Wednesday, January 25, 2012

DAFODWAM thinks that India is a de-facto upper caste Hindu state & Brahminism derived from MANU SANGHITA is still the guiding philosophy of the India ruling classes.

DAFODWAM thinks that India is a de-facto upper caste Hindu state & Brahminism derived from MANU SANGHITA is still the guiding philosophy of the India ruling classes.
Indian Holocaust My Father`s Life and

Time - SEVEN HUNDRED NINETY  ONE

Palash Biswas

http://indianliberationnews.com/

http://indianholocaustmyfatherslifeandtime.blogspot.com/

http://basantipurtimes.blogspot.com/


I have stumled upon some literature published by DAFODWAM!Most significant is the book entitled, CLASS CASTE Relations, Marxist approach.DAFODWAM also publishes a little mag in Bengali, Chetana Lahar. DAFODWAM Chetna lahar is also an active Face Book Group!I had been writing and speaking that DR BR Ambedkar was not aignst the Marxist philosophy, but he criticised that Indian Communist Movement from the beginning had been MONOPOLISED by the Ruling Brahaminical Class. Indian Marxists rejected Ambedkarite Ideology and never did address the Indian Social Context of caste.The Marxist Definition of Proletariate is manipualted. The caste element in the Class is ignored which rather helped to sustain Manusmriti Rule. In Indian Context, the Proletariate is consisted of the NINETRY Five Percent NON ARYAN NON Brahamin Mulnivasi Bahujan belonging mostly to Excluded Communities ie Untouchables defined as SC, segregated Tribal Communities ST, Shudras, the OBC and converted Minorities. Ironically, as Marxists deny the tomost Ambedkarite agenda to fight aignst the Principal Enemy Brahaminism to achieve the goal of Casteless society which would be the real classless society, ironically in the Same way, Ambedkarites also did fail to understand the Caste Class relationship and Ambedkarite Economics. BR Ambedkar based his theory on the analysis of History and it is, mind you, quite Materialist. Now, Post Modern Ambedkarites go aignst History. Caste Identity has become the best tool to capture Power as we have seen in North Indian politics for last Six decades. Electoral Equations of Powerful Castes have become social engineering. So Called dalit Politics is controlled by Brahamins and the thinktank of BSP, a Brahamin SATISH Mishra dares to Glorify PUSHYAMITRA Shung who had been Responsible to kill the Buddhist India and Introduced Manusmriti Rule.
  • DAFODWAM claims that from the first day of formation,14th april, 1999, of DAFODWAM(Democratic Action Forumof dalits, Women and Minorities), the set of Marxist thinkers and Social Activists were in search of Marxist Organisation having a clear standpoint on caste question along with its commitment to Class struggle. In that effort, they succeeded to find a good number of intellectuals, even with Marxist leaningwho have written articles, books, dramas, songs, poems, even had made films on this subject.DAFODWAM claims that the Book on Class Caste Relations may perhaps helpthe activist groups  which are trying to  build up a real democratic India free from Caste Discrimination and caste division. The Content was origianally published in JANASHAKTI, edited by K.RAMACHANDRAN, the central organ of CPIML.

Class Caste RelationsMarxist Approach: Ananta Acharya

www.modernrationalist.com/2010/October/page03.html

Block all www.modernrationalist.com results

Class Caste RelationsMarxist Approach: Ananta Acharya. The Democratic Action Forum of Dalits, Women and Minorities (DAFODWAM), formed on 14th April ...




Indian Communist Movement is hijacked by the Brahaminical Hegemony and the fact remains that the Communist, Marxist, Maoist and Socialist Parties and Trade Unions are the Integral Parts and Parcels of the Zionist Corporate Imperialist Manusmriti Apartheid Hegemony. It is interesting that some Marxist thinkers are indulged in a process to address the Problems of CLASS CASTE Relations.DR BR Ambedkar with his Economist Approach has addressed thsi Problem most scietifically. But the Marxists led by Brahamins hitherto denied the existence of the problem itself and denied to recognise DR BR Ambedkar and Ambedkaratie ideology. Annihilition of Caste has NEVER been in the Agenda of Indian Communist, Marxist, Maoist or Socialist Movement. An intellectual like Arundhuti Roy herself a Malyali Brahamin defies Ambedkar and defends Brahaminism. Arundhuti`s Social Activism and her involvement in the defence of Aborigine Indigenous Mulnivasi Bahujan Humanscape are the well known facts. But Arundhuti says that Brahaminism is not the Enemy as described by DR BR AMBEDKAR! It is Astonishing departure from her known stance favouring the Excluded communities. Hence,DAFODWAM phenomenon  has  to be taken rather seriously!As DAFODWAM thinks that India is a de facto upper caste Hindu state and Brahmanism derived from Manu Sanghita is still the guiding philosophy of Indian rulling classes. Untill the abolition of caste system and discrimination based on gender and religious community there is no chance of victory of class struggle, in whatever form. And this book will help those people who are trying to build up a real democratic India free from caste discrimination and caste division.

It is quite a credible fact that the Organisation claims NOT to be a NGO fed by Government or Foreign fund! As we see tthat most of the organisations with similar agenda, thounsands of them, are NGOs DIVERTING the Indian Liberation Movment!

We Must carefully listen what Arundhuti say about the Fight for liberation. It is very important to understand the relevance of DAFODWAM!In reference to:
CLASS CASTE RELATIONS-MARXIST APPROACH,first english publication of DAFODWAM[DEMOCRATIC ACTION FORUM OF DALITS, WOMEN AND MINORITIES] is just published..available at world view[jadabpur university campus], book mark, new horizon book trust, book stalls near bbd bag telephone bhaban... For more call [0]9331858854... dafodwam@gmail.com.... DAFODWAM-30-2 NP RD ..KOLKATA-55
Class Caste Relations
Marxist Approach
a DAFODWAM Presentation.
(Democratic Action Forum Of Dalits, Women And Minorites)
DAFODWAM thinks that India is a de facto upper caste Hindu state and Brahmanism derived from Manu Sanghita is still the guiding philosophy of Indian rulling classes. Untill the abolition of caste system and discrimination based on gender and religious community there is no chance of victory of class struggle, in whatever form. And this book will help those people who are trying to build up a real democratic India free from caste discrimination and caste division!

Arundhati Roy says Babasaheb wrong and defends Brahminism

by Excalibur Stevens Biswas

Arundhati Roy, the famous writer the famous comrade , a real life role model of lots of people of youth, but it really shocked the world on 20 th jan 2012 at St.Xavier's college near CST mumbai ,when she mentioned about Dr.Babasaheb's book annhilation of caste. In which Babasaheb told The workers communist nation has to face two enemies one is capitalism and another one is Brahminism. And on this comment she quoted these words and told "i should not be misunderstood by saying that Brahminism as enemy". You say a lot about freedom patriotism capitalism but India you say Brahminism is not an enemy then its clear you are in whose side.She supports Maoism and says lots of things about communism then she must know who killed the communist Movement in India Brahminism, They are the leaders and she must know what happened to Babasaheb too when he got elected for constitutional assembly election and mainly from these districts Faridpur,Khulna,Jashar and Barishal and what now the brahminical empored India corporation gave these districts to Bangladesh to make sure he never get elected again. The communist trade unions in India why they failed because they were leaded by Brahminical ideological people The labours didn't went with the ideology of Communism the ideology to protest capitalism but instead they were misleaded and they protested for the luxury of employees no where in communist it's been said that to welcome capitalism and protest for luxury of labours.And Arundhuti supports these communist leaders.the Maoisism is same the brahmins are the leaders misleading the people klling tribals and giving their lands to tribals. And when you say Babasaheb wrong that means you say that bahujan exploited class people are wrong and you say to much about people and you one statement shows that how fake she is and how blindly she supports it. The bahujans made her their role model but after this statement its clear that she is not worthy to be followed as a role model.


Audio recorded by Excalibur Stevens Biswas








Posted by excaliburstevensbiswas at 12:22
http://realindianews.blogspot.com/2012/01/arundhuti-roy-says-babasaheb-wrong-and.html
Description DAFODWAM:
Aims & programs of DAFODWAM ( Democratic Action Forum of Dalits,Women and Minorities) are embodied in tis name itself.Here Dalits mean SCs,STs & OBCs.DAFODWAM is not a frontal organization of any political party,but its is very much well aware of social & political incidents of the country.Financially it is dependent on c-thinkers,not on any Goverement fund,or its not anything like an NGO


We

The Marxists Fail to Address the Problem of Caste System oriented Discrimination and Exclusion just because they are led by Brahamins who happen to be Committed to Sustain Manusmriti Rule! While the Maoists Kicked out Revolutionary Gaddar as He is Dalit!

Maoists Kicked out Revolutionary Gaddar as He is Dalit!Gaddar had been demanding to address the Problem of Brahaminical System and the caste Phenomenon. And Now, it is in andhra,ahead of the crucial state general council meeting, a serious debate is going on in the CPM party circles as to why a leader from backward and Dalit sections has never been made the party chief. While Marx saw caste as the decisive impediment to India's power and progress, they (Indian Marxists) took caste as a matter of superstructure... Caste being a production relation does not belong to the superstructure, but to the socio-economic base. The biggest theoretical failure of Indian Marxists has been their refusal to recognise caste as part of the substructure of the society.Here one has to distinguish between caste as an institution of permanent division of means of production and profession and caste as an attitude of untouchability and discrimination. Caste contains both these aspects, the former belonging to the base and the latter to the superstructure.


Dr BR Ambedkar had clarified that the Marxist ideology was hijacked by the Brahamins.Dr. Ambedkar's analysis and formulations on the ruling classes, Congress and Gandhism were quite different from the official Ambedkarite perceptions. Moreover, "his evaluation about the western parliamentary system and approving references to the Paris Commune and the soviet system exploded all theories that Ambedkar was anti-communist". Ambedkar`s SARVHARA was the Mulnivasi Bahujan whose identity is still denied by the Brahamin communists.In his conflict with Gandhi, Ambedkar undoubtedly emerged as the foremost exponent of a radical socio-economic programme in the freedom struggle.From Harijans to dalits — there lies the whole course of transformation in the self-perception of untouchables and none but Ambedkar had been the moving spirit behind this transformation. He was perhaps the first dalit leader, who combined with a fair degree of success the social awakening of dalits with their political assertion.The Marxists and Maoists did never recognise the fact.


Cautioning supporters against the "growing influence of identity politics in India," Communist Party of India (Marxist) general secretary Prakash Karat said in Kolkata on Tuesday that the Left must meet the challenge. Ahead of the elections to the Uttar Pradesh Assembly, Mr. Karat pointed out that 20 years ago the phenomenon of "Other Backward Classes (OBC) mobilisation" had been witnessed there, but had now fragmented into a dozen different groups. "When I used to go to U.P. 20 years ago there used to be what is generally called the Other Backward Classes (OBC) mobilisation. Today that does not exist. That OBC has been broken up into another dozen sub-castes and a dozen political parties have sprung up, representing each caste or sub-caste," he said.


Mr. Karat said that this brand of politics, which is dividing people along the lines of caste, community, religion or ethnic identities, is an instrument to fight the Left movement in India as it was being used to break up the class-based movements, to divide the class solidarity of people who face common forms of exploitation. "To fall into the trap of believing that identity politics is a movement of only the oppressed sections, small minority groups and oppressed people and, therefore, is a progressive phenomenon, and it would be falling into the very trap set by imperialism and the ruling classes. We have to patiently counter identity politics," he said. "Identity politics can only be effectively countered when we take up those genuine issues of oppression that is faced by those sections,' he added. Speaking on the "Challenges of the times and the task before the Left" at a seminar organised during the North 24 Parganas district conference of the CPI(M), Mr. Karat outlined the problems being faced by the country.


Criticising the neo-liberal policies being promoted by the Centre, Mr. Karat said they had led to new kinds of exploitation of the working classes and peasants. He emphasised the need to organise workers in the unorganised sector in order "to build a powerful worker-peasant alliance." He also warned about the growing influence of imperialist forces on India's foreign policy, which in turn is also affecting our domestic policies. Citing the example of the introduction of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the retail sector, Mr. Karat said that the Left had managed to stall the move that would affect the livelihood of lakhs of people, but the UPA government was determined to go ahead with the decision. "Again they [the UPA government] have said, once the Assembly elections are over, we will implement it. Everyone else is opposed to it; the people in this country are opposed to it, but why do they want to bring it? Because the United States of America has said that you have to do it," he said. The Left will have to mobilise the people on a large scale against this pro-imperialist foreign policy, which will also have a direct impact on the domestic policies and livelihood of the people.


Marx talked about those labour relations. He talked about 'exploitation of labour' that has been taking place since hundreds and thousands of yeas in the arena of labour relations. He discussed various kinds of problems that arise due to exploitation of labour. He indicated the solution to those problems. Therefore, it is our responsibility to understand our problems. First, we have to ascertain whether exploitation of labour is present in India. We also have to ascertain whether the caste question comes under the sphere of labour relations. If we ascertain that there is a connection between castes and labour, then we can undoubtedly arrive at the conclusion that Marx's theory applies to India also. Any problem connected with human society is intertwined with labour relations. Since caste question is connected with human beings, it also comes under the purview of the theory that talks about labour relations.


In the aftermath of the global financial crisis, the talk of "the death of socialism" has ceased and instead an alternative to capitalism is being sought, Communist Party of India (Marxist) general secretary Prakash Karat said Tuesday, adding that socialism in the 21st century will have to take a different form. "In the world today, no more is there a talk about the death of socialism and Marxism. In fact, what is in the dock today is the future of capitalism," Mr. Karat said emphatically adding that the only alternative to capitalism is socialism. Confident that "out of this prolonged capitalist crisis, new contradictions will develop," Mr. Karat said that there was a tremendous "scope for developing a revolutionary movement" in this period utilising all the contradictions between the interests of the ruling classes and the working classes that will emerge. Mr. Karat, who is in town to attend the crucial session of the party's Central Committee which is likely to finalise the draft ideological resolution, was speaking at a seminar on the "Challenges of the times and the role of the Left" during the North 24 Parganas district conference of the CPI(M).


Citing success stories in Latin America, Mr. Karat said that Venezuela was leading the way in the "re-nationalisation" of certain sectors, including power, telecom and oil and natural gas. Similarly, Bolivia had witnessed the reallocation of one crore acres of land in land reforms. "We have to go through different phases of developing socialism," Mr. Karat said. However, he said that after the experiences of socialism in the 20 century, corrections would have to be made such as the inclusion of a role of the market within a planned economy. "There will be central planning, but market will not be eliminated. The market will be utilised, incorporated within the central planning. Because without the market we cannot get correct indicators in a modern economy of how much is to be produced, what is to be produced and how can you price that product," Mr. Karat said.


Mr. Karat said that countries such as China, Vietnam and Cuba have already adopted the market within a planned economy. India has been witness to a great social turmoil in recent years where the twin entities of caste and religion have played a major catalytic role. It all came to the fore after VP Singh-led Janata Dal government decided to implement the Mandal Commission recommendations on reservation of jobs to Other Backward Classes in 1990. Although Janata Dal came to power on a plank of anti-Congressism with a tacit support from BJP, the alliance soon ran into rough weather. And interestingly, the two became protagonists of two major socio-political movements in contemporary history of India. Pitted against each other, the movements were popularly known as Mandal and Mandir movements. Janata Dal, in the beginning, enjoyed a much larger support base in its crusade against corruption (Bofors). Its championing of Mandal to the exclusion of everything else, however, vastly eroded its support base and led to a whole chain of political crisis which eventually reduced it to a marginal force in Indian politics.


Mandal, if one were to believe the rhetoric of VP Singh and his cohorts, would usher in an unparalleled social revolution in India against the forces of statusquoism and obscurantism, the forces who were politically represented by Congress(I) and BJP. In an ironic twist of history, Mandal recommendations were implemented by Congress(I) government taking, in the process, much wind out of the Janata Dal sails. The crusader in VP Singh dies hard and now it is reduced to the ridiculous demand of a dalit President or a backward Prime Minister, irrespective of his/her ideological-political predilection. Then there is the gimmick of staying away from Delhi till a backward gets employment on the basis of reservation quota. The revolution thus has degenerated into cosmetic reforms and the movement into tokenism. As regards reservation proper Janata Dal is now left with the options of opposing the creamy layer verdict and to pressurise for 10 per cent reservation quota for upper castes on economic criterion — a promise that V P Singh made to diffuse the anti-Mandal agitation. Neither of the options, however, can be pursued with any zeal for obvious reasons.


Political eclipse of Mr.VP Singh and his Janata Dal signalled the rise of Mulayam Singh and Kanshi Ram. Mulayam Singh claims himself to be the natural representative of backwards as compared to VP Singh, the outsider, and invoking Lohia he has couched his politics in a socialist phraseology with a greater force of inheritance and sincerity of purpose. Kanshi Ram, the rising star of dalit politics, on the other hand, invokes the legacy of Ambedkar. Armed with a radical dalit posture and anti-communist phobia he seems to be desperate to outsmart Ambedkar himself. These dramatic events have exerted tremendous impact on Indian left and communist movement. While Mandal greatly eroded the communist base among backward peasantry in states like Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, BSP virtually swept away the traditional dalit support of left parties in Uttar Pradesh. Under the circumstances a polemics has surfaced within the left and communist circles that calls for a new approach to the caste phenomenon in Indian society and, particularly in the backdrop of soviet debacle, to redefine the "orthodox" concept of class. Recent desertion of first-ranking leaders of CPI to Samajwadi Party in Uttar Pradesh, PWG Naxalites swelling the ranks of BSP in Andhra Pradesh and defection of some IPF MLAs to Janata Dal in Bihar bring out the gravity and the complexity of the situation.


ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

WITH

A REPLY TO MAHATMA GANDHI

"Know Truth as Truth and Untruth as Untruth "

—buddha

"He that WILL NOT reason is a bigot He that CANNOT reason is a fool He that DARE NOT reason is a slave " H. drummond

Printed from the third edition of 1944

_____________________________________________________________________


Contents


1.     Preface to the Second Edition

2.     Preface to the Third Edition

3.     Prologue

4.     Speech Prepared By Dr. B. R. Ambedkar

5.     Appendix I :  A Vindication Of Caste By Mahatma Gandhi

6.     Appendix  II : A Reply To The Mahatma By Dr. B. R. Ambedkar

ANNIHILATION OF CASTE

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION

The speech prepared by me for the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal of Lahore has had an astonishingly warm reception from the Hindu public for whom it was primarily intended. The English edition of one thousand five hundred was exhausted within two months of its publication. It is translated intoGujarati and Tamil. It is being translated in Marathi, Hindi, Punjabi and Malayalam. The demand for the English text still continues unabated. To satisfy this demand it has become necessary to issue a Second Edition. Considerations of history and effectiveness of appeal have led me to retain the original form of the essay—namely the speech form—-although I was asked to recast it in the form of a direct narrative. To this edition I have added two appendices. I have collected in Appendix I the two articles written by Mr. Gandhi by way of review of my speech in the Harijan,and his letter to Mr. Sant Ram, a member of the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal. In Appendix II, I have printed my views in reply to the articles of Mr. Gandhi collected in Appendix 1. Besides Mr. Gandhi many others have adversely criticised my views as expressed in my speech. But I have felt that in taking notice of such adverse comments I should limit myself to Mr. Gandhi. This I have done not because what he has said is so weighty as to deserve a reply but because to many a Hindu he is an oracle, so great that when he opens his lips it is expected that the argument must close and no dog must bark. But the world owes much to rebels who would dare to argue in the face of the pontiff and insist that he is not infallible. I do not care for the credit which every progressive society must give to its rebels. I shall be satisfied if I make the Hindus realize that they are the sick men of India and that their sickness is causing danger to the health and happiness of other Indians.

B. R. AMBEDKAR

PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION

The Second edition of this Essay appeared in 1937, and was exhausted within a very short period. A new edition has been in demand for a long time. It was my intention to recast the essay so as to incorporate into it another essay of mine called " Castes in India, their Origin and their Mechanism ", which appeared in the issue of the Indian Antiquary Journal for May 1917. But as I could not find time, and as there is very little prospect of my being able to do so and as the demand for it from the public is very insistent, I am content to let this be a mere reprint of the Second edition.

I am glad to find that this essay has become so popular, and I hope that it will serve the purpose for which it was intended.

22, Prithwiraj Road

New Delhi 1st December 1944                           B. R. AMBEDKAR


PROLOGUE

On December 12, 1935, I received the following letter from Mr. Sant Ram, the Secretary of the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal :

My dear Doctor Saheb,

Many thanks for your kind letter of the 5th December. I have released it for press without your permission for which I beg your pardon, as I sawno harm in giving it publicity. You are a great thinker, and it is my well-considered opinion that none else has studied the problem of Caste so deeply as you have. I have always benefited myself and our Mandal from your ideas. I have explained and preached it in the Kranti many times and I have even lectured on it in many Conferences. I am now very anxious to read the exposition of your new formula—" It is not possible to break Caste without annihilating the religious notions on which it, the Caste system, is founded." Please do explain it at length at your earliest convenience, so that we may take up the idea and emphasise it from press and platform. At present, it is not fully clear to me.

*          *          *         *          *

Our Executive Committee persists in having you as our President for our Annual Conference. We can change our dates to accommodate your convenience. Independent Harijans of Punjab are very much desirous to meet you and discuss with you their plans. So if you kindly accept our request and come to Lahore to preside over the Conference it will serve double purpose. We will invite Harijan leaders of all shades of opinion and you will get an opportunity of giving your ideas to them.

The Mandal has deputed our Assistant Secretary, Mr. Indra Singh, to meet you at Bombay in Xmas and discuss with you the whole situation with a view to persuade you to please accept our request.

*          *          *          *          *

The Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal, I was given to understand, to be an organization of Caste Hindu Social Reformers, with the one and only aim, namely to eradicate the Caste System from amongst the Hindus. As a rule, I do not like to take any part in a movement which is carried on by the Caste Hindus. Their attitude towards social reform is so different from mine that I have found it difficult to pull on with them. Indeed, I find their company quite uncongenial to me on account of our differences of opinion. Therefore when the Mandal first approached me I declined their invitation to preside. The Mandal, however, would not take a refusal from me and sent down one of its members to Bombay to press me to accept the invitation. In the end I agreed to preside. The Annual Conference was to be held at Lahore, the headquarters of the Mandal. The Conference was to meet in Easter but was subsequently postponed to the middle of May 1936. The Reception Committee of the Mandal has now cancelled the Conference. The notice of cancellation came long after my Presidential address had been printed. The copies of this address are now lying with me. As I did not get an opportunity to deliver the address from the presidential chair the public has not had an opportunity to know my views on the problems created by the Caste System. To let the public know them and also to dispose of the printed copies which are lying on my hand, I have decided to put the printed copies of the address in the market. The accompanying pages contain the text of that address.

The public will be curious to know what led to the cancellation of my appointment as the President of the Conference. At the start, a dispute arose over the printing of the address. I desired that the address should be printed in Bombay. The Mandal wished that it should be printed in Lahore on the ground of economy. I did not agree and insisted upon having it printed in Bombay. Instead of agreeing to my proposition I received a letter signed by several members of the Mandal from which I give the following extract :

27-3-36

Revered Dr. Ji,

Your letter of the 24th instant addressee to Sjt. Sant Ram has been shown to us. We were a little disappointed to read it. Perhaps you are not fully aware of the situation that has arisen here. Almost all the Hindus in the Punjab are against your being invited to this province. The Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal has been subjected to the bitterest criticism and has received censorious rebuke from all quarters. All the Hindu leaders among whom being Bhai Parmanand, M-L.A. (Ex-President, Hindu Maha Sabha), Mahatma Hans Raj, Dr. Gokal Chand Narang, Minister for Local Self-Government, Raja Narendra Nath, M.L.C. etc., have dissociated themselves from this step of the Mandal.

Despite all this the runners of the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal (the leading figure being Sjt. Sant Ram) are determined to wade through thick and thin but would not give up the idea of your presidentship. The Mandal has earned a bad name.

*        *        *        *        *

Under the circumstances it becomes your duty to co-operate with the Mandal. On the one hand, they are being put to so much trouble and hardship by the Hindus and if on the other hand you too augment their difficulties it will be a most sad coincidence of bad luck for them.

We hope you will think over the matter and do what is good for us all.

*         *         *         *         *

This letter puzzled me greatly. I could not understand why the Mandal should displease me for the sake of a few rupees in the matter of printing the address. Secondly, I could not believe that men like Sir Gokal Chand Narang had really resigned as a protest

against my selection as President because I had received the following letter from Sir Gokal Chand himself :

5 Montgomery Road

Lahore,

7-2-36

Dear Doctor Ambedkar,

I am glad to learn from the workers of the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal that you have agreed to preside at their next anniversary to be held at Lahore during the Easter holidays, it will give me much pleasure if you stay with me while you are at Lahore. More when we meet.

Yours sincerely,

G. C. narang

Whatever be the truth I did not yield to this pressure. But even when the Mandal found that I was insisting upon having my address printed in Bombay instead of agreeing to my proposal the Mandal sent me a wire that they were sending Mr. Har Bhagwan to Bombay to " talk over matters personally " Mr. Har Bhagwan came to Bombay on the 9th of April. When I met Mr. Har Bhagwan I found that he had nothing to say regarding the issue. Indeed he was so unconcerned regarding the printing of the address, whether it should be printed in Bombay or in Lahore, that he did not even mention it in the course of our conversation. All that he was anxious for was to know the contents of the address. I was then convinced that in getting the address printed in Lahore the main object of the Mandal was not to save money but to get at the contents of the address. I gave him a copy. He did not feel very happy with some parts of it. He returned to Lahore. From Lahore, he wrote to me

the following letter :

Lahore,

dated April 14, 1936

My dear Doctor Sahib,

Since my arrival from Bombay, on the 12th, I have been indisposed owing to my having not slept continuously for 5 or 6 nights, which werespent in the train. Reaching here I came to know that you had come to Amritsar. I would have seen you there if I were well enough to go about. I have made over your address to Mr. Sant Ram for translation and he has liked it very much, but he is not sure whether it could be translated by him for printing before the 25th. In any case, it woud have a wide publicity and we are sure it would wake the Hindus up from their slumber.

The passage I pointed out to you at Bombay has been read by some of our friends with a little misgiving, and those of us who would like to see the Conference terminate without any untoward incident would prefer that at least the word " Veda " be left out for the time being. I leave this to your good sense. I hope, however, in your concluding paragraphs you will make it clear that the views expressed in the address are your own and that the responsibility does not lie on the Mandal. I hope, you will not mind this statement of mine and would let us have 1,000 copies of the address, for which we shall, of course, pay. To this effect I have sent you a telegram today. A cheque of Rs. 100 is enclosed herewith which kindly acknowledge, and send us your bills in due time.

I have called a meeting of the Reception Committee and shall communicate their decision to you immediately. In the meantime kindly accept my heartfelt thanks for the kindness shown to me and the great pains taken by you in the preparation of your address. You have really put us under a heavy debt of gratitude.

Yours sincerely,

har bhagwan

P.S.—Kindly send the copies of the address by passenger train as soon as it is printed, so that copies may be sent to the Press for publication.

Accordingly I handed over my manuscript to the printer with an order to print 1,000 copies. Eight days later, I received another letter from Mr.Har Bhagwan which I reproduce below :

Lahore,

22-4-36

Dear Dr. Ambedkar,

We are in receipt of your telegram and letter, for which kindly accept our thanks. In accordance with your desire, we have again postponed our Conference, but feel that it would have been much better to have it on the 25th and 26th, as the weather is growing warmer and warmer every day in the Punjab. In the middle of May it would be fairly hot, and the sittings in the day time would not be very pleasant and comfortable. However, we shall try our best to do all we can to make things as comfortable as possible, if it is held in the middle of May.

There is, however, one thing that we have been compelled to bring to your kind attention. You will remember that when I pointed out to you themisgivings entertained by some of our people regarding your declaration on the subject of change of religion, you told me that it was undoubtedly outside the scope of the Mandal and that you had no intention to say anything from our platform in that connection. At the same time when the manuscript of your address was handed to me you assured me that that was the main portion of your address and that there were only two or three concluding paragraphs that you wanted to add. On receipt of the second instalment of your address we have been taken by surprise, as that would make it so lengthy, that we are afraid, very few people would read the whole of it. Besides that you have more than once stated in your address that you had decided to walk out of the fold of the Hindus and that that was your last address as a Hindu. You have also unnecessarily attacked the morality and reasonableness of the Vedas and other religious books of the Hindus, and have at length dwelt upon the technical side of Hindu religion, which has absolutely no connection with the problem at issue, so much so that some of the passages have become irrelevant and off the point. We would have been very pleased if you had confined your address to that portion given to me, or if an addition was necessary, it would have been limited to what you had written on Brahminism etc. The last portion which deals with the complete annihilation of Hindu religion and doubts the morality of the sacred books of the Hindus as well as a hint about your intention to leave the Hindu fold does not seem to me to be relevant.

I would therefore most humbly request you on behalf of the people responsible for the Conference to leave out the passages referred to above, and close the address with what was given to me or add a few paragraphs on Brahminism. We doubt the wisdom of making the address unnecessarily provocative and pinching. There are several of us who subscribe to your feelings and would very much want to be under your banner for remodelling of the Hindu religion. If you had decided to get together persons of your cult I can assure you a large number would have joined your army of reformers from the Punjab.

In fact, we thought you would give us a lead in the destruction of the evil of caste system, especially when you have studied the subject so thoroughly, and strengthen our hands by bringing about a revolution and making yourself as a nucleus in the gigantic effort, but declaration of the nature made by you when repeated loses its power, and becomes a hackneyed term. Under the circumstances, I would request you to consider the whole matter and make your address more effective by saying that you would be glad to take a leading part in the destruction of the caste system if the Hindus are willing to work in right earnest toward that end, even if they had to forsake their kith and kin and the religious notions. In case you do so, I am sanguine that you would find a ready response from the Punjab in such an endeavour.

I shall be grateful if you will help us at this juncture as we have already undergone much expenditure and have been put to suspense, and let us know by the return of post that you have condescended to limit your address as above. In case, you still insist upon the printing of the address intoto, we very much regret it would not be possible—rather advisable for us to hold the Conference, and would prefer to postpone it sine die,although by doing so we shall be losing the goodwill of the people because of the repeated postponements. We should, however, like to point out that you have carved a niche in our hearts by writing such a wonderful treatise on the caste system, which excels all other treatises so far written and will prove to be a valuable heritage, so to say. We shall be ever indebted to you for the pains taken by you in its preparation.

Thanking you very much for your kindness and with best wishes.

I am,

Yours sincerely,

har bhagwan

To this letter I sent the following reply :

27th April 1936

Dear Mr. Har Bhagwan,

I am in receipt of your letter of the 22nd April. I note with regret that the Reception Commitiee of the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal " would prefer to postpone the Conference sine die " if I insisted upon printing the address in toto. In reply I have to inform you that I also would prefer to have the Conference cancelled—1 do not like to use vague terms—if the Mandal insisted upon having my address pruned to suit its circumstances. You may not like my decision. But I cannot give up, for the sake of the honour of presiding over the Conference, the liberty which every President must have in the preparation of the address. I cannot give up for the sake of pleasing the Mandal the duty which every President owes to theConference over which he presides to give it a lead which he thinks right and proper. The issue is one of principle and I feel I must do nothing to compromise it in any way.

I would not have entered into any controversy as regards the propriety of the decision taken by the Reception Committee. But as you have given certain reasons which appear to throw the blame on me. I am bound to answer them. In the first place, I must dispel the notion that the views contained in that part of the address to which objection has been taken by the Committee have come to the Mandal as a surprise. Mr.Sant Ram, I am sure, will bear me out when I say that in reply to one of his letters I had said that the real method of breaking up the Caste System was not to bring about inter-caste dinners and inter-caste marriages but to destroy the religious notions on which Caste was founded and that Mr. Sant Ram in return asked me to explain what he said was a novel point of view. It was in response to this invitation from Mr. Sant Ram that I thought I ought to elaborate in my address what I had stated in a sentence in my letter to him. You cannot, therefore, say that the views expressed are new. At any rate, they are not new to Mr. Sant Ram who is the moving spirit and the leading light of your Mandal. But I go further and say that I wrote this part of my address not merely because I felt it desirable to do so. I wrote it because I thought that it was absolutely necessary to complete the argument. I am amazed to read that you characterize the portion of the speech to which your Committee objects as " irrelevant and off the point ". You will allow me to say that I am a lawyer and I know the rules of relevancy as well as any member of your Committee. I most emphatically maintain that the portion objected to is not only most relevant but is also important. It is in that part of the address that I have discussed the ways and means of breaking up the Caste System. It may be that the conclusion I have arrived at as to the best method of destroying Caste is startling and painful. You are entitled to say that my analysis is wrong. But you cannot say that in an address which deals withthe problem of Caste it is not open to me to discuss how Caste can be destroyed.

Your other complaint relates to the length of the address. I have pleaded guilty to the charge in the address itself. But, who is really responsible for this ? I fear you have come rather late on the scene. Otherwise you would have known that originally I had planned to write a short address for my own convenience as I had neither the time nor the energy to engage myself in the preparation of an elaborate thesis. It was the Mandal who asked me to deal with the subject exhaustively and it was the Mandal which sent down to me a list of questions relating to the Caste System and asked me to answer them in the body of my address as they were questions which were often raised in the controversy between the Mandal and its opponents and which the Mandal found difficult to answer satisfactorily. It was in trying to meet the wishes of the Mandal in this respect that the address has grown to the length to which it has. In view of what I have said I am sure you will agree that the fault respecting length of the address is not mine.

I did not expect that your Mandal would be so upset because I have spoken of the destruction of Hindu Religion. I thought it was only fools who were afraid of words. But lest there should be any misapprehension in the minds of the people I have taken great pains to explain what I mean by religion and destruction of religion. I am sure that nobody on reading my address could possibly misunderstand me. That your Mandal should have taken a fright at mere words as "destruction of religion etc." notwithstanding the explanation that accompanies .them does not raise theMandal in my estimation. One cannot have any respect or regard for men who take the position of the Reformer and then refuse even to see the logical consequences of that position, let alone following them out in action.

You will agree that I have never accepted to be limited in any way in the preparation of my address and the question as to what the address should or should not contain was never even discussed between myself and the Mandal. I had always taken for granted that I was free to express in the address such views as I held on the subject Indeed until, you came to Bombay on the 9th April the Mandal did not know what sort of an address I was preparing. It was when you came to Bombay that I voluntarily told you that I had no desire to use your platform from which to advocate my views regarding change of religion by the Depressed Classes. I think I have scrupulously kept that promise in the preparation of the address. Beyond a passing reference of an indirect character where I say that " I am sorry I will not be here. . . etc." I have said nothing about the subject in my address. When I see you object even to such a passing and so indirect a reference, I feel bound to ask ; did you think that in agreeing to preside over your Conference I would be agreeing to suspend or to give up my views regarding change of faith by the Depressed Classes ? If you did think so I must tell you that I am in no way responsible for such a mistake on your part. If any of you had even hinted to me that in exchange for the honour you were doing me by electing as President, I was to abjure my faith in my programme of conversion, I would have told you in quite plain terms that I cared more for my faith than for any honour from you.

After your letter of the 14th, this letter of yours comes as a surprize to me. I am sure that any one who reads them will feel the same. I cannot account for this sudden volte face on the part of the Reception Committee. There is no difference in substance between the rough draft which was before the Committee when you wrote your letter of the 14th and the final draft on which the decision of the Committee communicated to me in your letter under reply was taken. You cannot point out a single new idea in the final draft which is not contained in the earlier draft. The ideas are the same. The only difference is that they have been worked out in greater detail in the final draft. If there was anything to object to in the address you could have said so on the 14th. But you did not. On the contrary you asked me to print off 1,000 copies leaving me the liberty to accept or not the verbal changes which you suggested. Accordingly I got 1,000 copies printed which are now lying with me. Eight days later you write to say that you object to the address and that if it is not amended the Conference will be cancelled. You ought to have known that there was no hope of any alteration being made in the address. I told you when you were in Bombay that I would not alter a comma, that I would not allow any censorship over my address and that you would have to accept the address as it came from me. I also told you that the responsibility. for the views expressed in the address was entirely mine and if they were not liked by the Conference I would not mind at all if the Conference passed a resolution condemning them. So anxious was I to relieve your Mandal from having to assume responsibility for my views and also with the object of not getting myself entangled by too intimate an association with your Conference, I suggested to you that I desired to have my address treated as a sort of an inaugural address and not as a Presidential address and that the Mandal should find some one else to preside over the Conference, and deal with the resolutions. Nobody could have been better placed to take a decision on the 14th than your Committee. The Committee failed to do that and in the meantime cost of printing has been incurred which, I am sure, with a little more firmness on the part of your Committee could have been saved.

I feel sure that the views expressed in my address have little to do with the decision of your Committee. I have reasons to believe that my presence at the Sikh Prachar Conference held at Amritsar has had a good deal to do with the decision of the Committee. Nothing else can satisfactorily explain the sudden volte face shown by the Committee between the 14th and the 22nd April. I must not however prolong this controversy and must request you to announce immediately that the Session of the Conference which was to meet under my Presidentship is cancelled. All the grace has by now run out and I shall not consent to preside even if your Committee agreed to accept my address as it is- intoto. I thank you for your appreciation of the pains I have taken in the preparation of the address. I certainly have profited by the labour if no one else docs. My only regret is that I was put to such hard labour at a time when my health was not equal to the strain it has caused.

Yours sincerely,

B. R. ambedkar

This correspondence will disclose the reasons which have led to the cancellation by the Mandal of my appointment as President and the reader will be in a position to lay the blame where it ought properly to belong. This is I believe the first time when the appointment of a President is cancelled by the Reception Committee because it does not approve of the views of the President. But whether that is so or not, this is certainly the first time in my life to have been invited to preside over a Conference of Caste Hindus. I am sorry that it has ended in a tragedy. But what can any one expect from a relationship so tragic as the relationship between the reforming sect of Caste Hindus and the self-respecting sect of Untouchables where the former have no desire to alienate their orthodox fellows and the latter have no alternative but to insist upon reform being carried out ?

Rajgriha,

Dadar, Bombay 14 15th May 1936                                           B. R. AMBEDKAR

SPEECH PREPARED BY

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar

FOR

The 1936 Annual Conference of the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal of Lahore

BUT NOT DELIVERED

Owing to the cancellation of the Conference by the Reception Committee on the ground that the views expressed in the Speech would be unbearable to the Conference

Friends,

I am really sorry for the members of the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal who have so very kindly invited me to preside over this Conference. I am sure they will be asked many questions for having selected me as the President. The Mandal will be asked to explain as to why it has imported a man from Bombay to preside over a function which is held in Lahore. I believe the Mandal could easily have found some one better qualified than myself to preside on the occasion. I have criticised the Hindus. I have questioned the authority of the Mahatma whom they revere. They hate me. To them I am a snake in their garden. The Mandal will no doubt be asked by the politically-minded Hindus to explain why it has called me to fill this place of honour. It is an act of great daring. I shall not be surprised if some political Hindus regard it as an insult. This selection of mine cannot certainly please the ordinary religiously-minded Hindus. The Mandal may be asked to explain why it has disobeyed the Shastric injunction in selecting the President. Accoding to the Shastras the Brahmin is appointed to be the Guru for the three Varnas, varnanam bramhano garu, is a direction of the Shastras. The Mandal therefore knows from whom a Hindu should take his lessons and from whom he should not. TheShastras do not permit a Hindu to accept any one as his Guru merely because he is well versed. This is made very clear by Ramdas, a Brahmin saint from Maharashtra, who is alleged to have inspired Shivaji to establish a Hindu Raj. In his Dasbodh, a socio-politico-religious treatise in Marathi verse Ramdas asks, addressing the Hindus, can we accept an Antyaja to be our Guru because he is a Pandit (i.e. learned) and gives an answer in the negative. What replies to give to these questions is a matter which I must leave to the Mandal. The Mandal knows best the reasons which led it to travel to Bombay to select a president, to fix upon a man so repugnant to the Hindus and to descend so low in the scale as to select an Antyaja— an untouchable—to address an audience of the Savarnas. As for myself you will allow me to say that I have accepted the invitation much against my will and also against the will of many of my fellow untouchables. I know that the Hindus are sick of me. I know that I am not a persona grata with them. Knowing all this I have deliberately kept myself away from them. I have no desire to inflict myself upon them. I have been giving expression to my views from my own platform. This has already caused a great deal of heartburning and irritation. I have no desire to ascend the platform of the Hindus to do within their sight what I have been doing within their hearing. If I am here it is because of your choice and not because of my wish. Yours is a cause of social reform. That cause has always made an appeal to me and it is because of this that I felt I ought not to refuse an opportunity of helping the cause especially when you think that I can help it. Whether what I am going to say today will help you in any way to solve the problem you are grappling with is for you to judge. All I hope to do is to place before you my views on the problem.

