Cause Finding: Brahminism in Maharashtra politics

Ramesh Ojha

In Harashtra the Peshwas had their capital at Poona and the Peshwas were Brahmins. Elsewhere in the country, the Peshwas ruled through chieftains with a fourth share (fourth) of the revenue, most of whom were Marathas or other castes, while in Maharashtra they were directly ruled by Brahmins. His cabinet consisted of Brahmins. There was a difference between the Brahmins having the highest position in the society and the actual Brahmin rule in the classical narrative. The religious unequal social order had a political stamp. In short, it was not just a Brahmin kingdom, it was a Brahmin empire. Gobrahmans were committed to compliance, but women and members of the Bahujan community were not protected. A form of Brahminism is seen in the Marathi play 'Ghashiram Kotwal' written by Vijay Tendulkar and directed by Jabbar Patel. In short, Maharashtra experienced a politico-administrative Brahminism rarely experienced by other provinces of India. In 1818, when the British abolished the Peshwas and brought an end to Brahminism, V. d. Savarkar's biographer, Dhananjay Kier, in his biography of Mahatma Phule, wrote that when the Peshwai ended and the Union Jack flew over Shaniwarwada in Poona, the poor backward people lit lamps outside their houses to celebrate Diwali. The chatter was on both sides. There was a rumor among the Brahmins that Brahminism was gone and now they have to live as slaves of the British like others. Jyotiba Phule was born in the Mali society in 1827 in the midst of both these parties and entered public life around 1850. He was not only a social reformer but an equality based social reformer. Jyotiba Phule said that the underprivileged will not be emancipated until everyone gets equal opportunities. Equality means equality of opportunity. And what do the Brahmins have to give you in Hindu society when they have not given equality to their own women, deprived them of equal opportunities? Mahatma Gandhi came to India in the year 1915 in the midst of Brahmin-non-Brahmin conflict in Maharashtra. Gandhiji's talk of non-violence, Hindu-Muslim unity, social equality, elimination of untouchability was not understood by the Brahmins of Maharashtra. The main reason was that Maharashtra i.e. the Brahmins of Maharashtra lost leadership at the national level. Brahmin Shahi went with Peshwa first. From above the Bahujan Samaj fought against the Brahmins and now the Gujarati Vaniyas have usurped the place of the Marathi Brahmins in national politics. After the end of Peshwa, the Brahmins of Maharashtra were two-fold. It is not that Gandhi supported the anti-Brahmin movement. He in turn criticized them and said that there is no need to be anti-Brahmin for equality. Equality is an abstract value. If you fight against those above you who treat you unequally, it is also expected that you do not treat those below you unequally. So equality should be at the center, not Brahman. Thus Gandhiji did not support the anti-Brahmin movement in Maharashtra, but the envy of the Brahmins for Gandhiji was so strong that the anti-Brahmin society of Maharashtra came with Gandhiji and joined the Congress. Till now he called Congress as a party of the upper castes and for the upper castes. In short, after the death of Lokmanya Tilak, the talkative Brahmins of Maharashtra drifted away from the Congress and the Bahujan Samaj became pro-Gandhi and Congress. The war between Brahmin-non-Brahmin and between pro-Gandhi and anti-Gandhi vocal Brahmins became the subject of plays, powadas and other folk arts. Farces began to be written and performed mocking Gandhiji, however trivial the subject. As Gandhiji said that people wearing turbans cost a lot of cloth and above all the style of turbans is caste (different castes tie turbans in different styles) so people should wear caps instead of turbans. The eloquent Brahmins of Maharashtra opposed this and Paghdipurana was written and performed. Where is Gandhi's beggar hat and where is the grand turban! In Maharashtra, Brahmins who did not wear the Gandhi cap came to be known as anti-Gandhi. Those who adopted hats did not wear white hats again. Some wear a black hat, some round, but not a white long Gandhi hat. Seeing all this, Gandhi once said that Maharashtra is a Vitanda-loving province. You must have seen that even today Gandhitopi is mostly worn in Maharashtra. It is a custom to wear Gandhitopi on any auspicious occasion. Prime Minister Narendra Modi had to wear a Gandhi cap when he went to see Lord Ganapati at the house of Chief Justice Dhananjay Chandrachud and performed aarti. In short, Bahujan Samaj became Congress because the talkative Brahmins in Maharashtra went against Gandhiji and Congress. In 1948, Gandhiji was assassinated and the killers were Marathi Brahmins, so people in Maharashtra got angry and burnt the houses of Brahmins. This was not an isolated incident, such incidents happened all over Maharashtra. Congress has very deep roots in Bahujan society in Maharashtra. So Indira Gandhi and Congress were defeated in 1977, but Congress won in Maharashtra. On the other hand, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, though national, has the Brahmin face of Maharashtra. The anti-Brahmin legacy of Shahu-Phule-Ambedkar is strong. These are the reasons why the Bharatiya Janata Party is yet to rule Maharashtra single-handedly. In Tamil Nadu, the opposite happened in Maharashtra. Anti-Brahmin Dravidian sentiment is also strong in Tamil Nadu. Brahmins are believed to be Aryavartis. But in Tamil Nadu, the Brahmins were with the Congress, so the Dravidian Bahujan Samaj there became anti-Congress. Just as BJP is not succeeding in capturing power in Maharashtra, Congress is not succeeding in Tamil Nadu for five decades. Periyar Ramaswamy Naykar, the pioneer of the Dravidian movement, was personally a Gandhian devotee. He suggested that the official name of Bharat and India should be changed to 'Gandhidesh'. }