கசக்கும் உண்மைகள்
14 views
Skip to first unread message
தேமொழி
Dec 29, 2025, 3:48:56 PM (yesterday) Dec 29
to மின்தமிழ்
Devdutt Pattanaik
There were no Brahmins in India before 1500 BC... no Brahmins in South India before 100 BC. There were no Brahmins in Harappan cities. No Brahmins in Bhimbhetka caves. No Brahmins in Keezhadi cities.
Brahmins refuse to accept that Brahminical ideas entered India from outside. They arrived with Indo-Aryan migrants, whose earlier homelands lay in the steppe regions north of the Black Sea, around today’s Ukraine and southern Russia. These migrants came with the horse, an animal domesticated outside India. Yet Brahmins insist that everything Indian, including Harappan civilisation, was Aryan and Brahminical. This denial explains their hostility to archaeology, genetics, and comparative linguistics. To science in general.
Archaeology from southern India, including sites like Keezhadi, shows urban cultures flourishing long before large stone cities emerged in the Gangetic plains. This evidence unsettles Brahmin claims of civilisational primacy.
When Brahmins demand proof, do not expect them to accept it. These are the same moral authorities who demanded Sita prove her purity through fire and still abandoned her. Proof has never been enough.
The logic is theological, not rational. Like Islam, Brahminism insists that rules come from God, when in reality rules are made by humans and attributed to God to secure obedience. Both Brahmins and Muslims assert superiority. The difference lies in method. Muslims reject other faiths outright. Brahmins establish hierarchy by exclusion, by ranking people within the same society. Both traditions originate outside India. What we now call Hinduism is a fusion of local beliefs that emerged in the subcontinent. Brahminism reshaped and controlled these traditions through texts, rituals, and social rules.
The Dharmashastra of Brahmins divides people by food, occupation, purity, and pollution. It teaches that some bodies are dirty by birth: the sweeper, the butcher, the menstruating woman. This was the original "tukde-tukde" mindset.
Before Brahminical dominance, there is no evidence of rigid varna boundaries, temple entry restrictions, or hereditary pollution. These are social technologies of control, not eternal truths. The obsession with purity mirrors the halal-haram framework. Food becomes morality. Bodies become suspect. Power dresses itself as virtue.
Ask Brahmins uncomfortable questions. Why do Indian goddesses ride lions, animals not native to most of India, unlike tigers? Why does the goddess kill the buffalo, a fully domesticated Indian animal? Why does Surya ride a horse, an animal that entered India from the north? Why does artwork show foreign lion trampling native elephant? The Arya over the Naga?
These images betray memory. They remember migration, conquest, and cultural layering, even when ideology tries to erase it. Do not waste energy convincing those invested in hierarchy. Systems built on superiority rarely surrender to evidence.
Brahmins refuse to accept that Brahminical ideas entered India from outside. They arrived with Indo-Aryan migrants, whose earlier homelands lay in the steppe regions north of the Black Sea, around today’s Ukraine and southern Russia. These migrants came with the horse, an animal domesticated outside India. Yet Brahmins insist that everything Indian, including Harappan civilisation, was Aryan and Brahminical. This denial explains their hostility to archaeology, genetics, and comparative linguistics. To science in general.
Archaeology from southern India, including sites like Keezhadi, shows urban cultures flourishing long before large stone cities emerged in the Gangetic plains. This evidence unsettles Brahmin claims of civilisational primacy.
When Brahmins demand proof, do not expect them to accept it. These are the same moral authorities who demanded Sita prove her purity through fire and still abandoned her. Proof has never been enough.
The logic is theological, not rational. Like Islam, Brahminism insists that rules come from God, when in reality rules are made by humans and attributed to God to secure obedience. Both Brahmins and Muslims assert superiority. The difference lies in method. Muslims reject other faiths outright. Brahmins establish hierarchy by exclusion, by ranking people within the same society. Both traditions originate outside India. What we now call Hinduism is a fusion of local beliefs that emerged in the subcontinent. Brahminism reshaped and controlled these traditions through texts, rituals, and social rules.
The Dharmashastra of Brahmins divides people by food, occupation, purity, and pollution. It teaches that some bodies are dirty by birth: the sweeper, the butcher, the menstruating woman. This was the original "tukde-tukde" mindset.
Before Brahminical dominance, there is no evidence of rigid varna boundaries, temple entry restrictions, or hereditary pollution. These are social technologies of control, not eternal truths. The obsession with purity mirrors the halal-haram framework. Food becomes morality. Bodies become suspect. Power dresses itself as virtue.
Ask Brahmins uncomfortable questions. Why do Indian goddesses ride lions, animals not native to most of India, unlike tigers? Why does the goddess kill the buffalo, a fully domesticated Indian animal? Why does Surya ride a horse, an animal that entered India from the north? Why does artwork show foreign lion trampling native elephant? The Arya over the Naga?
These images betray memory. They remember migration, conquest, and cultural layering, even when ideology tries to erase it. Do not waste energy convincing those invested in hierarchy. Systems built on superiority rarely surrender to evidence.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages