Thursday, 24 July 2014

Preaching Marxism: Practicing Petty Bourgeois Sociology: A Response toSuresh Srivastava

Recasting Caste – Utopian and Scientific  by Mr. Suresh Srivastava raises some issues relating tomyRecasting Caste: From the Sacred to the Profane (Sage 2014)that need be addressed. The text in italics refers to Mr. Srivastava’s comments, followed by my response.

Mr. Srivastava writes:

I normally do not involve myself in any discussion on the proposition of convergence of class and caste, and am apprehensive whether any fruitful result can be achieved by identifying caste as class, because the discussants are normally petty bourgeois pseudo left intellectuals, who are not trained to think dialectically, hence there are arguments only and no discussions.

Had Marx decided not to intervene in the German philosophy, because it was discussed by idealists, English classical political economy, because it was discussed by bourgeois economists, and French socialism, because it was discussed by utopian socialists, we would have lost the three component parts of Marxism [cf. Lenin 1975]. The decision to intervene in the discussion on a particular subject, here caste and class should be determined by one’s understanding of the importance of the subject concerned. If caste is an important subject for Indian society and history and for the people of India, it is not a matter of discretion but an obligation for a Marxist to intervene, particularly if it is being discussed mainly or exclusively by petty bourgeois, pseudo left intellectuals. Mr. Srivastava’s reluctance to join the discussion on caste and class in India thus far was abdication of intellectual and moral responsibility.

            It is after readingthe article written by Mr Asit Das, titled THE REAL WORLD OF CASTE IN INDIA, as a prefatory toHira Singh’s RECASTING CASTE and circulated on a group of socially conscious young intellectuals, Icould not restrain myself from intervening... because of theneed of the time… to provide socially conscious young intellectuals every opportunity to help them develop a dialectical reasoning and scientific outlook so that some of them could play the historical role of torch bearer for emancipation of the human society.
The above is the context of  Recasting Caste – Utopian and Scientific
Nothing could be more effective than to juxtapose dialectical and metaphysical interpretations about any phenomena exposing inherent contradiction in the metaphysical analysis.

Had Mr. Srivastava bothered to read my book, he would have found out that that is exactly what I have done, i.e. juxtaposing mainstream sociological analysiswith my analysis of caste.I do not label all mainstream sociology of caste as ‘metaphysical’. As the Sandinistas were reported of saying that labeling may be good for selling drugs, but not for serious debate on issues of political economy. In my book, I have argued for a Marxist approach against mainstream sociology of caste. Admittedly, I am not trained in dialectical thinking by an able master like Mr. Srivastava, possibly my approach is not dialectical to pass his scrutiny. However, he has to read what I have written before passing judgment.

Ever since Marx and Engels enunciated the theory of dialectical and historical materialism, and on the basis of that theory suggested a revolutionary praxis for the working class, in the form of ‘Manifesto of the Communist Party’, multipronged attack by bourgeois intellectuals was unleashed against the theory. When bourgeois intellectuals failed in their frontal attack to contain the spread of Marxist ideas among the working masses all over the world, they chose to sabotage the theory from within, by obfuscating the core content of the Marxist theory, importing numerous metaphysical concepts, in the name of developing Marxism in line with ever developing society.

I do not have a desire to join Mr. Srivastava in insinuating and name-calling. Instead I move on to show that on issues of caste and class, he ends up doing exactly what he is falsely accusing others(here me and Mr. Das) of doing, that is, as a middle class self-identified left intellectual, he chooses to interpret caste and class, with no logical substance or empirical-historical evidence, byciting quotations from Marx-Engels-Lenin taken out of context, configuring an analysis ina metaphysical manner to claim [his] interpretation to be dialectical

In the preface to his famous pamphlet ‘Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism’, Lenin categorically warned against this revisionist trend. He writes ‘In view of the extreme complexity of the phenomena of social life it is always possible to select any number of examples or separate data to prove any proposition’

I wish Mr.Srivastava had heeded Lenin’s warning, rather than merely quoting it. Had he taken Lenin’s warning seriously,he could have applied Marxism-Leninism to the complexity of class and caste to showthe right way. He does not.To the contrary, as I discuss below, he does just the opposite. His presentation of caste and class is simplistic, misleading, metaphysical, and mystifying: it is anything but Marxist.

Those leftists who propagate the idea that Marxist understanding of caste and Ambedkarite understanding of caste are convergent or that the caste shall be annihilated with class, have not been able to get themselves rid of their petty-bourgeois consciousness.

Rather than engaging in insinuation,had Mr. Srivastavataken the trouble to read the book he would have discovered that I draw a sharp distinction between Ambedkar’s or Ambedkarite (and Gandhi’s or Gandhian) understanding of caste on the one hand, and Marxist understanding of caste on the other. A key component of my book is to contradict the commonplace view, supported by Ambedkar and Gandhi notwithstanding their differences on the caste question, that Hinduism is the foundation of the caste and caste system and that caste is essential to the survival of Hinduism. To the contrary, I argue that Hinduism did not, does not, and cannot create and reproduce caste. Conversely, Hinduism without caste is not utopia. I support this argument with enormous variety of ethnographic and archival evidence collected over a period of time from three continents involving India, South Africa, and the Caribbean.I may add that Mr. Srivastava does not present a shred of evidence in support of his views. He quotes Marx, but does not understand that Marxism is rooted in empirical-historical reality.

I am entirely in agreement with Mr. Asit Das that the idea of annihilating caste, without annihilation of class, that is, unequal access to economic-political-cultural power, is phantasy. I wonder how taking this position amounts to not appreciating the economic roots of caste and class and its political significance, as alleged by Mr. Srivastava. Annihilation of caste is not a matter of annihilating petty bourgeois consciousness[as implied by him],without annihilating the basis  of caste and class, that is, unequal access to economic-political-cultural resources. Paraphrasing Marx and Engels in The German Ideology, annihilation of caste is not a mental, but a materialphenomenon. In my book, there is no ambiguity on this question.

What is Srivastava’s Marxist understanding of caste, the subject of my book? He writes:

If one has understood philosophical aspect of Marxism - which most of the leftists either do not understand or consider unimportant – one will be clear, that caste system is an ideological manifestation of, division of labour in the process of material production and relations of production, and hence question of caste cannot be solved in a predominantly feudal society but will fizzle out as division of labour fizzles out with the growth of capitalist mode of production.

To begin with, Mr. Srivastava does not know the difference between division of labor and its ideological manifestation. Caste is not ideological manifestation of division of labor. Caste is division of labor based on social relations of production –most importantly, monopoly of the means of production, political power, and ideological apparatus by dominant caste [and class] and dependence of subordinate [read laboring] castes [and classes] on the former for their very subsistence. Ideological manifestation of the caste division of labor consists of religious and secular ideas used to legitimize, rationalize, and mystify the unequalproduction and power relations, the foundation of the caste division of labor. Secondly, inequalities and exploitation of caste division of labor will notfizzle out with the development of capitalism. Inequality and exploitation rooted in social relations of production will continue in capitalism, albeit in a changed form. That is precisely what the authors ofTheCommunist Manifestosay. Mr. Srivastava cites the Manifesto for polemics, but does not understand what it says about inequality and exploitation in division of labor in capitalism, the core of the Manifesto.One may be reminded that capitalism created race [yes, race is a modern, capitalist phenomenon] to mask the maximization of exploitation of labor. Like caste, race is rooted in social relations of production – relations which are unequal and exploitative. So the idea that caste division of labor, that is, inequality and exploitation rooted in social relations of production, will fizzle out in capitalism is not Marxist, but petty bourgeois phantasy.

Mr. Srivastava continues: Thus caste system developed on the material foundation of division of labour, but took the form of religion and social stratification with un-touchability. Caste system, like religion is an integral part of feudalism and continues even during the development of capitalism.

Mr. Srivastava is not aware of contradiction in his own position. First, he says that caste division of labor is feudal and will ‘fizzle out’ with the development of capitalism. Then, he turns it around to say that as an integral part of feudalism, like religion, caste division of labor continues even during the development of capitalism. It is not only self-contradictory. It is an example of obfuscation and metaphysical thinking par excellence. From hunters-gatherers (earliest forms of social life) through slavery and feudalism to capitalism, division of labor has existed in all social-economic formations, albeit in different forms. The question is why division of labor changes from one social formation to another? Not even to raise this question, let alone answer it is an exercise in metaphysics and mystification.

What distinguishes the division of labor in the caste system is one of the central questions raised by Hegel, Marx, Weber,and Dumont, among many others. It is in answer to this question that there is a basic difference between Marxon the one hand, and Hegel, Weber, Dumont and the rest, on the other. For Hegel, Weber, and Dumont, the division of labor in caste is religious; for Marx and Marxists, it is economic-political. Irfan Habib [2003] has dealt with this question and I do not want to pursue it here. Notwithstanding his claim to dialectical reasoning and scientific thinking, Srivastava’s view of caste division of labor, ‘taking the form of religion and stratification’ [whatsoever that’s supposed to mean] is in line with Hegel, Weber, Dumont, and whole host of anti-Marxist and non-Marxist sociologists, social anthropologists, and historians.

As far continuity of caste division of labor from feudalism to capitalism, with no mention of what changes and what continues in transitionfrom one to the other, Srivastava has more in common with Louis Dumont and host of mainstream sociologists and social anthropologists who talk ad infinitum about the plasticity of caste and its continuity from the RgVedic days to the present. This is mythology of caste. As R. S. Sharma [2009] wrote, scholars who talk of continuity of caste from past to present, without specifying the continuity and change, pose a real danger to history.

Mr. Srivastava continues:

Marx had identified that division of labour was based on the development of individual skills and on an individual providing specific kind of skilled labour power in the production of one particular kind of product. But production of one particular kind of goods was not confined to an individual or a family, in some areas like India, a whole community was producing one kind of product which is the basis of development of caste system in India. Even today a cast is identified by the kind of work the community has been doing.