II

The path of social reform like the path to heaven at any rate in India, is strewn with many difficulties. Social reform in India has few friends and many critics. The critics fall into two distinct classes. One class consists of political reformers and the other of the socialists.

It was at one time recognized that without social efficiency no permanent progress in the other fields of activity was possible, that owing to mischief wrought by the evil customs, Hindu Society was not in a state of efficiency and that ceaseless efforts must be made to eradicate these evils. It was due to the recognition of this fact that the birth of the National Congress was accompanied by the foundation of the Social Conference. While the Congress was concerned with defining the weak points in the political organisation of the country, the Social Conference was engaged in removing the weak points in the social organisation of the Hindu Society. For some time the Congress and the Conference worked as two wings of one common activity and they held their annual sessions in the same pandal. But soon the two wings developed into two parties, a Political Reform Party and a Social Reform Party, between whom there raged a fierce controversy. The Political Reform Party supported the National Congress and Social Reform Party supported the Social Conference. The two bodies thus became two hostile camps. The point at issue was whether social reform should precede political reform. For a decade the forces were evenly balanced and the battle was fought without victory to either side. It was however evident that the fortunes of the; Social Conference were ebbing fast. The gentlemen who presided over the sessions of the Social Conference lamented that the majority of the educated Hindus were for political advancement and indifferent to social reform and that while the number of those who attended the Congress was very large and the number who did not attend but who sympathized with it even larger, the number of those who attended the Social Conference was very much smaller. This indifference, this thinning of its ranks was soon followed by active hostility from the politicians. Under the leadership of the late Mr. Tilak, the courtesy with which the Congress allowed the Social Conference the use of its pandal was withdrawn and the spirit of enmity went to such a pitch that when the Social Conference desired to erect its own pandal a threat to burn the pandal was held out by its opponents. Thus in course of time the party in favour of political reform won and the Social Conference vanished and was forgotten. The speech, delivered by Mr. W. C. Bonnerji in 1892 at Allahabad as President of the eighth session of the Congress, sounds like a funeral oration at the death of the Social Conference and is so typical of the Congress attitude that I venture to quote from it the following extract. Mr. Bonnerji said :

" I for one have no patience with those who saw we shall not be fit for political reform until we reform our social system. I fail to see any connection between the two. . .Are we not fit (for political reform) because our widows remain unmarried and our girls are given in marriage earlier than in other countries ? because our wives and daughters do not drive about with us visiting our friends? because we do not send our daughters to Oxford and Cambridge ? " (Cheers)'

I have stated the case for political reform as put by Mr. Bonnerji. There were many who are happy that the victory went to the Congress. But those who believe in the importance of social reform may ask, is the argument such as that of Mr. Bonnerji final ? Does it prove that the victory went to those who were in the right ? Does it prove conclusively that social reform has no bearing on political reform ? It will help us to understand the matter if I state the other side of the case. I will draw upon the treatment of the untouchables for my facts.

Under the rule of the Peshwas in the Maratha country the untouchable was not allowed to use the public streets if a Hindu was coming along lest he should pollute the Hindu by his shadow. The untouchable was required to have a black thread either on his wrist or in his neck as a sign or a mark to prevent the Hindus from getting themselves polluted by his touch through mistake. In Poona, the capital of the Peshwa, the untouchable was required to carry, strung from his waist, a broom to sweep away from behind the dust he treaded on lest a Hindu walking on the same should be polluted. In Poona, the untouchable was required to carry an earthen pot, hung in his neck wherever he went, for holding his spit lest his spit falling on earth should pollute a Hindu who might unknowingly happen to tread on it. Let me take more recent facts. The tyranny practised by the Hindus upon the Balais, an untouchable community in Central India, will serve my purpose. You will find a report of this in the Times of India of 4th January 1928. "The correspondent of the Times of India reported that high caste Hindus, viz. Kalotas, Rajputs and Brahmins including the Patels and Patwaris of villages of Kanaria, Bicholi-Hafsi, Bicholi-Mardana and of about 15 other villages in the Indore djistrict (of the Indore State) informed the Balais of their respective villages that if they wished to live among them they must conform to the following rules :

(1) Balais must not wear gold-lace-bordered pugrees.

(2) They must not wear dhotis with coloured or fancy borders.

(3) They must convey intimation of the death of any Hindu to relatives of the deceased—no matter how far away these relatives may be living.

(4) In all Hindu marriages, Balais must play music before the processions and during the marriage.

(5) Balai women must not wear gold or silver ornaments; they must not wear fancy gowns or jackets.

(6) Balai women must attend all cases of confinement of Hindu women.

(7) Balais must render services without demanding remuneration and must accept whatever a Hindu is pleased to give.

(8) If the Balais do not agree to abide by these terms they must clear out of the villages. The Balais refused to comply; and the Hindu element proceeded against them. Balais were not allowed to get water from the village wells; they were not allowed to let go their cattle to graze. Balais were prohibited from passing through land owned by a Hindu, so that if the field of a Balai was surrounded by fields owned by Hindus, the Balai could have no access to his own field. The Hindus also let their cattle graze down the fields of Balais. The Balais submitted petitions to the Darbar against these persecutions ; but as they could get no timely relief, and the oppression continued, hundreds of Balais with their wives and children were obliged to abandon their homes in which their ancestors lived for generations and to migrate to adjoining States, viz. to villages in Dhar, Dewas, Bagli, Bhopal, Gwalior and other States. What happened to them in their new homes may for the present be left out of our consideration. The incident at Kavitha in Gujarat happened only last year. The Hindus of Kavitha ordered the untouchables not to insist upon sending their children to the common village school maintained by Government. What sufferings the untouchables of Kavitha had to undergo for daring to exercise a civic right against the wishes of the Hindus is too well known to need detailed description. Another instance occurred in the village of Zanu in the Ahmedabad district of Gujarat. In November 1935 some untouchable women of well-to-do families started fetching water in metal pots. The Hindus looked upon the use of metal pots by untouchables as an affront to their dignity and assaulted the untouchable women for their impudence. A most recent event is reported from the village Chakwara in Jaipur State. It seems from the reports that have appeared in the newspapers that an untouchable of Chakwara who had returned from a pilgrimage had arranged to give a dinner to his fellow untouchables of the village as an act of religious piety. The host desired to treat the guests to a sumptuous meal and the items served included ghee (butter) also. But while the assembly of untouchables was engaged in partaking of the food, the Hindus in their hundred, armed with lathis, rushed to the scene, despoiled the food and belaboured the untouchables who left the food they were served with and ran away for their lives. And why was this murderous assault committed on defenceless untouchables ? The reason given is that the untouchable host was impudent enough to serve ghee and his untouchable guests were foolish enough to taste it. Ghee is undoubtedly a luxury for the rich. But no one would think that consumption of ghee was a mark of high social status. The Hindus of Chakwara thought otherwise and in righteous indignation avenged themselves for the wrong done to them by the untouchables, who insulted them by treating ghee as an item of their food which they ought to have known could not be theirs, consistently with the dignity of the Hindus. This means that an untouchable must not use ghee even if he can afford to buy it, since it is an act of arrogance towards the Hindus. This happened on or about the 1st of April 1936 !

Having stated the facts, let me now state the case for social reform. In doing this, I will follow Mr. Bonnerji, as nearly as I can and ask the political-minded Hindus " Are you fit for political power even though you do not allow a large class of your own countrymen like the untouchables to use public school ? Are you fit for political power even though you do not allow them the use of public wells ? Are you fit for political power even though you do not allow them the use of public streets ? Are you fit for political power even though you do not allow them to wear what apparel or ornaments they like ? Are you fit for political power even though you do not allow them to eat any food they like ? " I can ask a string of such questions. But these will suffice, I wonder what would have been the reply of Mr. Bonnerji. I am sure no sensible man will have the courage to give an affirmative answer. Every Congressman who repeats the dogma of Mill that one country is not fit to rule another country must admit that one class is not fit to rule another class.

How is it then that the Social Reform Party last the battle ? To understand this correctly it is necessary, to take note of the kind of social reform which the reformers were agitating for. In this connection it is necessary to make a distinction between social reform in the sense of the reform of the Hindu Family and social reform in the sense of the reorganization and reconstruction of the Hindu Society. The former has relation to widow remarriage, child marriage etc., while the latter relates to the abolition of the Caste System. The Social Conference was a body which mainly concerned itself with the reform of the high caste Hindu Family. It consisted mostly of enlightened high caste Hindus who did not feel the necessity for agitating for the abolition of caste or had not the courage to agitate for it. They felt quite naturally a greater urge to remove such evils as enforced widowhood, child marriages etc., evils which prevailed among them and which were personally felt by them. They did not stand up for the reform of the Hindu society. The battle that was fought centered round the question of the reform of the family. It did not relate to the social reform in the sense of the break-up of the caste system. It was never put in issue by the reformers. That is the reason why the Social Reform Party lost.

I am aware that this argument cannot alter the fact that political reform did in fact gain precedence over social reform. But the argument has this much value if not more. It explains why social reformers lost the battle. It also helps us to understand how limited was the victory which the Political Reform Party obtained over the Social Reform Party and that the view that social reform need not precede political reform is a view which may stand only when by social reform is meant the reform of the family. That political reform cannot with impunity take precedence over social reform in the sense of reconstruction of society is a thesis which, I am sure, cannot be controverted. That the makers of political constitutions must take account of social forces is a fact which is recognized by no less a person than Ferdinand Lassalle, the friend and co-worker of Karl Marx. In addressing a Prussian audience in 1862 Lassalle said :

" The constitutional questions are in the first instance not questions of right but questions of might. The actual constitution of a country has its existence only in the actual condition of force which exists in the country : hence political constitutions have value and permanence only when they accurately express those conditions of forces which exist in practice within a society"

But it is not necessary to go to Prussia. There is evidence at home. What is the significance of the Communal Award with its allocation of political power in defined proportions to diverse classes and communities ? In my view, its significance lies in this that political constitution must take note of social organisation. It shows that the politicians who denied that the social problem in India had any bearing on the political problem were forced to reckon with the social problem in devising the constitution. The Communal Award is so to say the nemesis following upon the indifference and neglect of social reform. It is a victory for the Social Reform Party which shows that though defeated they were in the right in insisting upon the importance of social reform. Many, I know, will not accept this finding. The view is current, and it is pleasant to believe in it, that the Communal Award is unnatural and that it is the result of an unholy alliance between the minorities and the bureaucracy. I do not wish to rely on the Communal Award as a piece of evidence to support my contention if it is said that it is not good evidence. Let us turn to Ireland. What does the history of Irish Home Rule show ? It is well-known that in the course of the negotiations between the representatives of Ulster and Southern Ireland, Mr. Redmond, the representative of Southern Ireland, in order to bring Ulster in a Home Rule Constitution common to the whole of Ireland said to the representatives of Ulster : " Ask any political safeguards you like and you shall have them." What was the reply that Ulstermen gave ? Their reply was " Damn your safeguards, we don't want to be ruled by you on any terms." People who blame the minorities in India ought to consider what would have happened to the political aspirations of the majority if the minorities had taken the attitude which Ulster took. Judged by the attitude of Ulster to Irish Home Rule, is it noting that the minorities agreed to be ruled by the majority which has not shown much sense of statesmanship, provided some safeguards were devised for them ? But this is only incidental. The main question is why did Ulster take this attitude ? The only answer I can give is that there was a social problem between Ulster and Southern Ireland the problem between Catholics and Protestants, essentially a problem of Caste. That Home Rule in Ireland would be Rome Rule was the way in which the Ulstermen had framed their answer. But that is only another way of stating that it was the social problem of Caste between the Catholics and Protestants, which prevented the solution of the political problem. This evidence again is sure to be challenged. It will be urged that here too the hand of the Imperialist was at work. But my resources are not exhausted. I will give evidence from the History of Rome. Here no one can say that any evil genius was at work. Any one who has studied the History of Rome will know that the Republican Constitution of Rome bore marks having strong resemblance to the Communal Award. When the kingship in Rome was abolished, the Kingly power or the Imperium was divided between the Consuls and the Pontifex Maximus. In the Consuls was vested the secular authority of the King, while the latter took over the religious authority of King. This Republican Constitution had provided that, of the two Consuls one was to be Patrician and the other Plebian. The same constitution had also provided that, of the Priests under the Pontifex Maximus, half were to be Plebians and the other half Patricians. Why is it that the Republican Constitution of Rome had these provisions which, as I said, resemble so strongly the provisions of the Communal Award ? The only answer one can get is that the Constitution of Republican Rome had to take account of the social division between the Patricians and the Plebians, who formed two distinct castes. To sum up, let political reformers turn to any direction they like, they will find that in the making of a constitution, they cannot ignore the problem arising out of the prevailing social order.

The illustrations which I have taken in support of the proposition that social and religious problems have a bearing on political constitutions seem to be too particular. Perhaps they are. But it should not be supposed that the bearing of the one on the other is limited. On the other hand one can say that generally speaking History bears out the proposition that political revolutions have always been preceded by social and religious revolutions.

The religious Reformation started by Luther was the precursor of the political emancipation of the European people. In England Puritanism led to the establishment of political liberty. Puritanism founded the new world. It was Puritanism which won the war of American Independence and Puritanism was a religious movement. The same is true of the Muslim Empire. Before the Arabs became a political power they had undergone a thorough religious revolution started by the Prophet Mohammad. Even Indian History supports the same conclusion. The political revolution led by Chandragupta was preceded by the religious and social revolution of Buddha. The political revolution led by Shivaji was preceded by the religious and social reform brought about by the saints of Maharashtra. The political revolution of the Sikhs was preceded by the religious and social revolution led by Guru Nanak. It is unnecessary to add more illustrations. These will suffice to show that the emancipation of the mind and the soul is a necessary preliminary for the political expansion of the people.

Ill

Let me now turn to the Socialists. Can the Socialists ignore the problem arising out of the social order ? The Socialists of India following their fellows in Europe are seeking to apply the economic interpretation of history to the facts of India. They propound that man is an economic creature, that his activities and aspirations are bound by economic facts, that property is the only source of power. They, therefore, preach that political and social reforms are but gigantic illusions and that economic reform by equalization of property must have precedence over every other kind of reform. One may join issue on every one of these premises on which rests the Socialists' case for economic reform having priority over every other kind of reform. One may contend that economic motive is not the only motive by which man is actuated. That economic power is the only kind of power no student of human society can accept. That the social status of an individual by itself often becomes a source of power and authority is made clear by the sway which the Mahatmos have held over the common man. Why do millionaires in India obey penniless Sadhus and Fakirs ? Why do millions of paupers in India sell their trifling trinkets which constitute their only wealth and go to Benares and Mecca ? That, religion is the source of power is illustrated by the history of India where the priest holds a sway over the common man often greater than the magistrate and where everything, even such things as strikes and elections, so easily take a religious turn and can so easily be given a religious twist. Take the case of the Plebians of Rome as a further illustration of the power of religion over man. It throws great light on this point. The Plebs had fought for a share in the supreme executive under the Roman Republic and had secured the appointment of a Plebian Consul elected by a separate electorate constituted by the Commitia Centuriata, which was an assembly of Piebians. They wanted a Consul of their own because they felt that the Patrician Consuls used to discriminate against the Plebians in carrying on the administration. They had apparently obtained a great gain because under the Republican Constitution of Rome one Consul had the power of vetoing an act of the other Consul. But did they in fact gain anything ? The answer to this question must be in the negative. The Plebians never could get a Plebian Consul who could be said to be a strong man and who could act independently of the Patrician Consul. In the ordinary course of things the Plebians should have got a strong Plebian Consul in view of the fact that his election was to be by a separate electorate of Plebians. The question is why did they fail in getting a strong Plebian to officiate as their Consul? The answer to this question reveals the dominion which religion exercises over the minds of men. It was an accepted creed of the whole Roman populus that no official could enter upon the duties of his office unless the Oracle of Delphi declared that he was acceptable to the Goddess. The priests who were in charge of the temple of the Goddess of Delphi were all Patricians. Whenever therefore the Plebians elected a Consul who was known to be a strong party man opposed to the Patricians or " communal " to use the term that is current in India, the Oracle invariably declared that he was not acceptable to the Goddess. This is how the Plebians were cheated out of their rights. But what is worthy of note is that the Plebians permitted themselves to be thus cheated because they too like the Patricians, held firmly the belief that the approval of the Goddess was a condition precedent to the taking charge by an official of his duties and that election by the people was not enough. If the Plebians had contended that election was enough and that the approval by the Goddess was not necessary they would have derived the fullest benefit from the political right which they had obtained. But they did not. They agreed to elect another, less suitable to themselves but more suitable to the Goddess which in fact meant more amenable to the Patricians. Rather than give up religion, the Plebians give up material gain for which they had fought so hard. Does this not show that religion can be a source of power as great as money if not greater ? The fallacy of the Socialists lies in supposing that because in the present stage of European Society property as a source of power is predominant, that the same is true of India or that the same was true of Europe in the past. Religion, social status and property are all sources of power and authority, which one man has, to control the liberty of another. One is predominant at one stage; the other is predominant at another stage. That is the only difference. If liberty is the ideal, if liberty means the destruction of the dominion which one man holds over another then obviously it cannot be insisted upon that economic reform must be the one kind of reform worthy of pursuit. If the source of power and dominion is at any given time or in any given society social and religious then social reform and religious reform must be accepted as the necessary sort of reform.

One can thus attack the doctrine of Economic Interpretation of History adopted by the Socialists of India. But I recognize that economic interpretation of history is not necessary for the validity of the Socialist contention that equalization of property is the only real reform and that it must precede everything else. However, what I like to ask the Socialists is this : Can you have economic reform without first bringing about a reform of the social order ? The Socialists of India do not seem to have considered this question. I do not wish to do them an injustice. I give below a quotation from a letter which a prominent Socialist wrote a few days ago to a friend of mine in which he said, " I do not believe that we can build up a free society in India so long as there is a trace of this ill-treatment and suppression of one class by another. Believing as I do in a socialist ideal, inevitably I believe in perfect equality in the treatment of various classes and groups. I think that Socialism offers the only true remedy for this as well as other problems." Now the question that I like to ask is : Is it enough for a Socialist to say, " I believe in perfect equality in the treatment of the various classes ? " To say that such a belief is enough is to disclose a complete lack of understanding of what is involved in Socialism. If Socialism is a practical programme and is not merely an ideal, distant and far off, the question for a Socialist is not whether he believes in equality. The question for him is whether he minds one class ill-treating and suppressing another class as a matter of system, as a matter of principle and thus allow tyranny and oppression to continue to divide one class from another. Let me analyse the factors that are involved in the realization of Socialism in order to explain fully my point. Now it is obvious that the economic reform contemplated by the Socialists cannot come about unless there is a revolution resulting in the seizure of power. That seizure of power must be by a proletariat. The first question I ask is : Will the proletariat of India combine to bring about this revolution ? What will move men to such an action ? It seems to me that other things being equal the only thing that will move one man to take such an action is the feeling that other man with whom he is acting are actuated by feeling of equality and fraternity and above all of justice. Men will not join in a revolution for the equalization of property unless they know that after the revolution is achieved they will be treated equally and that there will be no discrimination of caste and creed. The assurance of a socialist leading the revolution that he does not believe in caste, I am sure, will not suffice. The assurance must be the assurance proceeding from much deeper foundation, namely, the mental attitude of the compatriots towards one another in their spirit of personal equality and fraternity. Can it be said that the proletariat of India, poor as it is, recognise no distinctions except that of the rich and the poor ? Can it be said that the poor in India recognize no such distinctions of caste or creed, high or low ? If the fact is that they do, what unity of front can be expected from such a proletariat in its action against the rich ? How can there be a revolution if the proletariat cannot present a united front? Suppose for the sake of argument that by some freak of fortune a revolution does take place and the Socialists come in power, will they not have to deal with the problems created by the particular social order prevalent in India ? I can't see how a Socialist State in India can function for a second without having to grapple with the problems created by the prejudices which make Indian people observe the distinctions of high and low, clean and unclean. If Socialists are not to be content with the mouthing of fine phrases, if the Socialists wish to make Socialism a definite reality then they must recognize that the problem of social reform is fundamental and that for them there is no escape from it. That, the social order prevalent in India is a matter which a Socialist must deal with, that unless he does so he cannot achieve his revolution and that if he does achieve it as a result of good fortune he will have to grapple with it if he wishes to realize his ideal, is a proposition which in my opinion is incontrovertible. He will be compelled to take account of caste after revolution if he does not take account of it before revolution. This is only another way of saying that, turn in any direction you like, caste is the monster that crosses your path. You cannot have political reform, you cannot have economic reform, unless you kill this monster.

IV

It is a pity that Caste even today has its defenders. The defences are many. It is defended on the ground that the Caste System is but another name for division of labour and if division of labour is a necessary feature of every civilized society then it is argued that there is nothing wrong in the Caste System. Now the first thing is to be urged against this view is that Caste System is not merely division of labour. It is also a division of labourers. Civilized society undoubtedly needs division of labour. But in no civilized society is division of labour accompanied by this unnatural division of labourers into watertight compartments. Caste System is not merely a division of labourers which is quite different from division of labour—it is an hierarchy in which the divisions of labourers are graded one above the other. In no other country is the division of labour accompanied by this gradation of labourers. There is also a third point of criticism against this view of the Caste System. This division of labour is not spontaneous; it is not based on natural aptitudes. Social and individual efficiency requires us to develop the capacity of an individual to the point of competency to choose and to make his own career. This principle is violated in the Caste System in so far as it involves an attempt to appoint tasks to individuals in advance, selected not on the basis of trained original capacities, but on that of the social status of the parents. Looked at from another point of view this stratification of occupations which is the result of the Caste System is positively pernicious. Industry is never static. It undergoes rapid and abrupt changes. With such changes an individual must be free to change his occupation. Without such freedom to adjust himself to changing circumstances it would be impossible for him to gain his livelihood. Now the Caste System will not allow Hindus to take to occupations where they are wanted if they do not belong to them by heredity. If a Hindu is seen to starve rather than take to new occupations not assigned to his Caste, the reason is to be found in the Caste System. By not permitting readjustment of occupations, caste becomes a direct cause of much of the unemployment we see in the country. As a form of division of labour the Caste system suffers from another serious defect. The division of labour brought about by the Caste System is not a division based on choice. Individual sentiment, individual preference has no place in it. It is based on the dogma of predestination. Considerations of social efficiency would compel us to recognize that the greatest evil in the industrial system is not: so much poverty and the suffering that it involves as the fact that so many persons have callings which make no appeal to those who are engaged in them. Such callings constantly provoke one to aversion, ill will and the desire to evade. There are many occupations in India which on account of the fact that they are regarded as degraded by the Hindus provoke those who are engaged in them to aversion. There is a constant desire to evade and escape from such occupations which arises solely because of the blighting effect which they produce upon those who follow them owing to the slight and stigma cast upon them by the Hindu religion. What efficiency can there be in a system under which neither men's hearts nor their minds are in their work? As an economic organization Caste is therefore a harmful institution, inasmuch as, it involves the subordination of man's natural powers and inclinations to the exigencies of social rules

V

Some have dug a biological trench in defence of the Caste System. It is said that the object of Caste was to preserve purity of race and purity of blood. Now ethnologists are of opinion that men of pure race exist nowhere and that there has been a mixture of all races in all parts of the world. Especially is this the case with the people of India. Mr. D. R. Bhandarkar in his paper on Foreign Elements in the Hindu Population has stated that " There is hardly a class, or Caste in India which has not a foreign strain in it. There is an admixture of alien blood not only among the warrior classes—the Rajputs and the Marathas—but also among the Brahmins who are under the happy delusion that they are free from all foreign elements." The Caste system cannot be said to have grown as a means of preventing the admixture of races or as a means of maintaining purity of blood. As a matter of fact Caste system came into being long after the different races of India had commingled in blood and culture. To hold that distinctions of Castes or really distinctions of race and to treat different Castes as though they were so many different races is a gross perversion of facts. What racial affinity is there between the Brahmin of the Punjab and the Brahmin of Madras ? What racial affinity is there between the untouchable of Bengal and the untouchable of Madras ? What racial difference is there between the Brahmin of the Punjab and the Chamar of the Punjab ? What racial difference is there between the Brahmin of Madras and the Pariah of Madras ? The Brahmin of the Punjab is racially of the same stock as the Chamar of the Punjab and the Brahmin of Madras is of the same race as the Pariah of Madras. Caste system does not demarcate racial division. Caste system is a social division of people of the same race. Assuming it, however, to be a case of racial divisions one may ask : What harm could there be if a mixture of races and of blood was permitted to take place in India by intermarriages between different Castes ? Men are no doubt divided from animals by so deep a distinction that science recognizes men and animals as two distinct species. But even scientists who believe in purity of races do not assert that the different races constitute different species of men. They are only varieties of one and the same species. As such they can interbreed and produce an offspring which is capable of breeding and which is not sterile. An immense lot of nonsense is talked about heredity and eugenics in defence of the Caste System. Few would object to the Caste System if it was in accord with the basic principle of eugenics because few can object to the improvement of the race by judicious noting. But one fails to understand how the Caste System secures judicious mating. Caste System is a negative thing. It merely prohibits persons belonging to different Castes from intermarrying. It is not a positive method of selecting which two among a given Caste should marry. If Caste is eugenic in origin then the origin of sub-Castes must also be eugenic. But can any one seriously maintain that the origin of sub-Castes is eugenic ? I think it would be absurd to contend for such a proposition and for a very obvious reason. If Caste means race then differences of sub-Castes cannot mean differences of race because sub-Castes become ex hypothesia sub-divisions of one and the same race. Consequently the bar against intermarrying and interdining between sub-Castes cannot be for the purpose of maintaining purity of race or of blood. If sub-Castes cannot be eugenic in origin there cannot be any substance in the contention that Caste is eugenic in origin. Again if Caste is eugenic in origin one can understand the bar against intermarriage. But what is the purpose of the interdict placed on interdining between Castes and sub-Castes alike ? Interdining cannot infect blood and therefore cannot be the cause either of the improvement or of deterioration of the race. This shows that Caste has no scientific origin and that those who are attempting to give it an eugenic basis are trying to support by science what is grossly unscientific. Even today eugenics cannot become a practical possibility unless we have definite knowledge regarding the laws of heredity. Prof. Bateson in his Mendel's Principles of Heredity says, " There is nothing in the descent of the higher mental qualities to suggest that they follow any single system of transmission. It is likely that both they and the more marked developments of physical powers result rather from the coincidence of numerous factors than from the possession of any one genetic element." To argue that the Caste System was eugenic in its conception is to attribute to the forefathers of present-day Hindus a knowledge of heredity which even the modern scientists do not possess. A tree should be judged by the fruits it yields. If caste is eugenic what sort of a race of men it should have produced ? Physically speaking the Hindus are a C3 people. They are a race of Pygmies and dwarfs stunted in stature and wanting in stamina. It is a nation 9/1Oths of which is declared to be unfit for military service. This shows that the Caste System does not embody the eugenics of modem scientists. It is a social system which embodies the arrogance and selfishness of a perverse section of the Hindus who were superior enough in social status to set it in fashion and who had authority to force it on their inferiors.

VI

Caste does not result in economic efficiency. Caste cannot and has not improved the race. Caste has however done one thing. It has completely disorganized and demoralized the Hindus.

The first and foremost thing that must be recognized is that Hindu Society is a myth. The name Hindu is itself a foreign name. It was given by the Mohammedans to the natives for the purpose of distinguishing themselves. It does not occur in any Sanskrit work prior to the Mohammedan invasion. They did not feel the necessity of a common name because they had no conception of their having constituted a community. Hindu society as such does not exist. It is only a collection of castes. Each caste is conscious of its existence. Its survival is the be all and end all of its existence. Castes do not even form a federation. A caste has no feeling that it is affiliated to other castes except when there is a Hindu-Muslim riot. On all other occasions each caste endeavours to segregate itself and to distinguish itself from other castes. Each caste not only dines among itself and marries among itself but each caste prescribes its own distinctive dress. What other explanation can there be of the innumerable styles of dress worn by the men and women of India which so amuse the tourists ? Indeed the ideal Hindu must be like a rat living in his own hole refusing to have any contact with others. There is an utter lack among the Hindus of what the sociologists call " consciousness of kind ". There is no Hindu consciousness of kind. In every Hindu the consciousness that exists is the consciousness of his caste. That is the reason why the Hindus cannot be said to form a society or a nation. There are however many Indians whose patriotism does not permit them to admit that Indians are not a nation, that they are only an amorphous mass of people. They have insisted that underlying the apparent diversity there is a fundamental unity which marks the life of the Hindus in as much as there is a similarity of habits and customs, beliefs and thoughts which obtain all over the continent of India. Similarity in habits and customs, beliefs and thoughts there is. But one cannot accept the conclusion that therefore, the Hindus constitute a society. To do so is to misunderstand the essentials which go to make up a society. Men do not become a society by living in physical proximity any more than a man ceases to be a member of his society by living so many miles away from other men. Secondly similarity in habits and customs, beliefs and thoughts is not enough to constitute men into society. Things may be passed physically from one to another like bricks. In the same way habits and customs, beliefs and thoughts of one group may be taken over by another group and there may thus appear a similarity between the two. Culture spreads by diffusion and that is why one finds similarity between various primitive tribes in the matter of their habits and customs, beliefs and thoughts, although they do not live in proximity. But no one could say that because there was this similarity the primitive tribes constituted one society. This is because similarly in certain things is not enough to constitute a society.  Men constitute a society because they have things which they possess in common. To have similar thing is totally different from possessing things in common. And the only way by which men can come to possess things in common with one another is by being in communication with one another. This is merely another way of saying that Society continues to exist by communication indeed in communication. To make it concrete, it is not enough if men act in a way which agrees with the acts of others. Parallel activity, even if similar, is not sufficient to bind men into a society. This is proved by the fact that the festivals observed by the different Castes amongst the Hindus are the same. Yet these parallel performances of similar festivals by the different castes have not bound them into one integral whole. For that purpose what is necessary is for a man to share and participate in a common activity so that the same emotions are aroused in him that animate the others. Making the individual a sharer or partner in the associated activity so that he feels its success as his success, its failure as his failure is the real thing that binds men and makes a society of them. The Caste System prevents common activity and by preventing common activity it has prevented the Hindus from becoming a society with a unified life and a consciousness of its own being.

VII

The Hindus often complain of the isolation and exclusiveness of a gang or a clique and blame them for anti-social spirit. But they conveniently forget that this anti-social spirit is the worst feature of their own Caste System. One caste enjoys singing a hymn of hate against another caste as much as the Germans did in singing their hymn of hate against the English during the last war. The literature of the Hindus is full of caste genealogies in which an attempt is made to give a noble origin to one caste and an ignoble origin to other castes. The Sahyadrikhand is a notorious instance of this class of literature. This anti-social spirit is not confined to caste alone. It has gone deeper and has poisoned the mutual relations of the sub-castes as well. In my province the Golak Brahmins, Deorukha Brahmins, Karada Brahmins, Palshe Brahmins and Chitpavan Brahmins, all claim to be sub-divisions of the Brahmin Caste. But the anti-social spirit that prevails between them is quite as marked and quite as virulent as the anti-social spirit that prevails between them and other non-Brahmin castes. There is nothing strange in this. An anti-social spirit is found wherever one group has " interests of its own " which shut it out from full interaction with other groups, so that its prevailing purpose is protection of what it has got. This anti-social spirit, this spirit of protecting its own interests is as much a marked feature of the different castes in their isolation from one another as it is of nations in their isolation. The Brahmin's primary concern is to protect " his interest " against those of the non-Brahmins and the non-Brahmin's primary concern is to protect their interests against those of the Brahmins. The Hindus, therefore, are not merely an assortment of castes but they are so many warring groups each living for itself and for its selfish ideal. There is another feature of caste which is deplorable. The ancestors of the present-day English fought on one side or the other in the wars of the Roses and the Cromwellian War. But the decendents of those who fought on the one side do not bear any animosity— any grudge against the descendents of those who fought on the other side. The feud is forgotten. But the present-day non-Brahmins cannot forgive the present-day Brahmins for the insult their ancestors gave to Shivaji. The present-day Kayasthas will not forgive the present-day Brahmins for the infamy cast upon their forefathers by the forefathers of the latter. To what is this difference due ? Obviously to the Caste System. The existence of Caste and Caste Consciousness has served to keep the memory of past feuds between castes green and has prevented solidarity.

VIII

The recent discussion about the excluded and partially included areas has served to draw attention to the position of what are called the aboriginal tribes in India. They number about 13 millions if not more. Apart from the questions whether their exclusion from the new Constitution is proper or improper, the fact still remains that these aborigines have remained in their primitive uncivilized State in a land which boasts of a civilization thousands of years old. Not only are they not civilized but some of them follow pursuits which have led to their being classified as criminals. Thirteen millions of people living in the midst of civilization are still in a savage state and are leading the life of hereditary criminals! ! But the Hindus have never felt ashamed of it. This is a phenomenon which in my view is quite unparalleled. What is the cause of this shameful state of affairs ? Why has no attempt been made to civilize these aborigines and to lead them to take to a more honourable way of making a living ? The Hindus will probably seek to account for this savage state of the aborigines by attributing to them congenital stupidity. They will probably not admit that the aborigines have remained savages because they had made no effort to civilize them, to give them medical aid, to reform them, to make them good citizens. But supposing a Hindu wished to do what the Christian missionary is doing for these aborigines, could he have done it ? I submit not. Civilizing the aborigines means adopting them as your own, living in their midst, and cultivating fellow-feeling, in short loving them. How is it possible for a Hindu to do this ? His whole life is one anxious effort to preserve his caste. Caste is his precious possession which he must save at any cost. He cannot consent to lose it by establishing contact with the aborigines the remnants of the hateful Anary as of the Vedic days. Not that a Hindu could not be taught the sense of duty to fallen humanity, but the trouble is that no amount of sense of duty can enable him to overcome his duty to preserve his caste. Caste is, therefore, the real explanation as to why the Hindu has let the savage remain a savage in the midst of his civilization without blushing or without feeling any sense of remorse or repentance. The Hindu has not realized that these aborigines are a source of potential danger. If these savages remain savages they may not do any harm to the Hindus. But if they are reclaimed by non-Hindus and converted to their faiths they will swell the ranks of the enemies of the Hindus. If this happens the Hindu will have to thank himself and his Caste System.

IX

Not only has the Hindu made no effort for the humanitarian cause of civilizing the savages but the higher-caste Hindus have deliberately prevented the lower castes who are within the pale of Hinduism from rising to the cultural level of the higher castes. 1. will give two instances, one of the Sonars and the other of the Pathare Prabhus. Both are communities quite well-known in Maharashtra. Like the rest of the communities desiring to raise their status these two communities were at one time endeavouring to adopt some of the ways and habits of the Brahmins. The Sonars were styling themselves Daivadnya Brahmins and were wearing their " dhotis " with folds on and using the word namaskar for salutation. Both, the folded way of wearing the " dhoti " and the namaskar were special to the Brahmins. The Brahmins did not like this imitation and this attempt by Sonars to pass off as Brahmins. Under the authority of the Peshwas the Brahmins successfully put down this attempt on the part. of the Sonars to adopt the ways of the Brahmins. They even got the President of the Councils of the East India Company's settlement in Bombay to issue a. prohibitory order against the Sonars residing in Bombay. At one time the Pathare Prabhus had widow-remarriage as a custom of their caste. This custom of widow-remarriage was later on looked upon as amark of social inferiority by some members of the caste especially because it was contrary to the custom prevalent among the Brahmins. With the object of raising the status of their community some Pathare Prabhus sought to stop this practice of widow-remarriage that was prevalent in their caste. The community was divided into two camps, one for and the other against the innovation. The Peshwas took the side of those in favour of widow-remarriage and thus virtually prohibited the Pathare Prabhus from following the ways of the Brahmins. The Hindus criticise the Mohammedans for having spread their religion by the use of the sword. They also ridicule Christianity on the score of the inquisition. But really speaking who is better and more worthy of our respect—the Mohammedans and Christians who attempted to thrust down the throats of unwilling persons what they regarded as necessary for their salvation or the Hindu who would not spread the light, who would endeavour to keep others in darkness, who would not consent to share his intellectual and social inheritance with those who are ready and willing to make it a part of their own make-up ? I have no hesitation in saying that if the Mohammedan has been cruel the Hindu has been mean and meanness is worse than cruelty.

X

Whether the Hindu religion was or was not a missionary religion has been a controversial issue. Some hold the view that it was never a missionary religion. Others hold that it was. That the Hindu religion was once a missionary religion must be admitted. It could not have spread over the face of India, if it was not a missionary religion. That today it is not a missionary religion is also a fact which must be accepted. The question therefore is not whether or not the Hindu religion was a missionary religion. The real question is why did the Hindu religion cease to be a missionary religion ? My answer is this. Hindu religion ceased to be a missionary religion when the Caste System grew up among the Hindus. Caste is inconsistent with conversion. Inculcation of beliefs and dogmas is not the only problem that is involved in conversion. To find a place for the convert in the social life of the community is another and a much more important problem that arises in connection with conversion. That problem is where to place the convert, in what caste ? It is a problem which must baffle every Hindu wishing to make aliens converts to his religion. Unlike the club the membership of a caste is not open to all and sundry. The law of caste confines its membership to person born in the caste. Castes are autonomous and there is no authority anywhere to compel a caste to admit a new-comer to its social life. Hindu Society being a collection of castes and each caste being a close corporation there is no place for a convert. Thus it is the caste which has prevented the Hindus from expanding and from absorbing other religious communities. So long as caste remain, Hindu religion cannot be made a missionary religion and Shudhi will be both a folly and a futility.

XI

The reasons which have made Shudhi impossible for Hindus are also responsible for making Sanghatan impossible. The idea underlyingSanghalan is to remove from the mind of the Hindu that timidity and cowardice which so painfully make him off from the Mohammedan and the Sikh and which have led him to adopt the low ways of treachery and cunning for protecting himself. The question naturally arises : From where does the Sikh or the Mohammedan derive his strength which makes him brave and fearless ? I am sure it is not due to relative superiority of physical strength, diet or drill. It is due to the strength arising out of the feeling that all Sikhs will come to the rescue of a Sikh when he is in danger and that all Mohammedans will rush to save a Muslim if he is attacked. The Hindu can derive no such strength. He cannot feel assured that his fellows will come to his help. Being one and fated to be alone he remains powerless, develops timidity and cowardice and in a fight surrenders or runs away. The Sikh as well as the Muslim stands fearless and gives battle because he knows that though one he will not be alone. The presence of this belief in the one helps him to hold out and the absence of it in the other makes him to give way. If you pursue this matter further and ask what is it that enables the Sikh and the Mohammedan to feel so assured and why is the Hindu filled with such despair in the matter of help and assistance you will find that the reasons for this difference lie in the difference in their associated mode of living. The associated mode of life practised by the Sikhs and the Mohammedans produces fellow-feeling. The associated mode of life of the Hindus does not. Among Sikhs and Muslims there is a social cement which makes them Bhais. Among Hindus there is no such cement and one Hindu does not regard another Hindu as his Bhai. This explains why a Sikh says and feels that one Sikh, or one Khalsa is equal to Sava Lakh men. This explains why one Mohammedan is equal to a crowd of Hindus. This difference is undoubtedly a difference due to caste. So long as caste remains, there will be noSanghalan and so long as there is no Sanghatan the Hindu will remain weak and meek. The Hindus claim to be a very tolerant people. In my opinion this is a mistake. On many occasions they can be intolerant and if on some occasions they are tolerant that is because they are too weak to oppose or too indifferent to oppose. This indifference of the Hindus has become so much a part of their nature that a Hindu will quite meekly tolerate an insult as well as a wrong. You see amongst them, to use the words of Morris, " The great reading down the little, the strong beating down the weak, cruel men fearing not, kind men daring not and wise men caring not." With the Hindu Gods all forbearing, it is not difficult to imagine the pitiable condition of the wronged and the oppressed among the Hindus. Indifferentism is the worst kind of disease that can infect a people. Why is the Hindu so indifferent? In my opinion this indifferentism is the result of Caste System which has made Sanghatan and co-operation even for a good cause impossible.

