While I regularly read Shruti Rajgopalan's articles, I must express my disappointment with this particular piece. Several ideas presented as facts lack critical scrutiny. It is imperative to scrutinise such propaganda to preserve historical accuracy. Without challenges, uncontested propaganda can become mainstream, potentially shaping narratives without proper examination.

In her article, Shruti makes a broad statement regarding Kamala Harris's maternal lineage- “Harris’s mother, Shyamala Gopalan, was born to PV Gopalan and Rajam and raised in a Tamilian Brahmin family in India. This background likely afforded the Gopalans status akin to white privilege in Indian society. And because of the Brahmanical advantage, families like Shyamala’s, Vivek’s, and Usha’s often boast multiple generations of college graduates in a country still striving for universal literacy and numeracy. Shyamala and all her siblings were encouraged to pursue advanced graduate degrees typical of Tamil Brahmin families”. 

Being a Tamil Brahmin in India is not equivalent to being white in the USA. The phrase “white privilege” is derogatory in my opinion and any serious writer should avoid such pejoratives and should rather focus on more substantive claims to make their point.

When the left and far left in the USA use pejoratives like “white privilege” they are implying that the success of that individual is not a result of the individual’s own merit but rather the individual benefits from racial biases in the institutions and society.

A typical white teenager might find it easier to get his first job at a business owned by a white person, later get admission into a college where the faculty members might be white and get better services from white police, judges and white politicians. The essential condition for white privilege is that you live in a society that is white majority where positions of political and economic power are held by white people. Over the years the institutions, systems and processes evolve better for this majority and powerful population.

Shruti’s claim that being a Tamil Brahmin in India is equivalent to “white privilege” does not pass the giggle test. Tamil Brahmin in India is a minuscule minority. They are only 3% of the population in Tamil Nadu and in the rest of India, they are negligible. The correct and honest description of Tamil Brahmins would be to claim that they are a “minority” in their homeland, a super minority perhaps. This does not change much if you further reduce them to a simple identity of “Brahmins” which are around 5% of India’s population.

But there is another reason why Shruti’s claims are dishonest. Tamil Brahmins in Tamil Nadu experience anything but privilege. They are heavily targeted by other communities on the streets and by an extremely hostile state with highly coordinated campaigns inspired by Nazi-era Germany. Nazi and Fascism are terms that are overused in modern discourse to describe political opponents but here I use them literally. Because, the political groups in Tamil Nadu actually use propaganda material from Nazi Germany to target Tamil Brahmins.

As you can see, a person involved with the Tamil Nadu government is very proudly demonstrating his hatred for Brahmins by touting the fact that Tamil Nadu does not have a single Brahmin elected representative. As one can see this is the exact opposite of privilege. 

I can provide more detailed examples of how Tamil Brahmins are specifically targeted and the Brahmin community is in general harassed by the Indian Government, various state governments and groups with street power but the point of the article is not that. The point is that the factors that make being white a “white privilege” do not really apply to Brahmins in India and most certainly not Tamil Brahmins.

Making a claim that being a Brahmin in India accords a person with some kind of privilege and that it is comparable to white privilege is a nonsensical claim.

A more honest statement would be that Brahmins in India have been historically targeted by various groups such as Islamic invaders and British occupiers. Now, the Indian government has legalised discrimination against them and other political forces hound them on the streets. Perhaps this is what is fuelling resentment and driving them out of the country in search of better societies to live in where their identity won't be used to target them.

Brahmins from India in that sense are more like the Jews of Europe who were fleeing pre-World War 2 Germany before the start of actual genocide.

Bayesian privilege

Individuals who promote the concept of privilege often lack STEM backgrounds and, therefore, may struggle with logic and mathematics. Assessing privilege based on a single characteristic is inaccurate. For example, a white individual born in Russia does not possess the same opportunities as a black individual born in the United States. Additionally, a white individual born with a visual impairment is significantly disadvantaged compared to an able-bodied Hispanic individual born in San Jose. However, the privilege narrative disregards the complex interplay of factors in an individual's life, focusing solely on aspects that align with their agenda.

Being born in India is a super disadvantage. India is one of the poorest nations, with poor education systems, and a struggling healthcare system, and fares poorly in most HDI parameters. India’s governance is universally seen as corrupt and incompetent. Any relative differences among people in India are rounding off errors when compared to a developed world society. For example, a degree in India would be worth a lot less than a degree in the USA.

This is something a Western person might not be able to grasp as they have not experienced India. Let us examine Shruti’s claim- “And because of the Brahmanical advantage, families like Shyamala’s, Vivek’s, and Usha’s often boast multiple generations of college graduates in a country still striving for universal literacy and numeracy”.

