MARXISM AND THE CASTE QUESTION
AN EXTENDED REVIEW OF COM. ANURADHA GHANDY’S
“CASTE QUESTION IN INDIA”
~ Asit Das
INTRODUCTION
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.
THE CASTE SYSTEM IN HISTORY
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”).
COLONIAL AND POST-COLONIAL
ANTI-BRAHMINICAL AND DALIT LIBERATION MOVEMENTS
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.
AMBEDKAR
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.
TOWARDS SOME TASKS FOR
CASTE ANNIHILATION
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.
REFERENCES
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.