XII

The assertion by the individual of his own opinions and beliefs, his own independence and interest as over against group standards, group authority and group interests is the beginning of all reform. But whether the reform will continue depends upon what scope the group affords for such individual assertion. If the group is tolerant and fair-minded in dealing with such individuals they will continue to assert and in the end succeed in converting their fellows. On the other hand if the group is intolerant and does not bother about the means it adopts to stifle such individuals they will perish and the reform will die out. Now a caste has an unquestioned right to excommunicate any man who is guilty of breaking the rules of the caste and when it is realized that excommunication involves a complete cesser of social intercourse it will be agreed that as a form of punishment there is really little to choose between excommunication and death. No wonder individual Hindus have not had the courage to assert their independence by breaking the barriers of caste. It is true that man cannot get on with his fellows. But it is also true that he cannot do without them. He would like to have the society of his fellows on his terms. If be cannot get it on his terms then he will be ready to have it on any terms even amounting to complete surrender. This is because he cannot do without society. A caste is ever ready to take advantage of the helplessness of a man and insist upon complete conformity to its code in letter and in spirit. A caste can easily organize itself into a conspiracy to make the life of a reformer a hell and if a conspiracy is a crime I do not understand why such a nefarious act as an attempt to excommunicate a person for daring to act contrary to the rules of caste should not be made an offence punishable in law. But as it is, even law gives each caste an autonomy to regulate its membership and punish dissenters with excommunication. Caste in the hands of the orthodox has been a powerful weapon for persecuting the reforms and for killing all reform.

XIII

The effect of caste on the ethics of the Hindus is simply deplorable. Caste has killed public spirit. Caste has destroyed the sense of public charity. Caste has made public opinion impossible. A Hindu's public is his caste. His responsibility is only to his caste. His loyalty is restricted only to his caste. Virtue has become caste-ridden and morality has become, caste-bound. There is no sympathy to the deserving. There is no appreciation of the meritorious. There is no charity to the needy. Suffering as such calls for no response. There is charity but it begins with the caste and ends with the caste. There is sympathy but not for men of other caste. Would a Hindu acknowledge and follow the leadership of a great and good man? The case of a Mahatma apart, the answer must be that he will follow a leader if he is a man of his caste. A Brahmin will follow a leader only if he is a Brahmin, a Kayastha if he is a Kayastha and so on. The capacity to appreciate merits in a man apart from his caste does not exist in a Hindu. There is appreciation of virtue but only when the man is a fellow caste-man. The whole morality is as bad as tribal morality. My caste-man, right or wrong; my caste-man, good or bad. It is not a case of standing by virtue and not standing by vice. It is a case of standing or not standing by the caste. Have not Hindus committed treason against their country in the interests of their caste?

XIV

I would not be surprised if some of you have grown weary listening to this tiresome tale of the sad effects which caste has produced. There is nothing new in it. I will therefore turn to the constructive side of the problem. What is your ideal society if you do not want caste is a question that is bound to be asked of you. If you ask me, my ideal would be a society based on Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. And why not ? What objection can there be to Fraternity ? I cannot imagine any. An ideal society should be mobile, should be full of channels for conveying a change taking place in one part to other parts. In an ideal society there should be many interests consciously communicated and shared. There should be varied and free points of contact with other modes of association. In other words there must be social endosmosis. This is fraternity, which is only another name for democracy. Democracy is not merely a form of Government. It is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated experience. It is essentially an attitude of respect and reverence towards fellowmen. Any objection to Liberty ? Few object to liberty in the sense of a right to free movement, in the sense of a right to life and limb. There is no objection to liberty in the sense of a right to property, tools and materials as being necessary for earning a living to keep the body in due state of health. Why not allow liberty to benefit by an effective and competent use of a person's powers ? The supporters of caste who would allow liberty in the sense of a right to life, limb and property, would not readily consent to liberty in this sense, inasmuch as it involves liberty to choose one's profession. But to object to this kind of liberty is to perpetuate slavery. For slavery does not merely mean a legalized form of subjection. It means a state of society in which some men are forced to accept from other the purposes which control their conduct. This condition obtains even where there is no slavery in the legal sense. It is found where, as in the Caste System, some persons are compelled to carry on certain prescribed callings which are not of their choice. Any objection to equality ? This has obviously been the most contentious part of the slogan of the French Revolution. The objections to equality may be sound and one may have to admit that all men are not equal. But what of that ? Equality may be a fiction but nonetheless one must accept it as the governing principle. A. man's power is dependent upon (1) physical heredity, (2) social inheritance or endowment in the form of parental care, education, accumulation of scientific knowledge, everything which enables him to be more efficient than the savage, and finally, (3) on his own efforts. In all these three respects men are undoubtedly unequal. But the question is, shall we treat them as unequal because they are unequal ? This is a question which the opponents of equality must answer. From the standpoint of the individualist it may be just to treat men unequally so far as their efforts are unequal. It may be desirable to give as much incentive as possible to the full development of every one's powers. But what would happen if men were treated unequally as they are, in the first two respects ? It is obvious that those individuals also in whose favour there is birth, education, family name, business connections and inherited wealth would be selected in the race. But selection under such circumstances would not be a selection of the able. It would be the selection of the privileged. The reason therefore, which forces that in the third respect we should treat men unequally demands that in the first two respects we should treat men as equally as possible. On the other hand it can be urged that if it is good for the social body to get the most out of its members, it can get most out of them only by making them equal as far as possible at the very start of the race. That is one reason why we cannot escape equality. But there is another reason why we must accept equality. A Statesman is concerned with vast numbers of people. He has neither the time nor the knowledge to draw fine distinctions and to treat each equitably i.e. according to need or according to capacity. However desirable or reasonable an equitable treatment of men may be, humanity is not capable of assortment and classification. The statesman, therefore, must follow some rough and ready rule and that rough and ready rule is to treat all men alike not because they are alike but because classification and assortment is impossible. The doctrine of equality is glaringly fallacious but taking all in all it is the only way a statesman can proceed in politics which is a severely practical affair and which demands a severely practical test.

XV

But there is a set of reformers who hold out a different ideal. They go by the name of the Arya Samajists and their ideal of social organization is what is called Chaturvarnya or the division of society into four classes instead of the four thousand castes that we have in India. To make it more attractive and to disarm opposition the protagonists of Chaturvarnya take great care to point out that their Chaturvarnya is based not on birth but on guna (worth). At the outset, I must confess that notwithstanding the worth-basis of this Chaturvarnya, it is an ideal to which I cannot reconcile myself. In the first place, if under the Chaturvarnya of the Arya Samajists an individual is to take his place in the Hindu Society according to his worth. I do not understand why the Arya Samajists insist upon labelling men as Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra. A learned man would be honoured without his being labelled a Brahmin. A soldier would be respected without his being designated a Kshatriya. If European society honours its soldiers and its servants without giving them permanent labels, why should Hindu Society find it difficult to do so is a question, which Arya Samajists have not cared to consider. There is another objection to the continuance of these labels. All reform consists in a change in the notions, sentiment and mental attitudes of the people towards men and things. It is common experience that certain names become associated with certain notions and sentiments, which determine a person's attitude towards men and things. The names, Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra, are names which are associated with a definite and fixed notion in the mind of every Hindu. That notion is that of a hierarchy based on birth. So long as these names continue, Hindus will continue to think of the Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra as hierarchical divisions of high and low, based on birth, and act accordingly. The Hindu must be made to unlearn all this. But how can this happen if the old labels remain and continue to recall to his mind old notions. If new notions are to be inculcated in the minds of people it is necessary to give them new names. To continue the old name is to make the reform futile. To allow this Chaturvarnya, based on worth to be designated by such stinking labels of Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra, indicative of social divisions based on birth, is a snare.

XVI

To me this Chaturvarnya with its old labels is utterly repellent and my whole being rebels against it. But I do not wish to rest my objection to Chaturvarnya on mere grounds of sentiments. There are more solid grounds on which I rely for my opposition to it. A close examination of this ideal has convinced me that as a system of social organization, Chaturvarnya is impracticable, harmful and has turned out to be a miserable failure. From a practical point of view, the system of Chaturvarnya raises several difficulties which its protagonists do not seem to have taken into account. The principle underlying caste is fundamentally different from the principle underlying Varna. Not only are they fundamentally different but they are also fundamentally opposed. The former is based on worth . How are you going to compel people who have acquired a higher status based on birth without reference to their worth to vacate that status ? How are you going to compel people to recognize the status due to a man in accordance with his worth, who is occupying a lower status based on his birth ? For this you must first break up the caste System, in order to be able to establish the Varna system. How are you going to reduce the four thousand castes, based oil birth, to the four Varnas, based on worth ? This is the first difficulty which the protagonists of the Chaturvarnya must grapple with. There is a second difficulty which the protagonists of Chaturvarnya must grapple with, if they wish to make the establishment of Chaturvarnya a success.

Chaturvarnya pre-supposes that you can classify people into four definite classes. Is this possible ? In this respect, the ideal of Chaturvarnya has, as you will see, a close affinity to the Platonic ideal. To Plato, men fell by nature into three classes. In some individuals, he believed mere appetites dominated. He assigned them to the labouring and trading classes. Others revealed to him that over and above appetites, they have a courageous disposition. He classed them as defenders in war and guardians of internal peace. Others showed a capacity to grasp the universal reason underlying things. He made them the law-givers of the people. The criticism to which Plato's Republic is subject, is also the criticism which must apply to the system of Chaturvarnya, in so far as it proceeds upon the possibility of an accurate classification of men into four distinct classes. The chief criticism against Plato is that his idea of lumping of individuals into a few sharply marked-off classes is a very superficial view of man and his powers. Plato had no perception of the uniqueness of every individual, of his incommensurability with others, of each individual forming a class of his own. He had no recognition of the infinite diversity of active tendencies and combination of tendencies of which an individual is capable. To him, there were types of faculties or powers in the individual constitution. All this is demonstrably wrong. Modem science has shown that lumping together of individuals into a few sharply marked-off classes is a superficial view of man not worthy of serious consideration. Consequently, the utilization of the qualities of individuals is incompatible with their stratification by classes, since the qualities of individuals are so variable. Chaturvarnya must fail for the very reason for which Plato's Republic must fail, namely that it is not possible to pigeon men into holes, according as he belongs to one class or the other. That it is impossible to accurately classify people into four definite classes is proved by the fact that the original four classes have now become four thousand castes.

There is a third difficulty in the way of the establishment of the system of Chaturvarnya. How are you going to maintain the system of Chaturvarnya, supposing it was established ? One important requirement for the successful working of Chaturvarnya is the maintenance of the penal system which could maintain it by its sanction. The system of Chaturvarnya must perpetually face the problem of the transgressor. Unless there is a penalty attached to the act of transgression, men will not keep to their respective classes. The whole system will break down, being contrary to human nature. Chaturvarnya cannot subsist by its own inherent goodness. It must be enforced by law.

That, without penal sanction the ideal of Chaturvarnya cannot be realized, is proved by the story in the Ramayana of Rama killing Shambuka. Some people seem to blame Rama because he wantonly and without reason killed Shambuka. But to blame Rama for killing Shambuka is to misunderstand the whole situation. Ram Raj was a Raj based on Chaturvarnya. As a king, Rama was bound to maintain Chaturvarnya. It was his duty therefore to kill Shambuka, the Shudra, who had transgressed his class and wanted to be a Brahmin. This is the reason why Rama killed Shambuka. But this also shows that penal sanction is necessary for the maintenance of Chaturvarnya. Not only penal sanction is necessary, but penalty of death is necessary. That is why Rama did not inflict on Shambuka a lesser punishment. That is why Manu-Smriti prescribes such heavy sentences as cutting off the tongue or pouring of molten lead in the ears of the Shudra, who recites or hears the Veda. The supporters of Chaturvarnya must give an assurance that they could successfully classify men and they could induce modern society in the twentieth century to reforge the penal sanctions of Manu-Smriti.

The protagonists of Chaturvarnya do not seem to have considered what is to happen to women in their system. Are they also to be divided into four classes, Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra? Or are they to be allowed to take the status of their husbands. If the status of the woman is to be the consequence of marriage what becomes of the underlying principle of Chaturvarnya, namely, that the status of a person should be based upon the worth of that person ? If they are to be classified according to their worth is their classification to be nominal or real ? If it is to be nominal then it is useless and then the protagonists of Chaturvarnya must admit that their system does not apply to women. If it is real, are the protagonists of Chaturvarnya prepared to follow the logical consequences of applying it to women ? They must be prepared to have women priests and women soldiers. Hindu society has grown accustomed to women teachers and women barristers. It may grow accustomed to women brewers and women butchers. But he would be a bold person, who would say that it will allow women priests and women soldiers. But that will be the logical outcome of applying Chaturvarnya to women. Given these difficulties, I think no one except a congenital idiot could hope and believe in a successful regeneration of the Chaturvarnya.

XVII

Assuming that Chaturvarnya is practicable, I contend that it is the most vicious system. That the Brahmins should cultivate knowledge, that the Kshatriya should bear arms, that the Vaishya. should trade and that the Shudra should serve sounds as though it was a system of division of labour. Whether the theory was intended to state that the Shudra need not or that whether it was intended to lay down that he must not, is an interesting question. The defenders of Chaturvarnya give it the first meaning. They say, why should the Shudra need trouble to acquire wealth, when the three Vamas are there to support him ? Why need the Shudra bother to take to education, when there is the Brahmin to whom he can go when the occasion for reading or writing arises ? Why need the Shudra worry to arm himself because there is the Kshatriya to protect him ? The theory of Chaturvarnya, understood in this sense, may be said to look upon the Shudra as the ward and the three Vamas as his guardians. Thus interpreted, it is a simple, elevating and alluring theory. Assuming this to be the correct view of the underlying conception of Chaturvarnya, it seems to me that the system is neither fool-proof nor knave-proof. What is to happen, if the Brahmins, Vaishyas and Kshatriyas fail to pursue knowledge, to engage in economic enterprise and to be efficient soldiers which are their respective functions ? Contrary-wise, suppose that they discharge their functions but flout their duty to the Shudra or to one another, what is to happen to the Shudra if the three classes refuse to support him on fair terms or combine to keep him down ? Who is to safeguard the interests of the Shudra or for the matter of that of the Vaishya and Kshatriya when the person, who is trying to take advantage of his ignorance is the Brahmin? Who is to defend the liberty of the Shudra and for the matter of that, of the Brahmin and the Vaishya when the person who is robbing him of it is the Kshatriya ? Inter-dependence of one class on another class is inevitable. Even dependence of one class upon another may sometimes become allowable. But why make one person depend upon another in the matter of his vital needs ? Education everyone must have. Means of defence everyone must have. These are the paramount requirements of every man for his self-preservation. How can the fact that his neighbour is educated and armed help a man who is uneducated and disarmed. The whole theory is absurd. These are the questions, which the defenders of Chaturvarnya do not seem to be troubled about. But they are very pertinent questions. Assuming their conception of Chaturvarnya that the relationship between the different classes is that of ward and guardian is the real conception underlying Chaturvarnya, it must be admitted that it makes no provision to safeguard the interests of the ward from the misdeeds of the guardian. Whether the relationship of guardian and ward was the real underlying conception, on which Chaturvarnya was based, there is no doubt that in practice the relation was that of master and servants. The three classes, Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas although not very happy in their mutual relationship managed to work by compromise. The Brahmin flattered the Kshatriya and both let the Vaishya live in order to be able to live upon him. But the three agreed to beat down the Shudra. He was not allowed to acquire wealth lest he should be independent of the three Varncus. He was prohibited from acquiring knowledge lest he should keep a steady vigil regarding his interests. He was prohibited from bearing arms lest he should have the means to rebel against their authority. That this is how the Shudras were treated by the Tryavarnikas is evidenced by the Laws of Manu. There is no code of laws more infamous regarding social rights than the Laws of Manu. Any instance from anywhere of social injustice must pale before it. Why have the mass of people tolerated the social evils to which they have been subjected? There have been social revolutions in other countries of the world. Why have there not been social revolutions in India is a question which has incessantly troubled me. There is only one answer, which I can give and it is that the lower classes of Hindus have been completely disabled for direct action on account of this wretched system of Chaturvarnya. They could not bear arms and without arms they could not rebel. They were all ploughmen or rather condemned to be ploughmen and they never were allowed to convert their ploughshare into swords. They had no bayonets and therefore everyone who chose could and did sit upon them. On account of the Chaturvarnya, they could receive no education. They could not think out or know the way to their salvation. They were condemned to be lowly and not knowing the way of escape and not having the means of escape, they became reconciled to eternal servitude, which they accepted as their inescapable fate. It is true that even in Europe the strong has not shrunk from the exploitation, nay the spoliation of the weak. But in Europe, the strong have never contrived to make the weak helpless against exploitation so shamelessly as was the case in India among the Hindus. Social war has been raging between the strong and the weak far more violently in Europe than it has ever been in India. Yet, the weak in Europe has had in his freedom of military service his physical weapon, in suffering his political weapon and in education his moral weapon. These three weapons for emancipation were never withheld by the strong from the weak in Europe. All these weapons were, however, denied to the masses in India by Chaturvarnya. There cannot be a more degrading system of social organization than the Chaturvarnya. It is the system which deadens, paralyses and cripples the people from helpful activity. This is no exaggeration. History bears ample evidence. There is only one period in Indian history which is a period of freedom, greatness and glory. That is the period of the Mourya Empire. At all other times the country suffered from defeat and darkness. But the Mourya period was a period when Chaturvarnya was completely annihilated, when the Shudras, who constituted the mass of the people, came into their own and became the rulers of the country. The period of defeat and darkness is the period when Chaturvarnya flourished to the damnation of the greater part of the people of the country.

XVIII

Chaturvarnya is not new. It is as old as the Vedas. That is one of the reasons why we are asked by the Arya Samajists to consider its claims. Judging from the past as a system of social organization, it has been tried and it has failed. How many times have the Brahmins annihilated the seed of the Kshatriyas! How many times have the Kshatriyas annihilated the Brahmins! The Mahabharata and the Puranas are full of incidents of the strife between the Brahmins and the Kshatriyas. They even quarreled over such petty questions as to who should salute first, as to who should give way first, the Brahmins or the Kshatriyas, when the two met in the street. Not only was the Brahmin an eyesore to die Kshatriya and the Kshatriya an eyesore to the Brahmin, it seems that the Kshatriyas had become tyrannical and the masses, disarmed as they were under the system of Chaturvarnya, were praying Almighty God for relief from their tyranny. The Bhagwat tells us very definitely that Krishna had taken Avtar for one sacred purpose and that was to annihilate the Kshatriyas. With these instances of rivalry and enmity between the different Vurnas before us, I do not understand how any one can hold out Chaturvarnya as an ideal to be aimed at or as a pattern, on which the Hindu Society should be remodelled.

XIX

I have dealt with those, who are without you and whose hostility to your ideal is quite open. There appear to be others, who are neither without you nor with you. I was hesitating whether I should deal with their point of view. But on further consideration I have come to the conclusion that I must and that for two reasons. Firstly, their attitude to the problem of caste is not merely an attitude of neutrality, but is an attitude of aimed neutrality. Secondly, they probably represent a considerable body of people. Of these, there is one set which finds nothing peculiar nor odious in the Caste System of the Hindus. Such Hindus cite the case of Muslims, Sikhs and Christians and find comfort in the fact that they too have castes amongst them. In considering this question you must a.t the outset bear in mind that nowhere is human society one single whole. It is always plural. In the world of action, the individual is one limit and society the other. Between them lie all sorts of associative arrangements of lesser and larger scope, families, friendship, co-operative associations, business combines, political parties, bands of thieves and robbers. These small groups are usually firmly welded together and are often as exclusive as castes. They have a narrow and intensive code, which is often anti-social. This is true of every society, in Europe as well as in Asia, The question to be asked in determining whether a given society is an ideal society ; is not whether there are groups in it, because groups exist in all societies. The. questions to be asked in determining what is an ideal society are : How numerous and varied are the interests which are consciously shared by the groups ? How full and free is the interplay with other forms of associations ? Are the forces that separate groups and classes more numerous than the forces that unite ? What social significance is attached to this group life ? Is its exclusiveness a matter of custom and convenience or is it a matter of religion ? It is in the light of these questions that one must decide whether caste among Non-Hindus is the same as caste among Hindus. If we apply these considerations to castes among Mohammedans, Sikhs and Christians on the one hand and to castes among Hindus on the other, you will find that caste among Non-Hindus is fundamentally different from caste among Hindus. First, the ties, which consciously make the Hindus hold together, are non-existent, while among Non-Hindus there are many that hold them together. The strength of a society depends upon the presence of points of contact, possibilities of interaction between different groups which exist in it. These are what Carlyle calls " organic filaments " i.e. the elastic threads which help to bring the disintegrating elements together and to reunite them. There is no integrating farce among the Hindus to counteract the disintegration caused by caste. While among the Non-Hindus there are plenty of these organic filaments which bind them together. Again it must be borne in mind that although there are castes among Non-Hindus, as there are among Hindus, caste has not the same social significance for Non-Hindus as it has for Hindus. Ask Mohammedan or a Sikh, who he is? He tells you that he is a Mohammedan or a Sikh as the case may be. He does not tell you his caste although he has one and you are satisfied with his answer. When he tells you that he is a Muslim, you do not proceed to ask him whether he is a Shiya or a Suni; Sheikh or Saiyad ; Khatik or Pinjari. When he tells you he is a Sikh, you do not ask him whether he is Jat or Roda ; Mazbi or Ramdasi. But you are not satisfied, if a person tells you that he is a Hindu. You feel bound to inquire into his caste. Why ? Because so essential is caste in the case of a Hindu that without knowing it you do not feel sure what sort of a being he is. That caste has not the same social significance among Non-Hindus as it has among Hindus is clear if you take into consideration the consequences which follow breach of caste. There may be castes among Sikhs and Mohammedans but the Sikhs and the Mohammedans will not outcast a Sikh or a Mohammedan if he broke his caste. Indeed, the very idea of excommunication is foreign to the Sikhs and the Mohammedans. But with the Hindus the case is entirely different. He is sure to be outcasted if he broke caste. This shows the difference in the social significance of caste to Hindus and Non-Hindus. This is the second point of difference. But there is also a third and a more important one. Caste among the non-Hindus has no religious consecration; but among the Hindus most decidedly it has. Among the Non-Hindus, caste is only a practice, not a sacred institution. They did not originate it. With them it is only a survival. They do not regard caste as a religious dogma. Religion compels the Hindus to treat isolation and segregation of castes as a virtue. Religion does not compel the Non-Hindus to take the same attitude towards caste. If Hindus wish to break caste, their religion will come in their way. But it will not be so in the case of Non-Hindus. It is, therefore, a dangerous delusion to take comfort in the mere existence of caste among Non-Hindus, without caring to know what place caste occupies in their life and whether there are other " organic filaments ", which subordinate the feeling of caste to the feeling of community. The sooner the Hindus are cured of this delusion the butter.

The other set denies that caste presents any problem at all for the .Hindus

to consider. Such Hindus seek comfort in the view that the Hindus have survived and take this as a proof of their fitness to survive. This point of view is well expressed by Prof. S. Radhakrishnan in his Hindu view of life. Referring to Hinduism he says, " The civilization itself has not, been a short-lived one. its historic records date back for over four thousand years and even then it had reached a stage of civilization which has continued its unbroken, though at times slow and static, course until the present day. It has stood the stress and strain of more than four or five millenniums of spiritual thought and experience. Though peoples of different races and cultures have been pouring into India from the dawn of History, Hinduism has been able to maintain its supremacy and even the proselytising creeds backed by political power have not been able to coerce the large majority of Hindus to their views. The Hindu culture possesses some vitality which seems to be denied to some other more forceful current . It is no more necessary to dissect Hinduism than to open a tree to see whether the sap still runs." The name of Prof. Radhakrishnan is big enough to invest with profundity whatever he says and impress the minds of his readers. But I must not hesitate to speak out my mind. For, I fear that his statement may become the basis of a vicious argument that the fact of survival is proof of fitness to survive. It seems to me that the question is. not whether a community lives or dies ; the question is on what plane does it live. There are different modes   of survival. But all are not equally honourable. For an individual as well as for a society, there is a gulf between merely living and living worthily. To fight in a battle and to live in glory is one mode. To beat a retreat, to surrender and to live the life of a captive is. also a mode of survival. It is useless for a Hindu to take comfort in the fact that he and his people have survived. What he must consider is what is the quality of their survival. If he does that, I am sure he will cease to take pride in the mere fact of survival. A Hindu's life has been a life of continuous defeat and what appears to him to be life everlasting is not living everlastingly but is really a life which is perishing everlastingly. It is a mode of survival of which every right-minded Hindu, who is not afraid to own up the truth, will feel ashamed.

XX

There is no doubt; in my opinion, that unless you change your social order you can achieve little by way of progress. You cannot mobilize the community          either for defence or for offence. You cannot build anything on the foundations of caste. You cannot build up a nation, you cannot build up a morality. Anything that you will build on the foundations of caste will crack and will never be a whole.

The only question that remains to be considered is—How to bring about the reform of the Hindu social order ? How to abolish caste ? This is a question of supreme importance. There is a view that in the refarm of caste, the first step to take, is to abolish sub-castes. This view is based upon the supposition that there is a greater similarity in manners and status between sub-caste than there is between castes. I think, this is an erroneous supposition. The Brahmins of Northem and Central India are socially of lower grade, as compared with the Brahmins of the Deccan and Southern India. The former are only cooks and water-carriers while the latter occupy a high social position. On the other hand, in Northern India, the Vaishyas and Kayasthas are intellectually and socially on a par with the Brahmins of the Deccan and Southern India. Again, in the matter of food there is no similarity between the Brahmins of the Deccan and Southern India, who are vegetarians and the Brahmins of Kashmir and Bengal who are non-vegetarians. On the other hand, the Brahmins of the- Deccan and Southern India have more in common so far as food is concerned with such non-Brahmins as the Gujaratis, Marwaris, Banias and Jains. There is no doubt that from the standpoint of making the transit from one caste to another easy, the fusion of the Kayasthas of Northern India and the other Non-Brahmins of Southern India with the Non-Brahmins of the Deccan and the Dravid country is more practicable than the fusion of the Brahmins of the South with the Brahmins of the North. But assuming that the fusion of sub-Castes is possible, what guarantee is there that the abolition of sub-Castes will necessarily lead to the abolition of Castes ? On the contrary, it may happen that the process may stop with the abolition of sub-Castes. In that case, the abolition of sub-Castes will only help to strengthen the Castes and make them more powerful and therefore more mischievous. This remedy is therefore neither practicable nor effective and may easily prove to be a wrong remedy. Another plan of action for the abolition of Caste is to begin with inter-caste dinners. This also, in my opinion, is an inadequate remedy. There are many Castes which allow inter-dining. But it is a common experience that inter-dining has not succeeded in killing the spirit of Caste and the consciousness of Caste. I am convinced that the real remedy is inter-marriage. Fusion of blood can alone create the feeling of being kith and kin and unless this feeling of kinship, of being kindred, becomes paramount the separatist feeling—the feeling of being aliens—created by Caste will not vanish. Among the Hindus inter-marriage must necessarily be a factor of greater force in social life than it need be in the life of the non-Hindus. Where society is already well-knit by other ties, marriage is an ordinary incident of life. But where society cut asunder, marriage as a binding force becomes a matter of urgent necessity. The real remedy for breaking Caste is inter-marriage. Nothing else will serve as the solvent of Caste. Your Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal has adopted this line of attack.

It is a direct and frontal attack, and I congratulate you upon a collect diagnosis and more upon your having shown the courage to tell the Hindus what is really wrong with them. Political tyranny is nothing compared to social tyranny and a reformer, who defies society, is a much more courageous man than a politician, who defies Government. You are right in holding that Caste will cease to be an operative farce only when inter-dining and inter-marriage have become matters of common course. You have located the source of the disease. But is your prescription the right prescription for the disease ? Ask yourselves this question ; Why is it that a large majority of Hindus do not inter-dine and do not inter-marry ? Why is it that your cause is not popular ? There can be only one answer to this question and it is that inter-dining and inter-marriage are repugnant to the beliefs and dogmas which the Hindus regard as sacred. Caste is not a physical object like a wall of bricks or a line of barbed wire which prevents the Hindus from co-mingling and which has, therefore, to be pulled down. Caste is a notion, it is a state of the mind. The destruction of Caste does not therefore mean the destruction of a physical barrier. It means a notional change. Caste may be bad. Caste may lead to conduct so gross as to be called man's inhumanity to man. All the same, it must be recognized that the Hindus observe Caste not because they are inhuman or wrong headed. They observe Caste because they are deeply religious. People are not wrong in observing Caste. In my view, what is wrong is their religion, which has inculcated this notion of Caste. If this is correct, then obviously the enemy, you must grapple with, is not the people who observe Caste, but the Shastras which teach them this religion of Caste. Criticising and ridiculing people for not inter-dining or inter-marrying or occasionally holding inter-caste dinners and celebrating inter-caste marriages, is a futile method of achieving the desired end. The real remedy is to destroy the belief in the sanctity of the Shastras. How do you expect to succeed, if you allow the Shastras to continue to mould the beliefs and opinions of the people ? Not to question the authority of the Shastras , to permit the people to believe in their sanctity and their sanctions and to blame them and to criticise them for their acts as being irrational and inhuman is a incongruous way of carrying on social reform. Reformers working for the removal of untouchability including Mahatma Gandhi, do not seem to realize that the acts of the people are merely the results of their beliefs inculcated upon their minds by the Shastras and that people will not change their conduct until they cease to believe in the sanctity of the Shastras on which their conduct is founded. No wonder that such efforts have not produced any results. You also seem to be erring in the same way as the reformers working in the cause of removing untouchability. To agitate for and to organise inter-caste dinners and inter-caste marriages is like forced feeding brought about by artificial means. Make every man and woman free from the thraldom of the Shastras , cleanse their minds of the pernicious notions founded on the Shastras, and he or she will inter-dine and inter-marry, without your telling him or her to do so.

It is no use seeking refuge in quibbles. It is no use telling people that the Shastras do not say what they are believed to say, grammatically read or logically interpreted. What matters is how the Shastras have been understood by the people. You must take the stand that Buddha took. You must take the stand which Guru Nanak took. You must not only discard the Shastras, you must deny their authority, as did Buddha and Nanak. You must have courage to tell the Hindus, that what is wrong with them is their religion— the religion which has produced in them this notion of the sacredness of Caste. Will you show that courage ?

XXI

What are your chances of success ? Social reforms fall into different species. There is a species of reform, which does not relate to the religious notion of people but is purely secular in character. There is also a species of reform, which relates to the religious notions of people. Of such a species of reform, there are two varieties. In one, the reform accords with the principles of the religion and merely invites people, who have departed from it, to revert to them and to follow them. The second is a reform which not only touches the religious principles but is diametrically opposed to those principles and invites people to depart from and to discard their authority and to act contrary to those principles. Caste is the natural outcome of certain religious beliefs which have the sanction of the Shastras, which are believed to contain the command of divinely inspired sages who were endowed with a supernatural wisdom and whose commands, therefore, cannot be disobeyed without committing sin. The destruction of Caste is a reform which falls under the third category. To ask people to give up Caste is to ask them to go contrary to their fundamental religious notions. It is obvious that the first and second species of reform are easy. But the third is a stupendous task, well nigh impossible. The Hindus hold to the sacredness of the social order. Caste has a divine basis. You must therefore destroy the sacredness and divinity with which Caste has become invested. In the last analysis, this means you must destroy the authority of the Shastrasand the Vedas.

I have emphasized this question of the ways and means of destroying Caste, because I think that knowing the proper ways and means is more important than knowing the ideal. If you do not know the real ways and means, all your shots are sure to be misfires. If my analysis is correct then your task is herculean. You alone can say whether you are capable of achieving it.

Speaking for myself, I see the task to be well nigh impossible. Perhaps you would like to know why I think so. Out of the many reasons, which have led me to take this view, I will mention some, which I regard much important. One of these reasons is the attitude of hostility, which the Brahmins have shown towards this question. The Brahmins form the vanguard of the movement for political reform and in some cases also of economic reform. But they are not to be found even as camp followers in the army raised to break down the barricades of Caste. Is there any hope of the Brahmins ever taking up a lead in the future in this matter? I say no. You may ask why ? You may argue that there is no reason why Brahmins should continue to shun social reform. You may argue that the Brahmins know that the bane of Hindu Society is Caste and as an enlightened class could not be expected to be indifferent to its consequences. You may argue that there are secular Brahmins and priestly Brahmins and if the latter do not take up the cudgels on behalf of those who want to break Caste, the former will. All this of course sounds very plausible. But in all this it is forgotten that the break up of the Caste system is bound to affect adversely the Brahmin Caste. Having regard to this, is it reasonable to expect that the Brahmins will ever consent to lead a movement the ultimate result of which is to destroy the power and prestige of the Brahmin Caste ? Is it reasonable to expect the secular Brahmins to take part in a movement directed against the priestly Brahmins ? In my judgment, it is useless to make a distinction between the secular Brahmins and priestly Brahmins. Both are kith and kin. They are two arms of the same body and one bound to fight for the existence of the other. In this connection, I am reminded of some very pregnant remarks made by Prof. Dicey in his English Constitution. Speaking of the actual limitation on the legislative supremacy of Parliament, Dicey says : " The actual exercise of authority by any sovereign whatever, and notably by Parliament, is bounded or controlled by two limitations. Of these the one is an external, and the other is an internal limitation. The external limit to the real power of a sovereign consists in the possibility or certainty that his subjects or a large number of them will disobey or resist his laws. . . The internal limit to the exercise of sovereignty arises from the nature of the sovereign power itself. Even a despot exercises his powers in accordance with his character, which is itself moulded by the circumstance under which he lives, including under that head the moral feelings of the time and the society to which he belongs. The Sultan could not, if he would, change the religion of the Mohammedan world, but even if he could do so, it is in the very highest degree improbable that the head of Mohammedanism should wish to overthrow the religion of Mohammed ; the internal check on the exercise of the Sultan's power is at least as strong as the external limitation. People sometimes ask the idle question, why the Pope does not introduce this or that reform? The true answer is that a revolutionist is not the kind of man who becomes a Pope and that a man who becomes a Pope has no wish to be a revolutionist." I think, these remarks apply equally to the Brahmins of India and one can say with equal truth that if a man who becomes a Pope has no wish to become a revolutionary, a man who is born a Brahmin has much less desire to become a revolutionary. Indeed, to expect a Brahmin to be a revolutionary in matters of social reform is as idle as to expect the British Parliament, as was said by Leslie Stephen, to pass an Act requiring all blue-eyed babies to be murdered.

Some of you will say that it is a matter of small concern whether the Brahmins come forward to lead the movement against Caste or whether they do not. To take this view is in my judgment to ignore the part played by the intellectual class in the community. Whether you accept the theory of the great man as the maker of history or whether you do not, this much you will have to concede that in every country the intellectual class is the most influential class, if not the governing class. The intellectual class is the class which can foresee, it is the class which can advise and give lead. In no country does the mass of the people live the life of intelligent thought and action. It is largely imitative and follows the intellectual class. There is no exaggeration in saying that the entire destiny of a country depends upon its intellectual class. If the intellectual class is honest, independent and disinterested it can be trusted to take the initiative and give a proper lead when a crisis arises. It is true that intellect by itself is no virtue. It is only a means and the use of means depends upon the ends which an intellectual person pursues. An intellectual man can be a good man but he can easily be a rogue. Similarly an intellectual class may be a band of high-souled persons, ready to help, ready to emancipate erring humanity or it may easily be a gang of crooks or a body of advocates of a narrow clique from which it draws its support. You may think it a pity that the intellectual class in India is simply another name for the Brahmin caste. You may regret that the two are one.; that the existence of the intellectual class should be bound with one single caste, that this intellectual class should share the interest and the aspirations of that Brahmin caste, which has regarded itself the custodian of the interest of that caste, rather than of the interests of the country. All this may be very regrettable. But the fact remains, that the Brahmins form the intellectual class of the Hindus. It is not only an intellectual class but it is a class which is held in great reverence by the rest of the Hindus. The Hindus are taught that the Brahmins are Bhudevas (Gods on earth)    vernanam brahmnam guruh ! : The Hindus are taught that Brahmins alone can be their teachers. Manu says, "If it be asked how it should be with respect to points of the Dharma which have not been specially mentioned, the answer is that which Brahmins who are Shishthas propound shall doubtless have legal force." :

anamnateshu dharmehu katham syaditi chedbhveta !

yam shishta brahnam  bruyuh sa dharmah syadashnkitah !!

When such an intellectual class, which holds the rest of the community in its grip, is opposed to the reform of Caste, the chances of success in a movement for the break-up of the Caste system appear to me very, very remote.

The second reason, why I say the task is impossible, will be clear if you will bear in mind that the Caste system has two aspects. In one of its aspects, it divides men into separate communities. In its second aspect, it places these communities in a graded order one above the other in social status. Each caste takes its pride and its consolation in the fact that in the scale of castes it is above some other caste. As an outward mark of this gradation, there is also a gradation of social and religious rights technically spoken of an Ashta-dhikaras and Sanskaras. The higher the grade of a caste, the greater the number of these rights and the lower the grade, the lesser their number. Now this gradation, this scaling of castes, makes it impossible to organise a common front against the Caste System. If a caste claims the right to inter-dine and inter-marry with another caste placed above it, it is frozen, instantly it is told by mischief-mongers, and there are many Brahmins amongst such mischief-mongers, that it will have to concede inter-dining and inter-marriage with castes below it ! All are slaves of the Caste System. But all the slaves are not equal in status. To excite the proletariat to bring about an economic revolution, Karl Marx told them : " You have nothing to lose except your chains." But the artful way in which the social and religious rights are distributed among the different castes whereby some have more and some have less, makes the slogan of Karl Marx quite useless to excite the Hindus against the Caste System. Castes form a graded system of sovereignties, high and low, which are jealous of their status and which know that if a general dissolution came, some of them stand to lose more of their prestige and power than others do. You cannot, therefore, have a general mobilization of the Hindus, to use a military expression, for an attack on the Caste System.

XXII

Can you appeal to reason and ask the Hindus to discard Caste as being contrary to reason ? That raises the question : Is a Hindu free to follow his reason? Manu has laid down three sanctions to which every Hindu must conform in the matter of his behaviour vedah smritih sadacharah uvasy cha priyamatmanah  Here there is no place for reason to play its part. A Hindu must follow either Veda, Smriti or Sadachar.He cannot follow anything else. In the first place how are the texts of the Vedas and Smritis to be interpreted whenever any doubt arises regarding their meaning ? On this important question the view of Manu is quite definite. He says :

yovamanyet te moole hetushrashraya dwizah

sa sadhubhirbahishkaryo nashtiko vedandikah

According to this rule, rationalism as a canon of interpreting the Vedas and Smritis, is absolutely condemned. It is regarded to be as wicked as atheism and the punishment provided for it is ex-communication. Thus, where a matter is covered by the Veda or the Smriti, a Hindu cannot resort to rational thinking. Even when there is a conflict between Vedas and Smritis on matters on which they have given a positive injunction, the solution is not left to reason. When there is a conflict between two Shrutis, both are to be regarded as of equal authority. Either of them may be followed. No attempt is to be made to find out which of the two accords with reason. This is made clear by Manu:

shrutidwadham tu  yatra syaptatra dharvarvudhau smritau

"When there is a conflict between Shruti and Sinriti , the Shruti must prevail." But here too, no attempt must be made to find out which of the two accords with reason. This is laid down by Manu in the following Shloka :


ya vedabahyah snrityo yashch kashch kridrishtah i

sarvasta nishphalah prety tamonishtha hi tah smritah ii

Again, when there is a conflict between two Smritis, the Manu-Smriti must prevail, but no attempt is to be made to find out which of the two accords with reason. This is the ruling given by Brihaspati:


vedayatvopanibandhritavat pramanyam hi manoah smritah

manvrthaviparita tu ya smritih sa na shashyate

It is, therefore, clear that in any matter on which the Shrutis and Smritis have given a positive direction, a Hindu is not free to use his reasoning faculty. The same rule is laid down in the Mahabharat :


puranam manvo dharmah sango vedashchikitsitam

agasidhani chatvari na hantavyani hetubhih

He must abide by their directions. The Caste and Varna are matters, which are dealt with by the Vedas and the Smritis and consequently, appeal to reason can have no effect on a Hindu. So far as Caste and Varna are concerned, not only the Shastras do not permit the Hindu to use his reason in the decision of the question, but they have taken care to see that no occasion is left to examine in a rational way the foundations of his belief in Caste and Varna. It must be a source of silent amusement to many a Non-Hindu to find hundreds and thousands of Hindus breaking Caste on certain occasions, such as railway journey and foreign travel and yet endeavouring to maintain Caste for the rest of their lives ! The explanation of this phenomenon discloses another fetter on the reasoning faculties of the Hindus. Man's life is generally habitual and unreflective. Reflective thought, in the sense of active, persistent and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form or knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and further conclusions to which it tends, is quite rare and arises only in a situation which presents a dilemma—a Crisis-Railway journeys and foreign travels are really occasions of crisis in the life of a Hindu and it is natural to expect a Hindu to ask himself why he should maintain Caste at all, if he cannot maintain it at all times. But he does not. He breaks Caste at one step and proceeds to observe it at the next without raising any question. The reason for this astonishing conduct is to be found in the rule of the Shastras, which directs him to maintain Caste as far as possible and to undergo praynschitia when he cannot. By this theory of prayaschitta , the Shastras by following a spirit of compromise have given caste a perpetual lease of life and have smothered reflective thought which would have otherwise led to the destruction of the notion of Caste.

