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.
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.
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.
References
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
No comments:
Post a Comment