Was slavery in antiquity a division of labor? Was it based on an individual providing specific kind of skilled labor? Was serfdom in Medieval Europe a division of labor? Was it based on an individual providing specific kind of skilled labour power in the production of one particular kind of product? Very much like caste, slavery and serfdomwere not confined to an individual or a family. They involved a whole community producing one kind of product, albeit outside some areas like India? Were not indentured Indians in the Caribbean, South Africa, and Fiji engaged in producing one kind of product – sugar? Why then, rather than retaining caste, it resulted in the demise of caste [a problem I discuss in my book]. That is real history of real division of labor. Mr. Srivastava is a philosopher of dialectics. He does not understand real division of labor [caste or class] in real history.

Mr. Srivastava writes that Marx did not deal with the subject of caste because he had realized that the cause of human woes is the private appropriation of surplus value produced by collective labour and he focused on finding how exploitation of man by man can be annihilated.

In the first place, it is not true that Marx did not deal with the subject of caste [for more on this see Irfan Habib above]. Secondly, does caste involve the private appropriation of collective labor of the laboring castes by the dominant caste? If so, does caste stand out of Marx’s and Marxists’ concern with the cause of human woes? Obviously not. The issue, however, is not so much whether Marx dealt with the subject of caste or not. Rather, it is the relevance of Marxism in dealing with the subject of caste – question that is central to my book. Common refrain of mainstream sociology of caste is that Marxism is not relevant to deal with the subject of caste and caste system in India. I disagree. In my book, I argue that driven by its ideological opposition to Marxism, mainstream sociology has ended up mystifying caste. Marxism is the alternative to demystify it.

Finally, Mr. Srivastava writes:

At social level there could be various oppressed groups e.g. ethnic groups, religious minorities, women and children, refugees etc., and at social level different groups may have to fight different battles, but at economic level there are only two classes, oppressed or oppressor, and at political level there has to be a united fight by all the oppressed people… and hence communists may be part of all social movements but shall not be in the forefront of social movements. Their task is to bring in political awareness among the masses through their participation in these social movements.

Mr. Srivastava separates ‘economic’ from ‘social’. Class, for him, is economic. Ethnic groups, refugees, women and children [irrespective of class, race, ethnicity, and nationality!] are social. Correspondingly, he divides the struggle and resistance, that is, economic struggle for class and social movement for ethnic groups, women and children, and refugees. This is a seriously flawed notion of class, class struggle, ethnicity, gender, and social movements. The idea that class is economic [without political, cultural, and ideological] is that of mainstream sociology – ideologically opposed to Marxism. To the contrary, class is a social relation – social relation of production – which is simultaneously economic, political and cultural/ideological. Class and class struggle as purely economic is similarly the idea of mainstream sociology. Max Weber [1958] in his classic distinction between ‘class’, ‘status’, ‘party’, identifies caste as ‘status’ in opposition to class [a problem I discuss at length in my book] and separates class struggle as limited to economic issues from social movements as more inclusive transcending narrow economic interests. In short, separating social from economic and political is bourgeois – liberal and conservative - sociology. So is classification of class struggle as economic. The French and English Revolutions were class struggles: they were economic, political, and ideological resulting in economic, political, and ideological transformation of entire society. Ethnic struggles in Eastern Europe, ethnic genocide in Rwanda, uprisings in the Middle East, many of which are wrapped in the garb of ethnicity and religious fundamentalism, have hard-core economic-political issues at their very centre. Peasant movements in princely states of India from the 1910s-1940s (I deal with in my book) were economic, political, social, and cultural. Peasants were fighting for land, political representation, higher social status, and cultural appropriation. These were social movements against material and symbolic boundaries of caste and class. As I mention above, to separate social and cultural from economic-political is a characteristic of petty bourgeois sociology. In quoting phrases from Marx –Engels-Lenin, Mr. Srivastava is a pure Marxist. In understanding concrete social issues – class, class struggle, caste, ethnicity, gender, social movements - he ispetty bourgeois sociologist, with a caveat: he has no training in sociology.

To end, I am thankful to both Mr Asit Das and Mr. Suresh Srivastava for commenting on my book. My own position though is closer to that of Mr. Das.


Habib, Irfan. Essays in Indian History: Towards a Marxist Perception. London: Anthem Press, 2003.

Lenin, V.I. ‘The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism’, In K. Lenin, V.I. ‘The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism’, In  Dialectical and Historical Materialism, K Marx, F. Engels, V.I. Lenin, Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975.

Sharma, R.S.  Rethinking India’s Past. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Weber, Max. ‘Class, Status, Party’. In From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, edited by Gerth, H. and C. Wright Mills. New York: Oxford University Press, 1958.

Hira Singh
July 21, 2014

Dear friend,

I am sending you my reaction on Mr Asit Das' article 'The Real World of Caste in India'.

Please visit my blogs :

Your considered response is welcome.

Suresh Srivastava


Recasting Caste – Utopian and Scientific
(Suresh Srivastava)

I normally do not involve myself in any discussion on the proposition of convergence of class and caste, and am apprehensive whether any fruitful result can be achieved by identifying caste as class, because the discussants are normally petty bourgeois pseudo left intellectuals, who are not trained to think dialectically, hence there are arguments only and no discussions. But after reading the article written by Mr Asit Das, titled THE REAL WORLD OF CASTE IN INDIA, as a prefatory to Mr Hira Singh’s RECASTING CASTE, and circulated on a group of socially conscious young intellectuals, I could not restrain myself from intervening. Need of the time is to provide socially conscious young intellectuals every opportunity to help them develop a dialectical reasoning and scientific outlook so that some of them could play the historical role of torch bearer for emancipation of the human society. And nothing could be more effective than to juxtapose dialectical and metaphysical interpretations about any phenomena exposing inherent contradiction in the metaphysical analysis.

Ever since Marx and Engels enunciated the theory of dialectical and historical materialism, and on the basis of that theory suggested a revolutionary praxis for the working class, in the form of ‘Manifesto of the Communist Party’, multipronged attack by bourgeois intellectuals was unleashed against the theory. When bourgeois intellectuals failed in their frontal attack to contain the spread of Marxist ideas among the working masses all over the world, they chose to sabotage the theory from within, by obfuscating the core content of the Marxist theory, importing numerous metaphysical concepts, in the name of developing Marxism in line with ever developing society.

In last 175 years, plethoric documentation has been churned out by middle class left intellectuals, in the name of development of Marxism with reference to the modern and post modern stages of development. About any social phenomenon, first they choose an interpretation at will, and then to justify the veracity of their conclusions, conveniently gather some data and some quotations from Marx, and configure an analysis in a metaphysical manner to claim their interpretation to be dialectical. In the preface to his famous pamphlet ‘Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism’, Lenin categorically warned against this revisionist trend. He writes ‘In view of the extreme complexity of the phenomena of social life it is always possible to select any number of examples or separate data to prove any proposition.’

With their petty bourgeois consciousness, self-proclaimed Marxists fail to distinguish between dialectical approach and metaphysical approach, and feed the young minds with their utopian concepts in the name of scientific concept of socialism. In his preface to ‘Anti-Duhring’, Engels writes ‘And finally, to me there could be no question of building the laws of dialectics into nature, but of discovering them in it and evolving them from it’. Pseudo-Marxists, unable to comprehend the philosophical aspect of Marxian dialectics, fail to understand that the whole world of political, social and religious ideas of any class is a superstructure built on the infrastructure of material production relations between various classes, and which may appear to be completely unrelated with its foundation.  
Those leftists who propagate the idea that Marxist understanding of caste and Ambedkarite understanding of caste are convergent or that the caste shall be annihilated with class, have not been able to get themselves rid of their petty-bourgeois consciousness. Again in the above pamphlet, Lenin writes ‘For they are the real agents of the bourgeoisie in the working class movement, the labour lieutenants of the capitalist class, real vehicles of reformism and chauvinism. …….. Unless the economic roots of this phenomenon are understood and its political and social significance is appreciated, not a step can be taken toward the solution of the practical problem of the communist movement and of the impending social revolution.’

If one has understood philosophical aspect of Marxism - which most of the leftists either do not understand or consider unimportant – one will be clear, that caste system is an ideological manifestation of, division of labour in the process of material production and relations of production, and hence question of caste cannot be solved in a predominantly feudal society but will fizzle out as division of labour fizzles out with the growth of capitalist mode of production.

Marx had identified that division of labour was based on the development of individual skills and on an individual providing specific kind of skilled labour power in the production of one particular kind of product. But production of one particular kind of goods was not confined to an individual or a family, in some areas like India, a whole community was producing one kind of product which is the basis of development of caste system in India. Even today a cast is identified by the kind of work the community has been doing.

Marx had further identified that ‘Upon the different forms of property, upon the social conditions of existence, rises an entire superstructure of distinct and peculiarly formed sentiments, illusions, modes of thought, and views of life. The entire class creates and forms them out of its material foundations and out of the corresponding social relations.’ (Marx, XVIII Brumaire). Thus caste system developed on the material foundation of division of labour, but took the form of religion and social stratification with un-touchability. Caste system, like religion is an integral part of feudalism and continues even during the development of capitalism.

Marx did not deal with the subject of caste because he had realised that the cause of human woes is the private appropriation of surplus value produced by collective labour and he focused on finding how exploitation of man by man can be annihilated. Different classes and identities will be having their own specific problems at different stages of historical development, which will have to be dealt specifically by people of that particular era, but emancipation of human race as a whole will occur only when surplus produced collectively, is appropriated collectively.

Metaphysical view of Indian left is to assume that, in India, caste is synonymous to class because both have a common foundation in division of labour and hence class struggle and caste struggle are coterminous, and since annihilation of class is possible only with annihilation of capitalism, hence annihilation of cast is also possible with annihilation of capitalism only.

Dialectical view is that division of labour leads to production of commodities and division of society into classes. Within the domain of production workmen were divided between classes on the basis of skill, but, while in class structure individual workman is identified by the skill he acquires and becomes member of a class, in caste structure an individual is part of a caste, which is identified by the particular trade it follows, and the individual acquires the same skill. Because in caste structure division of labour was linked to birth, over a time, concept of caste became part of ideological consciousness of the particular class and integrated with religion.

