Came across information about Dhanwantri foudation that is trying to create Agraharams.  Now?  Not sure how many takers are there for an agraharam.  My guess, that is a style of life long gone and not even much nostalgia about, to my knowledge.  In fact, “brahmins” were the first to get out of “being brahmins” and move to become clerks and postmasters and judges and what not during the British rule. 

However,  from the linked entry, the last sentence seems to be a leap of unsupported logic.  “the Brahmins”?  All the whole?  I hardly think so.  I am a so called Brahmin and I was not even aware of this Dhanwantri thing until couple of days ago.

IMO, brahmins of today are not real brahmins in the first place.  I mean so called brahmins (by Government of India)  could not be brahmins in the real sense,  as atleast 95% really do not adhere to 6 tasks identified for brahmins – to recite and teach vedas, to perform yajnas for self and for others, and accept alms and to donate – correct me if got it wrong.  I do not count all the sastris/temple priests et al. you find in a good metropolis to be real brahmins.   They are service providers catering to a need of a segment of the society.  Just that and not a iota more.  It was not a profession to be brahmin, it was more a way of life supported by the rest of the society for the overall welfare of the society.  And being brahmin was not simply a birthright, it had to be earned, IIRC.

However, I also have this question for those that are aghast at the idea of a modern day agraharam – would a congregation of christian/buddhist priests (with or without families) sticking together in a community/monastery and preserving their way of life be considered equally unethical/morally wrong by you?  on a secular front, would a congregation of IITians/doctors (general practitioners, surgeons, orthopedics, pediatricians, gynecologists, etc) forming a exclusive residential colony in a nice locale be morally repulsive to you?