhisthira and Nahusha in the Vana Parva of the Mahabharata, Nahusha asks Yudhisthira about who a true Brahmin is. Yudhisthira replies;
“It is asserted by the wise, in whom are seen truth, charity, forgiveness, good conduct, benevolence, observance of the rites of his order and mercy is a Brahmana.”
Yudhisthira adds;
“A Sudra is not a Sudra by birth alone–nor a Brahmana is Brahmana by birth alone. He, it is said by the wise, in whom are seen those virtues is a Brahmana. And people term him a Sudra in whom those qualities do not exist, even though he be a Brahmana by birth.”
The above verses show them Yudhisthira, one of the wisest characters in Hindu Itihaas, believes that one is a Brahmin only by conduct and qualities. If a Shudra possesses these qualities then he can be considered a Brahmin. If a Brahmin is devoid of these qualities then he is considered a Shudra. Caste is flexible and does not depend on one’s birth.This view is corroborated by Maheshwara in another section of the Mahabharata- Anusasana Parva. The view that caste is flexible and depends on one’s qualities and conduct rather than one’s birth appears throughout the Hindu texts - Vedas, Bhagavad Gita, Puranas etc.There is no doubt that the Manusmriti is far more rigid than the other Hindu texts regarding the question of caste flexibility. However even the Manusmriti does not restrict flexibility. The Manusmriti too allows Shudras to become Brahmins and states that Brahmins can fall to the status of Shudras. Far from any allowing any domination, the Manusmriti proves rather harsh injunctions which can result in even losing of one’s caste- Thus becoming Avarnas/Chandalas.
The Manusmriti if applied today would result in every single Brahmin losing his caste and becoming a Dalit!It is clear that the Manusmriti is heavily interpolated and altered and we will never know what the original looked like. However the claim that it was created to dominate society too cannot hold any ground.There are stories in the Mahabharata (stories of Uttanka & Rantideva) which teach that even a Chandala must be treated with respect. In the Bhagavad Gita, there is a verse which says that a wise person does not see any difference between a Brahmin and a Chandala. Padma Purana even says the one who disrespects a Chandala shall fall into hell!In the ancient Hindu scriptures, no caste is permanent. Even the Chandala (one whose caste has been stripped off) is able to perform austerities and return to varna (Egs. Valmiki). A Chandala too can gain salvation according to the scriptures.Had Brahmins truly wanted to control society and oppress lower castes, they would have altered every single text and completely frozen all caste mobility and would have also given themselves numerous privileges. However instead, they themselves wrote several texts where they approved of caste fluidity & wrote that determination of one’s caste should be done based on one’s qualities and conduct.
MYTH 17: RAMA WAS AN ARYAN INVADER WHILE RAVANA WAS AN DRAVIDIAN KING
Ravana was the son of the Brahmin sage Vishrava who was a grandson of Lord Brahma. Many have even speculated that modem day Noida was the birthplace of Ravana. Ravana is frequently described as ‘Mahabrahmin’ in the Ramayana. Several Dravidian nationalists have claimed that Rakshasas/Asuras in the Hindu epics are Dravidian- A huge lie!Lanka was ruled by Ravana’s half brother Kubera in the beginning but Ravana usurped the throne. Therefore, Ravana is as much an invader as Rama!Several Brahmin communities refuse to burn Ravana on the occasion of Diwali as it hurts their sentiments.It is ironic that Dravidian nationalists who spend 99% of their time berating Brahmins also simultaneously look up to Ravana, a devout Brahmin who mastered the Vedas, as some sort of Dravidian icon!
MYTH 18: MAHABALI WAS A DALIT KING
Dravidian nationalists have tried to spread a myth that Asuras in the Hindu epics were Dalits- Again a laughable view especially considering the fact that there were Asura Brahmins too. The preceptor-sage of the Asuras- Shukracharya, is just one such example.Mahabali was the grandson of Prahlad - Often regarded as the greatest devotee of Vishnu by Vaishnavites! Prahlad himself was the grandson of the sage Kashyap. Mahabali was given a boon by Lord Vishnu, who even blessed him with the opportunity of becoming the Indra of the next age. Mahabali was no Dalit, he was in fact a Brahmin!
MYTH 19: NARKASUR WAS A DALIT KING
Hinduphobes ridicule Hindu mythology and any belief in it on odd days but affirm belief in it on even days by constantly moaning about certain characters & events in the same.Social justice warriors constantly try to ‘Dalitize’ non-Dalit characters in Hindu mythology so as to propagate atrocity literature & further an ‘oppression narrative’ so as to perpetuate an ‘oppression olympics’ amongst the backward castes.Another lazy myth spread by these imbeciles is that Narkasur was a Dalit and was killed by Krishna because of this reason.It seriously requires some inane stupidity to make such claims. Narkasur was in fact a son of Krishna Himself in the Varaha Avatar. Vishnu, upon the insistence of Bhudevi, gave Narkasur a boon that he would live a long life and would rule for several years. Krishna killed Narkasur after he turned rogue and resorted to tyranny not because he was a Dalit.
MYTH 20: DRONA CUT OFF EKLAVYA’S FINGER AS HE WAS A DALIT
Eklavya was no Dalit to begin with in the first place, he was in fact a Nishadh prince and was also a cousin of Krishna on his father’s side. Drona had promised Arjuna that he would make him the world’s greatest archer. Seeing Eklavya’s skill terrified Drona. Drona also realised that Eklavya would fight against Arjuna in the event of a future war and hence asked him to give up his finger as ‘Gurudakshina’.Another version of the story says that Eklavya’s cruelty towards a dog angered Drona and made him want to punish him.There are several versions of the Mahabharata but none that claim that Drona’s treatment of Eklavya was because of his caste.
Conclusion
I am not at all suggesting that every single Brahmin is a good person who practices equality but the leftist assertion that Brahmins alone are responsible for casteism is a sinister lie meant to divide Hindus and weaken the Hindu religion. Hence, I decided to counter this narrative with facts- Something that I feel I’ve managed to do pretty well!
Caste discrimination is very much prevalent even today especially in villages. We must all rise above caste differences and fight this without scapegoating any particular community.
copied from evilaryan.wordpress.com
Hindu Unity (Home) 