In a feudal socio-economic formation castes and classes are synonymous because working masses are divided into various classes on the basis of skill. But with development of capitalist mode of production, machines take over the skill of the craftsmen and all workmen become simple wage labourer, and workmen hitherto divided into various classes converge into one class, proletariat and so will converge all castes into one oppressed class.

At social level there could be various oppressed groups e.g. ethnic groups, religious minorities, women and children, refugees etc., and at social level different groups may have to fight different battles, but at economic level there are only two classes, oppressed or oppressor, and at political level there has to be a united fight by all the oppressed people. Any identity politics will weaken the proletarian class struggle, and hence communists may be part of all social movements but shall not be in the forefront of social movements. Their task is to bring in political awareness among the masses through their participation in these social movements.

With due apologies to Mr Asit Das and Mr Hira Singh, I have to take up this ungrateful task of identifying the content in Mr Asit Das’ article which obfuscates Marxism, and appeal to the young intellectuals not to identify ideas with individuals, and rather dwell upon the idea forgetting the author, to guard against subjective understanding of the subject matter. I shall reproduce some of the phrases from the article which, in my opinion are contrary to Marxist thought, and leave it to the young readers’ reasoning.   

·                     The annihilation of caste is intrinsically related with the abolition of class rule in India.
·                     Identification of India with caste and reduction of caste to its religious essence is a product of the colonial process of essentialization.
·                     Hence, caste is very much an important component of Indian politics, and it is a reality which no sensible Marxist can afford to overlook.
·                     Communists should be in the forefront in the fight against caste, gender, racial, national and ethnic oppressions. One need not miss the wood for the tree. In the light of above arguments, Hira Singh’s book “Recasting Caste” is a serious Marxist intervention in the contemporary caste debates. 
·                     In India, in the era of Mandal and Kamandal politics, caste has assumed an overwhelming importance both in politics and in the Academia.(The result of XVI Lok Sabha elections shows that caste has not assumed an overwhelming importance in politics, rather it is waning. In Academia, yes of course, because it suits the existing system.) 
·                     Delineate a strategy for a classless and casteless society.
·                     The question whether caste is infrastructure or superstructure is redundant.
·                     It is here that the Marxist and Ambedkarite project of ‘annihilation of castes’ converge.
·                     And it is here that the political project of Ambedkarites and the political left converges.

While fighting against revisionism in Russuian communist movement, in 1902, Lenin wrote his famous pamphlet ‘What is to be done’ and in the preface he writes, ‘But the confusion and vacillation which constitute the distinguishing feature of an entire period in the history …….. [may be read as history of 90 years of Indian communist movement]; ………. also acquires significance, for we can make no progress until we have completely put an end to this period.’

I hope Indian Marxist will pay heed to Lenin’s teachings.

