Lately, there's been a flood of posts on social media claiming that Brahmins succeed because they’re “more meritorious”—as if centuries of systemic privilege had nothing to do with it. Let’s unpack that.
Because meritocracy—as it’s often thrown around—is not as clean, fair, or neutral as it sounds. Especially not in India.
🧠 What Even Is Meritocracy?
Meritocracy is the idea that people succeed based on their abilities, intelligence, and effort—rather than their caste, class, or connections. Sounds fair, right?
But what happens when some people have been denied opportunities for generations, while others have had unbroken access to education, resources, and networks?
As Dr. B.R. Ambedkar said:
"Caste is not a division of labour, it is a division of labourers."
Brahmins weren’t just taught books. They were assigned the exclusive right to knowledge itself. Others weren’t just uneducated—they were forbidden from being educated.
🧱 Merit Is Built—Not Born
Let’s say two kids are running a race. One starts from the start line, the other starts 100 meters behind. Who wins? Who’s “faster”?
The one with the head start might say, “I won because I trained harder.”
But in truth—they just started ahead. And society clapped for them, calling it "merit".
This is India’s story with Brahminical success.
Kancha Ilaiah puts it bluntly in his book Post-Hindu India:
“The Brahmin child is born with a spoon of English in the mouth and Sanskrit in the brain.”
🏫 Access, Not Ability
Before we talk about "merit", ask:
-
Who had teachers in their family?
-
Who had money for coaching?
-
Who had libraries at home?
-
Who had the mental peace to study without worrying about caste-based violence, hunger, or discrimination?
“Merit” without equality of conditions is just privilege pretending to be excellence.
🧾 A History of Head-Starts
-
Manusmriti made sure Dalits were punished for even hearing the Vedas.
-
Colonial education systems were built around upper-caste norms.
-
Post-independence bureaucracy was dominated by those already fluent in English and administrative culture.
Ambedkar again, hitting hard:
“The caste system is not merely a division of labour—it is also a division of laborers in a graded manner.”
🎯 So Why Does This Narrative Persist?
Because it feels good. It flatters the ego. It's easier to believe “I earned this” than to confront a system that boosted you from birth.
It’s not that individual Brahmins haven’t worked hard. Many have. But to ignore the invisible support structure behind them is dishonest.
It’s like inheriting a mansion and then saying you’re a self-made architect.
🔥 Final Word
If India were truly a meritocracy, Ambedkar wouldn’t have had to write Annihilation of Caste. Phule wouldn’t have had to open the first schools for Shudras. And reservation wouldn’t have been necessary.
So next time someone brags about meritocracy favoring Brahmins, remember:
"Those who have enjoyed privilege for generations often see equality as oppression."
No comments:
Post a Comment