There have been many who have worked in the cause of the abolition of Caste and Untouchability. Of those, who can be mentioned,Ramanuja, Kabir and others stand out prominently. Can you appeal to the acts of these reformers and exhort the Hindus to follow them ? It is true that Manu has included Sadachar (sadachar) as one of the sanctions along with Shruti and Smriti. Indeed, Sadachar has been given a higher place than Shastras :

yaddwacharyate yen dharmya vadharmamev va

deshasyacharanam nityam charitram tadwikirtatam

according to this, sadachar, whether, it is dharmya or adharmya in accordance with Shastras or contrary to Shastras, must be followed. But what is the meaning of Sadachar ? If any one were to suppose that Sadachar means right or good acts i.e. acts of good and righteous men he would find himself greatly mistaken. Sadachar does not means good acts or acts of good men. It means ancient custom good or bad. The following verse makes this clear :

yasmin deshe ya acharah parmpayakramagatah

varnani kil sarvesham sa sadachar uchyate

As though to warn people against the view that Sadachar means good acts or acts of good men and fearing that people might understand itthat way and follow the acts of good men, the Smrities have commanded the Hindus in unmistakable terms not to follow even Gods in their good deeds, if they are contrary to Shruti, Smrili and Sadachar. This may sound to be most extraordinary, most perverse, but the. fact remains that na devacharitam charet is an injunction, issued to the Hindus by their Shastras. Reason and morality are the two most powerful weapons in the armoury of a Reformer. To deprive him of the use of these weapons is to disable him for action .How are you going to break up Caste, if people are not free to consider whether it accords with reason ? How are you going to break up Caste if people are not free to consider whether it accords with morality ? The wall built around Caste is impregnable and the material, of which it is built, contains none of the combustible stuff of reason and morality. Add to this the fact that inside this wall stands the army of Brahmins, who form the intellectual class, Brahmins who are the natural leaders of the Hindus, Brahmins who are there not as mere mercenary soldiers but as an army fighting for its homeland and you will get an idea why I think that breaking-up of Caste amongst the Hindus is well-nigh impossible. At any rate, it would take ages before a breach is made. But whether the doing of the deed takes time or whether it can be done quickly, you must not forget that if you wish to bring about &breach in the system then you have got to apply the dynamite to the Vedas and the Shastras, which deny any part to reason, to Vedas andShastras, which deny any part to morality. You must destroy the Religion of the Shrutis and the Smritis. Nothing else will avail. This is my considered view of the matter.

XXIII

Some may not understand what I mean by destruction of Religion; some may find the idea revolting to them and some may find it revolutionary. Let me therefore explain my position. I do not know whether you draw a distinction between principles and rules. But I do. Not only I make a distinction but I say that this distinction is real and important. Rules are practical ; they are habitual ways of doing things according to prescription. But principles are intellectual; they are useful methods of judging things. Rules seek to tell an agent just what course of action to pursue. Principles do not prescribe a specific course of action. Rules, like cooking recipes, do tell just what to do and how to do it. A prinsiple,such as that of justice, supplies a main head by reference to which he is to consider the bearings of his desires and purposes, it guides him in his thinking by suggesting to him the important consideration which he should bear in mind. This difference between rules and principles makes the acts done in pursuit of them different in quality and in content. Doing what is said to be, good by virtue of a rule and doing good in the light of a principle are two different things. The principle may be wrong but the act is conscious and responsible. The rule may be right but the act is mechanical. A religious act may not be a correct act but must at least be a responsible act. To permit of this responsibility, Religion must mainlybe a matter of principles only. It cannot be a matter of rules. The moment it degenerates into rules it ceases to be Religion, as it kills responsibility which is the essence of a truly religious act. What is this Hindu Religion ? Is it a set of principles or is it a code of rules ? Now the Hindu Religion, as contained in the Vedas and the Smritis, is nothing but a mass of sacrificial, social, political and sanitary rules and regulations, all mixed up. What is called Religion by the Hindus is nothing but a multitude of commands and prohibitions. Religion, in the sense of spiritual principles, truly universal, applicable to all races, to all countries, to all times, is not to be found in them, and if it is, it does not form the governing part of a Hindu's life. That for a Hindu, Dharma means commands and prohibitions is clear from the way the word Dharma is used in Vedas and the Sinritis and understood by the commentators. The word Dharma as used in the Vedas in most cases means religious ordinances or rites. Even Jaimini in his Purva-Mimansa defines Dharma as "a desirable goal or result that is indicated by injunctive (Vedic) passages ". To put it in plain language, what the Hindus call Religion is really Law or at best legalized class-ethics. Frankly, I refuse to cull this code of ordinances, as Religion. The first evil of such a code of ordinances, misrepresented to the people as Religion, is that it tends to deprive moral life of freedom and spontaneity and to reduce it (for the conscientious at any rate) to a more or less anxious and servile conformity to externally imposed rules. Under it, there is no loyalty to ideals, there is only conformity to commands. But the worst evil of this code of ordinances is that the laws it contains must be the same yesterday, today and forever. They are iniquitous in that they are not the same for one class as for another. But this iniquity is made perpetual in that they are prescribed to be the same for all generations. The objectionable part of such a scheme is not that they are made by certain persons called Prophets or Law-givers. The objectionable part is that this code has been invested with the character of finality and fixity. Happiness notoriously varies with the conditions and circumstances of a person, as well as with the conditions of different people and epochs. That being the case, how can humanity endure this code of eternal laws, without being cramped and without being crippled ? I have, therefore, no hesitation in saying that such a religion must be destroyed and I say, there is nothing irreligious in working for the destruction of such a religion. Indeed I hold that it is your bounden duty to tear the mask, to remove the misrepresentation that as caused by misnaming this Law as Religion. This is an essential step for you. Once you clear the minds of the people of this misconception and enable them to realize that what they are told as Religion is not Religion but that it is really Law, you will be in a position to urge for its amendment or abolition. So long as people look upon it as Religion they will not be ready for a change, because the idea of Religion is generally speaking not associated with the idea of change. But the idea of law is associated with the idea of change and when people come to know that what is called Religion is really Law, old and archaic, they will be ready for a change, for people know and accept that law can be changed.

XXIV

While I condemn a Religion of Rules, I must not be understood to hold the opinion that there is no necessity for a religion. On the contrary, I agree with Burke when he says that, " True religion is the foundation of society, the basis on which all true Civil Government rests, and both their sanction." Consequently, when I urge that these ancient rules of life be annulled, I am anxious that its place shall be taken by a Religion of Principles, which alone can lay claim to being a true Religion. Indeed, I am so convinced of the necessity of Religion that I feel I ought to tell you in outline what I regard as necessary items in this religious reform. The following in my opinion should be the cardinal items in this reform : ( 1 )There should be one and only one standard book of Hindu Religion, acceptable to all Hindus and recognized by all Hindus. This of course means that all other books of Hindu religion such as Vedas, Shastras and Puranas, which are treated as sacred and authoritative, must by law cease to be so and the preaching of any doctrine, religious or social contained in these books should be penalized. (2) It should be better if priesthood among Hindus was abolished. But as this seems to be impossible, the priesthood must at least cease to be hereditary. Every person who professes to be a Hindu must be eligible for being a priest. It should be provided by law that no Hindu shall be entitled to be a priest unless he has passed an examination prescribed by the State and holds a sanad from the State permitting him to practise. (3) No ceremony performed by a priest who does not hold a sanad shall be deemed to be valid in law and it should be made penal for a person who has no sanad to officiate as a priest. (4) A priest should be the servant of the State and should be subject to the disciplinary action by the State in the matter of his morals, beliefs and worship, in addition to his being subject along with other citizens to the ordinary law of the land. (5) The number of priests should be limited by law according to the requirements of the State as is done in the case of the I.C.S. To some, this may sound radical. But to my mind there is nothing revolutionary in this. Every profession in India is regulated. Engineers must show proficiency, Doctor must show proficiency, Lawyers must show proficiency, before they are allowed to practise their professions. During the whole of their career, they must not only obey the law of the land, civil as well as criminal, but they must also obey the special code of morals prescribed by their respective professions. The priest's is the only profession where proficiency is not required. The profession of a Hindu priest is the only profession which is not subject to any code. Mentally a priest may be an idiot, physically a priest may be suffering from a foul disease, such as syphilis or gonorrheae, morally he may be a wreck. But he is fit to officiate at solemn ceremonies, to enter the sanctum sanctorum of a Hindu temple and worship the Hindu God. All this becomes possible among the Hindus because for a priest it is enough to be born in a priestly caste. The whole thing is abominable and is due to the fact that the priestly class among Hindus is subject neither to law nor to morality. It recognizes no duties. It knows only of rights and privileges. It is a pest which divinity seems to have let loose on the masses for their mental and moral degradation. The priestly class must be brought under control by some such legislation as I have outlined above. It will prevent it from doing mischief and from misguiding people. It will democratise it by throwing it open to every one. It will certainly help to kill the Brahminism and will also help to kill Caste, which is nothing but Brahminismincarnate. Brahminism is the poison which has spoiled Hinduism. You will succeed in saving Hinduism if you will kill Brahminism. There should be no opposition to this reform from any quarter. It should be welcomed even by the Arya Samajists, because this is merely an application of their own doctrine of guna-karma.

Whether you do that or you do not, you must give a new doctrinal basis to your Religion—a basis that will be in consonance with Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, in short, with Democracy. I am no authority on the subject. But I am told that for such religious principles as will be in consonance with Liberty, Equality and Fraternity it may not be necessary for you to borrow from foreign sources and that you could draw for such principles on the Upanishads. Whether you could do so without a complete remoulding, a considerable scraping and chipping off the ore they contain , is more than I can say. This means a complete change in the fundamental notions of life-it means a complete change in the values of life. It means a complete change in outlook and in attitude towards men and things. It means conversion but if you do not. like the word, I will say, it means new life. But a new life cannot enter a body that is dead. New life can center only in a new body. The old body must die before a new body can come into existence and a new life can enter into it. To put it simply: the old must cease to be operative before the new can begin to enliven and to pulsate. This is what I meant when I said you must discard the authority of the Shastras and destroy the religion of the Shastras.

XXV

I have kept you too long. It is time I brought this address to a close. This would have been a convenient point for me to have stopped. But thiswould probably be my last address to a Hindu audience on a subject vitally concerning the Hindus. I would therefore like, before I close, to place before the Hindus, if they will allow me, some questions which I regard as vital and invite them seriously to consider the same.

In the first place, the Hindus must consider whether it is sufficient to take the placid view of the anthropologist that there is nothing to be said about the beliefs, habits, morals and outlooks on life, which obtain among the different peoples of the world except that they often differ ; or whether it is not necessary to make an attempt to find out what kind of morality, beliefs, habits and outlook have worked best and have enabled those who possessed them to flourish, to go strong, to people the earth and to have dominion over it. As is observed by Prof. Carver, " Morality and religion, as the organised expression of moral approval and disapproval, must be regarded as factors in the struggle for existence as truly as are weapons for offence and defence, teeth and claws, horns and hoofs, furs and feathers. The social group, community, tribe or nation, which develops an unworkable scheme of morality or within which those social acts which weaken it and unfit it for survival, habitually create the sentiment of approval, while those which would strengthen and enable it to be expanded habitually create the sentiment of disapproval, will eventually be eliminated. It is its habits of approval or disapproval (these are the results of religion and morality) that handicap it, as really as the possession of two wings on one side with none on. the other will handicap the colony of flies. It would be as futile in the one case as in the other to argue, that one system is just as good as another." Morality and religion, therefore, are not mere matters of likes and dislikes. You may dislike exceedingly a scheme of morality, which, if universally practised within a nation, would make that nation the strongest nation on the face of the earth. Yet in spite of your dislike such a nation will become strong. You may like exceedingly a scheme of morality and an ideal of justice, which if universally practised within a nation, would make it enable to hold its own in the struggle with other nations. Yet in spite of your admiration thisnation will eventually disappear. The Hindus must, therefore, examine their religion and then morality in terms of their survival value.

Secondly, the Hindus must consider whether they should conserve the whole of their social heritage or select what is helpful and transmit to future generations only that much and no more. Prof, John Dewey., who was my teacher and to whom I owe so much, has said : " Every society gets encumbered with what is trivial, with dead wood from the past, and with what is positively perverse... As a society becomes moreenlightened, it realizes that it is responsible not to conserve and transmit, the whole of its existing achievements, but only such as make for a better future society." Even Burke in spite of the vehemence with which he opposed the principle of change embodied in the French Revolution, was compelled to admit that " a State without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation. Without such means it might even risk the loss of that part of the constitution which it wished the most religiously to preserve, '' What Burke said of a State applies equally to a society.

Thirdly, the Hindus must consider whether they must not cease to worship the past as supplying its ideals. The beautiful effect of this worship ofthe past are best summed up by Prof. Dewey when he says : " An individual can live only in the present. The present is not just something which comes after the past ; much less something produced by it. It is what life is in leaving the past behind it. The study of past products will not help us to understand the present. A knowledge of the past and its heritage is of great significance when it enters into the present, but not otherwise. Andthe mistake of making the-records and remains of the past the main material of education is that it tends to make the past a rival of the present and the present a more or less futile imitation of the past." The principle, which makes little of the present act of living and growing, naturally looks upon the present as empty and upon the future as remote. Such a principle is inimical to progress and is an hindrance to a strong and a steady current of life.

Fourthly, the Hindus must consider whether the time has not come for them to recognize that there is nothing fixed, nothing eternal, nothingsanatan; that everything is changing, that change is the law of life for individuals as well as for society. In a changing society, there must be a constant revolution of old values and the Hindus must realize that if there must be standards to measure the acts of men there must also be a readiness to revise those standards.

XXVI

I have to confess that this address has become too lengthy. Whether this fault is compensated to any extent by breadth or depth is a matter for you to judge. All I claim is to have told you candidly my views. I have little to recommend them but some study and a deep concern in your destiny. If you will allow me to say, these views are the views of a man, who has been no tool of power, no flatterer of greatness. They come from one, almost the whole of whose public exertion has been one continuous struggle for liberty for the poor and for the oppressed and whose only reward has been a continuous shower of calumny and abuse from national journals and national leaders, for no other reason except that I refuse to join with them in performing the miracle—I will not say trick—of liberating the oppressed with the gold of the tyrant and raising the poor with the cash of the rich. All this may not be enough to commend my views. I think they are not likely to alter yours. But whether they do or do not, the responsibility is entirely yours. You must make your efforts to uproot Caste, if not in my way, then in your way. I am sorry, I will not be with you. I have decided to change. This is not the place for giving reasons. But even when I am gone out of your fold, I will watch your movement with active sympathy and you will have my assistance for what it may be worth. Yours is a national cause. Caste is no doubt primarily the breath of the Hindus. But the Hindus have fouled the air all over and everybody is infected, Sikh, Muslim and Christian. You, therefore, deserve the support of all those who are suffering from this infection, Sikh, Muslim and Christian. Yours is more difficult than the other national cause, namely Swaraj. In the fight for Swaraj you fight with the whole nation on your side. In this, you have to fight against the whole nation and that too, your own. But it is more important than Swaraj. There is no use having Swaraj, if you cannot defend it. More important than the question of defending Swaraj is the question of defending the Hindus under the Swaraj. In my opinion only when the Hindu Society becomes a casteless society that it can hope to have strength enough to defend itself. Without such internal strength, Swaraj for Hindus may turn out to be only a step towards slavery. Good-bye and good wishes for your success.

APPENDIX I

A VINDICATION OF CASTE BY MAHATMA GANDHI

(A Reprint of his Articles in the " Harijan ")

Dr. Ambedkar's Indictment I

The readers will recall the fact that Dr. Ambedkar was to have presided last May at the annual conference of the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal of Lahore. But the conference itself was cancelled because Dr. Ambedkar's address was found by the Reception Committee to be unacceptable. How far a Reception Committee is justified in rejecting a President of its choice because of his address that may be objectionable to it is open to question. The Committee knew Dr. Ambedkar's views on caste and the Hindu scriptures. They knew also that he had in unequivocal terms decided to give up Hinduism. Nothing less than the address that Dr. Ambedkar had prepared was to be expected from him. The committee appears to have deprived the public of an opportunity of listening to the original views of a man, who has carved out for himself a unique position in society. Whatever label he wears in future, Dr. Ambedkar is not the man to allow himself to be forgotten.

Dr. Ambedkar was not going to be beaten by the Reception Committee. He has answered their rejection of him by publishing the address at his own expense. He has priced it at 8 annas, I would suggest a reduction to 2 annas or at least 4 annas.

No reformer can ignore the address. The orthodox will gain by reading it. This is not to say that the address is not open to objection. It has to be read only because it is open to serious objection. Dr. Ambedkar is a challenge to Hinduism. Brought up as a Hindu, educated by a Hindu potentate, he has become so disgusted with the so-called Savarna Hindus for the treatment that he and his people have received at their hands that he proposes to leave not only them but the very religion that is his and their common heritage. He has transferred to that religion, his disgust against a part of its professors.

But this is not to be wondered at. After all, one can only judge a system or an institution by the conduct of its representatives. What is more. Dr. Ambedkar found that the vast majority of Savarna Hindus had not only conducted themselves inhumanly against those of their fellow religionists,whom they classed as untouchables, but they had based their conduct on the authority of their scriptures, and when he began to search them he had found ample warrant for their beliefs in untouchability and all its implications. The author of the address has quoted chapter and verse in proof of his three-fold indictment—inhuman conduct itself, the unabashed justification for it on the part of the perpetrators, and the subsequent discovery that the justification was warranted by their scriptures.

No Hindu who prizes his faith above life itself can afford to underrate the importance of this indictment. Dr Ambedkar is not alone in his disgust He is its most uncompromising exponent and one of the ablest among them. He is certainly the most irreconcilable among them. Thank God, in the front rank of the leaders, he is singularly alone and as yet but a representative of a very small minority. But what he says is voiced with more or less vehemence by many leaders belonging to the depressed classes. Only the latter, for instance Rao Bahadur M. C. Rajah and DewanBahadur Srinivasan, not only do not threaten to give up Hinduism but find enough warmth in it to compensate for the shameful persecution to which the vast mass of Harijans are exposed.

But the fact of many leaders remaining in the Hindu fold is no warrant for disregarding what Dr. Ambedkar has to say. The Savaraas have to correct their belief and their conduct. Above all those who are by their learning and influence among the Savarnas have to give an authoritative interpretation of the scriptures. The questions that Dr. Ambedkar's indictment suggest are :

(1) What are the scriptures ?

(2) Are all the printed texts to be regarded as an integral part of them or is any part of them to be rejected as unauthorised interpolation ?

(3) What is the answer of such accepted and expurgated scriptures on the question of untouchability, caste, equality of status, inter-dining and intermarriages ? (These have been all examined by Dr. Ambedkar in his address.)

I must reserve for the next issue my own answer to these questions and a statement of the (at least some) manifest flaws in Dr. Ambedkar'sthesis

(Harijan, July II, 1936)

II

The Vedas, Upanishads, Smritis and Puranas including  Ramayana and Mahabharata are the Hindu Scriptures. Nor is this a finite list. Everyage or even. generation has added to the list. It follows, therefore, that everything printed or even found handwritten is not scripture. The Smritiesfor instance-contain much that can never be accepted as the word of God. Thus. many of the texts that Dr. Ambedkar quotes from the Smritiscannot be accepted as authentic. The scriptures, properly so-called, can only be concerned with eternal varieties and must appeal to any conscience i.e. any heart whose eyes of understanding are opened. Nothing can be accepted as the word of God which cannot be tested by reason or be capable of being spiritually experienced. And even when you have an expurgated edition of the scriptures, you will need their interpretation. Who is the best interpreter? Not learned men surely. Learning there must be. But religion does not live it. It lives in the experiences of its saints and seers, in their lives and sayings. When all the most learned commentators of the scriptures are utterly forgotten, the accumulated experience of the sages and saints will abide and be an inspiration for ages to come.

Caste has nothing to do with religion. It is a custom whose origin I do not know and do not need to know for the satisfaction of my spiritual hunger. But I do know that it is harmful both to spiritual and national growth. Varna and Ashrama are institutions which have nothing to do with castes .The law of Varna teaches us that we have each one of us to earn our bread by following the ancestral calling. it defines not our rights but our duties. It necessarily has reference to callings that are conducive to the welfare of humanity and to no other. It also follows that there is no calling too low and none too high. Ail are good, lawful and absolutely equal in status. The callings of a Brahmin— spiritual teacher—-and a scavenger are equal, and their due performance carries equal merit before God and at one time seems to have carried identical reward before man. Both were entitled to their livelihood and no more. Indeed one traces even now in the villages the faint lines of this healthy operation of the law. Living in Segaon with its population of 600, I do not find a great disparity between the earnings of different tradesmen including Brahmins. I find too that real Brahmins are to be found even in these degenerate days who are living on alms freely given to them and are giving freely of what they have of spiritual treasures. It would be wrong and improper to judge the law of Varna by its caricature in the lives of men who profess to belong to a Varna, whilst they openly commit a breach of its only operative rule. Arrogation of a superior status by and of the Varna over another is a denial of the law. And there is nothing in the law of Varna to warrant a belief in untouchability. (The essence of Hinduism is contained in its enunciation of one and only God as Truth and its bold acceptance of Ahimsa as the law of the human family.)

I am aware that my interpretation of Hinduism will be disputed by many besides Dr. Ambedkar. That does not affect my position. It is an interpretation by which I have lived for nearly half a century and according to which I have endeavoured to the best of my ability to regulate my life.

In my opinion the profound mistake that Dr. Ambedkar has made in his address is to pick out the texts of doubtful authenticity and value and the state of degraded Hindus who are no fit specimens of the faith they so woefully misrepresent. Judged by the standard applied by Dr. Ambedkar,every known living faith will probably fail.

In his able address, the learned Doctor has over proved his case. Can a religion that was professed by Chaitanya, Jnyandeo, Tukaram,Tiruvailuvar, Rarnkrishna Paramahansa, Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Maharshi Devendranath Tagore, Vivekanand and host of others who might be easily mentioned, so utterly devoid of merit as is made out in Dr. Ambedkar's address ? A religion has to be judged not by it's worst specimens but by the best it might have produced. For that and that alone can be used as the standard to aspire to, if not to improve upon. (Harijan, July 18, 1936)

III

VARNA VERSUS CASTE

Shri Sant Ramji of the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal of Lahore wants me to publish the following: " I have read your remarks about Dr. Ambedkar and the Jat-Pat-Todak

Mandal, Lahore. In that connection I beg to submit as follows :

" We did not invite Dr. Ambedkar to preside over our conference because he belonged to the Depressed Classes, for we do not distinguish between a touchable and an untouchable Hindu. On the contrary our choice fell on him simply because his diagnosis of the fatal disease of the Hindu community was the same as ours, i.e. he too was of the opinion that caste system was the root cause of the disruption and downfall of the Hindus. The subject of the Doctor's thesis for Doctorate being caste system, he has studied the subject thoroughly. Now the object of our conference was to persuade the Hindus to annihilate castes but the advice of a non-Hindu in social and religious matters can have no effect on them. The Doctor in the supplementary portion of his address insisted on saying that that was his last speech as a Hindu, which was irrelevant as well as pernicious to the interests of the conference. So we requested him to expunge that sentence for he could easily say the same thing on any other occasion. But he refused and we saw no utility in making merely a show of our function. In spite of all this, I cannot help praising his address which is, as far as I know, the most learned thesis on the subject and worth translating into every vernacular of India.

Moreover, I want to bring to your notice that your philosophical difference between Caste and Varna is too subtle to be grasped by people in general, because for all practical purposes in the Hindu society Caste and Varna are one and the same thing, for the function of both of them is one and the same i.e. to restrict inter-caste marriages and inter-dining. Your theory of Varnavyavastha is impracticable in this age and there is no hope of its revival in the near future. But Hindus are slaves of caste and do not want to destroy it. So when you advocate your ideal of imaginary Varnavyavastha they find justification for clinging to caste. Thus you are doing a great disservice to social reform by advocating your imaginary utility of division of Varnas, for it creates hindrance in our way. To try to remove untouchability without striking at the root of Varnavyavastha is simply to treat the outward symptoms of a disease or to draw a line on the surface of water. As in the heart of their hearts dvijas do not want to give social equality to the so-called touchable and untouchable Shudras, so they refuse to break caste, and give liberal donations for the removal of untouchability, simply to evade the issue. To seek the help of the Shastras for the removal of untouchability and caste is simply to wash mud with mud."

The last paragraph of the letter surely cancels the first. If the Mandal rejects the help of the Shastras, they do exactly what Dr. Ambedkar does,i.e. cease to be Hindus. How then can they object to Dr. Ambedkar's address merely because he said that that was his last speech as a Hindu ?The position appears to be wholly untenable especially when the Mandal, for which Shri Sant Ram claims to speak, applauds the whole argument of Dr. Ambedkar's address.

But it is pertinent to ask what the Mandal believes if it rejects the Shastras. How can a Muslim remain one if he rejects the Quran ,or a Christian remain Christian if he rejects the Bible ? If Caste and Varna are convertible terms and if Varna is an integral part of the Shastras which define Hinduism, I do not know how a person who rejects Caste i.e. Varna can call himself a Hindu.

Shri Sant Ram likens the Shastras to mud. Dr. Ambedkar has not, so far as I remember, given any such picturesque name to the Shastras. I have certainly meant when I have said that if Shastras support the existing untouchability I should cease to call myself a Hindu. Similarly, if theShastras support caste as we know it today in all its hideousness, I may not call myself or remain a Hindu since I have no scruples about interdining or intermarriage. I need not repeat my position regarding Shastras and their interpretation. I venture to suggest to Shri Sant Ram that it is the only rational and correct and morally defensible position and it has ample warrant in Hindu tradition.

(Harijan, August 15,1936)

APPENDIX  II

A REPLY TO THE MAHATMA BY DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR

I appreciate greatly the honour done me by the Mahatma in taking notice in his Harijan of the speech on Caste which I had prepared for the JatPat Todak Mandal. From a perusal of his review of my speech it is clear that the Mahatma completely dissents from the views I have expressed on the subject of Caste. I am not in the habit of entering into controversy with my opponents unless there are special reasons which compel me to act otherwise. Had my opponent been some mean and obscure person I would not have pursued him. But my opponent being the Mahatmahimself I feel I must attempt to meet the case to the contrary which he has sought to put forth. While I appreciate the honour he has done me, I must confess to a sense of surprize on finding that of all the persons the Mahatma should accuse me of a desire to seek publicity as he seems to do when he suggests that in publishing the undelivered speech my object was to see that I was not " forgotten ". Whatever the Mahatma may choose to say my object in publishing the speech was to provoke the Hindus to think and take stock of their position. I have never hankered for publicity and if I may say so, I have more of it than I wish or need. But supposing it was out of the motive of gaining publicity that I printed the speech who could cast a stone at me ? Surely not those, who like the Mahatma live in glass houses.

II

Motive apart, what has the Mahatma to say on the question raised by me in the speech ? First of all any one who reads my speech will realize that the Mahatma has entirely missed the issues raised by me and that the issues he has raised are not the issues that arise out of what he is pleased to call my indictment of the Hindus. The principal points which I have tried to make out in my speech may be catalogued as follows : (1) That caste has ruined the Hindus ; (2) That the reorganization of the Hindu society on the basis of Chaturvarnya is impossible because theVarnavym'astha is like a leaky pot or like a man running at the nose. It is incapable of sustaining itself by its own virtue and has an inherent tendency to degenerate into a caste system unless there is a legal sanction behind it which can be enforced against every one transgressing hisVarna ; (3) That the reorganization of the Hindu Society on the basis of Chaturvarnya is harmful, because the effect of the Varnavyavastha is to degrade the masses by denying them opportunity to acquire knowledge and to emasculate them by denying them the right to be armed ; (4) That the Hindu society must be reorganized on a religious basis which would recognise the principles of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity ; (5) That in order to achieve this object the sense of religious sanctity behind Caste and Varna must be destroyed ; (6) That the sanctity of Caste and Varnacan be destroyed only by discarding the divine authority of the Shastras. It will be noticed that the questions raised by the Mahatma are absolutely beside the point and show that the main argument of the speech was lost upon him.

Ill

Let me examine the substance of the points made by the Mahatma. The first point made by the Mahatma is that the texts cited by me are not authentic. I confess I am no authority on this matter. But I should like to state that the texts cited by me are all taken from the writings of the late Mr.Tilak who was a recognised authority on the Sanskrit language and on the Hindu Shastras. His second point is that these Shastras should be interpreted not by the learned but the saints and that, as the saints have understood them, the Shastras do not support Caste and Untouchabilty.As regards the first point what I like to ask the Mahatma is what does it avail to any one if the texts are interpolations and if they have been differently interpreted by the saints ? The masses do not make any distinction between texts which are genuine and texts which are interpolations. The masses do not know what the texts are. They are too illiterate to know the contents of the Shastras. They have believed what they have been told and what they have been told is that the Shastras do enjoin as a religious duty the observance of Caste and Untouchability.

With regard to the saints, one must admit that howsoever different and elevating their teachings may have been as compared to those of the merely learned they have been lamentably ineffective. They have been ineffective for two reasons. Firstly, none of the saints ever attacked the Caste System. On the contrary, they were staunch believers in the System of Castes. Most of them lived and died. as members of the castes which they respectively belonged. So passionately attached was Jnyandeo to his status as a Brahmin that when the Brahmins of Paithan would not admit him to their fold he moved heaven and earth to get his status as a Brahmin recognized by the Brahmin fraternity. And even the saintEknath who now figures in the film " Dharmatma " as a hero for having shown courage to touch the untouchables and dine with them, did so not because he was opposed to Caste and Untouchability but because he felt that the pollution caused thereby could be washed away by a bath in the sacred waters of the river Ganges.* [f1]The saints have never according to my study carried on a campaign against. Caste andUntouchability. They were not concerned with the struggle between men. They were concerned with the relation between man and God. They did not preach that all men were equal. They preached that all men were equal, in the eyes of God a very different and a very innocuous proposition which nobody can find difficult to preach or dangerous to believe in. The second reason why the teachings of the saints proved ineffective was because the masses have been taught that a saint might break Caste but the common man must not. A saint therefore never became an example to follow. He always remained a pious man to be honoured. That the masses have remained staunch believers in Caste andUntouchability shows that the pious lives and noble sermons of the saints have had no effect on their life and conduct as against the teachings of the Shastras. Thus it can be a matter of no consolation that there were saints or that there is a Mahatma who understands the Shastrasdifferently from the learned few or ignorant many. That the masses hold different view of the Shastras is fact which should and must be reckoned with. How is that to be dealt with except by denouncing the authority of the Shastras, which continue to govern their conduct, is a question which the Mahatma has not considered. But whatever the plan the Mahatma puts forth as an effective means to free the masses from the teachings of the Shastras, he must accept that the pious life led by one good Samaritan may be very elevating to himself but in India, with the attitude the common man has to saints and to Mahatmas—to honour but not to follow—one cannot make much out of it.

IV

The third point made by the Mahatma is that a religion professed by Chaitanya, Jnyandeo, Tukaram, Tiruvalluvar, Rarnkrishna Paramahansaetc. cannot be devoid of merit as is made out by me and that a religion has to be judged not by its worst specimens but by the best it might have produced. I agree with every word of this statement. But I do not quite understand what the Mahatma wishes to prove thereby. That religion should be judged not by its worst specimens but by its best is true enough but does it dispose of the matter ? I say it does not. The question still remains—why the worst number so many and the best so few ? To my mind there are two conceivable answers to this question : ( 1 ) That the worst by reason of some original perversity of theirs are morally uneducable and are therefore incapable of making the remotest approach to the religious ideal. Or (2) That the religious ideal is a wholly wrong ideal which has given a wrong moral twist to the lives of the many and that the best have become best in spite of the wrong ideal—in fact by giving to the wrong twist a turn in the right direction. Of these two explanations I am not prepared to accept the first and I am sure that even the Mahatma will not insist upon the contrary. To my mind the second is the only logical and reasonable explanation unless the Mahatma has a third alternative to explain why the worst are so many and the best so few. If the second is the only explanation then obviously the argument of the Mahatma that a religion should be judged by its best followers carries us nowhere except to pity the lot of the many who have gone wrong because they have been made to worship wrong ideals.

V

The argument of the Mahatma that Hinduism would be tolerable if only many were to follow the example of the saints is fallacious for another reason.  [f.2] By citing the names of such illustrious persons as Chaitanya etc. what the Mahatma seems to me to suggest in its broadest and simplest form is that Hindu society can be made tolerable and even happy without any fundamental change in its structure if all the high caste Hindus can be persuaded to follow a high standard of morality in their dealings with the low caste Hindus. I am totally opposed to this kind of ideology. I can respect those of the caste Hindus who try to realize a high social ideal in their life. Without such men India would be an uglier and a less happy place to live in than it is. But nonetheless anyone who relies on an attempt to turn the members of the caste Hindus into better men by improving their personal character is in my judgment wasting his energy and bugging an illusion. Can personal character make the maker of armaments a good man, i.e. a man who will sell shells that will not burst and gas that will not poison ? If it cannot, how can you accept personal character to make a man loaded with the consciousness of Caste, a good man, i.e. a man who would treat his fellows as his friends and equals? To be true to himself he must deal with his fellows either as a superior or inferior according as the case may be; at any rate, differently from his own caste fellows. He can never be expected to deal with his fellows as his kinsmen and equals. As a matter of fact, a Hindu does treat all those who are not of his Caste as though they were aliens, who could be discriminated against with impunity and against whom any fraud or trick may be practised without shame. This is to say that there can be a better or a worse Hindu. But a good Hindu there cannot be. This is so not because there is anything wrong with his personal character. In fact what is wrong is the entire basis of his relationship to his fellows. The best of men cannot be moral if the basis of relationship between them and their fellows is fundamentally a wrong relationship. To a slave his master may be better or worse. But there cannot be a good master. A good man cannot be a master and a master cannot be a good man. The same applies to the relationship between high caste and low caste. To a low caste man a high caste man can be better or worse as compared to other high caste men. A high caste man cannot be a good man in so far as he must have a low caste man to distinguish him as high caste man. It cannot be good to a low caste man to be conscious that there is a high caste man above him. I have argued in my speech that a society based on Varna or Caste is a society which is based on a wrong relationship. I had hoped that the Mahatma would attempt to demolish my argument. But instead of doing that he has merely reiterated his belief in Chaturvarnya without disclosing the ground on which it is based.

VI

Does the Mahatma practise what he preaches ? One does not like to make personal reference in an argument which is general in its application. But when one preaches a decline and holds it as a dogma there is a curiosity to know how far he practises what he preaches. It may be that his failure to practise is due to the ideal being too high. to be attainable; it may be that his failure to practise is due to the innate hypocrisy of the man. In any case he exposes his conduct to examination and I must not be blamed if I asked how far has the Mahatma attempted to realize his ideal in his own case. The Mahatma is a Bania by birth. His ancestors had abandoned trading in favour of ministership which is a calling of the Brahmins. In his own life, before he became a Mahatma, when occasion came for him to choose his career he preferred law to scales. On abandoning law he became half saint and half politician. He has never touched trading which is his ancestral calling. His youngest son—I takeone who is a faithful follower of his father—born a Vaishya has married a Brahmin's daughter and has chosen to serve a newspaper magnate. The Mahatma is not known to have condemned him for not following his ancestral calling. It may be wrong and uncharitable to judge an ideal by its worst specimens. But surely the Mahatma as a specimen has no better and if he even fails to realize the ideal then the ideal must be an impossible ideal quite opposed to the practical instincts of man. Students of Carlyle know that he often spoke on a subject before he thought about it. I wonder whether such has not been the case with the Mahatma in regard to the subject matter of Caste. Otherwise certain questions which occur to me would not have escaped him. When can a calling be deemed to have become an ancestral calling so as to make it binding on a man ? Must man follow his ancestral calling even if it does not suit his capacities, even when it has ceased to be profitable ? Must a man live by his ancestral calling even if he finds it to be immoral ? If every one must pursue his ancestral calling then it must follow that a man must. continue to be a pimp because his grandfather was a pimp and a woman must continue to be a prostitute because her grandmother was a prostitute. Is the Mahatma prepared to accept the logical conclusion of his doctrine ? To me bis ideal of following one's ancestral calling is not only an impossible and impractical ideal, but it is also morally an indefensible ideal. VII

The Mahatma sees great virtue in a Brahmin remaining a Brahmin all his life. Leaving aside the fact there are many Brahmins who do not like to remain Brahmins ail their lives. What can we say about those Brahmins who have clung to their ancestral calling of priesthood ? Do they do so from any faith in the virtue of the principle of ancestral calling or do they do so from motives of filthy lucre ? The Mahatma does not seem to concern himself with such queries. He is satisfied that these are " real Brahmins who are living on alms freely given to them and giving freely what they have of spiritual treasures ". This is how a hereditary Brahmin priest appears to the Mahatma—a carrier of spiritual treasurers. But another portrait of the hereditary Brahmin can also be drawn. A Brahmin can be a priest to Vishnu—the God of Love. He can be a priest toShankar—the God. of Destruction. He can be a priest at Buddha Gaya worshipping Buddha—the greatest teacher of mankind who taught the noblest doctrine of Love. He also can be a priest to Kali, the Goddess, who must have a daily sacrifice of an animal to satisfy her thirst for blood ;He will be a priest of the temple of Rama—the Kshatriya God! He will also be a priest of the Temple of Parshuram, the God who took Avatar to destroy the Kshatriyas ! He can be a priest to Bramha, the Creator of the world. He can be a priest to a Pir whose God Allah will not brook the claim of Bramha to share his spiritual dominion over the world ! No one can say that this is a picture which is not true to life. If this is a true picture one does not know what to say of this capacity to bear loyalties to Gods and Goddesses whose attributes are so antagonistic that no honest man can be a devotee to all of them. The Hindus rely upon this extraordinary phenomenon as evidence of the greatest virtue of their religion—namely its catholicity, its spirit of toleration. As against this facile view, it can be urged that what is toleration and catholicity may be really nothing more creditable than indifference or flaccid latitudinarianism. These two attitudes are hard to distinguish in their outer seeming. But they are so vitally unlike in their real quality that no one who examines them closely can mistake one for the other. That a man is ready to render homage to many Gods and Goddesses may be. cited as evidence of his tolerant spirit.. But can it not also be evidence of insincerity born of a desire to serve the times ? I am sure that this toleration is merely insincerity. If this view is well founded, one may ask what spiritual treasure can there be with a person who is ready to be a priest and a devotee to any deity which it serves his purpose to worship and to adore ? Not only must such a person be deemed to be bankrupt of all spiritual treasures but for him to practice so elevating a profession as that of a priest simply because it is ancestral, without faith, without belief, merely as a mechanical process handed down from. father to son, is not a conservation of virtue; it is really the prostitution of a noble profession which is no other than the service of religion.

VIII

Why does the Mahatma cling to the theory of every one following his or her ancestral calling ? He gives his reasons nowhere But there must be some reason although he does not cars to avow it. Years ago writing on " Caste versus Class " in his Young India he argued that Caste System was better than Class System on the ground that caste was the best possible adjustment of social stability. If that be the reason why the Mahatma clings to the theory of every one following his or her ancestral calling, then he is clinging to a false view of social life. Everybody wants social stability and some adjustment must be made in the relationship between individuals and classes in order that stability may be had. But two things, I am sure nobody wants. One thing nobody wants is static relationship, something that is unalterable, something that is fixed for all times. Stability is wanted but not at the cost of change when change is imperative. Second thing nobody wants is mere adjustment. Adjustment is wanted but not at the sacrifice of social justice. Can it be said that the adjustment of social relationship on the basis of caste i.e. on the basis of each to his hereditary calling avoids these two evils ? I am convinced that it does not. Far from being the best possible adjustment I have no doubt that it is of the worst possible kind inasmuch as it offends against both the canons of social adjustment—namely fluidity and equity.