Suresh Srivastava
15 July, 2014

Wednesday, 16 July 2014


~ Asit Das

In this putatively post-Marxist (postmodernist) epoch, where history has ended decisively in favour of capitalist liberal democracy, class has been given up as an analytical category and socialism as the historical destiny of the oppressed. Multiculturalism is the dominant political theme in the metropolitan academies where volumes are written on the hardening cultural boundaries and the carnivalesque play of identity. Therefore the ‘subaltern’ and ‘postcolonial’ political subject’s consciousness has nothing to do with the totalizing of the Soviet era mode of production narrative. Caste has become a very important subject, both for the metropolitan and Indian universities; book-shelves are packed with latest publications on caste.
In Indian politics, caste has emerged as one of the most important issues after the Mandal/Kamandal controversies. All the ruling class political parties carefully cultivate vote banks based on caste. In the post-Mandal Indian political reality where social justice has replaced social revolution, even the parliamentary left both the neo-revisionist and social democratic type have fallen into the trap of identity politics, whereas gruesome massacres and atrocities on Dalits are a daily affair. Not a single day passes without newspapers reporting various outrageous acts of atrocities on Dalits in India. On the other hand, continuous ‘deconstruction’ and ‘fragmentation’ of social reality, constant ‘decentering’ of the ‘self’ and creation of the ‘other’ , micro-narratives replacing meta-narratives is the fashion, where any kind of talk about ‘liberation’ and ‘emancipation’ are quickly reduced to linguistic mysticism. In the academic jargon, caste as a cultural identity has resurfaced with renewed vigour. However, for some of us who still believe in revolutionary left praxis and the grand narrative of emancipation and ultimate transcendence of capitalism, caste and caste oppression is a serious issue because as Ambedkar has said, caste system is not only a division of labour, but also a division of labourers. Hence, understanding caste and working out a strategy is extremely essential for the politics of social transformation. Marxists and revolutionary left forces have been derided for not understanding the caste question in India. On the contrary, Marxist authors like D.D. Kosambi, R.S. Sharma and Suvira Jaiswal have produced outstanding works on developing a theoretical understanding of caste system in India.
It is here that the writings on caste question in India by late Comrades Anuradha Ghandy and Y. Naveen Babu assume extreme importance because they developed a framework for revolutionaries for dealing with the caste system for achievement of democratic revolution in India. It is important to highlight that both Comrades Anuradha Ghandy and Naveen Babu were no armchair theoreticians, but active participants in revolutionary left politics in India. Com. Naveen Babu was martyred in the year 2000 at Visakhapatnam.
For anyone who is serious about radical social transformation, caste is an important issue because the caste system, apart from structuring exploitative relations of production, essentially forms a social hierarchy. Caste status is acquired by birth and castes are maintained as endogamous groups. There are more than 2000 such castes in contemporary Indian society. Modern 21stcentury India still embraces caste and it forms the basis or is part of the cultural, political and social events across India.
In fact, caste has reinvented itself and is very much part of the consciousness of all the Indian classes. It will not be an exaggeration to say that no conversation or discussion in everyday life of an average Indian goes beyond the second sentence without the phrase ‘which caste is she/he from?’ In a sense, perpetuation of the caste system is promoted by the upper echelons of the Indian society to bring order and to directly or indirectly control it. [1] The abolition of the caste system has to be a fundamental goal of the Indian democratic revolution. Any mass movement to abolish classes, which does not engage in a direct fight against the caste system, will not achieve its objective. The reverse is also true. Only identity-based caste struggle without challenging the exploitative relations of production cannot create a social system without exploitation.
Com. Anuradha Ghandy’s writing on caste question is an extremely valuable contribution in dealing with the caste question in India and its relation with the politics of radical social transformation. Com. Anuradha’s “Caste Question In India” is a seminal text in understanding the origin of caste/class, relations of production in agriculture, state, social hierarchy and formulating a political programme for the abolition of caste system and its relation with the democratic revolution in India. She wades through history explaining the origin of the caste system, tribal class society rise of the state in India and scripting a specific set of demands for struggle to abolish caste system and its relation with the democratic revolution in India. Explaining the theoretical framework, she writes,
The caste system has been one of the specific problems of the Indian democratic revolution. It is linked to the specific nature of the evolution of Indian society and has been one of the most important means for the exploitation of the labouring masses. Sanction by the Brahminical Hindu religion, Varnashra-Dharma legitimized the oppression of the working people, and the enslavement and degradation of one section of the masses, reducing them to near animal existence. For the ruling classes in India, from the ancient to the modern period, the caste system served both as an ideology as well as a social system that enabled them to repress and exploit the majority of toilers.
Invaders from other lands who came to rule over India, adjusted with this system, as it suited their class interest; religions like Islam and Christianity, which profess the equality of all men, adjusted with it, allowing its believers to be divided on the basis of caste, because they did not interfere with this system of exploitation. Today, caste ideology is still an important part of the reactionary ruling class ideological package, and it serves to divide the working masses, hampering the development of class consciousness and a unified revolutionary struggle. At the same time, caste based occupations and relations of production, caste based inequalities and discrimination, the practice of untouchability and the belief in Brahminical superiority, are still as much part of the socio-economic life of the country. Caste is being used in the corrupt electoral politics of the ruling classes. To root out the caste system we must first understand its origin and development and evaluate the successes and failures of the various struggles against the caste system and Brahminical ideology. [2]
As I have explained earlier, Com. Anuradha was no ivory tower intellectual detached from the vagaries of everyday struggles of the oppressed, so she wrote with lucidity and without any academic jargon for grassroots activists involved in the day-to-day struggles of the underdog. She explains the origin of the caste system for people who are not formally trained in history or any other branch of social science. Writing about the origin of the caste system, she traces its history back 3,000 years linking it up with the development of class society, emergence of the state, the development of the feudal mode of production and the continuous but often forcible assimilation of tribal groups, with their own customs and practices, into the exploitative agrarian economy.
From Tribal to Class Society
Com. Anuradha explains three distinct periods of the origin and development of the caste system:
1. Vedic period: The period from 1500 BC, when Aryan pastoral tribes and non-agricultural tribal communities took to agriculture, the emergence of agriculture as the dominant production system, to the rise of the state around 500 BC.
2. The period from 500 BC to the 4th century AD – the period of the expansion of agriculture based on Shudra labour, the growth of trade and its decline; the rise of small kingdoms to the emergence of feudalism.
3. The period from the 4th century AD onwards – when the development of feudalism took place, and Brahminical Hinduism and the jati system acquired their complex and rigid form.
Explaining the emergence of class society from tribal society, she says class societies emerged from the clashes of the various pastoral Aryan tribes and the indigenous tribes and the development of agriculture with the widespread use of iron, which took the shape of the Varnas, hence the four Varnas were the form of class society which took place in the later Vedic and Upanishad period.
Giving the details of the process, she writes,
As the Vedic Aryans entered from the Punjab area and spread towards the Gangetic Plain from around 1500 BC, they were already divided into an aristocracy (Rajanya) and priests (Brahmins) and the ordinary clansmen (vis) In the incessant conflicts and wars that were associated with their spread eastwards, conflicts among the various pastoral Aryan tribes and with local tribes for cattle, water resources, land and then also for slaves, sections of tribes that were defeated began to be enslaved, known as dasas. The wars increased the importance of the chieftains. They relied on ritualism to enhance their prestige and consolidate it, and to appropriate the surplus through these rituals. Tributes of cattle and slaves were given by the ordinary vis to the rajanyas. Major and minor yagnas were increasingly performed by the rajanyas, in alliance with the Brahmins. The ruling elite and the priests live off the gifts (dand/bali) given to them by the vis at these yagna. At this stage, the tribunal organizations based on clan and kin were still dominant. The emergence of the Brahmin and Kshatriya Varnas was a process of the breaking down of the kin-based relations among these ruling elites and the creation of a broader class – the Varna – which lived off the tributes and gifts from the vis and subjugated the tribes. The pastoral tribes had adopted agriculture, and from the local tribes, the chieftain clans and the priestly clans were being incorporated into the Kshatriya and Brahmin Varnas, respectively.
The subjugated tribals, both Aryan and non-Aryan, gradually came to form the Shudra Varna. All of them were not slaves. While domestic slavery existed, it was basically the Vaishya peasants (from the vis the broader Vaishya Varna emerged) and the Shudras, who reared cattle, tilled the soil.
The widespread use of iron not only for weapons but also for agricultural purposes, from around 800 BC, marked a qualitative change in the production system of the ancient tribal societies. Plough-based agriculture could generate considerable surplus on a regular basis. Dense forests could be cut down and land cleared for cultivation. Thus, iron enabled the agrarian economy to become the prominent production system in this ancient period. The spread of agriculture was achieved at the cost of the non-agricultural tribes. They were either subjugated or displaced from the forests and their traditional means of livelihood. The conquest of new territories and the possibility of regular settlements further enhanced the importance of chieftains. Tribals’ oligarchies emerged. Many of the chieftains turned into kings who needed grander yagnas to consolidate their rule not only over their own clans and tribes, but also over the territories they commanded the janapada.
The Varnashrama-Dharma was already being developed by the Brahmin priestly class. The rituals became more complex, elaborate and wealth consuming. These rituals were the means by which the surplus could be distributed. The surplus, appropriated in the form of gifts, was shared by the ruling Kshatriyas and the Brahmin priests. Gifts were no longer voluntary. They were forced. The Arya dharma and Varna ideology legitimized the increasing power of the kings and priests and the absorption of the subjugated tribals into the lower Varnas. It became the ideological expression of the classes that had emerged from the womb of the various tribes. Those groups that did not accept the rituals and forced tributes were considered anarya or mlechha.
Development of agriculture, including paddy cultivation in the Gangetic Plains, was accompanied by the increasing division of labour and growth of trade. Private property in land emerged; towns developed; few classes came into existence – the Vaishya traders and the gahapatis, the landowners. The gahapatis did not themselves till the land, but got slaves or Shudras to till it. Tensions between upper two Varnas and the lower Varnas, and between those who owned and those who laboured, emerged. This led to the emergence of the ancient state. The first states emerged in the Gangetic Plains in Bihar.
Rise of the State
She explains the emergence of the state in India and its relations with the Varna order and how Brahminical rituals were used to legitimize the rule of the kings.
The emergence of the Kosala and Magadha monarchies around the 6th century BC was the form in which the state developed in ancient India. The ruling class in the proto states and these early states relied on yagnas and rituals to buttress and legitimize their rule. The early states had the explicit function of upholding the Varna order and private property. Gifts were replaced by taxes. A standing army came into existence. The Varnashrama ideology reflected and buttressed this class situation in the interests of the ruling Kshatriyas and Brahmins. The Brahmins and Kshatriyas enclose the Vaishyas and Shudras, the servants of another, to be removed at will, to be slain at will. In the context of the differences between the classes becoming sharp, the Varna divisions had become rigid. Social distance and endogamy came to be emphasized.
