MARXISM AND THE CASTE
QUESTION
REVIEW OF COM.
ANURADHA GHANDY’S
“CASTE QUESTION IN INDIA
~ Asit Das
In this putatively
postMarxist (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 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 postMandal 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 the gruesome massacres and atrocities on Dalits is a
daily affair. Not a single day passes without newspapers not reporting various
outrageous acts of atrocities on Dalits in India India India
It is here that the
writings on caste question in India
by late Comrades Anuradha Ghandy and Com. Y. Naveen Babu assume extreme
importance because they developed a framework for revolutionaries for dealing
with the caste system for the achievement of democratic revolution in India India Visakhapatnam 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.
(Reinterpreting Caste and Social Change: A Review In: From Varna Delhi
Com. Anuradha Ghandy’s
writing on caste question is an extremely valuable contribution in dealing with
the caste question in India India India
and scripting a specific set of demands for struggle to abolish caste system
and its relation with the democratic revolution in India India
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 (see “Caste
Question In India”; Anuradha Ghandy In:
Scripting The Change: Selected Writings of Anuradha Ghandy, edited by Anand
Teltumbde and Shoma Sen. Daanish Books, Delhi, 2011).
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 to 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 (Anuradha Ghandy:
“Caste Question In India”).
She 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 (Anuradha Ghandy: “Caste Question In India”).
Explaining the
emergence of class society from the 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
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
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 (Anuradha Ghandy:
“Caste Question In India”).
She explains the
emergence of the state in India
and its relations with the Varna Magadha
monarchies around the 6th century
BC was the form in which the state developed in ancient India Varna Varna
But the newly emerged
classes, the lower two Varnas and the non-subjugated tribal communities did not
accept this ideology and the Varna India
The Mauryan Empire,
which rose in the Magadha
region in the 3rd century
BC, was the first major fully formed stake in India
after the Indus Valley
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
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
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
Explaining the
popularity of Buddhism and Jainism, she 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 (Anuradha
Ghandy: “Caste Question In India”).
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
“From around 6th century AD in the early medieval
period the caste system, based on jatis, began to consolidate in most parts of India India 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
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.”
(Anuradha Ghandy: “Caste Question In India
She 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
By the 17th and 18th centuries when Moghuls 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 the 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 jagmani/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 (Anuradha Ghandy: “Caste Question In India”).
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 (Anuradha Ghandy: “Caste
Question In India”). She gives a brilliant account of the Bhakti and
non-Brahmin Movement in the pre-British and colonial period. She 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 castezamindars 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 thezamindars 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, the Brahmins, 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”).
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.
- From “Caste Question In India
* * * *