IX

Some might think that the Mahatma has made much progress inasmuch as he now only believes in Varna and docs not believe in Caste. It is true that there was a time when the Mahatma was a full-blooded and a blue-blooded Sanatani Hindu. He believed in the Vedas, the Upanishads,the Puranas and all that goes by the name of Hindu scriptures and therefore in avatars and rebirth. He believed in Caste and defended it with the vigour of the orthodox. He condemned the cry for inter-dining, inter-drinking and inter-marrying and argued that restraints about inter-dining to a great extent " helped the cultivation of will-power and the conservation of certain social virtue ". It is good that he has repudiated this sanctimonious nonsense and admitted that caste " is harmful both to spiritual and national growth," and may be, his son's marriage outside his caste has had something to do with this change of view. But has the Mahatma really progressed ? What is the nature of the Varna for which the Mahatma stands ? Is it the Vedic conception as commonly understood and preached by Swami Dayanaad Saraswati and his followers, the AryaSamajists ? The essence of the Vedic conception of Varna is the pursuit of a calling which is appropriate to one's natural aptitude. The essence of the Mahatma's conception of Varna is the pursuit of ancestral calling irrespective of natural aptitude. What is the difference between Caste and Varna as understood by the Mahatma? I find none. As defined by the Mahatma, Varna becomes merely a different name for Caste for the simple reason that it is the same in essence—namely pursuit of ancestral calling. Far from making progress the Mahatma has suffered retrogression. By putting this interpretation upon the Vedic conception of Varna he has really made ridiculous what was sublime. While I reject the Vedic Varnavyavastha for reasons given in the speech I must admit that the Vedic theory of Varna as interpreted by Swami Dayanand and some others is a sensible and an inoffensive thing. It did not admit birth as a determining factor in fixing the place of an individual in society. It only recognized worth. The Mahatma's view of Varna not only makes nonsense of the Vedic Varna but it makes it an abominable thing. Varnaand Caste are two very different concepts. Varna is based on the principle of each according to his worth-while Caste is based on the principle of each according to his birth. The two are as distinct as chalk is from cheese. In fact there is an antithesis between the two. If the Mahatma believes as he does in every one following his or her ancestral calling, then most certainly he is advocating the Caste System and that in calling it the Varna System he is not only guilty of terminologicale inexactitude, but he is causing confusion worse confounded. I am sure that all his confusion is due to the fact that the Mahatma has no definite and clear conception as to what is Varna and what is Caste and as to the necessity of either for the conservation of Hinduism. He has said and one hopes that he will not find some mystic reason to change his view that caste is not the essence of Hinduism. Does he regard Varna as the essence of Hinduism ? One cannot as yet give any categorical answer. Readers of his article on " Dr. Ambedkar's Indictment " will answer " No ". In that article he does not say that the dogma of Varna is an essential part of the creed of Hinduism. Far from making Varna the essence of Hinduism he says " the essence of Hinduism is contained in its enunciation of one and only God as Truth and its bold acceptance of Ahimsa as the law of the human family " But the readers of his article in reply to Mr. Sant Ram will say " Yes ". In that article he says " How can a Muslim remain one if he rejects the Qurtan, or a Christian remain as Christian if he rejects the Bible ? If Caste and Varna are convertible terms and if Varna is an integral part of the Shastras which define Hinduism I do not know how a person who rejects Caste, i.e. Varna can call himself a Hindu ? " Why this prevarication ? Why does the Mahatma hedge ? Whom does he want to please ? Has the saint failed to sense the truth ? Or does the politician stand in the way of the Saint ? The real reason why the Mahatma is suffering from this confusion is probably to be traced to two sources. The first is the temperament of the Mahatma. He has almost in everything the simplicity of the child with the child's capacity for self-deception. Like a child he can believe in anything he wants to believe. We must therefore wait till such time as it pleases the Mahatma to abandon his faith in Varna as it has pleased him to abandon his faith in Caste. The second source of confusion is the double role which the Mahatma wants to play—of a Mahatma and a Politician. As a Mahatma he may be trying to spiritualize Politics. Whether he has succeeded in it or not Politics have certainly commercialized him. A politician must know that Society cannot bear the whole truth and that he must not speak the whole truth; if he is speaking the whole truth it is bad for his politics. The reason why the Mahatma is always supporting Caste and Varna is because he is afraid that if he opposed them he will lose his place in politics. Whatever may be the source of this confusion the Mahatma must be told that he is deceiving himself and also deceiving the people by preaching Caste under the name of Varna.

X

The Mahatma says that the standards I have applied to test Hindus and Hinduism are too severe and that judged by those standards every known living faith will probably fail. The complaint that my standards are high may be true. But the question is not whether they are high or whether they are low. The question is whether they are the right standards to apply. A People and their Religion must be judged by social standardsbased on social ethics. No other standard would have any meaning if religion is held to be a necessary good for the well-being of the people. Now I maintain that the standards I have applied to test Hindus and Hinduism are the most appropriate standards and that I know of none that are better. The conclusion that every known religion would fail if tested by my standards may be true. But this fact should not give the Mahatma as the champion of Hindus and Hinduism a ground for comfort any more than the existence of one madman should give comfort to another madman or the existence of one criminal should give comfort to another criminal. I like to assure the Mahatma that it is not the mere failure of the Hindus and Hinduism which has produced in me the feelings of disgust and contempt with which. I am charged. I realize that the world is a very imperfect world and any one who wants to live in it must bear with its imperfections. But while I am. prepared to bear with the imperfections and shortcomings of the society in which I may be destined to labour, I feel I should not consent to live in a society which cherishes wrong ideals or a society which having right ideals will not consent to bring its social life in conformity with those ideals. If I am disgusted with Hindus and Hinduism it is because I am convinced that they cherish wrong ideals and live a wrong social life. My quarrel with Hindus and Hinduism is not over the imperfections of their social conduct. It is much more fundamental. It is over their ideals.

XI

Hindu society seems to me to stand in need of a moral regeneration which it is dangerous to postpone. And the question is who can determineand control this moral regeneration ? Obviously only those who have undergone an intellectual regeneration and those who are honest enough to have the courage of their convictions born of intellectual emancipation. Judged by this standard the Hindu leaders who count are in my opinion quite unfit for the task. It is impossible to say that they have undergone the preliminary intellectual regeneration. If they had undergone an intellectual regeneration they would neither delude themselves in the simple way of the untaught multitude nor would they take advantage of theprimitive ignorance of others as one sees them doing. Notwithstanding the crumbling state of Hindu society these leaders will neverthelessunblushingly appeal to ideals of the past which have in every way ceased to have any connection with the present ; which however suitable theymight have been in the days of their origin have now become a warning rather than a guide. They still have a mystic respect for the earlier forms which make them disinclined—nay opposed to any examination of the foundations of their Society. The Hindu masses are cf course incredibly heedless in the formation of their beliefs. But so are the Hindu leaders. And what is worse is that. These Hindu leaders become filled with an illicit passion for their beliefs when any one proposes to rob them of their companionship. The Mahatma. is no exception. The Mahatma appears not to believe in thinking He prefers to follow the saints. Like a conservative with his reverence for consecrated notions he is afraid that if he once starts thinking, many ideals and institutions to which lie clings will be doomed. One must sympathize with him. For every act of independent thinking puts some portion of apparently stable world in peril. But it is equally true that dependence on saints cannot lead us to know the truth. The saints are after all only human beings and as Lord Balfour said , " the human mind is no more a truth finding apparatus than the snout of a pig ". In so far as he does think, to me he really appears to be prostituting his intelligence to find reasons for supporting this archaic social structure of the Hindus. He is the most influential apologist of it and therefore the worst enemy of the Hindus.

Unlike the Mahatma there are Hindu leaders who are not content merely to believe and follow. They dare to think, and act in, accordance with the result of their thinking. But unfortunately they are either a dishonest lot or an indifferent lot when it comes to the question of giving right guidance to the mass of the people. Almost every Brahmin has transgressed the rule of Caste. The number of Brahmins who sell shoes is far greater than those who practise priesthood. Not only have the Brahmins given up their ancestral calling of priesthood for trading but they have entered trades which, are prohibited to them by the Shaslras. Yet how many Brahmins who break Caste every day will preach against Caste and against the Shastras ? For one honest Brahmin preaching against Caste and Shastras because his practical instinct and moral conscience cannot support a conviction in them, there are hundreds who break Caste and trample upon the Shastras every day but who are the most fanatic upholders of the theory of Caste and the sanctity of the Shastras. Why this duplicity ? Because they feel that if the masses are emancipated fromthe yoke of Caste they would be a menace to the power and prestige of the Brahmins as a class. The dishonesty of this intellectual class who would deny the masses the fruits of their thinking is a most disgraceful phenomenon.

The Hindus in the words of Mathew Arnold are " wandering between two worlds, one dead, the other powerless to be born ". What are they to do ? The Mahatma to 'whom they appeal for guidance does not believe in thinking and can therefore give no guidance which can be said to stand the test of experience. The intellectual classes to whom the masses look for guidance are either too dishonest or too indifferent to educate them in the right direction. We are indeed witnesses to a great tragedy. In the face of this tragedy all one can do is to lament and say—such be thy Leaders, O! Hindus.





[f1] Antyajancha vital jyasi I Gangasnane shuddhatva tyasi II – Eknathi Bhagavat, a. 28, o. 191.

[f.2]In this connection see illuminating article on Morality and the Social Structure by Mr. H. N. Brailsford in the Aryan Path for April 1936.

http://www.ambedkar.org/ambcd/02.Annihilation%20of%20Caste.htm
Please collect copy of CHETANA LAHAR, Bengali Organ of DAFODWAM
Location ananta acharya,DAFODWAM,30/2 N.P. Road,Kolkata-55,West Bengal,India, Kol-55
About activism for dalits,women & minorities

Description DAFODWAM:
Aims & programs of DAFODWAM ( Democratic Action Forum of Dalits,Women and Minorities) are embodied in tis name itself.Here Dalits mean SCs,STs & OBCs.DAFODWAM is not a frontal organization of any political party,but its is very much well aware of social & political incidents of the country.Financially it is dependent on c-thinkers,not on any Goverement fund,or its not anything like an NGO
General Information DAFODWAM thinks that India is a de-facto upper caste Hindu state & Brahminism derived from MANU SANGHITA is still the guiding philosophy of the India ruling classes.
Mission Until the abolition of the caste system & the discrimination based on gender and community, there is no chance of the victory of class struggle, in whatever form.Besides taking programs of tights of Dalits,Women & Minorities ( both religious & linguistic), DAFODWAM is int the area of publication of books on concerned subjects in different languages.
Products 1.CHETANA LAHAR-Quarterly bengali magazine of DAFODWAM 2.CLASS CASTE RELATIONS-MARXIST APPROACH,1st english publication of DAFODWAM.available at World View[Jadavpur University Campus],Book Mark,New Horizon Book Trust,Pati Ram,Manisha,Manab Mon.Book stalls near Rashbehari Crossing & BBD Bag Telephone Bhavan



http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dafodwam/120838967943437?sk=info


This is the cover of upcoming book on Class Caste Relations - Marxist Approach
please comment on the writeup of the back page.
(to read the coment please click on the cover picture)

Caste, Class and the Dalit Question

[Below we reproduce the paper presented by Comrade Shankar at the Central Party School of CPI(ML) held on 28-30 November, 2001 at Bhuvaneshwar]

Reductionism of Marxism or Reductionist Approach to Marxism?

THE DALIT movement today, as a whole, is basically led by the petty bourgeoisie and is representing their interests in society and politics. Even the so-called Marxists, who claim to have integrated Marxian theory with the concrete conditions in pre-capitalist Indian society, are only trying to 'appropriate' class into a caste framework as against Marxists' attempt at interpreting caste within a Marxist framework. This only leads them to utopian ideas on abolition of caste. In the process of bringing out the significance of the caste question they tend to include caste in the 'basic structure' and class in the 'superstructure,' and thereby, liquidate the revolutionary essence of Marxist philosophy. The framework does matter as it involves the question of annihilation of caste. Marxists stand for the annihilation of caste through scientific analysis and through abolition of its material basis, the capitalist system, and by mobilizing various sections of people along class lines against the exploitative social system – in dalitbahujan parlance, the brahminical, varnashrama system.

It is true that the communist movement as a whole, in the early phase of its birth, had streaks of economic reductionist approach to Marxism. The emergence of Naxalism and the subsequent formation of the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) are the negation of social-democratic theoretical and political positions and of all streaks of dogmatism or mechanical interpretation of Marxism. Marxist-Leninists have contributed to the creative application of Marxism in concrete Indian conditions. They have come up with a radical theoretical and political framework that can effectively address the complex issues of Indian society such as caste, nationality, gender, etc. They recognized Ambedkar's radicalism as a radical bourgeois democratic vision in contrast to Gandhi's conservative bourgeois vision. They hailed the implementation of Mandal recommendations as a progressive measure, despite being critical of the Mandalist political parties. It is mainly under the communist leadership that dalits could snatch even the right to vote in some states. Communists work for the accentuation of class differentiation among various castes. Class is a universal category and looking for a "pure" class category in an underdeveloped capitalism with the dominance of semi-feudal or pre-capitalist production relations is nothing but self-deception. Eliminating caste is one of the major questions of New Democratic Revolution because the process of elimination of caste facilitates class formation, accentuates class polarization and makes class struggle more open, broad and direct, and brings out the class in a purer form. But, this can be accomplished only by mobilizing people along class lines and not the other way round. The communists are exploring ways of greater interaction with radical dalit organizations even as many dalit organizations are getting closer to status-quoist parties like the Congress, centrist parties and the BJP. In this context, it is the task of communists to liberate various downtrodden castes from the shackles of the caste system that is backed by the semi-feudal, underdeveloped capitalist society.

So, it is not the reductionism of Marxism but the reductionist approach to Marxism that categorises class merely as an economic category and Marxist Philosophy as a philosophy of "economic revolution," devoid of the idea of elimination of caste and other complex issues that are confronted in Indian society. The subsequent sections will deal with this reductionist approach to Marxism in some detail.

New Breed of "Social" Revolutionaries

THE DECADE of 1990s began with the Mandal agitation. It also witnessed the dramatic rise of the BSP and the dalit movement in some parts of the country, which introduced a new genre of dalit discourse on 'social justice' and paved the way for the birth of a new breed of "social" revolutionaries and ideologues. We have also seen the 'globalisation' of dalit discourse in its recent attempt to include caste in the agenda of the UN Conference against Racism, Racial Discriminations, Xenophobia and Related Intolerances.

Marx said: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles". But the new breed of "social" revolutionaries has come up with the formulation, "The history of the hitherto existing society in India is the history of caste struggles". This new breed of scholars includes Kancha Ilaiah. Gail Omvedt and Gopal Guru represent other major strands of dalit discourse. These are essentially the major strands of dalit discourse in the recent period.

If the first phase was marked by dalit discourse against Brahminism, the second phase is marked by the dalit-bahujan variety. This variety of discourse particularly refuses to see the socio-economic roots of caste oppression. It considers the varna system and caste-based oppression mainly as a 'conspiracy' of the Brahminical forces. The dalit question today cannot be simply viewed as confined to dalits vs. Brahminical upper castes. Rising kulaks from among upwardly mobile intermediate castes, too, indulge in oppression on dalits in order to scuttle the demands of the agricultural workers and poor peasants for wages, land, social dignity and political emancipation.

Many dalitbahujan ideologues share a common perception. They equate the Marxist perception with the vision of Congress-led state capitalism represented by Nehru and with the social democratic streams of the communist movement. They call Marxism 'caste-blind'. They over-emphasise the caste background of an individual rather than directing fire against Brahminism as an ideology and system. They consider elimination of caste, a superstructural category, to be a precondition to any transformation and fail to see the dialectical relation between caste and class. Rather, they also end up failing to propose any real, practical solution to the caste question except for suggesting some sort of 'cultural/social revolution'. This is best articulated in their upholding conversion to Buddhism, another religion, as the means of ending exploitation and oppression based on caste hierarchy. They also believe in non-violent means, in other words, class collaborationism, for achieving their desired goal.

The recent dalitbahujan discourse has made a definite departure from Ambedkar and the major/central themes of the dalit movement of his period. Ambedkar denounced the twin enemies of Brahminism and capitalism whereas the recent discourse, particularly that of the BSP, denounces communism and the left in general and even considers 'Manuvadi' parties less dangerous than the communist parties, thus revealing its class character. This variety of dalit-bahujan discourse attaches one-sided importance to political power ignoring every other aspect of the dalit question and advances concepts of mobilizing 'dalit-bahujans'. That, on many occasions, degenerates to the level of mobilizing 'sarvajan' and dalitisation of bahujans etc.

Gail Omvedt claims to have adopted a 'revised' historical materialist approach to study the issues related to dalits and democratic revolution. Kancha Ilaiah believes in the argument that presenting the facts, in itself, is emancipatory and he shot into prominence as a dalitbahujan ideologue through his book Why I am not a Hindu. Gopal Guru advocates the line of combining both, caste and class, and ends up in an eclectic combination. He has a limited understanding of the category of 'class' and finds it somewhat lacking so he suggests supplementing with 'caste' – the eclectic combination – but it is also true that he doesn't share the crude version of reductionism of others who just reduce, and deride Marxism to an 'economic' category.

Petty-Bourgeois Utopianism

MARX SAYS that the petty-bourgeois utopianism and varieties of utopian socialist systems sprang into existence in the early underdeveloped period of the struggle between the proletariat and bourgeoisie. Petty-bourgeois utopianism is the natural product of any pre-capitalist society and the BSP variety is only an Indian variant of petty-bourgeois utopianism. Utopianism, in general, advocates so many concepts for socialism and democracy but never attacks private ownership and the interest accruing from capital. It fails to see the historical mission of the proletariat and believes that governmental reforms and moral training in the society in the spirit of a new religion would lead to the abolition of all contradictions (Communist Manifesto).1 The Indian variant of petty-bourgeois utopinaism manifests in terms of the concepts of class peace, reforms for the resolution of antagonistic contradictions in society, and refusal to attack private ownership and the capitalist system. In fact, it advocates a peaceful parliamentary path to capture political power to attain change of hearts in the exploiters, in their parlance the Manuvadis. They also propose Buddhism, another religion, as a solution and a counter to exploitative Manuvadi, Brahminical Hinduism. These are the main features of various shades of ideas that are encountered in any pre-capitalist or underdeveloped societies. The ideas of various streams of dalit ideologues and dalit organizations and parties regarding annihilation of caste, dalit liberation and dalit democratic revolution, etc., are no different. Kanshi Ram, and various dalit organizations in the country, with rare exceptions, prefer to overlook private property and capital; adopt a negative attitude towards revolution (that it is basically violent); refuse to see the historical mission of the proletariat; believe that governmental reforms, education, and salaried jobs and avenues of petty commodity production to the dalits will lead to abolition of all caste/class contradictions in the society. In that sense, these streams represent the Indian variants of petty-bourgeois utopianism, which subjugates oppressed caste/class interests to the ruling classes, including those belonging to the emerging intermediate castes.

Kancha Ilaiah says, "... this transformation – in Kanshi Ram's language, social transformation and economic emancipation – has the essential potential of democratic revolution, it is like what happened in France in 1789 during the French Revolution, where liberty, equality and fraternity were notionally made the rights of all individuals. This is materializing in India now".2 There cannot be any social transformation without economic emancipation and, in fact, it is a precondition. The relation between economic emancipation and social transformation is the point all "social" revolutionaries prefer to overlook: either because of their antipathy to Marxism or their overemphasis on the potential of mobilization based on pure caste category. Kancha Ilaiah also fails to note that the French Revolution essentially entailed a curb on the rights of the proletariat and the liberties enshrined in the American constitution meant the white man's liberty 'to larrup his nigger'. So also all such 'rights inherent to every human being' contain the seeds of historically posited inequality. To quote Moni Guha, "The passionate call for all such equality today, abstracts from the class struggle and glosses over the inherent inequality between, say, a Kanshi Ram and a Butan Musahar (A hero of the Bhojpur Naxalite movement). By depriving the oppressed of materialist class analysis such ideologies actually subvert the cause of emancipation".3

Kancha Ilaiah calls for the dalitisation of civil society, a dalitbahujan knowledge system, developing organic intellectuals, establishing dalitbahujan democracy and dalit democratic revolution, etc. But, he is dependent on the very same "Brahminical" state, parliamentary means and conversion to Buddhism to accomplish it. He could only think of jargons like rehumanisation of Brahmins, dalitisation of society, bahujanisation of fewjans etc.

Dalit Democratic Revolution

IN ANOTHER article, Kancha Ilaiah asserts that "the casteist enemies of democratic transformation are much more powerful than capitalist class enemies of socialist transformation because the capitalists are shaken up in the class war, whereas in this democratic transformation the brahminical caste enemies are not at all shaken. The strategy of dalit democratic revolution is to disempower them gradually".4 Dalit Democratic Revolution is the strategy mooted against New Democratic Revolution advocated by communists. The motive forces of this 'dalit' revolution are the dalits and OBCs. Their contradiction is not an antagonistic one according to Kancha Ilaiah. This he had said when Mulayam was the Chief Minister. And the reason attributed to this non-antagonistic contradiction was Mulayam's lack of clear vision of establishing a casteless society, because 'he emphasizes on Gandhian economy that is nothing but a caste economy'. Thus, Mulayam's flawed vision is the hurdle in the process of establishing unity between these non-antagonistic castes – dalits and OBCs – according to Kancha Ilaiah. He says, "The scope for OBC-dalit unity lies in their productive relations with nature, their food culture, the democratic man-woman relations that they have preserved all these years, the culture of their female-centred goddesses etc."5 This is nothing but building castles in the air. There are several classes engaged in productive relations with nature, including kulaks of most of the intermediate castes. His conception is misplaced because he looks only at the productive relations with nature as the scope for the unity instead of production relations that govern the relationship among the classes/castes engaged in production. In fact, it is these relations that are the sources of caste hostility and rivalry, which lead to caste clashes in many places. He refuses to see the inherent contradictions in society, between two different, rival classes in the present social setting.

Thomas Mathew also advocated dalit democratic revolution but from a different premise. His premise was to build a model of revolution "on the grammar of caste society with the dynamics of class struggle" whereas Kancha Ilaiah stresses the 'dynamics of caste-based election victory'. Mathew has taken the cue from Ambedkar while Ilaiah has taken the cue from Kanshi Ram, the "harbinger of a new paradigm in social science discourse". Comrade Vinod Mishra has best articulated the counter to such arguments, "The broad united front [proposed in the so-called Dalit Democratic Revolution], if at all it materializes, will inevitably transfer the leadership to the national bourgeoisie and shall only ensure the domination of kulaks of backward castes over the rural poor. The programme of dalit democratic revolution is actually the maximum limit of the most radical of Janata Dal men and our author (Thomas Mathew) has not been able to transcend that limit".6 In the process of going further, Kancha Ilaiah is also proposing a concession to upper castes saying that, "the present strategy is in the interests of 'fewjans' because this strategy aims to achieve the change with less violence".7 Marx also encountered such utopians who opposed the idea of a violent revolution and who held that the transition to future socialist society could be made only through peaceful advocacy of model phalansteries. They, however, did not abolish private ownership and there were rich as well as poor in his phalansteries.

Base and Superstructure

GAIL OMVEDT is one of the prominent scholars who had often been questioning Marxist positions on caste and class. She started with adopting a methodology of revised historical materialism and has ended up in advocating vulgar Marxist positions in the name of scientific interrogation of the theory. According to her, liberalisation and market are beneficial to dalitbahujans, and they should strive to derive maximum benefit out of it. She has ultimately turned into a staunch proponent of liberalization and market forces in the process of her quest for a 'revised' historical materialist approach towards dalit democratic revolution.

She had been repeatedly talking about the relationship between base and superstructure. She says, "Marxism set up, for decades to come, the paradigmatic polarities of class and caste, base and superstructure, economic and social/cultural/ideological. For communist and socialist radicals, this meant taking class/the base/economic as primary…"8 Its disadvantage, according to Gail Omvedt, was that it took the overriding reality of 'class' and 'class struggle' so strongly as to assert the fundamental irrelevance of every other sociological category. She says that the proponents of Marxism and Socialism treat family, kinship, the state, gender and in India, of course, caste, as not only secondary but practically non-existent factors. She characterises the assertion that behind the apparent reality of caste ultimately lay class and its dialectics, 'a class content to a caste form,' as Marxist mechanical materialism.9 The positive side of the dalit movement in the period of Jyotirao Phule and Ambedkar, in contrast to their followers today, was that it had a very strong democratic content and not much of hostility towards the broad left current while asserting the centrality of caste. At least, there was an attempt to discover the roots of exploitation, unlike the new social movements that fight exploitation without the goal of 'expropriating the exploiters', so as to eliminate caste. Gail Omvedt, in fact, has only revised the Marxist framework to suit her framework of 'New Leftism' adopted by new social movements and accuses communists of remaining wedded to Marxist mechanical materialism. She also equates state capitalism with socialism and acknowledges Nehru's philosophy as a socialist one.

Unravelling the 'class content of a caste form' enriches the scientific, dialectical understanding of the caste question so as to eliminate caste. Or else, one is bound to look for solutions only at the cultural or ideological level and is sure to end up preserving the system in spite of good intentions. The form and content do matter in a scientific analysis. For the naked eye, it appears as if the sun is revolving around the earth. But this is only an appearance. In essence, it is the earth that is revolving around the sun. That is the scientific truth. In this case, the cognizance by mere visual observation (the sun revolving around the earth) is only an absurdity. A scientist has to go deep into an appearance and unravel its content. This applies to social science as well. Even in social science and science, on many occasions, in appearance, form stands opposed to the content. Likewise, in the concrete conditions of India, too, it appears as if caste, rather than class, is a basic category of social structure.

Comrade Vinod Mishra, too, said that in certain historical situations class might express itself in the form of castes, in other situations the two might be interwoven, overlapping and at the same time criss-crossing each other, and in yet another situation castes are disintegrated to crystallize as classes, but he never mixed up both. He unraveled the dialectical relation between caste and class, maintaining class as a distinct category, firmly upholding application of Marxism in Indian conditions. This is one of his major contributions to Marxism in the Indian context. He could achieve it not because of his 'Althusserian influence' but by applying Marxism in the concrete conditions of our country.

How to comprehend this phenomenon of caste and class in the backdrop of the relations between base and superstructure? This is one crucial point on which there is a need for greater clarity in many circles. Again, it is more appropriate to return to Comrade Vinod Mishra. He says that the introduction of class-caste duality sabotages the study of appearance of caste struggle to unravel the essence of class dynamics in our society. VM explains the interrelation between class and caste, base and superstructure using the tool of dialectical materialism: "For me, the caste system itself was a product of a certain mode of production and corresponding level of production relations. Class relations here assume the form of castes, which, in their turn, are given a divine sanction by priests. Their permanence, however, is determined primarily not by any divine sanction but by the static social organization of the village community which again is the product of definite level of productive forces. The caste and class here appear in apparent harmony. This harmony of class and caste, this correspondence of base and superstructure, is apparent because the two are distinctly separate categories, rooted respectively in the base and superstructure, in the mode of production and regulation of distribution.

"As the level of productive forces develops and the mode of production undergoes a slow change, the harmony is broken; class and caste, base and superstructure come into conflict, each trying to define the other. And you have a long transitory phase where class assertions become pronounced, and oddly enough, often manifest themselves in the vortex of caste mobility. The so-called permanence of division of means of production among different castes is shaken. The institutional banner of caste is, however, invoked by new modern economic classes to fight it out among themselves, for the share of power – both political and administrative. The instrument is old but the content is radically changed. In this phase, the harmony of the first phase is negated and the classes and castes crisscross and overlap each other. This is also the phase of sharpening of the conflict between class and caste identities. Eventually, the historical movement shall negate this phase, too, and bring back the harmony and correspondence between the base and superstructure, albeit in a higher form, when castes stand annihilated and class relations and class struggles appear in a purer form. This correspondence cannot just be brought about subjectively. As I had already mentioned, caste system was the product of a definite mode of production and corresponding level of production relations. Its annihilation too will be accomplished at a higher level of productive forces and mode of production. I had said that the unfettered development of capitalism, which abolishes the extra-economic form of coercion, makes class the direct arbiter in the mode of distribution, too, and thus has the great potential of annihilating castes".10

The Limits of Casteist Framework and The Issue of Power to the Dalits

WE ALSO acknowledge the progressive role played by Mandal implementation and the rise of dalit movement. Implementation of Mandal recommendations has led to the growth of a new elite and a middle class from among the intermediate castes. These movements have really checked the onward march of the forces of Hindutva in our society, albeit temporarily. In fact, these movements rose, also partly, as a reaction to the rise of the forces of Hindutva. It has spread on a large scale, particularly after the demolition of Babri Masjid, as a reaction to the threat posed by Brahminical, Hindutva forces to the very secular fabric of the society. But, it cannot lead one to theorise that 'casteism in politics' is an agenda for the very transformation of the caste system. But, Rajini Kothari is precisely doing it. He argues, "The point is that the caste does resurface as a result of the democratic process but in its resurfacing it gets transformed".11

No transformation is automatic. Mere resurfacing of caste by itself cannot bring about the much-needed social transformation. Rather, caste movements should have to look beyond caste to eradicate caste. It is true that the assertion of dalits and backwards just cannot be considered as a 'reactionary' one in a semi-feudal society as long as it challenges the very existence of feudal oppression and power. Assertion of weaker sections of society, even if along caste lines, can play a progressive role at a particular juncture of history. It can continue to play the same progressive role only when it moves beyond the confines of caste and grapples with the real issues of the society at large. Or else, there is also a danger of the movement degenerating into a reformist one, just scratching the surface of the oppressive social system. It will defeat the very purpose of the movement.

Talking about political power to the dalits and backwards in itself cannot bring power to the dalits. It should be accompanied by a democratic programme for the transformation of society as a whole. Then, it should have a clear-cut analysis about the state. Trying to establish dalit power by attaining majority in the assembly can at best be a half measure. Because, the administration is brahminical, even according to these "social" revolutionary ideologues. We don't expect a new democratic programme from the Kanshi Rams and the Kancha Ilaiahs. They should at least have a vision for a programme to eradicate this brahminical mindset in politics and in the state administrative structure.

Annihilation of Caste

CASTE STRUCTURE has developed in India in the process of evolving division of labour in the society. Caste and class existed in an undifferentiated form when production and distribution in the society were organized basing on caste structure. Caste and class were of inseparable single category at that stage. The caste structure became much more rigid over a period of time. Later, the priests of the community accorded a divine sanction to it and preserved the caste structure. Vertical hierarchies, ritual ranking, etc., replaced the conception of caste as a division of labour. Autonomous, self-sufficient villages of the early period have begun to be integrated by a system of centralized government. The mobility within the caste structure, either upward or downward, got blocked and even the very slight mobility was possible only through a war of attrition. This is how caste structure remained a rigid structure of vertical hierarchy.

Caste mobility within caste structure gained impetus with the advent of the British and the process of industrialization. The process of industrialization created rifts in the caste structure and propelled caste mobility. Hitherto dominant castes like Brahmins begun to shift towards new industrial settings and one miniscule section turned into industrial owners while the other section emerged as industrial workers. This process enabled a section of the rest of backwards to get elevated on the social ladder. And thus, the caste-class relations assumed complex dimensions, complicating the nature of society. This complex relation of production gets resolved only in an advanced stage of capitalist development. Caste gets abolished as a form of division of labour, as a tool of oppression, and as a means of discrimination, only in an advanced stage of capitalist development.

But, the transitory phase that involves transformation from a feudal society to a full-fledged capitalist one is marked by a pretty long period and a painstaking process of social churning. In a new and higher stage of society, the mode of production and production relations, all old institutions of the previous society would inevitably become incompatible with the new order and are supposed to face a natural death. In this process, they are supposed to whither away. That is the general law of social development. Still, in a semi-feudal, pre-capitalist or underdeveloped society these old institutions, including the caste structure, get a new lease of life in the new situation. This is the resilience that the system has developed over a period of time. This is the peculiarity of the particular transitory phase witnessed in Indian society.

If an old structure, that is supposed to have lost its relevance and turned into an obsolete one in the course of history, continued to exist even in the new stage that can only mean that such old institutions are backed by some of the newly emerging modern classes in society. In our context, the old institutions, including the rigid caste structure, are backed, protected and reinforced by the modern classes such as rural bourgeoisie and kulaks. Hence, the struggle against caste system has to be waged also against such modern classes on the one hand, and for removing the hurdles in the path of capitalist development, on the other. Only revolutionary classes of society can accomplish this task as the bourgeoisie becomes impotent. And then, parliamentary democracy based on universal adult franchise, the higher form of representative democracy, only acts as a bulwark of this reactionary caste system. This parliamentary system further reinforces the caste structure because of the ruling classes interest in winning elections. That is why, any movement for annihilation of caste has to deal a body blow to the forces that reinforces the caste system i.e., the modern exploiting classes in society. The whole thing has to be turned upside down. This is possible only by expropriating the expropriators, only by turning the ruled into rulers. That can be accomplished only by a New Democratic Revolution in Indian conditions.

This revolution will snatch political power from the exploiting, ruling classes and transfer it into the hands of revolutionary classes. Then again, the transformation into a full-fledged capitalist mode of production that enables complete abolition of caste is also accomplished under the leadership of the revolutionary proletariat. No amount of reform, no amount of spiritual solace in any religion, no amount of peace and collaborationism, can replace the accomplishment of this process for a revolutionary change. Because, all such attempts can at best play within the framework of the existing system and they do not have the potential of any revolutionary change.

There cannot be any alternative to new democratic revolution. Struggle against caste-based oppression and for the annihilation of caste has to be a part and parcel of a new democratic programme. The proletariat will accomplish this social transformation not merely because of its ideal of abolition of caste but because such an abolition is an integral part of the democratic revolution and a precondition for establishing a socialist society. A socialist society cannot be a reality without annihilation of caste and it is only the new democratic revolution that provides the real, objective basis for such annihilation. All other theories of annihilation of caste perceived by these 'social' revolutionaries are nothing but petty-bourgeois utopianism, pure and simple.

Caste as an Ideology: The Paradox and Degeneration

KANCHA ILAIAH has emerged as the foremost ideologue of dalitbahujan politics and its theory of class collaborationism and its practice of mortgaging the interests of dalitbahujans under the pretext of securing political power to dalits. He is so overwhelmed by the dramatic rise of the BSP that he goes to the extent of praising Kanshi Ram as a dalit ideologue par excellence who has gone beyond Ambedkar raising dalit movements in the country to newer heights. He declares that Kanshi Ram has emerged as the harbinger of a new paradigm in social science discourse, who has brought out caste as an ideology for mobilization against 'fewjans'. He acknowledges that Ambedkar had analysed caste, in a much more radical way than his contemporaries. Yet, for him, Ambedkar is not up to the mark, perhaps, because Ambedkar said that caste was an enclosed class. He could still agree with Ambedkar, despite this not being up to his standards, because "Ambedkar was not willing to put caste in the kind of mode outside electoral political struggle – in the mode of class war in the west – to make it a violent struggle".

Kancha Ilaiah claims that "The post-Mandal period, on the one hand, conscientised the OBCs, on the other, it began to homogenize SC, ST and OBCs, at least politically if not socially, and led to the bahujanisation of this social base'.12 Perhaps, he realised the absurdity of his statement only after making it and hastened to add, "this is not to say that such homogenization has already happened in the all-India context but notionally there is such a mood and the BSP is constantly working to strengthen it".13 Ilaiah is living in his own dream world. Perhaps, he thought that BSP's fielding 102 candidates from among OBCs and winning 26 seats, is the consummation of 'bahujanisation of this social base'. Then, we have another question. By the same token, did the bahujanisation of upper castes take place because 57 upper caste candidates, including 2 brahmins and 4 thakurs, were fielded in the same election by the BSP? Then how does he explain the increased level of caste atrocities on dalits even while Mayavati was the CM, and the subsequent end of a honeymoon with Mulayam? Its hostility with the SP had reached the level of branding it, the party of OBCs, as No. 1 enemy, while Brahminical upper caste Manuvadi parties like the BJP and the Congress were more acceptable to it for retaining the seat of power. Is it wrong if we call this a 'fewjanisation' of the 'bahujans'?

In an interview for the magazine Ghadar (26 November 1997), Kancha Ilaiah has thrown a surprise saying that the BSP had made a blunder by aligning with the BJP. This was a surprise because it was a shift from his previous position on the issue. Then, we find that this has not altered his fundamental position. Rather, he is trying to articulate a theoretical framework to justify it on a much broader plane. He has invented a bahujan left in Uma Bahrti, Kalyan Singh (then the BJP CM of UP) etc., who are supposedly engaged in constant confrontation with the Brahminical right within the BJP. He describes them as dalitbahujan left in contrast to communist leaders, because Kanshi Ram could straightaway establish a rapport with them whereas the same could not be done with the communists. He stretches it to ridiculous proportions that the dalitbahujan left are to carry out the dalibahujan agenda within BJP. He says, "Wherever you (dalibahujan) are, you should capture power, overthrow brahminism lock stock and barrel, irrespective of parties". What a wonderful tactics to overthrow Brahminism from within!

The contradiction between the OBC and dalit social bases is quite objective and real so that the BSP is unable to overlook this reality in order to retain its own social base. The neo-rich kulaks in the rural areas also belong to the intermediate castes, OBCs, and they are the perpetrators of caste atrocities because these two communities are at loggerheads within the rural economy. This is the backdrop in which the SP and the BSP, the representatives of two different, rival social forces because of their class nature, are at loggerheads. Here, we can also draw a little parallel between Kanshi Ram and the petty-bourgeois utopians of Marx's contemporaries. One such contemporary of Marx strongly criticized the capitalist system but could not reveal the root cause of capitalist contradictions; he held that the main cause for social inequality was the inadequate enlightenment among workers and not the capitalist mode of production; he maintained that social inequality could be eliminated by education and social reforms. Does it not sound like Kanshi Ram's idea – education and salaried jobs to dalits would remove social inequality!

Caste-Class Interface and the Rise of the BSP

LEAVING DEBATES apart, the rise of the BSP in UP has really made a big impact among the dalits in the state. An objective, comprehensive analysis of the BSP might be of help in understanding the dalit resurgence, and the rise in dalit consciousness in the state. This is also an attempt to grapple with the interface between caste and class in UP and the changes in agriculture and the relational position of dalits in it while studying the impact of the BSP and its government on rural relations. There is an argument that rise of the BSP in UP is closely linked to the question of rural agrarian labourers becoming relatively free, if not totally free, from feudal bondage in production relations.

Green revolution has brought about some changes in agriculture like increased sharecropping, introduction of modern agricultural implements, etc. From the labourers' point of view, agricultural wage labour and sharecropping has begun to lose their position as the most important source of income. In agrarian labour relations, there has been a transformation of wholly unfree labour relations into relations involving various degrees of unfreedom. The tendency towards a substantial decrease in the amount of agricultural labour performed by rural labourers and a corresponding increase in non-agricultural rural employment has been noted in several studies.

In UP, significant overlaps exist between class and caste hierarchies. In broad terms, the old landlord class belonged mainly to the upper castes, their ex-tenants, who now constitute the majority of the landowning peasants are mainly from the intermediary castes, and agricultural labourers are primarily from untouchable and very low ranking castes. The Green Revolution and related changes in agricultural labour relations also led to a rise in the political profile of many untouchable castes.

The BSP gained prominence when it formed a winning coalition (with the SP), based mainly on dalits and middle castes in 1993. In 1995, it formed a minority government, supported by the Congress and the BJP, which lasted for four-and-a-half months. In 1997, it entered into a formal power-sharing arrangement with the BJP and held the office of CM for 6 months. Later the arrangement broke down.

Kanshi Ram founded the Backward and Minority Group Community Employees Federation (BAMCEF) in 1978. Dalit Shoshit Samaj Sangharsh Samiti (DS4) was formed in 1981, followed by the formation of the BSP in 1984. In 1989, it polled 9% votes and in 1996 21%. Chamars, a relatively well-off section among dalits, are by far the largest and most politicized untouchable caste in UP who formed the major support base of the BSP. This is also a relatively well-off section among dalits in the state. A small, educated and relatively well-off section of Chamar government officials seem to be at the forefront.

The BSP does not have an economic programme to attain its declared goal and claims to have no ideology but for caste. It also claims to transcend the left-right political divide. It considers left parties more dangerous than any rightwing party. The BSP, on its part, focuses on enabling dalit labourers to take up independent means of earning. Their spelt-out programme is that they would stress on the redistribution of government land and excess land of the landlords to dalits, thereby creating a vast army of self-employed and salaried dalits. Their main focus was on the politicization of dalits on issues related to caste-based oppression and discrimination and using state power to fight upper caste dominance. Their strategy: Power is the key, the master key with which all doors can be opened.

During its rule it has installed 15,000 statues of Ambedkar in 6 months in 1997 as a symbol of their politicization campaign. Dalit victims of caste atrocities were paid Rs.6000 to fight cases in courts. The government also adopted 15,000 villages with predominantly dalit populations for implementing its welfare programmes. But, almost all welfare programmes were rolled back following the BSP losing power. The BSP's slogan of 'all government lands are our lands' also exposed its limits. Redistributive land reform is not part of their policy. It limited itself to enabling dalits to take possession of already allotted lands.