But the newly emerged classes, the lower two Varnas and the non-subjugated tribal communities did not accept this ideology and the Varna hierarchy with Brahminical superiority. The rise of “Lokayata”, “Mahavir”, Buddha and other opposing sects and philosophical systems was a challenge to this Vedic yagna-based Brahminism and Varna-based hierarchy. These sects gained the support of traders, and artisans organized into guilds and semi-tribal kings and chieftains. Later, with the consolidation of the state formation with Mauryan rule (4th-3rd centuries BC), the reduction in the importance of yagnas and borrowing certain principles from Buddhism, Brahminism tried to reassert its ideological role. Yet, it had to contend with Buddhism and Jainism for commercial and royal patronage and for social domination. This reflects the struggles put up by the various classes and peoples to the consolidation of the caste system based on Brahmin-Kshatriya superiority. Yet Brahminism played a key role in the development and consolidation on the state in ancient India and the development and formalization of a class society in the form of Varnas.
The Mauryan Empire, which rose in the Magadha region in the 3rd century BC, was the first major fully formed state in India after the Indus Valley civilization. It was an ancient communal and state ownership type of state with Shudra-based production. The origins of the Mauryas themselves are obscure, but the state was guided by the famous Brahmin Kautilya, also known as Chanakya. Chanakya’s Arthashastra was the first and hence a frank account of how to rule. It laid down the principles of state craft without any ideological and religious cover up. The Mauryan state was a centralized state which took the responsibility for the extension of agriculture and trade. This arthashastra state settled groups of Shudras where lands could be cleared and brought under the plough. The sita lands were farmed directly by the state with the help of Shudras (serf) labour, under the autocratic regime, while rashtra lands were farmed by the free peasantry (Vaishyas). These rashtra lands were taxed on various counts. The state took taxes from the Vaishyas and labour from the Shudras, providing them with the necessities of cultivation.
While slavery also existed, slaves were used primarily by landowners for domestic work and by the state for processing the grain collected in the form of taxes and for the production of some commodities. The state also monopolized the mining and minerals. By this period, a class of dependent peasants and labourers (helots) – Shudras by Varna, had been consolidated. But the Vaishyas who carried out trade and settled in urban areas began to distinguish themselves from their peasant brethren. In latter centuries, peasant cultivation became the hallmark of the Shudras. The ordinary, free peasantry was pushed down into the Shudra Varna, while the Vaishya Varna became the monopoly of the traders and merchants. At the same time, the class of Kshetraswamis, those who got their lands cultivated by sharecroppers and dependent labourers, came to become the norm.
In the Mauryan period and upto the 3rd century AD, trade was an important aspect of the economy. While trade along with the dakshina pantha and to the north along the uttar pantha grew in the Mauryan period, in later centuries trade with the Roman Empire (1st and 2ndcenturies AD) also became important. In the south, trade links with the South-East Asian societies, including China, also existed. Thus, the class of artisans and merchants who were linked to the market were socially and economically important. Artisans and merchant guilds were powerful. Also, during this period artisan guilds were strictly not hereditary.
The restrictions on the marriage part of the tribal endogamous practices were adopted by Brahmins, though their social purpose became different. In the early Vedic period, tribal endogamy was not strictly followed in the assimilation of groups. But as class differences started to emerge and the need for a large number of labourers grew, the two upper Varnas enforced strict rules regarding the form of marriage, a method of distancing themselves from the lower two Varnas, while at the same time sanctioning hypergamy. Hypergamy allowed converted Brahmins and Kshatriyas to seek partners from among their own tribe’s folk, absorbed as Vaishyas or Shudras. It allowed political alliances with non-Kshatriya chieftains and kings. At the same time, marriage rules for the two Varnas were not restrictive allowing for the rapid increase in population of the labouring people.
In a primitive economy, human labour is the main productive asset. Hence, even marriage rules developed according to the interests of the ruling classes and gained ideological legitimacy through the rigid Varna divisions.
Brahminism in a New Form
Explaining the popularity of Buddhism and Jainism, Com. Ghandy says the toiling people like Shudras and traders like Vaishyas had to pay high taxes, but had to be content with lower social status. Expensive rituals based on sacrifice of animals created difficulties for agriculture. Explaining the process of creation of jatis, she says with the decline of yagnas, a transformation in the social role of the Brahmins took place and with that Brahminism also underwent a transformation. Brahmins, encouraged and protected by kings, brought the borders of the kingdom under agriculture, in the process ‘aryanizing’ the tribals in the region. From Ashoka’s time, the free peasants and the Brahmins migrated in search of fresh lands to bring it under agriculture. The ashrams set up by the Brahmins in the forests were the pioneer settlements that developed contacts with the tribes in the area, and brought them under the command of the plough and the Vedas. The local tribals were incorporated almost wholly as jatis of the Shudra Varna, and retained their tribal customs and became the labourers on the land carrying out the various tasks necessary for agricultural operations.
The tribal elite were incorporated into the Brahmin Varna. The Brahmins changed the form of their religion. Sacrificial yagnas became symbolic. The principle of ahimsa was adopted from Buddhism. The older Vedic codes, which were glorifications of pastoral life and wars, gave way to newer Gods, like the cult of Krishna, and also Shiva and later Vishnu. Tribal rituals were adopted, for instance the agni rituals, performed only by the Brahmins in South Indian temples, were non-Vedic in origin. Tribal worship of Mother Goddesses was also incorporated into the Hindu religion. In fact, with the development of feudalism, the feminine names of certain tribes, etc., Matangi, Chandali, Kaivarti and their tribal totems, were also incorporated into the Hindu fold. Gods and Goddesses were incorporated into the Hindu pantheon asavatars of the main God, Vishnu. This was the ideological manifestation of the social process of the absorption of tribes and semi-tribes into the spreading agrarian economy at the lower levels of social hierarchy. The significance of the Varnashrama-Dharma in this process, the importance and social base. In the king’s court, they provided the genealogy that proved the Kshatriya/Brahmin status of the ruler’s family; hence Brahminism was supported by the rulers. Yet, in the period upto the 6th century AD, at least, Brahminism and the caste system could not gain hegemony in invasion of foreign groups like Kushans and Shakas, which ruled over large territories, the strength of artisan and trade guilds, as also the influence of Buddhism and Jainism.
Extension to the South
She explains how this Aryan system of caste and social organisations spread with iron to the south. And the patronage extended by the Satvanas, which were one of the first state formations in the 2nd century AD, consolidated the Brahminical caste system in South India.
The basic difference of Marxism and left politics with identity politics and ruling class politics vis-à-vis caste is that the Marxist approach sees caste oppression in India in the dominant feudal social relations and the liberation of oppressed castes including the Dalits intrinsically linked with the struggle against feudalism. Com. Anuradha explains the rise and consolidation of feudalism in the following lines:
From around 6th century AD in the early medieval period the caste system, based on jatis, began to consolidate in most parts of India. It is clearly linked to the rise of feudalism all over India, when a class of intermediaries was created which expropriated the surplus in the form of revenue or share of the produce from the labouring masses. This was accompanied by the development of the self-sufficient village economy. The decline of trade and artisan guilds, primarily due to the collapse of the Roman Empire after the 3rdcentury AD, the contraction of money circulation, the settling down of artisans in the villages, created the conditions for the rise of feudalism. Land grants began to be given to Brahmins, Buddhist monasteries and to army officials. Though this process began in the Satvahana rule in the 2nd century AD, and with the Guptas in the 4th century AD, it became widespread from the 5thcentury onwards. From the 7th century onwards appointing feudal intermediaries who collected revenue and food on administrative tasks became common. The distribution of land grants to Brahmins, in the period of rising feudalism, meant that from the beginning they constituted a part of feudal class. This process essentially took place between the 5th and 7thcenturies, especially in the parts that were colonized by the migrating peasant settlers – in Bengal, Orissa, Gujarat and central and western Madhya Pradesh, in the Deccan. It began under the Pallava rule in the 6thcentury in the South, but reached its peak during the Chola rule from the 9thcentury onwards in Tamil Nadu, parts of Karnataka and the Kerala regions.
In this period the proliferation of jatis also began. Jati, originally a term used for a tribe with its own distinct customs, coming into a Varna, gradually replaced Varna since it became the main organization in which people were bound together. The original peasant settlers emerged as specific peasant jatis in particular regions. In the South the dominant peasant land owning jatis were considered as Satvik Shudras, ranked only next to the Brahmins. A number of jatis and upa jatis, each with an occupational specialization necessary for agriculture, or for social life in the village also developed. The carpenter, blacksmith, potter, tanner, skinner of dead cattle were available in the bigger villages. As also the barber, the washerman and the priest. They provided their skills to the peasant and other families including the families of the feudal intermediaries. In return they began to be given a share of village produce. Initially the share was decided by nattar, the association of the dominant peasant community. In later times the shares became more formal, they were also given the right to till a part of the village lands. The jagmani system, the balutedari or ayagari system emerged within the new arrangement of the village structure. Money was not needed for daily exchange. This arrangement greatly aided the Brahmins and the other upper castes from the land owning, feudal intermediaries to raise their ritual status and social prestige, since the lower castes were available in full complement to do all the various types of physical and menial labor. The upper caste did not have to soil their hands. The jati system was suitable for the feudal mode of production and it would not be wrong to call it jati feudalism.
It is in this period that the number of untouchable castes swelled greatly. From the 4th century BC itself, these are references to the untouchables, in Patanjali, who mentions two types of Shudras, the Nirashrit (excluded) and the Ashrit. But their numbers were restricted. Gradually newer tribal groups began to be included. But it is in the feudal period that their numbers went up greatly, the Chamars and Rajaks, for example, were reduced to the untouchable status of an untouchable. Tribal groups, subjugated by force after being dispossessed of their forests/lands, mans of livelihood and freedom were relegated to an untouchable status. Some artisan groups too were pushed down from Shudra to the ati Shudra ranks. They were in the main bonded agricultural labourers who were denied by religious injunctions any right to own wealth (gold, etc.) and land. Their only dharma was to labour for the entire village at a distance, polluting even by their shadow. Maximum surplus could be extracted from the untouchable labourers, forced into a low level of material existence and perpetual servitude.
Brahmins, both as individuals and as groups, were granted lands and a share of the revenue from the villages. They lived off the surplus created by the villagers. The Brahmadeva villages in South India became the centres for Brahminical culture and learning. In these villages and the surrounding region, Brahmins were allowed to keep the revenue of the villages, or the larger share (melavarm) of the total produce, they got their own lands cultivated through tenants or sharecroppers. The Dharma allowed them the right to own land, they could supervise cultivation, but they could not cultivate it themselves. A section of the Brahmin castes were closely associated with the rulers. Apart from providing fictitious genealogies to prove Kshatriya status of the ruling groups, they were the royal purohits and in many kingdoms they held administrative posts. These Brahmins, who helped to generate the surplus, gained the highest social era.
As land owners and revenue collectors, closely associated with the rule of the kingdom, the Brahmins held wide authority in the political, social and religious life. They were active members of the feudal ruling class, and its ideologies as well.
Turkish Invasion
Com. Ghandy succinctly explains the impact of Muslim rule on the feudal mode of production beginning with the Turkish rule. The establishment of Turkish power in North India, through the slave dynasty in the 13th century, marked an important phase in the feudal mode of production. They centralized the administration and introduced a systematic system of revenue collection. The composition of the ruling class underwent a change. Initially, it was the Turk slave families and their relatives that ruled, they were successively replaced by ex-slaves of Indian origin, Indianized Turks and foreign immigrants, to be replaced by even foreigners. The most important changes related to the methods in which the rights to revenue collection (iqta) were assigned. Originally restricted only for life, on the decision of the king, by the end of the 15thcentury they were made hereditary. The Turks were urban-based, and favoured Islam. Thus, Turkish rulers displaced the original feudatories and created new ones over a period of time.
