How much correct it is to call Hinduism as Brahmanism?I have done Masters in History and opted for many subjects which question the sanctity of many religions and also opted for one of the subjects about Dalit History. During most of the classroom debates, and among my friends, I heard the term called Brahmanism rather than Hinduism to refer to the Hindu religion. Initially, I felt it is wrong to say that but when I read on the subject a bit deeper, I realised it is to some extent correct to call it Brahmanism from the point of the Dalits, because most of the rituals after all were the creation of Brahmans, as also the most of the temple practices and rituals.
If we read works like "Jhootan" by Omprakash Valmiki, Gulamgiri by Jyotiba Phule, Annihilation of caste by Dr. B.R Ambedkar, and words like untouchable you realise, that yes, it was basically Brahmanism.
Whenever we talk about it, though, we have a discussion about the glory and a good part of Hinduism but what about this negative aspect and this form of negativity? Why do we tend to ignore those?
To what extent do you think it is correct to call it Brahmanism? Should we consider it from the perspective of Dalits, who have been always oppressed and use it under the garb of Hinduism?