The BSP emerged at a time of ferment among untouchable groups in North India. It has kindled the desire for emancipation among dalits. Green revolution, changes in labour relations, increase in non-agricultural occupations and thus a relative decrease in economic dependency on the landowners, politicization of groups of untouchables and increased class struggle from above created a new situation. The BSP succeeded in expressing and enhancing this movement among low-caste people, mainly because of its anti-upper caste agenda. But it is propagating a petty-bourgeois utopia where the ideal for low-caste people is to become independent petty commodity producers or well-educated civil servants. Its main aim is to carve out a niche for the low castes within the existing structures of society.

The BSP, step by step, is heading towards its ideological bankruptcy. In recent the elections, Mayavati has been reiterating that the BSP is a party of 'sarvjan'. Its popular slogans like 'government land is our land', 'Tilak, Taraju, Talwar, Hit them with shoes' have been dropped for all practical purposes. So, the politics of class collaborationism and its opportunistic electoral alliances with Manuvadi parties are not just accidental. Rather, they are part of the larger issue of subjugating labouring classes and castes. This is part of the faulty vision and perception of dalit liberation articulated by the BSP. Ambedkar, in contrast to Kanshi Ram, at least had a vision for the emancipation of dalits, though of a bourgeois democratic variety, if not a comprehensive programme for a thorough democratization of the society. In socio-economic terms Ambedkar was much more radical.

Dalit Movement and the Left

SINCE VAST majority of dalits are agrarian labourers and rural poor, the social organisations of dalits are supposed to be natural allies of the communist movement. Unfortunately, most of these dalit organizations, barring rare exceptions, consider communists to be inimical to them. This is largely because of their ideological framework that considers communists to be 'green snakes hidden in green grass' and also because of a whole lot of misconceptions about the Marxist approach on caste. Moreover, their approach towards the resolution of the dalit question, the tactics of entering into opportunistic electoral alliances even with the forces engaged in war of attrition with the dalits, etc., are totally contradictory to that of revolutionary communists. Another major reason is that communists are the natural competitors for parties like the BSP on the question of organizing dalits. By experience, we have seen that the BSP, in spite of its best efforts, is unable to make any inroads into any of the strongholds of CPI(ML) in Bihar. These are the basis of prolonged anti-left tirade of many dalit organizations.

All these cannot be justifications for the mistakes committed by the social democratic stream of the communist movement. Firstly, the communist movement failed to formulate an alternative strategy for the freedom struggle, which must have incorporated radical bourgeois democrats of all hues as an inalienable part of the democratic movement so as to develop a close political alliance with the dalits. Secondly, the questions of social dignity and political emancipation of the dalits were not accorded adequate importance by the social democratic stream. Thirdly, the social democratic tactics of pan-peasant unity in rural areas tended to gloss over the contradictions in favour of rich peasants.

According to the CPI(M), the core of People's Democratic Front in the countryside consists of agricultural workers and poor peasants, but the front also includes the middle and even the rich peasantry. Confrontational labor action against peasant employers is not seen as the best way forward for the agricultural labourers, presumably because it would undermine building the broad democratic front. In this background, Jens Lerche, a research scholar, has upheld our party's tactics regarding rural rich, elaborated in our policy resolution on agriculture.14

Dalit Movement Today

DALIT MOVEMENT today is at the crossroads. The early center of the movement was Maharashtra since the pre-Independence period. Ambedkar and the Maharashtra movement were the source of inspiration for the dalit movement elsewhere. But, the Dalit Panthers of 1970s could not withstand for more than a decade. The Republican Party of India (RPI) has splintered into so many factions and the main faction led by Athavale is clinging on to the Congress apron strings. The BRP led by Prakash Ambedkar is still enjoying mass respect and influence. Still, there is no movement worth the name.

The dalit movement in Karnataka, symbolized by the Dalit Sangharsh Samiti (DSS) was known for its agitational and movemental character. There was a powerful current within the DSS against entry into parliamentary politics. Finally, the other line gained upper hand and the movement has been blown to pieces in the period that followed the immediate aftermath of their entry into electoral politics. Even now the DSS is a household name in every dalit locality in Karnataka. But, it has lost its movemental character and has become localized. There is no organization. No centralized leadership. Yet, people mobilize in good numbers if a call is given under the DSS banner in case of atrocities on dalits or on issues of some major significance. The major splinter factions have become supporters of either Congress or JD. Karnataka is also pregnant with the possibility of a movement by Madigas against Holeyas, demanding compartmental reservation along the lines of Andhra Pradesh.

In Andhra Pradesh, the dalit movement showed some signs of revival in the mid-1990s when the BSP made an attempt to expand its wings to South India. Lakhs of people got mobilized in the inaugural rally. Ex-PWG leaders, prominent dalit leaders etc., joined the BSP in the presence of Kanshi Ram. But the attempt turned out to be a flop. All hopes were belied very soon. Congress effectively consolidated its traditional base among Malas while Madigas under the banner, Madiga Dandora, launched vehement attacks against Malas, accusing them of garnering a lion's share of the SC reservations. Madigas demanded compartmental reservation. Madigas were the social base of Chandrababu Naidu and the TDP. After prolonged, consistent, militant movements by Madigas, the state government conceded the demand. The contradiction between Malas and Madigas is only a disunity that does not have class content. It does not involve any structural oppression or caste discrimination by Malas but is a symptom of unevenness in dalit society. In fact, unifying forces are stronger than the divisive forces. It is mainly a political game by Chandrabau Naidu to divide dalits and to attract Madigas into the fold of TDP.

Tamil Nadu: A Case of Neo-Brahminism

THE CASE of Tamil Nadu is quite different when compared to Karnataka and Maharashtra. Here the movement is now in its hightide. Unlike other states, this state had not witnessed the assertion of dalits as a separate category, thanks to the powerful current of Dravidian movement. The political differentiation among dalits was much more prominent. Traditionally, they were divided among the Congress and the AIADMK led by MGR. After the demise of MGR, AIADMK emerged as a party of Thevars alienating a large section of dalits from its fold. A sizable section of kulaks have emerged in the countryside from among Thevars, a powerful intermediate caste. Brahmins and upper castes constitute a very small percentage of the population in the state and have moved towards government services and industrial sector long back. Thevars emerged as a powerful caste only in this period and became the landed gentry. They also had their share in state politics thanks to the Dravidian movement. Tamil Nadu has seen powerful movements of agricultural labourers led by communist parties in well-irrigated Tanjore belt (cental part of TN) in the past. This is the background in which dalits (Pallars) of southern Tamil Nadu started asserting themselves because of upward mobility and education. They rose against the caste atrocities inflicted on them by BC kulaks. The atrocities took a nasty turn when Jayalalitha was the CM. The police administration in southern Tamil Nadu also displayed high level of casteist overtones. This is the background that gave birth to dalit rebellion against the backward caste of Thevars. The caste war in the south had always been bitterly violent and this time it was a long drawn battle. Buses were not plying in villages for months together. It was a chain reaction and its echo could be heard in all southern districts even if one small incident of caste clash took place at some remote corner of some district. The people in southern districts were under permanent tension. This was the period when dalit consciousness and movement started taking shape and was symbolized by Dr.Krishnasamy. He also won the assembly elections close on the heels of an incident at Kodiankulam. And he floated a dalit party called Puthia Thamizhagam (New Tamil Nadu).

Then came the assertion of dalits (Paraiahs) of northern Tamil Nadu. The organization is called 'Liberation Panthers' and is led by Thirumavalavan. Here, their rivalry was mainly with a most backward community called Vanniyas led by Dr.Ramadas. Economically speaking, majority of Vanniyas and Paraiahs are more or less at par with each other, despite their inequal positions in the social hierarchy. A section of Vanniars have emerged as the neo-rich in the recent period. The rivalry broke out during their earlier phase of anti-government agitation for compartmental reservation, too, but was not so intense. Now, the clash of economic interests between these two communities and the social hierarchy are the source of rivalry and they manifest in the form of caste struggle. So, the assertion of dalits of northern Tamil Nadu is also a latest phenomenon. To top it all, dalits in Tamil Nadu have asserted as a political force in a very short span unlike their counterparts in Maharashtra or in Andhra or in Karnataka.

Dalit assertion in Tamil Nadu is a direct fallout of the Dravidian movement in the state. Dravidian movement has played a progressive role in many respects. It could strike an effective alliance between BCs and SCs under the umbrella of Dravidian politics. It secured a political space for the downtrodden masses in the state structure. It effectively challenged Brahminism as an ideology. Its progressive role, that resulted in education and upward mobility of the downtrodden also contained seeds rivalry between the dalits and backwards. After securing political power, the dominant backwards started asserting their class interests although this was not their expected goal in the beginning. These dominant backwards evolved as the ruling caste, representing the interests of rising kulaks and the regional big bourgeoisie. In the process of assertion of their class interests they had to face the wrath of the dalits.

Another major point is that dalit organizations in TN, too, consulted Kanshi Ram in the beginning and then they have restricted themselves to organising their own support base. The distinction is that these parties do not advocate unity between dalits and OBCs like Kanshi Ram. They have learnt their lesson through their own experience and because of the ground realities wherein these two castes are at loggerheads in day-to-day life. Rather, their main consideration, for now, is not to be part of an electoral alliance with PMK (party of Vanniyars, the most backwards) as far Thirumavalavan is concerned, and with AIADMK (party of Thevars, the dominant backwards) as far as Krishnaswamy is concerned, irrespective of the presence of 'Manuvadi Hindutva' BJP. They are the followers of Kanshi Ram mainly at the level of following unprincipled, opportunistic electoral alliances and they project themselves as the followers of Ambedkar. These parties do not advocate the line of dalit-BC unity because it is the intermediate castes that are at the helm of affairs at all levels displaying the characteristic of neo-Brahminism. For them, these intermediate castes are the bigger enemies which are encountered at grassroots level. Perhaps Dravidian politics is a reason for their disillusionment with the BCs, unlike the BSP in UP. And accentuation of class and political polarization among castes, particularly among backward castes, has also taken place to a considerable extent. A small section of dalits has also emerged as an elite middle class from among them. These are the major reasons, for escalating tensions, besides the domination of backwards in political power.

Durban Conference

'DURBAN CONFERENCE Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerances' has evoked a lot of debate on the dalit question. The dalit discourse has once again occupied the centerstage attracting global attention. The demand was to include the caste question in the agenda of the conference. This discourse took various dimensions in the process, ranging from Emancipatory Discourse, Anthropological Discourse, Sociological Discourse, Human Rights Discourse, Discourse on Positive Discrimination, etc., etc. Andre Beteille argued against the inclusion of caste in the UN agenda saying that caste could never be equated with race and termed all those raising the issue as 'irresponsible' and the debates as mere 'absurdity'. Gail Omvedt defended the demand and attacked Andre Beteille. The advocates of inclusion of the issue in UN agenda argued that 'discrimination based on work and descent' falls under the category of 'racism related intolerances' and hence it should be included. Some were skeptical about the inclusion in a UN conference while the scores are to be settled on the streets and fields inside the country. The advocates of the demand wanted a debate at the international forum so as to globalise the issue to bring international pressure on the Indian government to enforce the laws and to eradicate caste discriminations.

It was only leaflets and pamphlets and the pages of The Hindu that played the role of propagandist. The Hindu acted as a debating forum. NGOs put all their international networks and networking skills into full play. Finally, the conference included it as an agenda. Mainly, NGOs were the forces that articulated the demand eloquently. They were strongly backed by dalit activists from the grassroots. It is true that raising the issue at an international forum is not a solution to the barbaric caste discrimination inside the country. The nature of the issue itself, in the given settings, had its own limits. Still, we supported the demand because the process of raising the issue at an international forum itself is an exposure of the issue and of the reactionary government led by saffron, Brahminical fascist forces. Moreover, it has also triggered a debate on nation building etc., enabling the activists to look beyond their grassroots and village confines. We also made a differentiation between NGOs and the real grassroots dalit activists.

Caste discrimination in India, thus, attracted international attention and also got an international audience. The Government of India, at first, tried its best to prevent the inclusion of caste in the agenda and later, vociferously dismissed it as an internal matter on which international community did not have a jurisdiction to debate. Finally, the government view prevailed at the UN Conference just like the view of Israel and US prevailed regarding the Palestinian question. Perhaps the caste and Palestine questions were the two issues that received wide coverage and attention. In this melee, the major shift in external affairs policy of Indian government was not taken note of with the due concern. India had withdrawn its traditional support to Palestine in favour of Israel and the US. Perhaps, they withdrew it as both the US and India have come together to fight against Islam and terrorism.

Politics of Reservations

OF COURSE, the Mandal wave has really seen the backwards moving into the centerstage and it marked a watershed in the social alignment. It brought the agenda of social justice to the centerstage of Indian politics and provided the space for the hitherto excluded backwards in the political power structure. We too welcomed Mandal but did not exaggerate its significance. We raised the demand of Dam Bando, Kam do, (Curb price rise, provide jobs) when the whole country was torn asunder between forces of Mandal and Kamandal. The Mandal inspired agenda of reservations has come a full circle. This is the second phase. Already, there was a demand for compartmental reservation for MBC (Vanniayas) within the quota of BC reservation. It was a movement from below. They succeeded. Then we have seen the demand from Madiga Dandora for a compartmental reservation within SCs in Andhra Pradesh. Now, it is the turn of UP. The very same forces that vehemently opposed the implementation of the Mandal report have suddenly become concerned about the MBCs. They had been arguing that Mandal will divide the Hindu society along caste lines and that at no cost Hindu identity/unity should be lost. The very same Hindutva forces are now advocating reservations within reservations so as to attract the MBCs to their fold. Now, the government is looking for the 'most backwards' among backwards and 'most dalits' among dalits. This is the BJP's well-calculated move to carve out a base for themselves from among the backwards, particularly among more aggressive castes like Jats, to consolidate its fragile base when the UP elections are round the corner. One can very well predict that this will go on for another round in the caste-ridden society, that too when minorities from within communities have garnered the lion's share of benefits of reservation. Madigas of Karnataka are waiting in the wings.

Land and dalits

REDISTRIBUTION OF land still remains an important measure for improving the living standards of dalits and also to facilitate the process of their emancipation from feudal clutches. Any land reform legislation or land redistribution could be achieved only because of the peasant/dalit movements. Dalits have not yet got their share of land even after 53 years of independence and the total land holdings of the dalit population are very meager and ridiculously disproportionate to their population. A majority of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are landless, without any productive assets and sustainable employment. According to the Census of India, 1991, 64% of SCs and 36% of STs in the category of main workers are agrarian labourers compared to 31% of all other castes. Only 25% of SCs are cultivators compared to 40% of other castes. Majority of the cultivators from among dalits are either small or marginal peasants.

Perhaps, Karnataka has one of the progressive pieces of land reform legislation wherein dalits have the right to reclaim the land alienated from them for any reason and the act also imposes penalty on purchasers, at least theoretically. Bihar legislation provides scope for the restoration of land alienated from dalits beyond 12 years but within 30 years. The UP legislation gives legal protection only to STs against land transfers. Tamil Nadu has given legal protection against land alienation from dalits. It is another story that even a big mass movement in Tamil Nadu to restore Panchami lands allotted to SCs that was not under their possession could not succeed.

Legislations and legal safeguards only remain on paper and the implementation part is left to the strength of the mass movement. These legislations also have a lot of loopholes. Though provisions have been made to prevent land transfers from scheduled groups to non scheduled groups, in many states (for example, Orissa, MP, Rajasthan and Kerala) such transfers can be made with the prior permission of the competent authority (collector, sub-divisional officer, among others) which ultimately left the implementation of these measures to the discretion of bureaucrats and also made them powerful.15 It is a known fact that the local administration almost all over the country is vulnerable to all kinds of political manipulation and corruption and only the local power groups effectively call the shots. In states like Bihar where there are no proper land records and where the law of the land does not exist, all these legislations, in reality, are only a farce.

In most of the states, the total number of operational holdings among dalit population is far less compared to that among other castes. Tamil Nadu has a dalit population of 19% and they possess only 7% of the total operated area. It is an increase of around 2% in the period from 1980-81 to 1990-91. Likewise, Karnataka dalits who are 16% of total population in the state hold only 8% of operated area. UP, AP and Gujarat report a very slow process of improvement despite their poor land holding position. In Andhra, dalits, who constitute 16% of total population, hold only 7.5% of the total operated area and it is an increase of a meagre 0.5%. In UP, 21% dalits operate only 10.5% the total operated area and it is an increase of 1.3% compared to 1980-81. This too was possible only because of the rise of a strong dalit movement in the state. Bihar and UP are the major states of Hindi heartland where upper castes are numerous and have a strong dominance in every sphere of life. Any measure for the upliftment of the downtrodden in the states is powerfully challenged by the upper caste landed gentry. The allotment of land to weaker communities in these states very often leads to bloody confrontation with powerful feudal forces. In Bihar 14.5% of dalits operate only 5.2% of the area. It is an increase of 0.7% compared to 1980-81. In spite of the fact that Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Orissa have a scheduled groups population of 30, 30 and 40 per cent respectively they operate an area of 8, 11.7 and 8.6 per cent respectively. So, only in those sates that witnessed strong peasant/dalit movements, the dalits could secure some land, at least marginally. The population and land holding are not proportionate. Rather, the rise of strong movements is directly proportional to the consequent atrocities on dalits.

According to Agricultural Census Report, 1991, nearly half (49.06%) of the SC and one third (32.69%) of ST main workers are agrarian labourers. Agricultural labourer population from among dalits has increased from 34.48% in 1961 to 49.06% in 1991. In fact, sharp increase has occurred during the period of green revolution and has maintained since then. Likewise, dalit cultivators' share has fallen down from 37.76% to 25.44% in 1991. Whereas, the trend is not that sharp as far as the general category is concerned.

In lieu of conclusion

MARXISM IS a unified theory of all categories and not an exclusive theory of class as an economic category. Our movement in Bihar has emerged as a forward post of the movement of agrarian labourers and other rural poor challenging the very foundations of the feudal system. The movement has upheld the Marxist viewpoint that expanding the frontiers of class struggle can be the only point of departure for Marxists, while they undertake class struggles against caste oppression and for the social equality of dalits. In Bihar, dalit movements for social dignity and equality have become part of the class struggle of the rural poor. This has emerged in bold relief in sharp contrast to the ideas of dalit democratic revolution et al. This model has proved that broad dalit masses can definitely be mobilised under the red banner for wages, land, social dignity and political emancipation. Hence, the goal to be achieved is the proletarianisation of dalits and not dalitisation of the proletariat.

POSTSCIPT

The Bhopal Declaration and Mr. Chandrabhan Prasad

THE BHOPAL Declaration adopted by the conference on the theme, "Charting A New Course for Dalits for the 21st Century" on 12-13 January 2002, is basically a petty-bourgeois agenda for dalits in the era of globalisation and liberalization. Digvijay Singh brought together 200-odd dalit intellectuals and activists of various shades from all across the country. The main focus of the declaration lies on three points although it was a 21-point charter of demands. This declaration talks about 'affirmative action' and 'diversity policy' along the lines of policies adopted towards African-Americans in the USA. This demand can also be considered as a call to 'democratize capital', in Chandrabhan Prasad's parlance. It is looking for employment and wealth creating opportunities for dalits in private sector. For that purpose, they want reservation to be extended to the private sector too, particularly to industries that receive government patronage in the form of land, tax concession or subsidies. They also want the private industry and corporate houses to bring diversity in the workforce. And another main focus point was the much talked about 'land reforms'. Ambedkar said, "A democratic form of government presupposes a democratic form of society. The formal framework of democracy is of no value and would indeed be a misfit if there was no social democracy". So, they argue that they are attempting to evolve a programme to accomplish 'social democracy'. From their point of view, social democracy means 'equitable share in the appropriation and use of rural and urban common property resources' and equitable share in the nation's wealth for dalits. This, according to them, is one major aspect of 'social democracy'. In order to achieve social democracy, they insist on so-called 'democratization of capital'. So, the declaration seeks diversity in the workforce not only in public institutions but also in private industry and corporate houses. It demands that every government and private organization must implement "supplier diversity" from socially disadvantaged businesses and "dealership" diversity in goods and services. For that purpose, they demand the government to 'make budgetary allocation for SC, STs to enable them to enter the market economy with adequate investment resources and develop their capacities and skills for such market enterprises'. This, according to Mr.Chandrabhan Prasad, is democratization of capital. One can very well welcome the demand, as they aspire for some opening, some place for dalits in the nation's economy. But, the point is the agenda is based on petty-bourgeois illusions and the feasibility of the demand is open to question. Another major point on land reforms insists on "radical land reform measures" along the lines being implemented by the MP government, which claims to have distributed over one lakh acres of land, mainly grazing land, to 45,000 SC/ST families in recent years and promises to distribute 6 lakh acres more in the coming years. According to their claim, about a sixth of agricultural labourers will be turned into independent cultivators if the scheme becomes successful. But, this demand for land redistribution is not part of any anti-feudal struggle. Rather, the declaration even goes to the extent of expecting the government, if the need be, to purchase cultivable land and distribute it among dalits. It is looking for patronage from the government. And here lies the 'petty-bourgeois utopianism'.

Perhaps, for the first time, there is an attempt to go beyond the paradigm of 'social justice through reservations'. It would generate at the most 45 lakh jobs even if the government were to do the fiscally impossible thing of filling up all the existing quotas. Digvijay Singh pointed out in his inaugural speech that reservation was no longer the only effective tool to empower dalits as it would leave out about 18 crore dalits from its ambit even if the system were to be implemented properly. So, the document advocates reservation in a section of private sector and expects the private sector, including corporate houses, to adopt 'diversity' in its workforce. This document, on the one hand, has made a departure from the conventional approach of considering reservation, that too in government organizations, to be the major means for the progress of dalits. On the other hand, unlike Kanshi Ram, it is also looking for solution to the dalit question outside the framework of capturing political power.

If the report presented in the conference was against the "upper varnas" and "upper shudras", its own proposal focuses only on developing a stratum of "upper dalits" in a much more unrealistic way. This can also be termed as an attempt to seek a place in, and at the same time to politically legitimize market economy and to make the system responsive to the lower stratum of people. Perhaps this is the meeting point between dalit petty bourgeois utopianism and bourgeois liberalism. We have already seen the cruelty of 'liberalization with human face'. May be we are also going to witness the so-called 'social face to industrialization and capital' in the coming days. The authors of the declaration are dreaming of the birth of dalit billionaires and dalit entrepreneurs in the coming decades. This declaration, in itself, is a sad commentary of the system that has alienated a major and significant section of people from its ambit. But, they fail to note that the inherent nature of capitalism, especially the Indian variety, is 'undemocratic' and it is incapable of developing its own capitalist productive forces in the backdrop of a semi-feudal society like India. In such a semi-feudal situation, the bourgeoisie who are supposed to be radical in an emerging capitalist society turn into a reactionary class by aligning with feudal forces and thereby maintaining status-quo and losing its potential for achieving any real change. If there are billionaires and millionaires among upper castes, why can't billionaires emerge from among dalits? But, the matter of concern is the utopianism involved and the attempt to get accommodated in the oppressive system that is responsible for the oppression of dalits as a caste and a class as well. This conference was sponsored by the Madhya Pradesh state government led by the Congress. The bourgeoisie is looking for its own agenda for dalits, that too in the context of drastically declining purchasing power of the people leading the economy into a crisis. If Yashwant Sinha is planning to overcome this crisis by focusing on corporatisation of agriculture in the short term, Digvijay Singh is planning to overcome the same by infusing new market forces from among dalits in the long term. But, unfortunately, the document lacks in practical planning and in understanding the law of capitalist development in a semi-feudal society. One can never be opposed to see a dalit billionaire, a dalit industrialist, a dalit entrepreneur or a dalit trader as it can accentuate class polarization within the caste. But, one has to be really concerned about the 'grand old utopianism' of the whole scheme and the impracticability of the method of resolution involved. On the whole, the declaration wants to extract something for dalits from the agenda of globalisation and liberalization. It appears that Chandrabhan Prasad has emerged as the foremost ideologue of this line of dalit development. He is a staunch proponent of social democracy and democratization of capital, on the one hand. On the other hand, he is coming up with a whole set of formulations ranging from dalit-artisan shudra (MBC) unity in contrast to Bahujanwad (dalit-OBC unity) advocated by Kanshi Ram to developing a dalit billionaire in the coming decades. He proclaims that dalit-bahujan unity is theoretically most undesirable whereas dalits should look for a social, political alliance with Brahmans (who are the numerical minorities) to overthrow the dominance of OBCs in all spheres. Moreover, he also says that communal fascism is only a bogey created by brahmans belonging to all hues of left-right ideologies (Here, it is worthwhile to note that Prasad prefers to call rightists as liberals) whereas the biggest threat is the 'social fascism' that is expected to be unleashed by 'upper shudras' when they capture power at all-India level. He also says that the real danger of revival of brahminism lies with 'upper shudras' rather than Brahmans themselves. Because, it is only brahmans who would not suffer from the demand of land reforms for dalits. According to him, they are also the worst sufferers of the very same brahminism unleashed by 'upper shudras'.

He is eagerly waiting for the 'second coming of the empire', next only to the British, to play a radical role for the upliftment of dalits, particularly for creating an articulate elite and middle class from among dalits. Central questions of dalit movement, according to Prasad, are: land, democratization of capital, redefining democracy (social democracy), quality education, democratization of knowledge, etc. He argues for securing immediate benefits for dalits instead of dalit liberation, as it is a far-fetched dream in the present circumstances. He says that dalit liberation can be thought of only when there is no dalit agricultural labourer, only when dalits are fairly represented in English medium schools, only when there are several hundreds of dalit billionaires, and only when their housing issues are resolved. He is opposed to Kancha Ilaiah's formulation saying that Ilaiah is drafting an intellectual trap to 'shudraise' the nation's culture.

If Kancha Ilaiah provided a theoretical framework for the BSP's bahujanwad, Chandrabhan Prasad is providing a theoretical framework for its opportunistic political alliances, particularly with the BJP. That is the meeting point for Ilaiahs and Prasads. The person who advocates westernization of dalits finds allies in Hindutva, the staunch proponents of revivalism in Indian society and considers communal fascism merely as a mischievous construct. Unfortunately, both of them claim to be interpreting Ambedkar in the present conditions. Prasad says that Kanshi Ram cannot become an Ambedkar as Lenin or Mao cannot become a Marx while Kanshi Ram, being a follower of Ambedkar, can very well become one like Lenin or Mao. It is easier for Mr.Prasad to 'negotiate with Bill Gates than a Birla'. It is true that it will be much easier for him to relate with a dalit billionaire. Well, one has to wonder as to when Mr.Prasad will find it easier to get in touch with the reality to realize his 'utopianism in full bloom' and the practical resolution to the plight of crores of poor, downtrodden dalits? May be, when India becomes an America!

Notes

1 Karl Marx and Engels, The Manifesto of The Communist Party, 1977

2 The BSP and Caste as Ideology, 19, March 1994, EPW, pp 669

3 Moni Guha, Proletarian Path (Vol.II, No.1), December, 1995 reproduced in Liberation, April, 1996

4 Caste and Contradictions, 22 October 1994, EPW, pp 2836

5 Interview with Kancha Ilaiah by Anand, May 2000, www.ambedkar.org

6 Antithesis of Caste and Class, Vinod Mishra Selected Works, pp180

7 Caste and Contradictions, 22 October 1994, EPW

8 Gail Omvedt, Dalits and the Democratic Revolution, pp25

9 9 ibid, pp24

10 Vinod Mishra, More on the Anti-thesis of Caste and Class, VM Selected Works, pp 187

11 Rajni Kothari, Rise of the Dalits and the Renewed Debate on Caste, EPW, 25 June 1994, pp1590

12 Kancha Ilaiah, Ibid

13 Kancha Ilaiah, Ibid

14 Jens Lerche, Politics of the Poor: Agrarian Labourers and Political Transformation in UP, Rural Labour Relations in India Today, 2000, pp 224

15 B.B.Mohanty, Land Distribution Among SCs and STs, 6 Oct 2001, EPW, pp 3857

>>>>>>>>> Home > Liberation > Year_2002 > April > Caste, Class and the Dalit Question
http://www.cpiml.org/liberation/year_2002/april/article%20caste%20and%20class.htm

The Marxist

Volume: 18, No. 03-04

July-December 2002

CLASS STRUGGLE AND CASTE OPPRESSION : INTEGRAL STRATEGY OF THE LEFT

JAYANTANUJA BANDYOPADHYAYA

The political and ideological struggles of the left parties have reached a crossroads, as correctly emphasized by the political resolutions of the 17th Party Congress of the CPI (M). The communal fascism of the Sangh parivar, with its ideology of the Hindu Rashtra, now poses a grave and unprecedented threat to the secular fabric of Indian democracy. Gujarat-type genocides are likely to engulf the entitre country if the BJP and its perverted parivar are allowed to gain further strength. The so-called non-communal regional parties, which are supporting the Sangh parivar with a view to sharing the spoils of power, are too devoid of ideologies to be relied upon as anti-fascist political forces of the future. The Congress is in a state of severe ideological atrophy and organizational decay. But it still retains a broadly and vaguely non-communal character and considerable following at the all-India level. It can conceivably become a tactical ally of the left forces in the struggle against communal fascism. But for at least two reasons the left parties and forces alone can spearhead the great coming struggle of the masses against the demonic communal and fascist forces. First, the left forces alone are committed to ideologies which not only aim to confront and combat the fascist forces without compromise, but also offer a clear alternative politicoeconomic programme to the people that is scientific and equalitarian. Secondly, for that very reason, fascists everywhere make leftists their primary political target in all countries, once they are in power. The rapid growth of the left forces in Indian politics is therefore an immediate ideological and strategic imperative.

Unfortunately, as the political resolution of the 17th Party Congress of the CPI(M) has forcefully pointed out, the left parties are weak as an all-India political force, their influence being limited to the three states of West Bengal, Tripura, and Kerala. The resolution has further correctly pointed that united front with non-left parties can only be a tactical necessity, and not the main path of progress for the left parties. The growth of the left movement in India would have to depend primarily on the independent growth of the left forces all over the country. In this context, the 17th Party Congress of the CPI(M) has emphasized the need, not only for sustained ideological work, but also mass struggles against caste oppression, communalism, and the oppression of women. Without minimizing the importance of protracted mass struggles on all other fronts, in this paper we wish to deal specifically with the question of integrating the struggle against caste oppression with the broader class struggle in the objective Indian context. For it appears to us that the adoption of a clear ideological and strategic position by the CPI(M) and other left parties on this question is the key to the accelerated development and proliferation of the ideology and organization of the left in the given objective conditions of society and politics in India.

Marxist Thinking on Caste in India

Karl Marx was the first thinker to draw sharp attention to the highly deleterious impact of caste on Indian society and its causal link with the relations of production. In his famous essay on The Future Results of British Rule in India Karl Marx characterized the Indian castes as "the most decisive impediment to India's progress and power". Marx correctly argued that the caste system of India was based on the hereditary division of labour, which was inseparably linked with the unchanging technological base and subsistence economy of the Indian village community. At that time he believed that British rule would undermine the economic and technological foundations of these primitive, self-sufficient, stagnant, and isolated village communities, particularly through the spread of railways. The industrialization and commercialization of India under British rule, facilitated by the spread of railways, would lead to the breakdown of the traditional village communities, and with them also the caste system.1  But Marx wrote later on that he had exaggerated the possible impact of the spread of railways on the traditional relations of production characterized by the Indian village community.2 The important point, however, is that Marx clearly and causally connected the archaic social formation of caste in India with the relations of production. It followed logically that the abolition of the caste hierarchy and the oppression and exploitation of the 'lower' castes could not be separated from the Marxian form of class struggle.

 Following this Marxian approach to the relationship between the class struggle and the struggle against caste oppression, the renowned Indian Marxist leader and thinker, E.M.S. Namboodiripad, placed the Marxian approach to the struggle against caste consciousness and caste oppression as a part of the class struggle in modern India when he  observed in 1979:

One has to realize that the building of India on modern democratic and secular lines requires an uncompromising struggle against the caste-based Hindu society and its culture. There is no question of secular democracy, not to speak of socialism, unless the very citadel of India's 'age-old' civilization and culture – the division of society into a hierarchy of castes – is broken. In other words, the struggle for radical democracy and socialism cannot be separated from the struggle against caste society.3

The same year another Indian Marxist stalwart, B.T.Ranadive, regretted the fact that "there has been a certain neglect in the ideological struggle against caste and communalism", and that "the common consciousness generated through the economic struggle cannot be pushed forward without such struggle and direct intervention of the movement on caste oppression."4 Three years later, in his book,Class, Caste and Property Relations, Ranadive strongly pleaded for the adoption of an anti-caste programme of struggle by all mass organizations. In his own words:

The decisive challenge of caste and untouchability has to be defeated by the leaders of the mass struggles by inculcating a strong anti-caste feeling among the fighting toilers – above all among the workers in the spirit of proletarian unity and solidarity. This can be achieved by strong ideological propaganda against the caste system and untouchability.

The mass organizations, besides, must devote special attention to the problem of the untouchables, tribals and oppressed castes as part of their work to unite the oppressed.

Then alone the mighty force of the united toilers will decisively strike for agrarian revolution, smashing the basis of caste distinctions and serfdom of the untouchables; then alone the democratic forces will open the way to political power and rapid industrialization on the basis of socialization of all means of production and usher in a casteless and classless society.5

Both E.M.S. Namboodiripad and B.T. Ranadive thus felt the urgent need for integrating the class struggle with the struggle against the caste system in India, and considered this integration to be essential for the success of the proletarian revolution and the establishment of people's democracy in this country. This ideological position of the highest Marxist leaders and thinkers of India was reflected in a resolution of the Salkia Plennum of the CPI (M) in 1978, which stated that the ruling class took advantage of caste and communal divisions among the people, and emphasized the need for a mass struggle against casteism and communalism. The resolution further stated that the actual decision and strategy to be adopted in this respect was left to the Central Committee of the party.

But while the CPI (M) and other left parties have consistently organized mass protest and struggles against communalism, the exigencies and dynamics of the developing political situation in India in the 1980s and 1990s prevented them from organizing a simultaneous struggle against casteism and communalism. In particular, the acute caste conflict generated by the Mandal Commission Report and its aftermath made it extremely difficult to integrate the anti-caste ideology of the left with the class struggle against feudalism and capitalism in the 1980s. The rapid rise of communal fascism in Indian politics in the 1990s, leading to the capture of power at the Centre by the communal and fascist forces, impelled the left parties to mobilize all their organizational power against these forces, and to postpone the organization of a mass struggle against casteism and caste oppression to a later date. The issue was again taken up seriously at the 17thParty Congress of the CPI (M) at Hyderabad in 2002.    

Caste Structure and Relations of Production

The leading Indian Marxist thinkers and the Salkia Plenum and 17th Congress of the CPI (M) would not have pleaded for the organization of mass struggles against caste oppression in India if they had believed that there was any antagonistic contradiction between the class struggle and the struggle against caste oppression in the objective Indian context. It is therefore necessary, at a time when the major left parties have decided to integrate the class struggle with the struggle against caste oppression, to have a clear idea of the structural linkages of the caste structure in India with the relations of production in the perspective of Marxian historical sociology.

Caste formations, of course, are not identical with class divisions. There is a caste structure within each class, and a class structure within each caste. They generate different forms of sociopolitical belonging, loyalties, and consciousness. Both on the epistemological and the empirical planes, caste consciousness proves to be antithetical to class consciousness, and stymies the growth of proletarian class solidarity. As every leftist political worker knows, the unity of the working class in India is constantly vitiated by the caste consciousness and caste loyalties of the peasants and workers. The poor 'upper' caste peasant or worker does not consider his poor 'lower' caste coworker or neighbour as his equal, tends to look down upon him, and generally refuses to build or accept any sociocultural linkages with him.  While workers and peasants belonging to different castes do join trade unions and participate in common struggles on purely economic issues, they generally desist from developing life-sharing sociocultural linkages across caste barriers. In many cases, it is individual and collective economism rather than class consciousness that motivates participation in agitations for specific economic demands. This is also evident from the fact that support of workers for political parties does not always correspond with their trade union belonging.

The class consciousness of the workers and peasants can, of course, be best awakened by their continuous participation in the class struggle. But if the nature of the class struggle itself is often distorted by caste consciousness, we are in a vicious circle. On epistemological, sociological and organizational grounds, therefore, it is necessary to treat the caste structure as a semi-autonomous socioeconomic formation within the broader class structure of Indian society, and trace its historical and sociological roots in the evolving relations of production in India from the ancient times to the modern period. This, fo course, cannot be done exhaustively within the short span of this paper. We shall confine ourselves to portraying, in a few bold strokes, the outlines of the relationship between caste formations and the relations of production in India. This will then enable us to appreciate the strategy of integrating the struggle against caste oppression into the broader class struggle, as recommended by Marxist stalwarts like E.M.S. Namboodiripad and B.T.Ranadive, as well as the Salkia Plenum and 17th Congress of the CPI (M),  and formulate appropriate tactics for an integral form of class struggle with Indian characteristics.   

There is a widespread belief among orthodox Hindus that chaturvarnya , or the hierarchical four-tier social structure of ancient India, had a religious origin. This belief is engendered by the apparently religious justification of chaturvarnya in the Rig Veda,  the Manusmriti, and the interpolated forms of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, where it has been declared to be of divine origin. In reality, however, the support to chaturvarnya given by the religious texts on the pretext of its allegedly divine origin served merely to sanctify and perpetuate an ancient form of unjust division of labour that was based on the oppression and exploitation of the entire working class, which constituted the overwhelming majority of the population in ancient India, by a small and parasitic ruling class. The 'other-worldly' religious injunctions were in the nature of a deliberately contrived functional ideology that served to camouflage a this-worldly socioeconomic structure of exploitation.  In other words, the social roots of the metaphysics of chaturvarnya were embedded in the relations of production in ancient India.

As is well known, the religious texts assigned the parasitic functions of teaching,  preaching,

and the performance of religious rituals to the Brahmins, ruling and fighting to the Kshatriyas, and trade and business to the Vaishyas. The sociopolitical status of the Vaishyas was, however, somewhat ambivalent and fluctuating. In the age of the dharmasutras,  all peasants, except rural artisans, craftsmen, and landless labourers, were reckoned as Vaishyas. By the middle of the period of the dharmasastras, however,  most of the peasants, including those who tilled their own land, were demoted to the status of Sudras. Only that small section of peasants who were big landowners and produced a marketable agricultural surplus, were now counted as Vaishyas.6 From that time onwards, the Brahmins and Kshatriyas effectively constituted the ruling class of ancient India, with the Vaishyas playing a somewhat auxiliary role.

Thus by about the 1st or 2nd century A.D. the entire working class, including all small and marginal farmers, landless labourers, artisans and craftsmen, and all manual labourers, was relegated to the status of Sudras. The Brahmins and Kshatriyas naturally constituted only a small proportion of the population. Since industry and trade were undeveloped in that ancient period, the Vaishyas also constituted an insignificant proportion of the population. The Sudras therefore constituted the overwhelming majority of the people of the country. It was this vast class of Sudras that was relegated to the bottom of the socioeconomic pyramid  and ruthlessly exploited by the composite ruling class of the Brahmins and Kashatriyas, using both the power of religion and the power of the state as its instruments of control.  

The concept of swadharma was central to the injunctions of the religious texts regarding the division of labour consummated bychaturvarnya. Manu defined swadharma as swakarma, or the occupational duty as prescribed by the dharmasastras. All major religious texts, including the Manusmriti, the Bhagavadgita, and the interpolated versions of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, prescribed the unquestioning service of the three 'higher' varnas as the swadharma of the Sudras. The vast working class of Sudras was thus denied all social, economic and political rights, which were, of course, monopolized by the Brahmins and Kshatriyas. The Manusmriti also denied the Sudras the right to education, the right to property, the right to carry arms, and even access to religious observances. The Manusmritideclared that if a Sudra acquired any property, any Brahmin or Kshatriya had the right to take it away from him forcibly. As regards the carrying of arms, even the Brahmins were empowered to carry and use arms in times of trouble, although it was alien to their swadharma. But the Sudras were totally forbidden to carry or use arms. The denial of the right to property in a social structure based on private property perpetuated the proletarianization of the Sudras, while the denial of the right to carry arms rendered them incapable of overthrowing the structure of exploitation. Thus the whole purpose of the ostensibly religious injunctions regarding chaturvarnya was to reduce the entire working class to the status of subsistence labour, close to that of slaves, and generate a huge surplus value through its productive labour for the enjoyment of a parasitic ruling class.