The administrative changes induced by the Turks, and adopted in the Deccan too, introduced changes in the powers of revenue collection and administration, affecting military service holders, administrators, village headmen and the priestly clans, the office holders came to be called inamdars, watandars, iqtadars, deshmukhs-desais, and later as jagirdars, during the Mughal rule.
Although some of the earlier intermediaries who had lost their posts regained them during the later part of the Turk rule, yet in this period the composition of the feudal classes in north India was not stable. However, this did not affect the structure of the village economy. The Turks introduced new techniques in the science of war. They also gave a fillip to trade, commerce and artisan production in the urban areas. Hence, this period saw the development of the productive forces in Indian society.
By the 17th and 18th centuries when Mughals consolidated their rule by associating with the Rajput chiefs and other upper caste intermediaries and the ruling groups of kingdoms annexed in north India and in the Deccan. This throughout the early period, though the Mughals monetized the collection of revenue to some extent, and also increased the exploitation of the peasantry, yet, they did not basically affect the social structure of the agrarian village economy as it had evolved over the previous centuries. It consisted of the intermediaries at the top of the rural structure, who were also invariably large landlords themselves. Often they held a post from the ruler, which gave administrative responsibilities and powers. These were also village chiefs and village level officials like accountants. These office holders and feudatories lived off the revenue collected from the peasants. They also controlled lands which they got tilled by either tenants or sharecroppers.
In some areas, they used bonded labourers from tribal or untouchable castes. Most of these feudal intermediaries were from the uppermost castes – Brahmins, Rajputs and even if they originally came from the Shudra cultivating castes, they had elevated themselves to Kshatriya or to a high non-Brahmin status.
The control of temples had given the Brahmins wide control over the resources of the agrarian economy in the south. The appointment of Brahmins to high administrative and military posts during the Vijaynagara rule further concentrated power and resources under their control. In western Maharashtra too, the Maratha rule concentrated economic and political power in the hands of the Brahmins. The main cultivating castes were exploited for revenue and innumerable taxes. Yet their rights to the land had evolved over the centuries, even if they were under feudatories. The jajmani/balutedari system institutionalized the system of exchange between the services of the various castes – the peasants and the landlord. On the one hand, it formalized the share of the various castes to the produce, but on the other, it increased the power and prestige of feudatories and Brahmins, and formalized the system of beggar (forced free labour). Higher caste landowning sections could withdraw from all manual work, especially work connected with agriculture. The other castes served as their jajmans. It involved free labour for a number of artisans and service castes, who served various families at the same time, but the untouchable castes, were in many areas attached to a particular family.
The Impact of British Rule
Writing about the colonial period, she says that the British did not touch or tamper with the Brahminical system. By passing local customary and caste practices, they upheld the Dharamshastras, appointing Brahmin pundits to advise the British judges in interpreting the shastras in disputes relating to family and marriage, property and inheritance, and religious rights, including the status of specific castes. Hence, the British legal system upheld the entry into the temples to the untouchable castes in the name of protecting the established rights of other castes. The British courts entertained caste claims regarding privileges and precedence of exclusiveness in respect to religious rituals as well.
In the name of respecting the autonomy of castes, they upheld the disciplinary power of castes against violators of caste norms, even in inter-caste disputes. Thus, they upheld caste although in a much more restricted sphere than in the feudal period.
The economic changes introduced by the colonial rulers in the 19th century in order to consolidate their rule and intensify the exploitation of India, had an impact on the relations of production in the rural areas and created new classes from among the various castes, the various revenue settlements – the zamindari, rayatwari, etc., the introduction of railways, defence works, the colonial education system, the uniform criminal and civil law and colonial bureaucracy affected the caste system and modified its role in society.
In the land settlements, the British ignored the inalienable rights of the actual cultivators, in many areas made the intermediaries, the non-cultivating sections that only had a share in the produce traditionally, become the sole proprietors of the land.
In the zamindari settlement areas, the Shudra peasants became tenants at the mercy of the landlords; in other areas a class of peasant proprietors arose, but even in this the larger peasants gained while the actual cultivators became tenants or sharecroppers. The Shudra peasantry was divided into an upper section of the rich; intensified exploitation coupled with famines and other crises, indebted peasants of all the cultivating castes who were pushed into the ranks of the landless.
A section of artisans became landless labourers. A class of rural poor, landless or poor peasants, emerged from the ranks of most of the middle and lower castes in the 19th century. She gives a brilliant account of the Bhakti and non-Brahmin Movement in the pre-British and colonial period and also gives an excellent account of the dynamics of caste system after the transfer of power, including Dalit politics and caste atrocities.
The most significant changes have been in the countryside. The close correspondence between caste and class no longer exists in most parts of the country. The old upper caste zamindars and other big feudal landlords have, to some extent, been weakened and feudal authority is, to a large extent, asserted by smaller landlords, the former big tenants of the zamindars and the large peasant proprietors. While the position of the upper castes has weakened the most, the new landlords are from the middle castes. The middle castes are, today, significantly divided along class lines. The landlords and the rich peasants are a small group from the traditionally cultivating castes, and these castes are also found in large numbers among middle and poor peasants and even among the landless.
The lower section of the middle castes, i.e., the artisan castes are primarily middle, poor or landless and some are continuing their traditional occupations. Therefore, today, the main exploiting class in the rural areas consists of the earlier upper caste elements, i.e., the Brahmins, the Rajputs, together with the upper stratum of the middle castes, such as the Patidars, the Marathas, the Jats, the Yadavs, the Vellars, the Lingayats, the Reddys, the Kammas, the Nairs, etc.
The middle peasants, comprising about 25 percent of the rural households, largely come from the major cultivating castes and from other lower castes, as well as a small section of Dalits. This section has contradictions with upper sections of the rural elite, but due to the caste relations and low class consciousness in areas of low class struggle, they are trailing behind the elite landlord sections of the other castes.
The poor and the landless, who consist of 60% of the rural households, have the greatest number of caste divisions, including a large number of small artisan and service jatis, and even Muslims. This class consists also of a large number of households from Dalits and Adivasis. Of the rural agricultural labour families, 37% are Dalits and 10% Adivasis, while the remaining half are drawn from the cultivating castes and other lower castes. Here, caste divisions among the exploited is the greatest. The caste-class relationship in the present period is indeed complex (Anuradha Ghandy: “Caste Question In India”).
Apart from historicizing the caste question its emergence and feudal mode of production, Com. Anuradha wrote perceptibly about the Anti-Brahminical and Dalit Movement in Colonial and Post-Colonial India, including mapping the anti-Brahminical Bhakti Movement. Her writings on Phule, Ambedkar, Periyar and Dalit assertions in Maharashtra assumes importance because those were important milestones in the sub-altern resistance to Brahminical oppression in India.
The non Brahmin Movements
The anti-Brahminical movements in India, especially in Maharashtra, are important because the specific characteristics of Indian caste feudalism and the way it was transformed and yet essentially maintained by British colonial rule, defined the specific anti-feudal tasks of the Indian revolution. The most basic anti-feudal task, the land question, took on extremely complex features as a result of Indian caste feudalism. Because of the way in which hierarchical relations were maintained within the village and among the exploited classes themselves, and because of the way in which productive work for the land was institutionalized through the jajmani/ balotedari system, it was insufficient to look at the land question simply in terms of landlordism. Similarly, the slogan of ‘land to the tiller’ was abstract and insufficient in the Indian context without understanding the overall Brahminical domination. For the fact was that much of the land had two tillers – the cultivating middle caste peasant, whether tenant or ryot, and the Dalit field servant, whose connection to the land was equally long-standing.
The very inequality among the exploited, institutionalized through the feudal caste hierarchy, meant that the need for creating unity in the context of resolving land question was crucial. It is hard to see how this could be done without a specific programme of action constituting poor peasants including Dalits, as well as caste Hindu toilers who would have the responsibility of seizing and distributing the village lands and instituting necessary programmes of co-operative and collective agriculture.
Though attempts were begun by the Dalit castes from the late 19th century to organize themselves, the various sections of Dalit liberation movement really began to take off from the 1920s in the context of the strong social reform and anti-caste movements, which were beginning to develop a genuine mass base. The non-Brahmin movements in Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu especially provided an important support. It is not accidental that Jyotirao Phule, the mali (gardener caste) who lived in the middle of the 19th century, made the initial ideological advances and formulated a theory of Brahminism and ‘Irani Aryabhat’ conquest turning the Aryan theory upside down to identify with the original ‘non-Aryan’ Shudra and ati-Shudra inhabitants of the country.
Dalits, to some extent, were organizing the 19th century also. An early attempt in Maharashtra was the movement of Gopal Babu Wangankar. Much organizing focused on the effort to regain their rights to serve in the British Indian Army, which they had helped till the 1870s, but which was then withdrawn from them. It was in the 1920s, however, that the Dalits began to organize strongly and independently throughout many regions of India. The most important of the early Dalit movements were the Adi-Dharma movement in Punjab (organized in 1926); the movement under Ambedkar in Maharashtra, mainly based among Mahars, which had its organizational beginnings in 1924; the Nama-Shudra movement in Bengal; the Adi-Dravida movement in Tamil Nadu; the Adi-Karnataka movement; the Adi-Hindu movement mainly centered around Kanpur in UP; and the organising of the Pulayas and Cherumans in Kerala. [3]
In most of the cases the Montagu – Chelmsford Reforms provided a spark for this organization of Dalits, but the crucial background was the massive economic and political upheavals of the post-war period. The movements had a linguistic-national organizational base and varied according to the specific social characteristics in different areas, but there was considerable all-India exchange of ideas and by the 1930s this began to take the shape of all-India conferences with Ambedkar emerging as the clear national leader of the movement. The founding of the Scheduled Castes Federation in 1942, and its later conversion into the Republican Party, gave Dalits a genuine all-India political organization, though this remained weak, except in certain specific localities, and did not by any means constitute the entire Dalit movement. [4] Writing about the Non-Brahmin movement in Maharashtra led by Jyotiba Phule, Com. Anuradha says,
The movement began with the founding of the Satyasashodak Samaj in Pune. The rise of Satyasashodak Samaj (SS) took place in the context of a rise of Brahminical Hindu revivalism in western India in the 1870s, with its base in Pune, which put the upper caste reformers on the defensive. After working as a social reformer for almost 20 years, Jyotiba Phule founded the SS in 1873 in Pune. The main task of the SS was to make the non-Brahmins conscious of their exploitation by the Brahmins. Phule himself belonged to the mali caste, a caste involved in the cultivation of vegetables, and their trade in the vicinity of Pune. His family was middle class and he was educated in a mission school. The SS did not restrict its activities to any particular caste and worked among the various non-Brahmin (NB) castes in the rural areas of Thane, Pune and later in other districts in Bombay Province and Berar. They also worked among the workers in the textile mills of Bombay. The songs, booklets and plays written by Phule used a popular hard-hitting style and language to expose the various ways in which the Brahmins duped the people, especially the peasants. The SS interpreted the racial theory of the origin of caste in the context of popular tradition – the Aryan invaders had enslaved the local peasantry, the rule of Baliraja, the peasant king was defeated – showing the links of the SS with the democratic sentiments of the peasantry.
