One of the biggest attacks against Hindus and Hindutva politics in India is about how it is Brahministic in nature and detrimental to the well being of the average Hindu, overwhelming majority of whom are non-Brahmin.
This is consciously cultivated in the minds of the average Hindu voter that pro-Hindu policies are inherently Brahminic and that only Brahmins will get benefit from it. Not only it is far from reality, it is pathetically anti-lower caste and casteist in its outlook, by associating pro-Hindu politics with upper castes as if lower caste Hindus are not Hindus.
The article argues that many prominent Marxist and Islamist apologists come from Brahmin or other upper-caste backgrounds, citing political and intellectual figures from Kerala, West Bengal and the national Left.
It contrasts these figures with Ambedkar, arguing that despite his fierce criticism of Hindu society he remained committed to India and chose Buddhism rather than Islam or Christianity.
The article also argues that socialism and caste rigidity share structural similarities because both can limit occupational mobility and keep existing elites in control.
Neither Marxism nor Islam is about caste reform but rather about further solidifying caste rigidity and consolidating power.
The conclusion is that accusations of Brahminism against pro-Hindu politics should be turned back on the Marxist establishment, whose own leadership and institutions remain dominated by upper-caste elites.