The religious texts have also forbidden the change of occupations prescribed by them for the four varnas respectively on pain of dire consequences in this world as well as the next, because this would destabilize and destroy the prevailing social order. The Manusmritimakes the change of occupations a serious and heavily punishable offence. The Bhagavadgita says that it is better to die in the performance of one's own swadharma, even if it be without merit, than to practise the swadharma of another varna, even if the latter be easier to perform. But not being sure of the effectiveness of religious injunctions by themselves, the wise writers of religious texts also provided for political safeguards against any potential challenge to chaturvarnya. The Manusmriti enjoins upon the king the duty of preserving the four-tier social hierarchy, and to inflict severe punishment on those who attempt to change their occupations. TheBhagavadgita cautions the Kshatriyas against the non-performance of their swadharma of fighting, lest such an example inspired the 'lower' varnas to change their occupations. The Manusmriti also advises the Brahmins and Kshatriyas to form a class alliance in their common class interest. Such an alliance, it says, would ensure tremendous gains for themselves in this world and the next, whereas in the absence of such an alliance both the varnas would perish. For the same reason, the dharmasastras, including the Manusmriti, made it a major political duty of the king to suppress all forms of atheism and to inflict severe punishment on atheists. Any atheist challenge to thedharmasastras would have seriously undermined the foundations of the exploitative structure of chaturvarnya. Thus the opium of religion as well as the power of the state, both of which were mere instruments of exploitation in the hands of the ruling class, were used to perpetuate the oppressive and exploitative socioeconomic structure of ancient India.

Class Structure, Dalits and Adivasis

One special characteristic of this exploitative socioeconomic structure was the marginalization, alienation, economic exploitation, and geographical separation of the atisudras, also called asprishyas or panchamas or antyajas in the dharmasastras. Originally stigmatized on account of the 'unclean' jobs assigned to them, they were subjected to numerous inhuman disabilities, in addition to those suffered by the rest of the Sudras. Perhaps the most disabling injunction against them proclaimed by Manu and other law-givers was the one that denied them the right to live in the main village inhabited by the exalted 'upper' varnas, and were compelled to live in separate hamlets on the outskirts of the village. It was from this geographical and social exile that they acquired their status as antyajas, meaning "born on the margin". According to the injunctions of the dharmasastras, they were obliged to wear the mark of untouchability on their bodies, and eat only the foulest kind of food, including the leftovers thrown away by the 'higher' varnas, from iron or broken earthen pots. They were allowed to wear only iron 'jewelry' on their bodies. They were not to draw water from the wells used by the 'upper' varnas, not to enter temples, not to enter areas inhabited by the  'higher' varnas except to perform menial jobs for the latter, and not to tread the roads used by the latter. They had to wear a bell in their necks in order to warn the 'higher' varnas of their approach, so that the latter could move out of sight in time. They were permitted to move around only in the darkness of the night, avoiding the areas inhabited by the exalted ones.

The adivasis or indigenous people of ancient India suffered more or less the same socioeconomic disabilities as the atisudras, and were virtually indistinguishable from the latter with regard to their status in relation to the socioeconomic structure of chaturvarnya. They were also both geographically isolated and socially marginalized, and relegated to the bottom of the socioeconomic pyramid. They represented that section of the pre-Aryan population of India, which had retreated into the jungles and hills in the face of the Aryan advance, and remained by and large inaccessible to the conquering Aryan 'civilization' and its chaturvarnya. Those who lived in the forests were generally called nishadas or shabaras, depending on their tribal belonging as well as occupation, while those who dwelt on the mountains were generally called kiratas. There is abundant evidence in the dharmasastras and Sanskrit literature to show that these indigenous people were also treated as untouchables.

This forest and mountain-dwelling section of the people of India differed from the rest of Aryan-dominated ancient Indian society in at least three important respects. In the first place, they practised a form of primitive communism of property that was diametrically opposed to the system of private property on which the Aryan 'civilization' was based. Hence, unlike the exploitative class structure of the Aryan-dominated society, the relations of production of adivasi society did not generate a class structure.  Secondly, they had refused to come under Aryan domination, and hence, were outside the purview of chaturvarnya. There never was any varna or caste system inadivasi society. Thirdly, They had refused to be a part of the Vedic and dharmasastra-based Brahminical religion of the Aryas, and never practised the rituals and ceremonies of the latter. Because of their refusal to be integrated into mainstream Aryan society, the adivasisremained even more isolated, geographically as well as socially, than the asprishyas within the fold of chaturvarnya. As regards their socioeconomic status vis-à-vis Brahminical society, they were also treated in practice like atisudras and untouchables. Like their counterpart within Brahminical society, they also belonged to the most exploited section of the proleatariat of ancient India, and were assigned to the bottom of the socioeconomic pyramid. They were not a part of chaturvarnya in terms of religious doctrine. But along with the panchamas or atisudras, they were the worst victims of the exploitative class structure of ancient India.

The grossly exploitative class structure of ancient India, which was cleverly camouflaged  and sanctified by the dharmasastras, particularly by chaturvarnya, has remained virtually unchanged to this day. Unchanged feudal relations of production, poverty, illiteracy, and crystallized superstition among the masses, and the oppressive and exploitative strategies of the ruling classes over many centuries have contributed to the perpetuation of the ancient relations of production and their sociocultural superstructure. The original four varnashave proliferated into over three thousand castes and subcastes due to numerous socioreligious and economic factors. These include false ideas regarding hereditary transmission of purity and impurity, differences of rituals and ceremonies, endogamous marriage and other forms of sociocultural intercourse, geographical location, and above all, economic status, particularly land ownership. Some cases of Sanskritization, or the vertical movement of the 'lower' castes, have also taken place over the centuries, mainly due to their rise in economic status. The myriad castes and subcastes of contemporary India cannot in all cases be classified under the original chaturvarnyaof the dharmasastras, although they have all risen on the matrix of the four-tier hierarchical socioeconomic structure of ancient India. Perhaps the most important retrograde development is that the entire caste system has become hereditary and transformed itself into a crystallized prejudice structure. Although it is still a superstructure of the relations of production, it has over the centuries acquired a measure of autonomy, and in some ways behaves independently of the relations of production. This is the most distinctive characteristic of class relations in India today. This is also the single most important social reality that the left forces spearheading the class struggle in India must weave into their strategy.

The proliferation of castes, and the relative improvement of the socioeconomic status of some of the 'middle' castes, have to some extent diluted the structure of the four-tier  hierarchy of ancient Indian society. But so far as the relations of production are concerned, the slave-like condition of the dalits – descendants of the panchamas and asprishyas – has remained unchanged at the bottom of the socioeconomic pyramid. Similarly, the adivasis – descendants of the shavaras, nishadas and kiratas – have remained the victims of the grossest and most acute form of socioeconomic exploitation. This is mainly because neither the basic class structure of India nor the crystallized prejudice structure of caste has changed significantly for many centuries, including the fiftyfive years since India's independence, except to some extent in the left-dominated states. The existential characteristics of the collective historical condition of these two socioeconomic classes make them the 'wretched of the earth' who truly belong to the fourth world of nearly total alienation and exploitation. Apart from being the victims of gross economic exploitation, they also suffer from the stigma of low social status imposed on them by the prejudice structure of caste. It follows logically that those leftist forces in India which are engaged in class struggle for the collective emancipation of the proletariat must accord the highest priority to the emancipation of the dalits and the adivasis. For there are no worse sufferers from class exploitation, and no proletariat more impoverished than them anywhere in the world.

Numerous studies, including the Mandal Commission Report, have established beyond any doubt that that there is a high correlation between poverty and social 'backwardness' in India. This is particularly true of the dalits and the adivasis. It was estimated by the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in 1981 that 85 % of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes belonged to the poorest 35% of the population.7 Another indication of the absolute poverty of the SCs and STs is that 84% of the SCs and 94% of the STs live in the rural sector8 Moreover, 90% of all bonded labourers and 80% of all child labourers come from the SCs and STs.9 Several investigations, including those by the Planning Commission, have revealed that landlessness  and illiteracy are much greater among the SCs and STs than in the rest of the population.10      

The fact that the SCs and STs, which belong to the bottom of the caste hierarchy, are also in the lowest economic class was highlighted by the Eighth FiveYear Plan when it said:

Thus, while there has been a reduction in the percentage of population below the poverty line in the case of both Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the incidence of poverty is still very high. Most of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe families do not own land and other productive assets. They constitute the bulk of agricultural landless workers, construction workers and women in the unorganized sector. They suffer from long periods of unemployment and underemployment. They are also handicapped due to non-enforcement of protective laws such as the Minimum Wages Act and Prevention of Land Alienation Act. Inequality and exploitation of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, particularly in the rural areas … still continue.11

 Even the Mandal Commission, while emphasizing the role of traditional sociocultural prejudices in perpetuating the economic exploitation of the 'lower' castes, fully recognized the fundamental significance of the relations of production in the shaping of the class-caste structure. Hence it called for the radical restructuring of production relations in order to liberate of the oppressed castes from economic as well as social exploitation.. In the Commission's own words:

Under the existing scheme of production relations, Backward Classes, comprising mainly small landholders, tenants, agricultural labour, village artisans, etc. are heavily dependent on the rich peasantry for their sustenance. In view of this, OBCs continue to remain in mental and material bondage of the dominant castes and classes. Unless these production relations are radically altered through structural changes and progressive land reforms implemented vigorously all over the country, OBCs will never become truly independent. In view of this, highest priority should be given to radical land reforms by all the states.12

For several reasons, however, it would be misleading to assume that caste oppression can be eliminated through the class struggle on the economic plane alone. In the first place, the crystallized prejudice structure of caste tends to rationalize and perpetuate the economic exploitation of the oppressed castes. By confining the 'low' castes to the lowest paid occupations on a hereditary basis through religious dogma and cultural prejudice, they are kept perpetually in a state of absolute poverty. Their poverty, in turn, reinforces the sociocultural prejudices against them, and tends to perpetuate the stigma of inferiority with which they have been branded from ancient times. Secondly, unlike the poorer sections of the 'upper' castes, the dalits and adivasis have been compelled to live in separate hamlets in the rural areas, and in separate slums in the urban areas. This geographical isolation of the oppressed castes is more due to social stigma than to economic status. Thirdly, although feudalism prevails in many parts of the world, particularly the Third World, the caste system does not exist in any other country. Hence caste oppression must be attributed at least partly to the peculiar religious and sociocultural tradition of India. Finally, even with the advent of capitalism, caste prejudices do not seem to have lost their vigour in the capitalist sector of the Indian economy. Hence in determining their strategy of class struggle with Indian characteristics, the left forces have to take into account the dialectical relationship between class and caste.

Class Struggle with Indian Characteristics

Thus the integration of the fight against caste oppression with the class struggle in India, as prescribed by EMS Namboodiripad, B.T. Ranadive, the Salkia Plenum and the 17th Congress of the CPI (M), implies that a three-pronged class struggle has to be organized in India with certain specifically Indian characteristics. The 17th Congress of the CPI (M) has correctly highlighted the importance of the independent growth of the left parties, as distinguished from the united front tactics. For while united front tactics become necessary for electoral purposes and for organizing mass struggles, steady and sustained growth in the strength of the left parties can alone be the ultimate guarantee for a successful struggle against the forces of communal fascism and for the emancipation of the Indian proletariat. Moreover, a sustained and long-term cultural revolution, through which the proletariat will capture the commanding heights of a scientific and socialist culture, is also a necessary component of the class struggle for destroying the sociocultural foundations of the archaic social formation of caste. In the objective socioeconomic conditions of India, the Marxian strategy of class struggle must incorporate these specifically Indian characteristics.

1.      Independent Growth of Left Parties
Since the SCs and STs are the most oppressed and exploited sections of the Indian proletariat, they qualify to be the natural allies of the CPI (M) and other left parties. The left parties must therefore unequivocally align themselves with the SCs and STs, and fight for their economic as well as social rights. This struggle must include the uncompromising implementation of the policy of reservation, which is correctly based on the principle of positive discrimination in favour of the traditionally disadvantaged sections of the population. There appears to be a general suspicion among the SCs and STs that although the CPI(M) and other left parties have accepted the policy of reservation, they are not always sincere in implementing this policy on account of their apparent ideological position that caste is a false socioeconomic category. It is necessary to dispel this misperception, and to draw increasing numbers of SCs and STs within the ideological and organizational fold of the left parties by building sympathetic linkages with their life experiences and aspirations. It should be remembered that some otherwise misguided ultra-left forces in Bihar, Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal have succeeded in increasing their strength to some extent in recent years mainly by taking up the cause of the SCs and STs. It is necessary for the major left parties with a mass base to seize the initiative from these misguided ultra-leftist elements in order to carry forward the class struggle along correct lines.

The Tamil Nadu branch of the CPI (M) has already taken up ideological and organizational work among the SCs and STs in right earnest, and obtained visible results. Small as it is in terms of its total numerical strength, about one-third of its membership comes from the SCs and STs.13 Harkishan Singh Surjeet, General Secretary of the CPI (M), has rightly commended this achievement of the CPI (M) in Tamil Nadu.14If the Tamil Nadu CPI (M) does not deviate from this correct strategy of class struggle with Indian characteristics, it will certainly be able to increase its organizational and political strength significantly in the near future. There can also be little doubt that if the CPI (M) as a whole and other left parties persist with this strategy, and treat the SCs and STs as their natural allies in the class struggle, they will grow from strength to strength in the not too distant future.

2        United Front Tactics

Needless to say, the tactic of united front is only an element of the class struggle at a time when the left forces are not strong enough to capture power in the whole country on their own strength. Hence it is necessary for every left party to choose even its temporary allies in the united front, whether for electoral purposes or for the purpose of organizing mass struggles, very carefully in terms of a correct class analysis. Since the SCs and STs represent the most oppressed, exploited, and impoverished section of the Indian proletariat, their parties and organizations should be accorded the highest priority by the left parties in forming a united front. The left will have to strive to draw the dalit organisations into joint struggles against social oppression, land, wages and other issues affecting the SCs and STs.  Even when some of these organisations are imbued with casteist ideologies, it must be seen  in the historical and existential experience of caste oppression, endured for centuries.    It is the task of the left parties to engage them in dialogue and persuade them, through both ideology and practice, that their true destiny lies with the left.

It should not be forgotten that the grievances of the dalit-adivasi groups against  Manuvada and their deep-seated sense of socioeconomic injustice is quite legitimate and not inconsistent with the class struggle. Their only fear seems to be that the left parties, in their apparently exclusive preoccupation with the economic dimension of the class struggle, would fail to pay special attention to the issue of caste oppression, and hence not serve the true socioeconomic interests of the SCs and STs. But in the context of the clear espousal of the cause of caste oppression by the CPI (M), which is the largest leftist party in the country, there is no valid reason for this misperception. Once they are persuaded to realize, by word and deed, that the left parties regard them as natural allies and assign the highest priority to their emancipation, the parties and organizations of the SCs and STs may not be slow to form permanent alliances with the left. The formation of a united front with other democratic parties need not be ruled out in a given situation, but in no case should the most oppressed and exploited section of the Indian proletariat be left out of a united front led by the left parties. There can be little doubt that the left parties will make rapid headway in Indian politics, outside the states of West Bengal, Kerala and Tripura, if united fronts are formed in this manner, keeping in view the long-term strategy of the class struggle with Indian characteristics.

3. Cultural Revolution

As we have tried to show above, the crystallized prejudice structure of caste has acquired a certain autonomous character over the centuries, and often stymies the growth of class consciousness and thwarts the growth of the class struggle for the radical restructuring of the relations of production in India.. It has grown out of ancient religious dogmas and cultural prejudices, and is unique to India's long and unbroken sociocultural tradition. Feudal social formations elsewhere, such as the estate system of Europe, were not sustained and perpetuated by any archaic social hierarchies based on socioreligious strictures and taboos enforced by the state. The socioeconomic structure of medieval Europe represented a simple division of the population in terms of economic status that was functionally and almost exclusively derived from the relations of production. The transition from feudalism to capitalism, accompanied by an intellectual renaissance and religious reformation, led to a simple division of society into classes. Even in China, which was a feudal country at the time of the communist revolution, there were no archaic and rigid sociocultural formations intervening in class relations. The class struggle there was carried out by the peasants and workers against the landlords and capitalists, as well as against the state controlled by the latter. But the existence of the crystallized prejudice structure of caste as a palpable objective element of India's socioeconomic structure makes it imperative to add a specifically cultural dimension to the class struggle.

A direct assault on the economic structures of feudalism and capitalism, and the transformation of these structures into socialist relations of production should, of course, remain the central thrust of the class struggle in India. But on account of the complex class-caste relationship outlined above, the class struggle on the economic front will have to be supplemented by a great intellectual and cultural movement among the masses against the religious and cultural prejudices that sustain the caste hierarchy and perpetuate caste oppression. Here the struggle against caste oppression and the struggle against communal fascism are likely to converge in one gigantic cultural revolution. The struggle for the replacement of the unscientific and bourgeois religious culture that sustains both caste oppression and communal fascism by a scientific, proletarian, and socialist culture will have to be an integral element of the class struggle in India. Moreover, this will have to be a protracted cultural revolution that will continue for a long time after the socialist revolution, as and when it takes place.

A proletarian socialist revolution does not seem to be an immediate possibility in India, although this must remain the inalienable long-term goal of the class struggle. But this is not sufficient reason for arguing that the class struggle must therefore confine itself to something close to economism in the immediate future. Even within the constraints imposed by the objective politicoeconomic conditions of India it is possible, in fact imperative, to carry on a massive intellectual struggle against religious and obscurantist belief structures and values. Even partial success of such a cultural revolution would in fact lead to an awakening of class consciousness among the masses, reinforce the class struggle on the economic and political fronts, and pave the way for the rapid growth of the left forces all over India.   

 

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1.      For Marx's early comments on the caste system in India see Karl Marx, "The British Rule in India", first published in New York Daily Tribune, 25 June 1853; "Future Results of British Rule in India", first published in New York Daily Tribune, 8 August 1853. The quotation is from the second article.

2.      Capital, vol. III, ch. 20.

3.      Economic and Political Weekly, Annual Number, 1979, p.347. For other writings of EMS Namboodiripad on class-caste relations see hisProblems of National Integration, National Book Agency, Calcutta, 1966; Kerala Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, National Book Agency, Calcutta, 1968; and Selected Writings, National Book Agency, Calcutta, 1982, vol. I.

4.      Economic and Political Weekly, Annual Number, 1979, p. 355.

5.      B.T. Ranadive, Caste, Class and Property Relations, National Book Agency, Calcutta, 1982, Foreword.

6.      Ram Sharan Sharma, Sudras in Ancient India, Motilal Banarsidas, Delhi, 1990, ch. 2.

7.      Report of the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, 1979-81 (Twentyseventh Report), Government of India, 1983, p. 3.

8.      Ibid.

9.      T.C.Joseph, "Child Victims of Exploitation", Sunday Statesman Miscellany, Calcutta, 12 October 1986.

10.  Pradhan H.Prasad, "Rise of Kulak Power and Caste Struggle in North India", Economic and Political Weekly, 17 August 1991, Table 2; DN, "Reservation and Class Structure of Castes", Economic and Political Weekly, 13 November 1990; Eighth Five Year Plan, Government of India, Planning Commission, New Delhi, 1997, p. 420.

11.  Eighth Five Year Plan, op. cit.

12.  Report of the Backward Classes Commission (Mandal Commission), Government of India, New Delhi, 1980, Part I, vol. 1, p. 64.

13.  P.Sampath, "CPI (M)'s Intervention Against Caste Oppression in Tamul Nadu", The Marxist, vol. XVIII, No. 1 (January-March 2002).

14.  Harkishan Singh Surjeet, "Significance of the 17th Party Congress of the CPI (M)", The Marxist, op. cit.    

http://www.cpim.org/marxist/200203_marxist_caste&class_jbando.htm
A Marxist Critique of Culturalist/Idealist Analyses of 'Race', Caste and Class * * *

Monday, 15 September 2008

Dave Hill


In this paper I examine the interconnections between 'race' and social class, with some reference to caste, in schooling and, society.

I need to state that this is a panoptic paper that attempts to bring together, to link, empirical and theoretical data and conceptual analyses across a number of areas: These are: firstly, culturalist and materialist issues and analyses of 'race', caste and class oppression, particularly in Britain, the USA and India; secondly, South Asian, other Black and Minority Ethnic group (BME) and White working class labour market and educational experience in Britain; thirdly, Marxist, revisionist socialist and social democratic educational and political analysis; and neoliberal and neoconservative policy and its impacts. In particular, this chapter attempts to compare BME oppression and exploitation in the UK and, tangentially, in the USA, with caste oppression and exploitation in India and also as it manifests itself in Britain. Both are examined through a materialist, class perspective, a Marxist analysis.
Panoptic approaches in papers/chapter/analysis can have value: a bringing together, an interrelating, of different aspects and areas of analysis, enabling, potentially, wider social theorizing. They potentially enable a wider understanding, or facilitating a wider evaluation of an overarching theory, such as Marxism, as it analyses a variety of linked issues. In this paper, the issues above are linked in terms of Marxist analysis of capitalism, class oppression, and the implications of such analysis for the politics of resistance. A hazard with panoptic papers is that they can be dense, heavily referenced and/or endnoted. But this is to enable pursuit of further study/reading across a number of fields.

I critique three forms of analysis/theorizing of 'race', caste and class oppression:

1. Critical Race Theory, a theory that sees 'race' as the most significant form of oppression, rather than social class. This theory originated in the USA (where its main theorists include Bell, e.g. 1992, 2004; Mills, e.g. 1997, 2003, Delgado, 1995; Delgado and Stefanic, 2000, 2001). It has been recently(pretty much since Gillborn, 2005) imported into Britain by writers such as David Gillborn (2005, 2006a, b, 2008), John Preston (2007), and Namita Chakrabarty (e.g. Chakrabarty and Preston, 2008)

2. 'Parallelist' or 'Equivalence' theories, widespread in the USA, and, for example, espoused by Michael W. Apple (Apple and Weiss, 1983; Apple, 1988, 1993, 1996, 1999, 2001). These argue that there is an equivalence or parallelism, between 'race', class and gender as forms of structural oppression in society;

3. Caste Analysis, theories salient in India (and other South Asian countries such as Pakistan, Nepal), but present in Indian (and some other south Asian) heritage/Diasporic communities, for example in Britain, that the dominant form of oppression is caste oppression, of Dalits ('Untouchables') by (high-caste) Brahmins and other castes (for sustained critiques in India, see Quadri and Kumar, 2003; Iliah, 2005; Kumar and Kumar, 2005, Murali Krishna, 2007; and, in the UK, Borbas et al, 2006).

I critique these from empirical and theoretical/analytical perspectives, concluding that the salient forms of discrimination, oppression and inequality in the classroom, as in the economy and society, whether in the UK, USA or India, or elsewhere, are those relating to ('raced' and gendered and caste divided) social class.
While recognising the power of subjective identities and consciousness, and while not being dismissive of racism as intrinsic to global capital's agenda, I suggest that these forms and processes of (race', gender, caste) marginalization and inequality are functional for the capitalist system of exploitation, which uses schooling and formal education and other agencies of the state to reproduce the existing patterns and forms of educational, social and economic inequalities.
They are functional in a number of ways: they occlude class consciousness and impede the development of the working class movement by dividing the working class; they lend themselves to the creation of bourgeois groups among immigrant descended/black/caste groups which have a self interest in perpetuating the capitalist system of exploitation; and they facilitate the extraction of surplus value by sustaining pools of marginalised cheap labour.

PART 1:  'RACE', CLASS AND CAPITAL

In this section, I examine the interconnections between 'race', and social class, with some reference to caste and gender, in schooling, society and economy in the UK, in particular relating to the two million heritage children and adults in Britain who are of South Asian heritage.

Education policy relating to ethnic diversity in Britain springs (though not unproblematically, or in an unmediated fashion) from capitalist ruling class demands for capital accumulation and profit, as does wider policy. (Hill, 2001, 2007a, b, c, d). This is classic Marxist analysis. Education policy is linked to wider 'race' policy in society, for example labour/employment law, welfare rights law, settlement/immigration rights and laws, and economic and fiscal policy.

These 'race policies' and education policies can be analysed, variously (and sometimes in combination) as (i) racist (or caste) supremacist or (ii) assimilationist/monoculturalist, or (iii) multiculturalist/celebrating cultural diversity; (iv) integrationist, recognising (some of) the diversity of 'race' and ethnic cultures, but within (in Britain) an affirmation of 'Britishness'; or (v) anti-racist/critical policy for equality. These types of 'race' policy have a class dimension.

How is this so? It is because these policies have impacts on the extents to which policy serves to include and empower, or exclude and disempower, sections and strata of the ('raced' and gendered and caste divided) working class. Thus some education and other policies are clearly class-supremacist as well as 'race' or caste supremacist, other education and cultural policies accept aspects of working class cultures and/or ethnic minority cultures, and other policies - egalitarian policies - attempt either a reformist meritocratic or slightly redistributive set of policies (social democratic policies).

The classical Marxist analysis I am suggesting here is that social class is the primary explanation for economic, political, cultural and ideological change. This is an assertion not an argument. Social Class, though manifestly layered into strata, and structured along lines of 'race'/ethnicity, gender and caste, for example, is the essential and dominant form of Capitalist exploitation and oppression.

Kelsh and Hill (2006) (see also Kelsh, 2001) argue that it is

"necessary to bring the Marxist concept of class back into educational theory, research, and practice. It has the explanatory power to analyze the structure of ownership and power in capitalist social relations and thus to point to ways of restructuring society so that public needs take priority over private profit".

Marxist analysis suggests that we live in a Capitalist society and economy in which the capitalists - those who own the banks, factories, media, corporations, businesses, that is, the means of production - profit from exploiting the workers. Capitalists exploit workers' labour power - the labour power of men and women workers, workers from different, ethnic groups and religions, and those from different castes. Capitalism appropriates surplus value from the labour of the ('raced' and gendered and caste-divided) working class (see, for example, Marx, 1867/1996, explained in the Appendix to chapter 8 of Cole 2009 for an explanation, and also the explanation in Faivre, 2009).

The capitalist system - with a tiny minority of people owning the means of production - oppresses and exploits the working class. This, indeed, constitutes the essence of capitalism: the extraction of surplus value - and profit - from workers by capitalist employers. These capitalists may be white, black, men, women, (high caste) Brahmin or ('untouchable') Dalit. In India as well as in Britain, there are millionaire men, women, Brahmin, and Dalit capitalists - and politicians.

Marxist analysis also suggests that class-conflict, which is an essential feature of capitalist society, will result in an overthrow of capitalism given the right circumstances (whether by revolutionary force or by evolutionary measures and steps, i.e. social democracy) has, historically, been much debated in different countries, from the late nineteenth century debates in Germany over 'Revisionism' associated with Eduard Bernstein (e.g. in 1899, his The Prerequisites for Socialism and the Tasks of Social Democracy - see Tudor and Tudor, 1988) on the one hand, and on the other, his orthodox revolutionary Marxist critics such as Rosa Luxemburg (for example, in  Reform and Revolution, in 1899/1900).

By whom? Which countries? Who is much debating this? Historically, and in current times, it has, of course been the armed/police forces of the capitalist state that shoot first - and where the local capitalist state is not powerful enough in the balance of class forces in any particular site, then in come the United States cavalry, acting on behalf of transnational capital and its national capital - on behalf of the international capitalist system itself (see, for example, Brosio, 1994).

And yet there are denials, by postmodernists and other theorists of complexity and hybridity and postmodernists and post-ists of various stripes that we o longer live in a period of metanarratives, such as mass capitalism, social class, working class, or, indeed, 'woman' or 'black' (1). For many theorists ince the 1980s, history is at an end, the class war is over, and we all exalt in the infinite complexity and hybridity of subjective individualist consumerism. It is interesting, and rarely remarked upon, that arguments about 'the death of class' are not advanced regarding the capitalist class. Despite their horizontal and vertical cleavages (Dumenil and Levy, 2004), they appear to know very well who they are. Nobody is denying capitalist class-consciousness.

Opposition to the rule of Capital and its policies (either its wider policies, or specific policy) is weakened when the working class is divided, by 'race', caste, religion, tribe, or by other factors.

When I say 'divided', I am using it here as an active verb, to mean the working class is divided (deliberately) by the capitalist class, its media, its formally or informally segregated school systems. This is 'divide and rule'. Examples of schooling systems perpetuating such divisions are in apartheid South Africa, Arab-Jew segregated schooling in Israel, Protestant-Catholic religiously segregated Northern Ireland, parts of the USA - in particular its inner cities, and, indeed, parts of Britain, where, in some inner city working class schools, more than 90 percent of the pupils are from minority ethnic groups.(2)

PART 2: SOUTH ASIANS IN BRITAIN

'Race', Class and the Labour Market in Britain

It is obvious to note that some workers, such as legal and 'illegal' immigrants, and ex-colonialised and ex-imperialised populations (as well as white, non-colonised East Europeans) are exploited far more than others. Various groups are 'racialised' (3), or xeno-racialised (4), a process by which they are ascribed particular social and ability characteristics, sometimes demonized and vilified, into particular labour market, housing market and education market situations.

Abbas (2007) notes, in relation to South Asians (5), that "ethnic minority immigrants were...placed at the bottom of the labour market, disdained by the host community, and systematically ethnicised and racialised in the sphere of capital accumulation" (p.3), and that "the 'ethnic penalty' experienced by first generations has largely translated to second generations" (p.4).

There are different typical class locations and positions within the labour market (and education attainment tables) for the different ethnic groups. Pakistanis and Bangladeshis (i.e. British Pakistanis and British Bangladeshis and those who have immigrated from Pakistan and Bangladesh) have similar labour market circumstances and in general greater disadvantage than other ethnic groups. These Pakistani and Bangladeshi men have the lowest economic activity rates of all populations, and high unemployment rates. 44 percent of all Bangladeshi men and 18 percent of Pakistani men aged 25 and over were employed part-time. This compares to 5 percent of White British.(Abbas, 2007).

Of all ethnic minorities, Indian men (British Indian and those immigrated from India and other countries) have employment rates that are, on average, most similar to White Britons. As a population in Britain they are considerably more middle class than Bangladeshis and Pakistanis. The Indian population has relatively high levels of qualifications. Nonetheless, Indians have significantly worse outcomes in the labour market compared to White Britons with similar qualifications.(Simpson et al, 2001; see also, Abbas, 2007).

Educational Attainment: 'Race', Class and Gender in England and Wales

With respect to educational achievement in England and Wales, Gillborn and Mirza (2000) show very clearly that it is the difference between social classes in attainment that is the fundamental and stark feature of the education system in England and Wales, rather than 'race' or gender.

In their analysis of attainment inequalities by class, 'race' and gender 1988-1997 (five or more higher grade GCSEs - General Certificates of Education - the exam taken by virtually all sixteen year olds in England and Wales - relative to the national average), the gender difference between girls and boys is half that relating to 'race' (comparing white students with African Caribbean). This in turn is less than half of the social class difference - the difference between children of managerial professional parentage on the one hand, and children from unskilled manual working class homes (Gillborn and Mirza, 2000:22).  Gillborn and Mirza's study concerns a study of all social strata/social class groups.

Strand (2007, p.13) points out that  

"In terms of national data, the Youth Cohort Study (YCS) has historically provided the best estimate of national figures for attainment at school leaving age by ethnicity. A representative sample of approximately 30,000 pupils is surveyed approximately every two years. Analysis of examination results at age 16 for 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000 and 2002 shows a consistent picture of Indian pupils gaining higher examination scores than White British pupils, while Black, Bangladeshi and Pakistani pupils consistently achieve lower examination scores than White British. In the last published results for GCSE examinations for 2006 (DfES, 2007), 80% of Chinese pupils, 72% of Indian and 69% of Mixed White & Asian pupils achieved the benchmark of five or more GCSE A*-C grades, compared to 58% of White British pupils. This level of success was achieved by 57% of Bangladeshi pupils, 51% of Black African and Pakistani pupils, 45% of Black Caribbean pupils and just 10% of Gypsy/Roma pupils".

This data does not show an overall pattern of White supremacy, Indians do better as an ethnic group than Whites, so do Mixed White and Asian students. This (YCS) data cited by Strand (2007), like that of Gillborn and Mirza above, concerns a sample of all social strata/social class groups.

Dehal (2006) refers specifically to the educational attainments of 'the poor' - the poorest strata of the working class, those who are entitled to and claim Free School meals (FSM). Dehal points out that the impact of economic disadvantage does differ significantly across 'BME' (Black and Minority Ethnic) groups. He concludes that "economic disadvantage is the key driver of ethnic disparity". In other words, economic poverty is the most important factor in low levels of academic/school attainment.

In the first figure/picture below ("Economic disadvantage is the key driver of ethnic disparity") below, the left hand chart shows this clearly (as does the Gillborn and Mirza chart above). The right hand chart shows the proportions of school students in each of eight ethnic groups who do receive FSM, who are in the poorest 14% of the population in England and Wales.

The second figure below ("but its impact does differ substantially across BME groups") shows that the different ethnic groups among these 'poorest' 14% of children at state schools do perform differently to each other. Other than Gypsy/Roma, Whites do worst.



Dehal's (2006) conclusion is that there is a specific 'race' factor involved - some ethnic groups of 15-16 year olds in receipt of free school meals - such as White and African-Caribbean and Roma children - do perform/attain more poorly than the average for all 15-16 year old children in receipt of free school meals, and considerably more poorly than Chinese and Indian group of such children. (Strand, 2007, p.32 also shows figures for Free School meals - a crude marker of poverty - in relation to various ethnic groups in England and Wales. On p.29 there is data on the socio-economic class composition of each ethnic group).

Gillborn and Mirza's  (2000) conclusion from their own data is that

"social class and gender differences are… associated with differences in attainment but neither can account for persistent underlying ethnic inequalities: comparing like with like, African-Caribbean, Pakistani and Bangladeshi pupils do not enjoy equal opportunities" (p.27).

However, the 'race' effect, the effect of being part of a particular ethnic group, has less impact on achievement and under-achievement than does social class. Class analysis is more reliable as a measure of achievement/underachievement, than 'race' analysis. Demie and Tong (2007), and Demie et al (2007) provide a detailed analysis at the level of one ethnically diverse London Borough, Lambeth. In Lambeth, one sizeable White group, the Portuguese, does significantly worse on standard scores of attainment at various age levels than do other groups, for example.

Strand's (2007) data and analysis suggest that in terms of 'raw score' at Key Stage 3 (age 14) test results in England and Wales, the 'gaps' for KS3 results are that
   
"The social class gap was largest with a 10 point gap between pupils from higher managerial and professional families and those where the main parent was long term unemployed. The maternal education gap was also large with a nine point gap between pupils with mothers qualified to degree level or higher and those with mothers with no educational qualifications. These compare to an ethnic gap of three points. The gender gap was just 0.8 points, with boys scoring lower than girls".(2007, p.6)

A summary of Strand's work (Strand, 2008a) shows that

"White British working class pupils (both boys and girls) and Black Caribbean boys were the lowest performing groups at age 16 and made the least progress during secondary school. In particular White British working class pupils show a marked decline in attainment in the last two years of secondary school. Pupils from most minority ethnic groups made good progress during secondary school and showed greater resilience to deprivation relative to their deprived White British peers".

With respect to non-working class school students, Strand (2008a) notes that 'Black Caribbean and Black African pupils from more advantaged homes underachieved in relation to their White British peers'.

To turn to BME groups who are not Black Caribbean or Black African, with specific respect to the education of South Asians in Birmingham, England, Abbas (2007) carried out a theoretical and empirical study of the ways in which different South Asian groups, Bangladeshi, Indian, and Pakistani, achieve entry into the selective education system - that is, entry to either the paid for/privately purchased private school places, or entry to the (free) grammar schools.

His findings are that certain working-class South Asian parents possess strong middle-class attitudes towards selective education, irrespective of their ability to facilitate it as a function of their financial, cultural, or social capital. Middle-class South Asians were not only highly motivated but also possessed the economic, social and cultural capital to ensure successful selective school entry.

To conclude this section, Abbas' conclusion, like those of the studies above, is that, "in general, social class status was the strongest factor in the likelihood of gaining entry into selective schools".(Abbas, 2007, p.75).(6) Abbas, while asserting the salience of social class factors in educational attainment, also, like Dehal and like Gillborn and Mirza above, draws attention to what he sees as culturally specific attitudes to education.

PART 3: THREE CRITIQUES OF MARXIST ANALYSIS: REVISIONIST SOCIALIST/; GENDER/'RACE'/CLASS PARALLELISM; CRITICAL RACE THEORY; CASTE ANALYSIS

Marxist analysis, crucially concerning the objective salience of social class, (objective as contrasted with subjective consciousness/awareness of social class) is of course, contested, particularly in the USA not only on the right but also by radical (denoted as 'left liberal' or 'revisionist socialist' by Kelsh and Hill, 2006) scholars such as Michael W. Apple. It is also contested by Critical Race Theorists (and, indeed, by others/other theories which see 'race' oppression as the salient structural and policy form of oppression (such as Paul , 2001). It is also contested by those in India who prioritise caste analysis and caste suffering/oppression and caste politics as the fundamental form of oppression.

I now wish to address these three types of non-Marxist, indeed, in essence, anti-Marxist analyses and theories.

The first, Critical Race Theory sees 'race' as the fundamental form of social, economic political oppression.(7)

The second perspective asserts either a parallelist or tryptarchic analysis of 'race', social class and gender oppression (Apple's broad view, and that of many others in the USA, such as Lois Weiss).(8)

The third contestation of Marxist analysis is caste analysis, predominantly in India, but throughout the Indian, Pakistani and Nepali diasporas. (9)

Critical Race Theory

Critical Race Theory, imported from radical analysis in the USA, is propounded in the UK primarily by David Gillborn and by John Preston and Namita Chakrabarty. To repeat, there is full agreement with Gillborn (and great appreciation of his substantial corpus of work over a twenty year period) on the ubiquity of racism, the salience of 'race' as the ever-present, or most present, subjective feelings and consciousness among most in BME (Black and Minority Ethnic) groups in Britain (people of color, in the USA) concerning their daily awareness of personal and institutional discrimination and oppression. His latest book, Racism and Education: Coincidence or Conspiracy? (2008) extends this to education policy, showing the racist nature and effects of New Labour government education policy in England and Wales, in particular regarding assessment and exclusion from schools. But the pre-eminent focus of this book, and his recent articles setting out Critical Race Theory, is the pre-eminence of 'race' rather than social class as a form of structural oppression. Accompanying it is an (little developed) attack on class analysis.

Gillborn (2008) is right about underachievement by Blacks (Black Caribbean and Black African school students) in England and Wales. However, to repeat the points made above in relation to Dehal's data and analysis, most of this underachievement is related to class location - Black Caribbeans are, with Bangladeshis, Pakistanis and Traveller/Roma, the most heavily working class of any ethnic group. When class location - as measured by those claiming and in receipt of Free School Meal (FSM) - is accounted, the all minority ethnic groups other than Gypsy Roma/travellers perform better than whites.

Regarding more privileged groups in society, Strand (2008b) points out that (at age 16)  "White British pupils from high SEC" (Socio-Economic Class) "homes are one of the highest attaining ethnic groups, while White British pupils living in disadvantaged circumstances are the lowest attaining group" (p. 2). Gillborn (e.g. pp 54-56), too, draws attention to this, showing that with regard to non-FSM students (for example at age 16 in their national GCSE assessments) that white students perform better than (most) other ethnic groups.    

To repeat, and, as shown by the final Dehal table above, the poor white working class (as measured by FSM - being in receipt of free school meals, performs less well than the working class of nearly all other ethnic groups. Most BME groups do better than whites, once allowance has been made/controlled for class location as measured by FSM.

It seems that Gillborn's own statistics (in Gillborn and Mirza, 2000) and other empirical data I present or refer to in this paper (see also Independent Working Class Association, 2005) lend compelling support to a Marxist critique of 'race' salience theories in general (such as, currently, Critical Race Theory) offered, for example, by Cole, Maisuria, Miles and Sivanandan, and the Institute of Race Relations that he founded, in Britain (10), and in the USA by the Red Critique journal, for example, Young, 2006. In his work on Critical Race Theory, Gillborn in most cases ignores and in other cases belittles the class dimension, a class dimension that, ironically, his own statistics of 2000 (Gillborn and Mirza, 2000) draw attention to.

Gillborn (in his chapter 3, 2008, p.45) does refer to the relative importance of and intersections between, inequalities based on 'race', class and gender. He does, as have I, following Strand and Dehal's (Dehal, 2006; Strand, 2007, 2008a, b) above, note that "economic background is not equally important for all students". On p.46 he criticises an "exclusive focus on class".  On p.69 Gillborn notes that "the data certainly confirms that social class background is associated with gross inequalities of achievement at the extremes of the class spectrum." He repeats: "However, class does not appear to be equally significant for all groups". He than adds, importantly for his argument (i.e., an argument that seeks to avoid concentrating on data concerning the poorest strata in society), "the growing emphasis on FSM students projects a view of failing Whites that ignores 5 out of 6 students who do not receive FSM".