In Phule’s time, the SS campaigned for social reform – they rejected their own feudal-style marriages and adopted the SS marriages, which were based on principles of equality, mutual respect and loyalty between husband and wife. The SS reform campaign in Phule’s time led to a strike by barbers who decided not to tonsure widows leading to tensions in the village. Phule ran a paper called Din Bandhu. His main supporters were Telugu contractors and workers in the textile mills. The first reformist organization among the textile workers of Bombay, the Mill Hands Association, was formed in 1890 by N.M. Lokhande under Phule’s guidance. This association represented the grievances of the mill workers till it was pushed aside by the militant trade unions that emerged among the workers in the aftermath of the First World War. Phule promoted modern agriculture among the peasantry and personally bought land to experiment and set an example before them. He was influenced by the democratic American writings of Tom Paine and the principles of liberty and equality. He wrongly believed that British rule had destroyed the role of Brahmins and brought modern education to all castes, and hence was a supporter of the colonial rule in the country.
After Phule’s death, the activists of the SS continued to work. The fact that units of the SS were formed in villages not only in the districts like Ahmednagar, Satara, Kolhapur, but also in the Berar region in Amravati, shows that the growing peasant consciousness was being mobilized through the SS in the beginning of the 20th century. Their propaganda struck a chord among the peasantry. Campaigns against social problems like drinking and against untouchability were taken up. The SS also took up the problems of the peasants, promoting co-operatives among them. The contradictions in the rural areas were expressed by the SS as a conflict between the Shetji/Bhatji and the Bahujan Samaj (money lender/priest and the masses).
The SS functioned systematically, holding annual conferences after 1910, and bringing out a magazine. SS tamashas (the dramas) have toured the villages, singing songs and putting up performers to spread their message. The basic content of the activities was anti-feudal. The propaganda of an SS tamasha led to a spontaneous revolt of the peasants against Brahmin landlords in 1919 in Satara. The peasants were demanding a reduction in the rent. They broke idols and abused the gods and the wives of the Brahmins. This revolt was not supported by the landlord sections of the NBs in the rural areas. Nonetheless, SS activity continued and SS activists were involved in peasant agitations in other districts in the 1920s. The SS attacked the feudal authority in rural areas and aroused the democratic consciousness of the peasants. The SS campaigns led to the exodus of Brahmin landlords from the villages in western Maharashtra. It laid the ground for the militant anti-imperialist struggles led by the peasantry in the region in the 1940s, like the Patri Sarkar movement in Satara, when a parallel authority was set up against the British.
The SS Movement was the main movement in the early part of the 20th century in Maharashtra through which the anti-feudal, anti-caste sentiments of the peasant masses of the middle castes were expressed. It dealt a blow to Brahminical hegemony and feudal relations in the countryside. But since the leadership of the movement restricted their attack to caste ideology and failed to put forward a programme to break the foundations of the caste system, in the concentration of land, the main means of production, they could reform the caste system and feudalism and not break it. Hence, they were unable to fulfil the interests of the lower caste.
The anti-Brahmnical movement was an important milestone in colonial and post-colonial India to challenge the Brahminical hegemony and struggle for democratization in Tamil Nadu. E.V. Periyar Ramaswamy Naicker “Periyar” played a stellar role in this. Apart from this, there were social reform movements like the Madras Hindu Social Reform Association formed in 1892 for promoting education of women, reform of marriage, abolition of untouchability, etc. However, the Self-Respect Movement led by Periyar was much more radical and mass-based, though Periyar also used the platform of Justice Party, which has a more landlord upper caste base. Writing about Periyar’s Self-Respect Movement and the Justice Party, Com. Anuradha says, “The Justice Party was led by and clearly represented the interests of big landlords and merchants from among the upper castes among the non-Brahmins only. Periyar’s movement was based on wider support of the rising working class, the middle class and the traders, especially in urban centers like Erode, Madurai, Coimbatore, Salem, Tiruchirapalli, Tuticorin and other towns. At its peak, the Self-Respect Movement took up the activities of propagating against money lenders’ exploitation and the problems of the peasantry.
While the Justice Party took a strong pro-British stand, anti-colonial intellectuals among the non -Brahmins, many of whom were active within the Congress, for instance, Kesava Pillai, EVR, and Dr. Varadharajulu, formed the Madras Presidency Association in 1917 to press for full communal representation for the non-Brahmins.
E.V. Ramaswamy “Periyar” formed the Self-Respect Movement “Suyamariyathai iyakkam” after he walked out of Congress in 1925 for their unwillingness to support separate representation for the non-Brahmins. The conservative, pro-feudal, pro-Varna positions of the Congress leadership had led to tensions within Congress – between Brahmins and non-Brahmins. Periyar’s movement was concentrated in Tamil areas of the Presidency. It was oriented towards the oppressed castes, including the untouchables, and he took active steps to involve women and the youth. They ran a magazine called “Kudi Arasu”. Militant attacks, with an atheistic approach, were launched by the Self-Respect Movement, not only on Brahmins, but also on the religion itself, on superstition, caste dimensions and caste privileges. Periyar wanted to arouse self-respect and feeling of equality among the lower castes. They upheld the pride in Tamil language and opposed the use of Sanskrit. They propagated a ban on the use of Brahmin priests for marriages and popularized self-respect marriages; they opposed the use of the Thali, called for the abolition of caste names, and ridiculed the epics like the Ramayana. Periyar’s style was direct, propagandist and very popular. By struggling for the equality of all castes and breaking the hold of religion, the movement paved the way for a materialist analysis.
In the 1930s, the Self-Respect Movement, under the influence of communists in Tamil Nadu, and the influence of Periyar’s trip to the USSR, supported socialism. Communists like Singaravellu propagated materialist philosophy and socialism through the magazine. During that period, two trends were active within the Self-Respect Movement, one which wanted to take up anti-capitalist propaganda and activity. The Self-Respect socialists began organizing on problems of the peasantry along with their regular conferences. Under the influence of the CPI leaders, the Self-Respect socialists (Samadharma group) merged with the Congress Socialist Party in November 1936.
The Revolutionary left alternative complementarity of anti-capitalist and anti-caste movements – the move away from traditional Marxist theory was initiated from the 1970s when serious efforts were made both theoretically and politically to build bridges between Communist and Dalit Movements. The Dalit Panthers made serious efforts in this direction in the early 1970s. This was followed by two important interventions by Marxist scholar activists in the 1980s.
The Dalit Movement
Dalit Panther Manifesto written in 1973, defined Dalits as not only the SC and Buddhist converts, but also laboring class, agricultural laborers, landlords and poor farmers, nomadic tribes and Adivasis. This way of definition is different from conventional categorization and it reflected very strong class factors. Similarly, the manifesto spelled out landlords, capitalists, money lenders, imperialists and bureaucrats as enemies. The political parties, depending on religious sentiment and casteism, and the government patronizing them, were also blamed as Panther’s enemies. The ideologue of the group Namdeo Dhasal, emphasized that not only caste system but also class system, should be eradicated. He further argued “casteists, capitalists, and religious leaders are all controlled by the Hindu feudal system. Therefore, issue of untouchability has not remained to be only psychological or mental slavery”.
This perspective of Indian social system reminds us of a slightly different version of historical materialism than advocated by the traditional Marxist. This attempt at bringing together the twin agenda of anti-capitalist and anti-caste struggle rested on asserting the materiality of caste exploitation. It firmly rejected the relegation of caste to superstructure and untouchability to the realm of mental or cultural subjugation. In the early 1980s, an important intervention was made to explain the continued relevance of pre-capitalist relations in “modern times.” [5] Writing about the Dalit Movement in Maharashtra after Ambedkar, Com. Anuradha says,
Discontent with the existing political and economic situation among the youth of the newly converted Dalits burst forth in 1973 in Bombay, in the form of the Dalit Panther Movement.” The general political and economic situation among the youth of the newly converted Dalits burst forth in 1973 in Bombay, in the form of Dalit Panther Movement. The general political and economic crisis in the country, the revolutionary upsurge of students and youth around the world, the frustration of the newly educated Dalit Youth who found their desire for equality smothered, confronted by discrimination and unemployment, led to the emergence of the Dalit Panther Movement. The Movement challenged not only Congress rule, but also the corruption ridden RPI leadership.
On 15 August 1973, Raja Dhale wrote an article in “Sadhana” exposing the hoax of Indian Independence. Dhale abused the Indian flag since it had given the scheduled castes neither equality nor freedom from oppression. The issue of “Sadhna” was banned by the Maharashtra government. This was the spark that gave birth to the Dalit Panthers. A literature of protest burst forth, attacking all forms of discrimination, mocking at those “immersed in plastering withering leaves” expressing the anguish of the injuries ploughed into their banks, calling upon countless suns aflame with blood to advance setting afire town after town. Namdev Dhasal, Yeshwant Manohar, Daya Pawar, Keshav Mesharam and many others achieved overnight fame. The literature of revolt vowed to take revenge for the centuries of oppression; it sprang up on notice boards, in slums, in small magazines and posters. Taking inspiration from Black Panthers, this movement gave itself a name – Dalit Panthers. Meetings were held, the Bhagwat Gita burnt; campaigns to break the practice of untouchablitiy in various forms were organized. In a short span of six months, militant organizational units sprang up in innumerable slums of Bombay and Pune. The state, taken aback by the spontaneous growth and the intensity of this movement, launched attacks on the Dalit Panthers, not directly, but through Shiv Sena. Minor reasons were utilized in order to arrest activists of Dalit Panthers, and to beat them up in order to prevent them from spreading.
The anti-caste or anti-Brahmincal movement in India cannot be understood without discussing the phenomenal contribution of Dr. Ambedkar. He not only led the Dalits, but also had written extensively on the caste system and Dalit liberation strategies. His annihilation of caste is an extremely important tract for any serious anti-caste struggle. Writing about the “Annihilation of Caste”, Dr. Anand Teltumbde says, “What the communist manifesto is to the capitalist world, Annihilation of castes may be to the caste India!” Unlike Marx and Engels, who consciously wrote the Communist Manifesto as the clarion call for proletariat to revolt, Babasaheb Ambedkar did not have any idea that the presidential speech he was drafting to be delivered in the annual conference of Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal of Lahore in May 1936 would turn out to be the manifesto against the Hindu Caste System. Because of its hard-hitting attack on the Hindu religion, which in his analysis came out to be the source of caste system, the organizers of the Hindu Reformist Mandal had cancelled the conference and the undelivered speech, therefore, was published in the book form. The period in which this text was written is the momentous period in Ambedkar’s life. As is well known, Ambedkar has started off with the civil rights movement of the untouchables, which he thought would sensitize Hindus to undertake due reforms within the society to remove untouchability and other inhuman practices vis-a-vis the then untouchables. But the bitter experience in the very first struggle of this kind at Mahad, where the Dalits were brutally attacked for having dared to pollute the Chavdar Tank, impelled him to rethink this approach. Although he tried to persist with it by calling a satyagraha after eight months at the very same Chavdar Tank, which was again thwarted by the caste Hindus, this time with an injunction from the court, and also supported some of the temple entry movements thereafter undertaken by his followers, he turned his focus towards the political arena. In the Round Table conferences he had successfully won separate electorates for the untouchables decimating the spirited opposition of Mahatma Gandhi. However, when Gandhi declared his fast unto death against this Communal Award, provoking in turn the entire caste Hindu hostility against Dalits, he had to compromise by accepting the increased number of reserved seats for Dalits but through joint electorates. [6]
Communists ignored his struggles as “Superstructural” and hence unimportant. This conduct of the communists led him away from them. Lamenting the increasing divergence and hostility between these two camps of proletariats today, viz., left and Dalits, one is tempted to imagine the revolutionary possibilities if the communists had duly empathized with and cohered with Ambedkar’s vision.
