On January 22 2024, despotic chants full of pride and honour rang through the corridors of my university. An institution said to be built on the foundational grounds of social justice and human rights was swarmed by these voices glorifying brazen saffronisation akin to our very own version of fascism.
The universal belief that educational institutions are a gateway to emancipation, equality and social mobility looks farcical with some of the contemporary images around us. In reality, they are located in a system that is structurally oppressive so they reflect the same disparity. Progressive intellectuals argue that the education system’s role is to maintain this existing dominance and hegemony in societies. Mahatma Jyotiba Phule’s seminal work Gulamgiri (Slavery, 1873) is a sound criticism which provides a chronological and historical context of Brahmanical hegemony prevalent at powerful and dominant institutions in India. He talks about the systematic invasion and occupation of the Brahmins in the bureaucracy, judiciary and the education system. The early revolutionary attempts made by Mahatma Phule and Savitri Bai in the 19th century against the Brahmanical tyranny hold great relevance in addressing the growing hypocrisy of academia even today.
Academia as a political space is often overlooked and left uncontested in a Brahmanical society. It is a fallacious institution which primarily caters to the Brahmin-Savarna castes and continues to reproduce brahminical-dominated hegemony which has found legitimisation from within. Those who transgress or dissent against these forces are institutionally murdered, subjugated or cast aside. Prevailing mainstream ideologies validate the interests and privileges of the oppressors and are sustained with the support of ‘common sense’ which works to make oppressive social reality appear natural and unquestionable to the masses. The culminating brahmanisation of mainstream academia is the result of a centuries-long, both covert and overt, process that needs to be closely examined. It should come as no surprise that powerful leadership and authoritative positions, such as those in departmental faculty, administration, and key decision-making committees, are overwhelmingly occupied by dominant upper castes and oppressor castes. Control over the syllabus and curriculum are always in the hands of Brahmin-Savarna academicians, which they use to sustain and consolidate their Brahmanical propaganda.
Another evident manifestation of the Brahmanical regime lies in the politics of the knowledge production system. Knowledge and the English language are significant domains for oppressor castes to reinforce supremacy and gatekeep access to spaces where “others” can create knowledge. Phule, Savitri, B.R. Ambedkar, and E. Periyar, to name a few, are never incorporated as theorists or academicians in the mainstream discourse. Dalit-Bahujan and Adivasi knowledge systems have consistently been erased, appropriated and pushed to the periphery of mainstream academia. The oppressor castes manipulate reality for their own subjective ends. Any pedagogical counter-narrative or action which can disclose the graded inequality and abolish Brahmanical hegemony is methodically attacked and removed from the common sense of the academics.
Education as the practice of freedom is co-opted as a practice of domination. The upper castes constantly commit grave academic fallacies while hiding comfortably behind the high walls of universities. Misconduct is endorsed with the help of caste networks and solidarities formed with other oppressor castes. The common parlance of dominant castes is problematic, casteist and informed by a Brahmanical gaze which establishes supremacy at the centre of the academic discourse. Even classroom dynamics have two intended effects: they reinforce Brahminical ideals, particularly in the minds of Savarna students who learn to perpetuate the Brahmanical gaze, and simultaneously alienate students from Dalit, Bahujan, and Adivasi communities, making it clear that their knowledge is deemed unimportant in this system. Disseminating barbaric Hindu texts such as Vedas, Shastras and Manusmriti as references during lectures, under the guise of an ancient traditional knowledge system, uncovers this Brahmanical intent of indoctrinating students to adapt to the world of oppression.
The silent complicity maintained by upper caste-Savarna scholars enables these perpetrators to blatantly exercise casteism and patriarchy both in the personal and private realms. Brazilian philosopher Paulo Freire’s critique of the banking concept of education is pertinent in further understanding the deconstruction of academia. There is no room to critique, challenge or participate in critical thinking within classrooms. The pedagogy of dissent is explicitly prohibited. Successful and celebrated academicians are those who do not associate themselves with any radical ideological commitment, have slaughtered caste consciousness, and are confined to the current dictatorial regime. On the contrary, those who wish to engage with the truth are deliberately alienated by the brahminical academic forces. The curbing of resistance and the openly autocratic mechanisms within institutions must be taken into serious consideration and addressed immediately. It is imperative that we protest against such oppressive forces and hold them accountable as this is a constant process required to annihilate Brahmanical hegemony.
Brahmanical hegemony is deeply ingrained in the primary institutions of family and education. The reason Brahmanical Hindu forces have been able to reach extreme forms in these institutions is that their foundations have always been and continue to be Brahmanical. This is evident in the persistent romanticisation of the “gurukul” education system and the “guru-shishya” relationship, which are frequently highlighted by politicians and academics as symbols of a simpler, more equitable past. However, the current system is not a collapse of a once just framework but rather the culmination of a structure that was always oppressive and continues to perpetuate caste supremacy.
We must reflect on these realities and constantly engage with questions like: how do we negotiate and challenge education as a system which is overshadowed by Brahmanical-patriarchy? Who has the privilege to produce knowledge and speak their minds? Whose knowledge is preserved, reproduced, celebrated and transmitted in mainstream academia? What kind of indoctrination occurs in classrooms under the garb of knowledge distribution? We must continuously engage with thinkers like Ambedkar, Phule, Savitribai and Periyar, among others, by revisiting the real history of counter-hegemonic and anti-caste theoretical frameworks to challenge the hegemony of occupiers with collective solidarity.
Apeksha Yadav is a PhD scholar focusing on the themes of caste, gender and social work pedagogy at the Department of Social Work, Delhi University.