There is no “Brahminical advantage” with respect to education in India. On the contrary Indian constitution and laws require schools and colleges to discriminate “against” Brahmins in India. For example, for a given number of seats in both public and private educational institutions a Brahmin can only compete for say 50% of seats as the rest are reserved for non-Brahmins.

There was a “white advantage” in education for white people in many countries and colonies of the British Empire. Many colonies and regions had “white only” schools set up by white people with the full support of their government. It meant as long as you were born white, you had an opportunity but for non-white people, the door was permanently closed. In such circumstances, the white population in those regions was likely to have extremely high literacy rates. This is indeed an advantage.

India never had any such system for Brahmins. Being a Brahmin did not improve your chances of having access to a school or college as India had very few schools and colleges historically.

Most Brahmins were already super disadvantaged by the misfortune of being born in India and had very low literacy and graduation rates just like everyone else. India never had any kind of “Brahmin only” schools or university systems ¹ as Brahmins were just as poor as anyone else.

Being born in India is such a dominating disadvantage that no other concept of privilege could have any measurable effect. A hare that runs faster than a rabbit has no privilege when running away from a pack of wolves.

Shruti has not provided any evidence whatsoever that Shyamala, Vivek or Usha came from multiple generations of college graduates either. The whole of India had very low college graduation rates during their parents and grandparents' times- Shyamala and all her siblings were encouraged to pursue advanced graduate degrees typical of Tamil Brahmin families. 

This is also a sweeping generalisation that is just made without any evidence. Women during Shyamala’s time were not really encouraged to study much in any caste. If Shyamala was a graduate, it is probably because her family was fairly progressive. Chances that Shyamala was more of a rebel of her times and is likely given her involvement in the civil rights movement in the USA later and marriage to a person from a completely different culture, religion and race.

Again, Shruti’s irresponsible claims might present a completely false picture of Brahmins in India as if they were some aristocratic class reminiscent of a brown Downton Abbey. 

But even if we admit that Indian immigrants in the USA for whatever reason had some privilege in India, it does not explain their success at Harvard or Yale at all. Privilege is not like airline miles that you can move from one airline to another. Your privilege in Tamil Nadu means very little in the USA where most people are white and might be racist towards non-whites.

Usha’s last name is typically associated with the Telugu Kamma caste. But she and her family are vegetarians and, as one friend said, “sound” like Telugu Brahmins. Various message boards and Twitter litigated her family’s origin story. While caste doesn’t matter in American politics, Indians and Indian Americans (often inadvertently) view Usha’s life and career through this lens.

This borders on pure nonsense. Shruti claims that despite all her attempts she could not confirm Usha’s caste. She also claims that it does not matter in American politics. She has absolutely no leads on what might be Usha’s caste which can be anything. Apparently, someone can detect “Telugu Brahmin” in her pure San Diego American accent.

If an ideologically motivated person can’t confirm Usha’s caste, how can “Indian Americans” view her life through this lens of caste? If an ideologically motivated person who writes about such things for her living can’t really find out what her caste is, how can a professor at Yale figure it out?

Conclusion

Social science is not really science but is a parking lot for unemployable elites in the USA. There are too many people with too much free time but a lack of competence to look at the issues. A serious researcher would ask why is it that a Tamil Brahmin Vivek Ramaswamy had a fair shot at becoming US President but India’s Tamil Brahmin foreign minister or finance minister can’t win a democratic election?

Why do people with alleged “Brahmin Privilege” flock to a foreign country that does not care about their caste rather than simply staying back in the country where they have such privilege? Why not simply take over India’s IITs for yourself if you are privileged? Which Indian universities offer a “legacy quota” for such privileged people?

When one looks at the history of immigration into the USA it has always been the poor, persecuted and downtrodden who have flocked to this country. People who move to another country are often those who see no hope in their own homeland or are being actively persecuted by their own governments. A casual interview with any Indian student in the USA would give you enough insights into how lack of quality education and discrimination through affirmative action has forced the “general castes” to leave their ancestral homelands and flock to other regions and nations.

But articulating this and explaining it to Western audience is a hard task. The people who can do it competently are often gainfully employed in actual productive occupations. The charlatans on the other hand had figured out how to monetise their own hatred often by being part of academia. They have a natural advantage over other people in peddling false narratives.

Developed societies and especially the USA are different.

I hope better sense prevails and others do not repeat mistakes that Shruti made in her piece.

 

Footnotes

1. There is an often repeated claim (without evidence) that Brahmins had set up educational institutions that denied others opportunities. The documented evidence is opposite of this. For example, Madras Presidency 1822 survey showed Sudras and castes below formed 70 percent to 80 percent of the total students in the Tamil-speaking areas.

 

Image source: Telegraph India