Evaluating Ambedkar’s important role in Anti-Caste and Dalit Liberation Movement, Com. Anuradha writes,
Following the tradition of the earlier Non-Brahmin Movement Ambedkar did not participate in the nationalist movement though Ambedkar was aware of the exploitation of the British and Depressed classes realized that they needed Swaraj to develop the movement, he felt that it could not take on two enemies (i.e., the upper castes and the British) at the same time. So they targeted their attack on the caste system. Throughout his political career, Ambedkar was a firm opponent of Gandhi and he exposed the hypocrisy of the Congress leadership on the issue of eradicating untouchability.
Ambedkar played a very important role in mobilizing the lowest castes in Maharashtra to struggle against caste oppression and to demand equality. He gave the people, suppressed for centuries, a self-identity in which they developed a pride in being from the Mahar Community, and he gave them the self-confidence that, given equal opportunities, they were no less than members of the higher castes. The almost total conversion of the entire Mahar Community to Buddhism in 1956 served to encourage this sense of identity and pride. The pubic rejection of Hinduism which sanctifies inequality and caste discrimination and public conversion to a religion based on egalitarian principles, is another symbol of desire for equality. It includes also a rejection of the old feudal ideology of Brahminical ritualism.” (Anuradha Ghandy: Caste Question in India”) Underlying the necessity of Marxists having a correct understanding of Ambedkar’s role in revolutionary struggles, she writes, “There has always been a controversy on the evaluation of Ambedkar among communist issues like his attitude to communists, his attitude to violence or his role in trade union movement have been presented to judge Ambedkar. But what is significant in such an evaluation, form a Marxist point of view, is his objective role, in the process of democratic transformation of society.
The democratic transformation of India required a revolutionary struggle against the backwardness and semi-feudal agrarian relations in rural India. The Caste System had been part of the pre-capitalist feudal economy. Caste ideology was part of the traditional feudal culture and ideology. Therefore, to smash the caste system and actively fight caste-based oppression were an integral part of the democratic transformation of our society. Ambedkar and the Dalit movement led by him were an important part of this democratic current against caste feudalism. By asserting the identity of the Dalits, by demanding equality, by attacking the feudal ideology of Hinduism, Ambedkar fought for democracy in social life. But Ambedkar did not connect the caste system with wider agrarian relations in a comprehensive manner. He did not conceptualize the role played by the British in perpetuating and defending this backward exploitative agrarian economy. Hence, his movement remained one part of anti-feudal current. And this led Ambedkar to place hope in constitutional means for gaining political equality. Ambedkar was a leading liberal reformer of his time. He is a source of inspiration for the Dalits not only in Maharasthra, but in other states as well. For Dalits, who have acquired education but face caste discrimination, who demand equality but are denied it in various ways, subtle and crude, he is a symbol of their identity and desire to gain equality.
Taking to task the mainstream parliamentary left parties like CPI and CPM for their mechanical and opportunistic attitude towards anti-caste struggle, Com. Anuradha writes,
In India the traditional communists (CPI, CPM, etc.) have generally, viewed class struggle as primarily, an economic struggle. They have, most often viewed the caste struggle as dividing the people. What they did not realize is that the people are already divided on caste lines and the basis of unity must be equality (and that higher caste prejustices must be fought in order to gain equality). Also, class struggle is not merely an economic struggle, it is a struggle between the oppressed and the oppressor for control over the main means of production and the political life of society. It includes the struggle in economic, political, social and ideological spheres, and the key aspect of revolutionary class struggle is not economic struggle but political struggle – the struggle for the seizure of political power. In rural India, this struggle for political power involves the smashing of the feudal and caste authority. In the countryside, and also the setting up of new bodies (where the higher castes are not allowed to automatically dominate) through which peoples power is exercised.
The reason why the revisionist CPI and CPM have basically negated the caste question are three:
• First, they did not view the agrarian struggle as primarily anti-feudal and so did not see the significance of attacking caste oppression as part of the anti-feudal struggle.
• Second, because of their reformist politics, and their immersion in economic struggles and electoral battles, caste oppression was not merely negated but brushed aside, as the bulk of the organized workers are from the higher castes and the biggest vote banks are also from the higher castes.
• Third, because of a mechanical linking between the base and the superstructure, they did not feel the need to fight casteist outlook and maintained that common economic struggles will automatically bring together all castes and remove caste bias. Ideologically, they replaced dialectical materialism with mechanical materialism and assumed a one-to-one relationship between the base and superstrucuture by further maintaining that, with the transformation into socialist society all caste biases will automatically disappear. Influenced by the theory of productive forces whereby, they maintained that social relations of production will automatically change with a development of the productive forces.
Com. Anuradha had a sharp eye on the Mandal-Kamandal debate and anti-reservation struggles. About the opportunist and anti-Dalit prejudices of the ruling class parties and the reactionary nature of anti-reservation agitations, especially the anti-Mandal agitation, she writes, “ In an attempt to check the BJP’s efforts to dislodge it, the Janata Dal Government announced the implementation of reservations for the OBCs. But this was widely opposed by the upper castes in the form of anti-reservation agitations. The extent of the upper caste control over the government bureaucracy and prestigious professions can be seen from their violence and aggressiveness against the implementation of the Mandal Commision. The Comprador bureaucrat bouorgeoise and its media gave wide publicity to this agitation which was restricted to elite institutions. The techniques they used, like self-immolation to those their opposition, also gave their agitation mere publicity. The upper caste sections of the bureaucracy also support the agitation. The agitating students were from ABVP and NSUI, although both the Congress and the BJP opportunistically remained silent during the agitation.
While recognizing the implementation of reservation policy for OBCs, will in spite of income limits, favour the landlord elite sections of the OBC castes and in that only a few castes may gain, yet the fact is that most of the OBCs are poor and landless peasants or those eking out of their subsistence in their traditional occupation. Reservations will provide only a very few small sections among them a secure middle class existence, for the majority the agrarian order to be overturned in order to give security and a better life. But the middle castes have hardly been represented in the administration and they have a right to their share in this sector.
The extent of caste prejudice and caste feelings that are nurtured and bred among the so-called modern sections of the upper castes has been revealed by the vehemence of the anti-reservation agitations. There is a need to oppose the anti-reservation agitations for what they are – an attempt by the reactionary sections of the uppermost castes to maintain their monopoly over the states’ resources and prestigious lucrative professions with their vicious elitist castes biases. It is nothing but an indirect attempt to perpetuate the caste system by keeping the Dalits and the lower sections of the OBCs as menials and labourers to be exploited at will.
Marxism, above all, is a philosophy of praxis and Com. Anuradha was a revolutionary who dedicated her entire life for the emancipation of the underdog. Therefore, as a mark of respect to her, underlining the seriousness of her praxis, I would conclude by quoting her programmatic agenda for the Dalit liberation struggle, which is intrinsically linked with the question of democratic revolution in India.
The following is the agenda she has systematically laid out for the struggle:
1. The proletariat must direct the class struggle against the caste system as an integral part of the struggle to accomplish the New Democratic Revolution.
2. For this, mobilize all the exploited classes in the struggle against caste oppression, exploitation and discrimination.
3. Smash caste-linked feudal authority in the villages and place political power in the hands of the oppressed classes, led by the landless and poor peasants.
4. Struggle to implement land to the tiller, keeping the interests of landless peasantry and poor peasantry at the forefront.
5. Wage an ideological struggle against Brahminical casteist ideology and all other forms of casteist thinking. Expose the casteist ideology in the scriptures like Manusmriti, the Gita and the Vedas, etc.
6. While upholding the right of the individual to pursue his or her faith, conduct a relentless ideological struggle against all forms of caste rituals and practices, like thread ceremony, etc.
7. Fight against propagation of vegetarianism, based on its link with ‘purity’ and other forms of superstition regarding ‘pollution’. Oppose ‘gohatya bandi’.
8. Fight social stigma against certain occupations and customs of lower castes, like beef eating or pork eating.
9. Fight against symbols of caste identity and degradation, and the culture having a caste slang.
10. Defend and actively support the struggle of the Dalit masses for self-respect. Defend the right of the Dalits to enter temples and convert.
11. Struggle for the civic and social rights of the Dalits and other lower castes, and oppose discrimination, e.g., use of common wells, hotels, toilets, hostels, etc.
12. Struggle for equal participation of lower castes in social functions. Try to establish social intercourse between the people belonging to various castes participating in the class struggle. Encourage inter-dining among different castes.
13. Oppose housing schemes based on caste segregation.
14. Defend and encourage inter-caste marriages. Demand incentives for all inter-caste marriages. Children of inter-caste marriages should get facilities as accorded to either parent.
15. End use of caste names in official records.
16. Encourage trade unions to take initiative in the implementation of reservation policy. Fight reservations in private sector.
17. Fight bureaucratic delays and corruption in loans and subsidies for Dalits and OBCs.
18. Demand special schemes to upgrade technology and the skills of lower castes and artisan groups.
19. Demand increase in scholarship amount and improved facilities in hostels for Dalits and Adivasis.
20. Expose the reactionary nature of caste associations, especially upper caste associations.
21. Fight against and expose the casteist leadership within the oppressed castes, who prevent the class unity of the toiling masses. There is a false consciousness among the poor people belonging to the upper castes that they are socially equal with the rich people of their castes. We have to expose this myth and make them understand that their real comrades-in-arms are the oppressed people of other castes. We should never put caste before class.
22. Fight and expose the opportunistic and reformist trends within the leadership of the oppressed castes. Fight bourgeois democratic illusions among oppressed castes.
23. Struggle against caste prejudices and caste beliefs within the ranks of the proletariat and other sections of the toiling masses, and build up a struggling unity among the exploited classes.
24. The communists should be one among the oppressed people of all castes and be with them in words and deeds. At the same time we should expose the pseudo communists who are rank casteists in practice.
25. Educate and struggle against casteist beliefs of activists of mass organizations.
26. Form special platforms of democratic sections to fight caste discrimination and programs against lower castes.
27. Form anti-riot squads in defence of lower castes in areas of caste tensions.
28. Propagate materialist scientific ideology, promote atheism.
29. Struggle to create a democratic culture, based on equality of all irrespective of caste and gender.
1. Reinterpreting Caste and Social Change: A Review In: From Varna to Jati Political Economy of Caste in Indian Social Formation; Y. Naveen Babu. Daanish Books, Delhi.
2. All extended quotes, unless otherwise mentioned, are from “Caste Question In India” by Anuradha Ghandy In: Scripting The Change: Selected Writings of Anuradha Ghandy, edited by Anand Teltumbde and Shoma Sen. Daanish Books, Delhi, 2011
3. For details see Mark Juergensmeier, “Adi Dharm: Origins of a Revolutionary Religion” University of California Press; Eleanor Zelliot, “Learning the Use of Political Means: The Mahars of Maharashtra”. In: Rajni Kothari, ed, “Caste in Indian Politics”, Orient Longman, 1970. J.H. Broom-field, “Elite Conflict in a Plural Society: Twentieth Century Bengal” (University of California Press, 1968).
4. See Bharat Patenkar, Gail Omvedt: The Dalit Liberation Movement in Colonial Period.
5. Kumar Sanjay Singh: Foreword to Annihilation of Caste by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. Published by Students for Resistance; Delhi, 2012
6. Dr. Anand Teltumbde: Forward to Annihilation of Castes Students for Resistance Delhi

Note: This paper was written for SANHATI in January 2013 and a revised version was presented at a seminar on Marxism and Caste question organized by Arvind Trust at Chandigarh in March 2013.