I am here to discuss a very prevalent phenomenon that is oppressive and unjust but practiced under broad daylight: Landlordism

Before you dismiss me on accusations of being a communist, the “Father of Capitalism” — Adam Smith, also agrees with me. Many people might already have prior knowledge about his views on landlord-ship; therefore I am not going to repeat his statements. I want to provide a deontological analysis of the morality of landlords. As my username suggests ‘Golden Rule rules’, I will try to adhere to the principle of ‘Do not treat others the way you would not like to be treated by others’. In response, one can say, “Hey you cannot determine how anybody feels so you won’t be able to dictate anything according to this rule”. I don’t disagree with this statement but when society is divided into classes, this rule unravels the general mentality of the public. Many people aspire to make the move to the upper-classes and already existing upper-classes do not like to be classified as lower-class/working class. A majority of people prefer to be economically self-sufficient and financially sound. And hence when upper-class people force other people to remain in a lower class than themselves they automatically break the Golden Rule.

So we have set a parameter for when a person may break the rule. Let’s look at the practice of landlord-ship. A landlord buys land and rents it to tenants. He doesn’t do anything to earn rent other than being the owner of the property. He may perform some work for improving the land but in general, this is not the reason he charges money from the tenants. There is a definite amount of profit he gets when he rents his property to others. In other words, he/she (upper class enough to own more than enough land/property) is charging money from a tenant (lower class enough to not own any land/property) for just being the owner of land/property. If he/she were following the Golden Rule, then for every bit of money they charged, a certain percentage of property should have been relinquished to the tenant they charged from but this does not take place in any instance. He/She is essentially forcing a lower-class person to remain in the lower class. So according to the axiom given above a landlord is essentially breaking the Golden Rule and benefits from ill-begotten wealth.

Now, what does this have to do with Brahmins? Well for the most parts of history Brahmins practiced landlord-ship extensively in the Deccan (Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana). In 1921, amongst the male worker population, 17% of Brahmins in Mysore state practiced landlord-ship, 7.4% in Hyderabad state, 34% of Telugu Brahmins and 13% of Kannada Brahmins in Madras Presidency, 17% of Konkanastha Brahmins and 18.7% of Deshastha Brahmins in Bombay Presidency. So parts of the Brahmin community have benefited the most from landlord-ship.

In the post-independence period with the rise of urban landlords, all landlords may not be Brahmins but most of them are Savarna (modern-day context: refers to upper castes/forward castes). This results in rampant discrimination against Dalit tenants. So delusions of Brahmins being disadvantaged in post-Independence Indian society should be rejected and dismantled.

Written by u/Golden_Rule_rules for Librandu and adapted for Medium by u/left-lib-chomu.

From the libcucks, femoids, salad-eaters and Macaulay's children of India.