But contemporary and recent Marxist work, including my own work, does not have an exclusive focus on class. As this article, I hope makes clear, we adhere to a notion of 'raced' and gendered class, in which some (but not all) minority ethnic groups are racialised or xeno-racialised (explained below) and suffer a 'race penalty' in, for example, teacher labelling and expectation, treatment by agencies of the state, such as the police, housing, judiciary, health services and in employment. Gillborn gives specific recognition to the analysis that social class is 'raced' and gendered (e.g. p. 46), but gives relatively little - in fact very substantially less - explicit (other than implicit) recognition that 'race' is classed (and gendered). While his work is not silent on social class disadvantage and social class based oppression in, his treatment of social class analysis is dismissive and his treatment of social class underachievement in education and society, extraordinarily subdued.  

The Marxist Concept of Racialisation

A number of critiques of CRT appear very convincing. These critiques and their concepts draw attention to CRTS's empirical, theoretical and political failings. These critiques (in Britain) include: Miles' thesis of racialisation (Miles, 1987, 1989, 1993), Sivanandan's theory of xeno-racism (2001, and, in Fekete, 2001), Cole's thesis of xeno-racialisation (e.g. Cole 2008a, b, 2009), and Cole's critique of dangers of aspects of Critical Whiteness Studies (Cole, 2008a, p.124; Cole, 2008b, 2009).

Cole (2007, p.124) continues his discussion of racialisation, referring to Miles (1987, p. 75), (Miles) "makes it clear that, like racism, racialization is not limited to skin colour: the characteristics signified vary historically and, although there have usually been visible somatic features, other non-visible (alleged and real) biological features have also been identified". Cole (2007, p.124) adds to Miles 'cultural' to 'biological' (features) and includes culturally specific appurtanences, for example recognizing that "people are sometimes racialised on grounds of clothing (e.g. the hijab)".

Cole (2004a, b, also see Cole 2006, 2007a, b, 2008a, b, 2009) has introduced the concept of xenoracialization (developing on from Sivanandan's discussion of xenoracism) to describe the process whereby refugees, economic migrants and asylum-seekers (often white) become racialized. Sivanandan defines xenoracism as follows:

"It is a racism that is not just directed at those with darker skins, from the former colonial territories, but at the newer categories of the displaced, the dispossessed and the uprooted ... It is a racism, that is, that cannot be colour-coded, directed as it is at poor whites as well, and is therefore passed off as xenophobia, a 'natural' fear of strangers. But in the way it denigrates and reifies people before segregating and/or expelling them, it is a xenophobia that bears all the marks of the old racism. It is racism in substance, but 'xeno' in form. It is a racism that is meted out to impoverished strangers even if they are white. It is xeno-racism" (Sivanandan, 2001; also cited in Fekete, 2001 p. 26).

Critical Race Theory and White Supremacy

One of two major tenets of CRT that Cole (2008a, b, 2009; see also Cole and Maisuria (2007, 2009)) critically examine is CRT's "idea that the concept of white supremacy better expresses oppression in contemporary societies based on 'race' than does the concept of racism".  Cole and Maisuria (and Cole) argue that Critical Race Theory "homogenises all white people together in positions of class power and privilege, which, of course, is factually incorrect, both with respect to social class inequality in general, and, as will be shown in later in this paper, with reference to xenoracialization". Cole and Maisuria (2007) continue, "it is certainly not white people as a whole who are in this hegemonic position, nor white people as a whole who benefit from current education policy, or any other legislation. Indeed the white working class, as part of the working class in general, consistently fares badly in the education system".

Cole (2008a) notes that, in focusing on issues of color and being divorced from matters related to capitalist requirements with respect to the labour market, CRT is ill--equipped to analyse the discourse of xenoracism and processes of xenoracialization.

McGary (1999:91) points out that "Black people have been used in ways that white people have not. Young's (2001) comment (with which I and Cole and Maisuria would concur) is that McGary's observation may be true, but it does not mean that whites have not also been "used". Young continues, "yes, whites may be "used" differently, but they are still "used" because that is the logic of exploitative regimes—people are "used", that is to say, their labor is commodified and exchanged for profit".

Young continues, in his critique of McGary, that such a view

"disconnects black alienation from other social relations; hence, it ultimately reifies race, and, in doing so, suppresses materialist inquiries into the class logic of race. That is to say, the meaning of race is not to be found within its own internal dynamics but rather in dialectical relation to and as an ideological justification of the exploitative wage-labor economy".

Critical Race Theory, and other similar theories of 'race' salience, such as (Molefi Kete Asante, and of Paul Gilroy (2001), critiqued in Young, 2006) are understandable, as Leonardo (2004) notes, in the USA, as a salient subjective lens and understanding/analysis of felt (and indeed, of course, actual and widespread) oppression. As Leonardo (2004), Young (2006), Cole and Maisuria (2007) and Cole (2008b) note, Critical Race Theory, just as earlier theories such as that of Fanon and Negritude, do draw into the limelight, do expose and represent black experience, humiliation, oppression, racism. But they collude, just as much as race equivalence theorists such as Michael W. Apple, in super-elevating subjective consciousness of one aspect of identity and thereby occluding the ('raced' and gendered) class essential nature of capitalism and the labour-capital relation. As such it seeks social democratic reformism, the winning of equal rights and opportunities- within a capitalist (albeit reformed) economy and society. As Young (2006) puts it,

"unlike many commentators who engage race matters, I do not isolate these social sites and view race as a local problem, which would lead to reformist measures along the lines of either legal reform or a cultural-ideological battle to win the hearts and minds of people and thus keep the existing socio-economic arrangements intact…. the eradication of race oppression also requires a totalizing political project: the transformation of existing capitalism—a system which produces difference (the racial/gender division of labor) and accompanying ideological narratives that justify the resulting social inequality. Hence, my project articulates a transformative theory of race—a theory that reclaims revolutionary class politics in the interests of contributing toward a post-racist society".

Critical Race Theory seems analytically flawed, to be based on the category error of assigning 'race' as the primary form of oppression in capitalist society, and to be substantially situationally specific to the USA, with its horrific experience and legacy of slavery. It also seems to me to be a form of left radical United States imperialist hegemonising, that is, of USA based academics projecting on to other countries those experiences and analyses and policy perspectives that derive most specifically from the USA experience of slavery and its contemporary effects. While taking full cognizance of the existence and horrors of racism in, for example, Britain and Europe in general, such an analysis would appear to have less significance and applicability in, for example, Western and Eastern Europe, or, for example, India, Pakistan and Nepal.

The Equivalence or Parallelist Theory of 'Race' Class and Gender

Many of the points I make above in Critical Race Theory seem to me to be of equal value in relation to 'Equivalence' or 'Parallelist' theory (e.g. of Michael W. Apple).  Apple criticises class analysts for ignoring 'race', gender and sexuality. He suggests that we need a much more nuanced and complex picture of class relations and class projects to understand what is happening in relation to 'racial dynamics' as well as those involving gender (11). Like Leonardo (2004) he sees shortcomings in classical Marxist analysis of class, 'race', gender. Leonardo sees strengths in both class analysis with its emphasis on objective analysis, and CRT (and, presumably, other theories and analyses that prioritise 'race' experience and awareness and oppression). Apple doesn't.  

Apple's accusation is that Classical Marxists 'privilege' class and marginalise 'race', gender and sexuality. But the concept of class, the existence of class, the awareness of class, is itself sometimes buried beneath, hidden by, suffocated, displaced, in the recent (though not the early) work of Michael W. Apple.

As Kelsh and Hill (2006) critique,  

"What is masked from workers, because the capitalist class and its agents work to augment ideology in place of knowledge, is that some workers are poor not because other workers are wealthy, but because the capitalist class exploits all workers, and then divides and hierarchizes them, according capitalist class needs for extracting ever more surplus value (profit)".

Kelsh and Hill argue that "the Marxist concept of class, because it connects inequitable social relations and explains them as both connected and rooted in the social relations of production, enables class consciousness and the knowledges necessary to replace capitalism with socialism". They continue, "the Marxist concept of class, however, has been emptied of its explanatory power by theorists in the field of education as elsewhere who have converted it into a term that simply describes, and cannot explain the root causes of, strata of the population and the inequities among them".

The African—American scholar of the 1940s, Oliver Cromwell Cox argued that  "making sense of the meaning of race and the character of race relations in American life requires an understanding of the dynamics of capitalism as a social system and its specific history in this country" (Reed, 2001). Cox's main book, Caste, Class, and Race (1948, reprinted in 2001) argued against the "caste school of race relations". He did this on the grounds that "it abstracted racial stratification in the United States from its origins and foundation in the evolution of American capitalism". He criticized those who compared racial stratification in the USA with the caste system in India for treating "racial hierarchy as if it were a timeless, natural form of social organization". As Reed (2001) notes, "the caste approach to the study of American race relations has not been in vogue for several decades; other equally misleading metaphors have long since supplanted it".

As Reed (2001) further elaborates,

"Cox's critique of the caste school was linked to his broader view of the inadequacy and wrong-headedness of attitudinal or other idealist approaches to the discussion of racial inequality. He emphatically rejected primordialist notions of racial antipathy or ethnocentrism as explanations of racial stratification. He insisted that racism and race prejudice emerged from the class dynamics of capitalism and its colonial and imperial programs..., race was most fundamentally an artifact of capitalist labor dynamics, a relation that originated in slavery. "Sometimes, probably because of its very obviousness," he observed, "it is not realized that the slave trade was simply a way of recruiting labor for the purpose of exploiting the great natural resources of America." This perspective led to one of Cox's most interesting and provocative insights, that "racial exploitation is merely one aspect of the problem of the proletarianization of labor, regardless of the color of the laborer. Hence racial antagonism is essentially political-class conflict." We should not make too much of the adverbs "simply" and "merely." Seeing race as a category that emerges from capitalist labor relations does not necessarily deny or minimize the importance of racial oppression and injustice or the need to fight against racism directly.

"Cox did not dismiss racism among working-class whites. He argued that "the observed overt competitive antagonism is produced and carefully maintained by the exploiters of both the poor whites and the Negroes." He recognized that elite whites defined the matrix within which non-elite whites crafted their political agency, and he emphasized the ruling-class foundations of racism as part of his critique of the liberal scholars of race relations who theorized race relations without regard to capitalist political economy and class dynamics". (Reed, 2001)

More recently Young (2006) has also criticised scholars who theorise race relations without regard to capitalist political economy and class dynamics, arguing "social alienation is an historical effect and its explanation does not reside in the experience itself; therefore, it needs explanation and such an explanation emerges from the transpersonal space of concepts".

And, Young criticizes views such as that of McGary (1999) that "it is possible for African-Americans to combat or overcome... alienation... without overthrowing capitalism". Young criticizes this as a 'pro-capitalist' position: Here, we see the ideological connection between the superstructure (philosophy) and the base (capitalism). Philosophy provides ideological support for capitalism, and, in this instance, we can also see how philosophy carries out class politics at the level of theory (Althusser, 1971, p.18). (12). Similar criticism, of pro-capitalism (albeit of a radical reformist, social democratic variety), of failing to locate racism within the labour-capital relation, within capitalist political economy and class dynamics, can be leveled at the work of Michael W. Apple. (13)

Caste Analysis

I would wish to advance a similar critique of the hegemony and the caste system in India, and among Indian-heritage people in Britain. There is no denying the material reality and form, the murderous and tragic consequences of the caste system currently and historically, primarily for Dalits, the Untouchables, who are regarded as impure by higher caste Brahmins and others. Whole libraries have been written on caste oppression, lakes of tears have been shed and blood flown. (14)

In the British context, particularly worth noting is, Borbas, Haslam and Sampla's 2006 report for the Dalit Solidarity Network, No Escape: Caste Discrimination in the UK. This draws similar attention to caste discrimination that exists in the Indian Diaspora, with over 300 million people worldwide suffering from caste-based discrimination and caste-like practices linked to untouchability (p.4). Their report on caste discrimination in England, with an estimated 50,000 Dalits, gives evidence of in job discrimination against Dalits and lower castes (for example with higher castes rejecting or resenting taking orders from, being managed by Dalits or lower caste Indians, and with the different castes and the Dalits all having different temples/gurudwaras/places of worship. In addition, inter-caste marriages are unusual. The authors (p.7) note that "the rules of endogamy (marrying within the caste group) are still strictly followed".

When I raise the issue of caste discrimination in Britain or India, I often get the retort, "caste is a pre-capitalist social formation". And so it is, but caste lives today, in capitalism, with the emergence of economic elites, a capitalist class and class stratification in the Scheduled Castes, The Backward Castes, the Backward Tribes, and the Dalits. (15)

Indeed, it is these elites who benefit disproportionately from caste based access to education. This is played out with the quota system for entry to universities. A quota of places is reserved for various groups within higher education and also within state employment. This is termed 'reservation' in India and is protected/enforced as part of the Indian constitution.

Capitalism has benefited from this caste politics/policy/legislation. Social class and the idea of class conflict have been put on backburner in India. Economic and social justice are no longer the justice achieved through class struggle but rather through the government reforms for certain castes. Kumar (2008a) notes that "such measures have been continuing for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for decades and it came for the Backward Castes (BCs) in jobs with Mandal Commission (with the National Front Government during 1989) and in Higher education institutions with the government passing a law and Supreme Court upholding it".

There is no denying that caste repression has been there in Indian society throughout (and, of course, before) capitalism in India. However its 'social' content and 'economic' content have often been seen in disjunction, which leads to flawed analysis. Rather than struggling specifically for 'caste rights', the rights of Dalits and of Scheduled Castes, a Marxist approach and analysis is that the political struggle should be for Dalit rights or poor Backward Caste rights by virtue, not of their caste position, but by virtue of their social class position, as landless workers or as (part of a multi-caste) working class (Kumar, 2008a, d).

Emphasis on the 'social', the subjective identity of caste, just as, with the pre-eminence accorded by some writers to the subjective identity of 'race' in the USA, for example, is perpetuated through the ideological apparatuses used by the dominant and entrenched hegemonic interests to perpetuate the economic (and resultant social) inequalities that exists.

A class divided by caste, or divided by 'race' - whether such divisions are inflamed by 'saffron fascists' in India or by racists in the USA (or Britain), or whether they are perpetuated by reformist 'reservation'/huge scale quota systems (valuable though, in part they might be), serve to divide and perpetuate capitalist class rule. 'The workers united, will never be defeated', a phrase thundered out of a million voices on demonstrations and struggles in countries such as France, Portugal, Spain, Britain at various times, is a phrase and concept and organizational aim understood well by those opposed to the development of working class consciousness.

As Ravi Kumar (2008c) notes,

"And now because of the host of measures/reforms a elite has emerged within the Dalits as well as the BCs (as indicated starkly in North India by political formations led by Mayawati in Uttar Pradesh, Mulayam Singh Yadav in Uttar Pradesh and Laloo Prasad Yadav in Bihar). They are now very much part of the plan of capitalist expansion. Nobody is talking about land reforms, minimum wages, gender equality (in fact the Women's Reservation Bill has been stuck in Parliament for ages because of objections made by the Backward Caste lobby), unemployment and growing disparity. And their support as well as close relationship with big industrial houses shows how much they care for the uplifting of even their own caste-people, people from the same caste".

Ashwani Kumar (2008) gives the example from Rajasthan: "there are many lower caste people who have economically reached the upper class but do not want to give up the benefits associated with having a Scheduled Caste or Tribe certificate", and he cites the case of the Meena tribe, many of whose members are top government officials, but whose offspring continue to reap the benefits of 'reservation'. Similarly, Ravi Kumar 2008c (chapter 9) analyses the enormous inequity within the jatis (sub-castes) with an elite emerging among them which manipulates the caste identity and consolidates it for its own gains, as part of the class stratification of castes.

Ravi Kumar (2008b) notes that in India "[T]he discourse on caste as located within the realm of capitalism is almost negligible" and that "[O]ne of the much frequently visited debates in Indian context has been that of non-significance of 'class' and significance of 'caste' as the most significant category of social division or form of social relation". Kumar (2008b, developed in depth in Kumar 2008c) suggests that

"The emergence of elite among all castes (which could very well be identified with parallel class positions), especially among the so-called Backward Castes and Dalits (literally meaning 'oppressed'), has shown how capital uses the existing identities to sustain and expand itself. The direction in which Dalit politics has moved recently has been that of co-optation into the larger system of capitalism. In terms of 'inclusion' of hitherto unrepresented social categories into the dominant forms of capital accumulation it can be said that there has been a democratisation of opportunities to access the realm of competition" (italics in the original).

As Brosio (2008) notes, such co-option weakens the anti-capitalist struggle. To repeat, there is no denying the material reality, the daily living conditions, the deaths, arising from caste discrimination in India, or, indeed, from the 2008 ethnic strife/cleansing in Kenya, or the ethnocratic Zionist oppression and landgrabbing of Israeli Arab and Palestinian Arab land. Non-class ideologies can and do assume material reality, sometimes with lethal force. However, below, I advance a Marxist analysis of these ethnic, caste, and other forms of oppression.

PART 4.  MARXIST ANALYSIS OF CLASS, 'RACE', CASTE AND GENDER

Neoliberalism and Neoconservatism

Neoliberal capitalist policies of marketisation, commodification, and privatisation of public services, together with fiscal and other policy changes, comprise an intensification of 'class war from above' (Harvey, 2005) by the capitalist class against the working class. It is worth noting that 'class war from above' is a permanent feature of the labour-capital relation, more observable during crises of capital accumulation/major threats to the rate of profit, less observable during periods of class compromise, of 'truce', but permanent, nevertheless.  

These neo-liberal policy changes in the education sector result, inter alia, in (1) widening social class educational inequalities, for example in wealth, income and educational attainment; (2) attacks on the key working class organisations, such as trade unions; and (3) worsening pay and conditions of education workers. These can be seen as three "fronts" in the current class war from above. (16)

The introduction and extension of neoliberal social policies in Britain, the USA after the New Right reactionary movements of the 1980s, and more globally (notably in Chile under Pinochet, elsewhere in Latin America under an assortment of generals and "big business" control) offers fertile ground for Marxist analysis since economic inequality and class division has sharpened markedly, within countries and internationally. (17)

Social Class and Marxist Critique of Identitarian Politics

Young (2006) notes that in terms of race, an Althusserian account is presented in Stuart Hall's 1980 article, 'Race, Articulation, and Societies Structured in Dominance':

"by the 1990s, Hall shifts to a semiotic notion of race, and sees race as a "floating signifier". In many ways, Hall's intellectual trajectory on race mirrors the larger shift from the "material" to the "semiotic" in social theory" (from Young, 2006).

In Hill (2001, 2005a), in a similar associated critique of Hall's 'New Times' analysis, I also trace the Stuart Hall's (and other post-Marxist and postmodernist) progression from materialist analyses to semiotic/culturalist analyses) (Hill, 2001, 2005a). So does Jenny Bourne, in her discussion of the rise of cultural studies, the 'Hokum of New Times', and her critique of Hall over his post-Marxist position on 'race', 'identity' and difference. She writes,

"The politics of identity and difference were now being clearly used to justify the break with class politics and, indeed, with the concept of Left politics altogether." (idem)

"The 'personal is the political' also helped to shift the center of gravity of struggle from the community and society to the individual. 'What has to be done?' was replaced by 'who am I?' as the blacks, feminists and gays, previously part of the pressure groups in Left parties or in social movements campaigning for rights, turned to Identity Politics. Articulating one's identity changed from being a path to political action to being the political action itself" (2002:200).

Bourne, continues,

"Sivanandan critiques postmodernism not so much in terms of the inward-looking self-referencing type of debate, beloved of academics, as in terms of the danger it spells to anti-racist practice. First, he takes issue with those intellectuals who, at a time when racism against the black working class is getting worse, 'have retreated into culturalism and ethnicity or, worse, fled into discourse and deconstruction and representation - as though to interpret the world is more important than to change it, as though changing the interpretation is all we could do to change the world'."

And in an acerbic aside Sivanandan adds: "Marxists interpret the world in order to change it, postmodernists change the interpretation." (cited in Bourne, 2002, p.203)

Class is absolutely central to Marxist ontology and epistemology. Ultimately, it is economically induced and it conditions and permeates all social reality in capitalist systems. Marxists therefore critique postmodern and post-structural arguments that class is, or ever can be, "constructed extra-economically," or equally that it can be "deconstructed politically" - an epistemic position which has underwritten in the previous two decades numerous so-called "death of class" theories—arguably the most significant of which are Laclau & Mouffe (1985) and Laclau (1996).

I am not arguing against the complexities of subjective identities. People have different subjectivities. Some individual coalminers in Britain were gay, black, Betty Page or Madonna fetishists, heavily influenced by Biggles or Punk, their male gym teacher or their female History teacher, by Robert Tressell or by Daily Porn masturbation, by Radical Socialists or by Fascist ideology. But the coal mining industry has virtually ceased to exist in Britain, and the police occupation of mining villages such as Orgreave during the Great Coalminers' Strike (in Britain) of 1984-85 and the privatisation of British Coal and virtual wiping out of the Coalmining industry was motivated by class warfare of the ruling Capitalist fraction. It was class warfare from above. Whatever individuals in mining families like to do in bed, their dreams, and in their transmutation of television images, they suffered because of their particular class fraction position - they were miners - and historically the political shock troops of the British manual working class.

Postmodernism's rejection of metanarratives can be seen as symptomatic of the theoretical inability to construct a mass solidaristic oppositional transformatory political project, and that it is based on the refusal to recognise the validity or existence of solidaristic social class. More importantly, this general theoretical shortcoming is politically disabling because the effect of eschewing mass solidaristic policy is, in effect, supporting a reactionary status quo. Both as an analysis and as a vision, post-modernism has its dangers - but more so as a vision. It fragments and denies economic, social, political and cultural relations. In particular, it rejects the solidaristic metanarratives of neo-Marxism and socialism. It thereby serves to disempower the oppressed and to uphold the hegemonic Radical Right in their privileging of individualism and in their stress on patterns and relations of consumption as opposed to relations of production. Postmodernism analysis, in effect if not in intention, justifies ideologically the current Radical Right economic, political and educational project.

Marxism and Class

At this point it might be useful to discuss briefly, Marxist analysis of social class. There are significant issues concerning intra-class differentiation and about class consciousness. It is important to recognize that class, for Marx, is neither simply monolithic nor static. Marx conceived of classes as internally differentiated entities. Under capitalist economic laws of motion, the working class in particular is constantly decomposed and reconstituted due to changes in the forces of production— forces of which members of the working class are themselves a part.(6) Furthermore, Marx had taken great pains to stress that social class as distinct from economic class necessarily includes a political dimension, which is in the broadest sense of the term 'culturally' rather than 'economically' determined.

And, class-consciousness does not follow automatically or inevitably from the fact of class position. The Poverty of Philosophy [1847] distinguishes between a 'class-in-itself' (class position) and a 'class-for itself' (class-consciousness);The Communist Manifesto [1848] explicitly identifies the "formation of the proletariat into a class" as the key political task facing the communists. In The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon [1852] Marx observes,

"In so far as millions of families live under economic conditions of existence that divide their mode of life, their interests and their cultural formation from those of the other classes and bring them into conflict with those classes, they form a class. In so far as these small peasant proprietors are merely connected on a local basis, and the identity of their interests fails to produce a feeling of community, national links, or a political organisation, they do not form a class". (Marx, 1999 [1852])

Thus social class exists in a contingent rather than a necessary relation to economic class. The process (and conceptual category) which links economic and social class is that of 'class consciousness'. This is arguably the most contentious and problematic term in the debate over class.

Marxism, Class and Capitalist Education and Economy

Classical Marxian scholarship with respect to education theorises the relationship between education and the inequality in society as an inevitable feature of capitalist society/economy. Glenn Rikowski, focuses on the relationship between social class and the process of capitalization of education (e.g. Rikowski, 2005) in the USA and UK, where neo-liberal drivers are working to condition the education sector more tightly to the needs of capital. A global study I carried out in 2005 for the International Labour Organisation (Hill, 2005b; Hill et al, 2006) shows clearly the similarity of these drivers, the similarity of policy developments, and the similarity of impacts across many countries. Empirical evidence (e.g. Greaves, Hill, Maisuria, 2006; Hill, Greaves and Maisuria, 2008) shows how capital accumulation is the principal objective of national and international government policy, and of global capitalist organizations, 'capitalist clubs', such as the World Trade Organization.

To repeat from above the key ontological claim of Marxist education theorists is that education serves to complement, regiment and replicate the dominant-subordinate nature of class relations upon which capitalism depends, the labor-capital relation. Education services the capitalist economy, though this servicing is not unproblematic or uncontested. Education (schools, universities) help reproduce the necessary social, political, ideological and economic conditions for capitalism, and therefore, helps reflect and reproduce the organic inequalities of capitalism originating in the relations of production.

But education is also a site of cultural contestation and resistance, a key site of 'the culture wars' between neo-conservative and neoliberal, liberal, social democratic and socialist visions of and articulations of culture, correctness and common-sense.

Education reflects and supports and reproduces the social inequalities of capitalist culture.  The "education industry" is a significant state apparatus (Althusser, 1971) in the reproduction and replication of the capitalist social form necessary for the continuation of "surplus value" extraction and economic inequality. Hence, Marxists argue that there are material linkages between educational inequality, exploitation and capitalist inequalities in general.

In contrast to both Critical Race Theorists and revisionist socialists/left liberals/equivalence theorists, and those who see caste as the primary form of oppression, Marxists would agree that objectively, whatever our 'race' or gender or sexuality or current level of academic attainment, or religious identity, whatever the individual and group history and fear of oppression and attack, the fundamental objective and material form of oppression in capitalism is class oppression.

Black and Women capitalists, or Jewish and Arab capitalists, or Dalit capitalists in India, exploit the labour power of their multi-ethnic, men and women workers, essentially (in terms of the exploitation of labour power and the appropriation of surplus value) in just the same way as do white male capitalists, or upper caste capitalists. But thesubjective consciousness of identity, while seared into the souls of its victims, this subjective affirmation of one particular subjective identity, should not mask the objective nature of contemporary oppression under capitalism- class oppression that, of course, hits some 'raced' and gendered and caste and occupational sections of the working class harder than others.

Martha Gimenez (2001:24) succinctly explains that 'class is not simply another ideology legitimating oppression.' Rather, class denotes 'exploitative relations between people mediated by their relations to the means of production.' Apple's 'parallellist', or equivalence model of exploitation (equivalence of exploitation based on 'race', class and gender, his 'tryptarchic' model of inequality) produces valuable data and insights into aspects of and the extent and manifestations of gender oppression and 'race' oppression in capitalist USA. However, such analyses serve to occlude the class-capital relation, the class struggle, to obscure an essential and defining nature of capitalism, class conflict.

Objectively, whatever our 'race' or gender or caste or sexual orientation or scholastic attainment, whatever the individual and group history and fear of oppression and attack, the fundamental form of oppression in capitalism is class oppression. While the capitalist class is predominantly white and male, capital in theory and in practice can be blind to colour and gender and caste - even if that does not happen very often. African Marxist-Leninists such as Ngugi Ngugi Wa Thiong'o, (e.g Ngugi wa Thiong'o and Ngugi wa Mirii, 1985) know very well that when the white colonialist oppressors were ejected from direct rule over African states in the 1950s and 60s, that the white bourgeoisie in some African states such as Kenya was replaced by a black bourgeoisie, acting in concert with transnational capital and/or capital(ists) of the former colonial power. Similarly in India, capitalism is no longer

As Bellamy observes, the diminution of class analysis 'denies immanent critique of any critical bite', effectively disarming a meaningful opposition to the capitalist thesis. (Bellamy, 1997:25). And as Harvey notes,

"neoliberal rhetoric, with its foundational emphasis upon individual freedoms, has the power to split off libertarianism, identity politics, multiculturalism, and eventually narcissistic consumerism from the social forces ranged in pursuit of justice through the conquest of state power".(Harvey, 2005:41).

To return to the broader relationship between 'race', gender and social class, and to turn to the USA, are there many who would deny that Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell have more in common with the Bushes and the rest of the Unites States capitalist class, be it white, black or Latina/o, than they do with the workers whose individual ownership of wealth and power is an infinitesimal fraction of those individual members of the ruling and capitalist class.

The various oppressions, of caste, gender, 'race', religion, for example, are functional in dividing the working class and securing the reproduction of capital; constructing social conflict between men and women, or black and white, or different castes, or tribes, or religious groups, or skilled and unskilled, thereby tending to dissolve the conflict between capital and labor, thus occluding the class-capital relation, the class struggle, and to obscure the essential and defining nature of capitalism, the labor-capital relation and its attendant class conflict.  

Class is clearly not the only form of oppression in contemporary society. People get demeaned, discriminated against, labeled, attacked, raped, murdered and massacred because of a variety of presenting characteristics and identities, such as gender, race, caste, sexuality, religion. And because of the weight of history. As Marx (1852/1969) notes,

"Men (sic) make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living".

Non-reductionist class analysis

I now refer to a non-reductionist analysis of the role of ideology, knowledge workers, and the material practices of racism and Dalit discrimination. As Motala and Vally (writing about South Africa, but with global analytical relevance) analyse,

"Simply rejecting these deeply embedded social norms, practices and histories, often developed over many centuries preceding the advent of capitalist accumulation, as "hypocrisy" is disarming and does not provide a basis for understanding them. In other words, the idea that "race" (or other such conceptions and practices) is a social construct does not automatically imply that it has no explanatory value (especially about how power is constituted through racist categories and/or gender to reinforce the structural attributes and impediments of working class lives). The explanatory value of "race" and gender lies in the power to reveal the relationship between these social constructs and class without suggesting that they provide a better explanation of "exploitation"."(2009, n.p) (italics added)

They recognise that,

"Understanding the role of ideology fully and its construction of forms of subjectivity that reinforces class domination are essential. Ideology allows capitalist relations to be concealed, blocked from being grasped conceptually, by the empirico-experiential actuality of racist practices".(idem)

This comment, I might interject, is also relevant to the empirico-experientialist actuality of Caste oppression in India and the Indian diaspora.

Motala and Vally continue,

"And because the empirio-experiential trumps the theoretical, the root cause of inequity is accepted as and ascribed to the empirical - to "race", in this case - rather than to capitalist relations. Ideology is rooted in and impacts on the material and cannot be reduced to falsehood".

Thus the analysis in this paper does not ignore the material reality of 'race' oppression, caste oppression or gender oppression. The analysis I am putting forward is a Marxist argument located within Marxist reproduction theory, the theory that education systems, together with other ideological and repressive state apparatuses, work to reproduce existing patterns of economic, social and political life. While not subscribing to an Althusserian relative autonomy analysis (one developed, inter alias, by Michael W. Apple), this analysis is not an iron chain of command - from capital to government to state apparatuses to effective impact. The analysis offered here, while it will, no doubt be criticised as 'vulgar Marxism' and as deterministic, reductionist and essentialist (for such critiques, see Apple, 2005, 2006), does recognizes developments within neo-Marxist theory, especially state theory, that this cultural, economic and ideological reproduction is mediated and resisted. (See Hill, 2001, 2005a).  However, such an analysis is more deterministic, reductionist and essentialist than those of relative autonomy 'culturalist (neo-) Marxists' and most certainly than postmodernists. But not in terms of the 'vulgar Marxism' attributed by its critics.

Such an analysis sees class as central to the social relations of production and essential for producing and reproducing the cultural and economic activities of humans under a capitalist mode of production. Whereas the abolition of racism and sexism or caste does not guarantee the abolition of capitalist social relations of production, the abolition of class inequalities, or the abolition of class itself, by definition, denotes the abolition of capitalism.  

As Motala and Vally (2009, n.p.) argue,

"the absence of class analysis leads to a debilitating failure to appreciate the deeper characteristics of society; de-links poverty and inequality from the political, economic and social system-capitalism-which underpins them; obscures the class nature of the post-apartheid state; renders ineffective social and educational reforms and denies the importance of class struggle and the agency of working communities in the struggle for social transformation".

PART 5: SOCIAL DEMOCRACY, REFORMS, AND THE TRANSITION TO SOCIALISM

Social democratic reforms, and social democratic, or 'revisionist left' analyses and theorists and the policies related to those theories and class/political mobilisitations/struggle are immensely valuable. Clean water, free schooling, social welfare benefits are, the creating of Welfare States, are, of course, life enhancing/life-changing/life lengthening for billions, in Rich countries like Britain and the USA as well as in developing countries such as India, and are therefore intrinsically valuable. Thus, in India, for example, or in Britain or the USA, a common school system, (known in Britain as a comprehensive school system) -with no private purchase of educational privilege via the existence of private, or semi-private school systems- would, if properly funded, be an immensely valuable, 'welfarist' social reform (18).

And in India, the caste based system of quotas, for entry into universities and into government jobs (termed 'reservation') has indeed been invaluable in millions of individual cases of advancing repressed and poor sections of the people. Ravi Kumar points out that,

"There is a great deal of debate on the issue of reservation in India. The Left has been in forefront of supporting it. However, if one looks at the reservation policy it has, at a certain plane, democratized access of the lower class/caste population to education/jobs".

So that is the value of a social democratic reform. But R. Kumar goes on to look at the class impact of such a policy:

"However, it has also, as an analysis of the past decades demonstrate, led to the emergence of an elite. Reservation demand for the backward castes, for instance, since 1990 has clearly indicated this, as the majority of the BC population remains landless workers, or poor peasantry. The reservations democratize the access but only for those who have reached such a position to access it. For example, when the majority of children are not able to cross Class V in schools. Would reservation in Higher Education mean democracy in access for majority? Rather, it will only increase access for those who could afford to go beyond schools. In other words, those who can afford to purchase education".

Thus, within a social democratic welfarist framework, involving, in various countires, quota/reservation systems, assistance for poor students, other measures of positive discrimination, education continues to play a key role in the perpetuation of the labour-capital relation, of capitalism itself. Referring to social democratic, left-liberal and 'revisionist left' theorists, Kelsh and Hill (2006) explain,

"By "revisionist left", we mean, following Rosa Luxemburg (1899/1970), those theorists who consider themselves to be "left" but who believe there is no alternative to capitalism, and thus do "not expect to see the contradictions of capitalism mature." Their theories consequently aim "to lessen, to attenuate, the capitalist contradictions" - in short, to "adjust" "the antagonism between capital and labor." As Luxemburg explained, the core aim of the revisionist left is the "bettering of the situation of the workers and ...the conservation of the middle classes"."

In contrast, egalitarian, socialist, reforms, affecting the lives, life chances material conditions of, for example South Asian and other school students and communities in Britain, as elsewhere, require an end not only to neoliberal/neoconservative globalising capitalism, but to capitalism itself, and through a localising and globalising of resistance, a transition to a socialist society, economy and polity.

As Marx and Engels (1977a [1847], p. 62) put it:

"The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of the movement".

In this, socialist and Marxist teachers and other cultural workers, community and political activists have a dual role: to act as critical transformative socialist public intellectuals, and to act with others in wider arenas of anti-capitalist struggle.

Dave Hill is Professor of Education Policy at the University of Northampton, UK and is Chief Editor ofJournal for Critical Education Policy Studies.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This is to thank Richard Brosio, Mike Cole, Ashwani Kumar, Ravi Kumar, Alpesh Maisuria, and Radhika Menon for their comments on this chapter. Any inadequacies remain mine.

Notes

1. For Marxist arguments against postmodernism, see Eagleton, 1996; Cole, Hill and Rikowski, 1997; Callinicos, 1989; Cole et al, 2001, Hill et al., 2002; Cole, 2008a.  Elsewhere in this paper I refer to Bourne, 2002.

2. This is not an argument against separate ethnic or religious language/culture/religion schooling for indigenous, migrant groups in schooling/education that is supplementary to, or complementary to a common (or comprehensive) publicly funded, secular state school system with a common core curriculum.  

3. See Miles, 1987, 19898, 1993; Abbass, 2007; Cole, 2008. I am using the Marxist concept of racialisation here. There are others, such as in Murji and Solomos, 2005.

4. Cole, 2004b, 2008a, b, 2009.

5. In Britain 1.8 percent of the population are Indian heritage (more than one million), 1.3% of Pakistani heritage (three quarters of a million, with over half of Pakistanis live in the West Midlands, Yorkshire and the North West), 0.5 percent of Bangladeshi heritage (280,000). London has the highest proportion of minority ethnic communities. Almost 50% of Londoners describe themselves other than white British. (National Statistics, 2001). (See also Commission for Racial Equality, 2007).

6. For ethnographic and empirical and theoretical/analytical work on South Asian minority ethnic groups' identity and educational achievement, see, for example, Runneymede Trust, 2000; Sivanandan, 2001; Abbas, 2004a, b.

7. See Mills, 1987, 1989, 1993, 1997, 2003; Bell, 1992, 2004; Delgado, 1995; Delgado and Stefanic, 2000, 2001; Gillborn, 2005, 20061, b, 2008; Preston, 2007a, b; Chakrabarty and Preston, 2007.

8. See, for example, Apple, 2001, 2005, 2006.

9. For critiques of the effects of caste in India, see Iliah, 2005; Kumar and Kumar, 2005, Murali Krishna, 2007, Quadri and Kumar, 2003. For critiques of caste in Britain, see Borbas et al, 2006.

10. See Sivanandan, 2001; Cole, 2007a, 2007b, 2008a, b, 2009 forthcoming; Cole and Maisuria, 2007, 2009, and with respect to 'race' salience theories-theories analyzing 'race' as the primary form of structural oppression, see Miles 1987, 1989, 1993; and Young, 2001.

11. See, for example, Apple, 2005:392; 2006:116.

12. See the section below on Identity and Identitarian Politics

13. For critiques of Apple's analysis see, in addition to Kelsh and Hill, 2006, Farahmandpur, 2004 and Rikowski, 2006, Hill 2007a; This, my, critique is not an ad hominem critique. Apple has, in a whole series of books, articles and doctoral supervisions over three decades been a powerful figure in critiquing and analyzing capitalist education from a left perspective- a reformist left perspective.

14. The writings in India of, for example, Murali Krishnai (2007), Kancha Ilaiah (2005) regarding Hindu Dalits, and of Quadri and Kumar (2003) on oppression of Muslim Dalits are very powerful testimonies to the oppression of Dalits in India.  

15. Dalits are not a separate caste, but it is considered a politically correct term to be used for the Scheduled Casstes, as it literally means 'repressed'. The Scheduled Castes comprise 16.2% of India's total population, and the Scheduled Tribes comprise 8.2% of the population as per the 2001 census.

16. Hill et al, 2005a, 2007a, c, d.

17. See Dumenil and Levy, 2002; Harvey, 2005; Hill and Kumar, 2008.

18. For some suggestions concerning the development of an eco-socialist education policy, see Hill and Boxley, 2007. See Glenn Rikowski's, 'Marx and the Education of the Future', 2004, where Rikowski, with close reference to Karl Marx's writings on education, outlines the education of the future as anti-capitalist education. In starting out from a conception of communism as the 'real movement which abolishes the present state of things' (Marx), Rikowski argues that the anti-capitalist education of the future consists of three moments: critique, addressing human needs and realms of freedom. He also argues that that all three moments are essential for an anti-capitalist education of the future, but the emphasis on particular moments changes (a movement from moment one to three) as capitalist society and education are left behind through social transformation. In the light of this framework, Rikowski critically examines Marx's views on the relation between labour and education, and his views on education run by the state He concludes with a consideration of two trends that are gaining strength in contemporary education in England: the social production of labour-power and the business takeover of education. These trends, and this analysis, clearly have global resonance.


References

Abbas, T. (2004a) The Rise and Fall of Multiculturalism: Philosophical Considerations. Centre for research on Nationalism, Ethnicity and Multiculturalism. University of Surrey.

Abbass, T. (2004b) The Education of British South Asians: Ethnicity, Capital and Class Structure. London: Palgrave MacMillan.

Abbass, T. (2007) British South Asians and pathways into selective schooling: social class, culture and ethnicity.British Education Research Journal, 33 (1) pp.75-90.

Althusser, L. (1971) Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses: Notes Toward an Investigation . In L. Althusser,Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. New York and London: Monthly Review Press.

Apple, M. W. (1988) Facing the Complexity of Power: For a Parallelist Position in Critical Educational Studies. In M. Cole (ed.) Bowles and Gintis Revisited. Lewes, UK: Falmer Press.

Apple, M. W. (1993) Official knowledge: Democratic education in a conservative age. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Apple, M. W. (1996) Education and cultural politics. New York: Teachers College Press.

Apple, M. W. (1999) Power, meaning, and identity: essays in critical educational studies. New York: Peter Lang.

Apple, M. W. (2001) Educating the "right" way: Markets, standards, God, and inequality. New York and London: Routledge/Falmer.

Apple, M.W.  (2005) Audit cultures, commodification, and class and race strategies in education. Policy Futures in Education, 3 (4), pp. 379-399.

Apple, M. W. (2006) Review Essay: Rhetoric and reality in critical educational studies in the United States. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 27 (5) (November), pp.679-687.

Apple, M. W. and Weiss, L. (1983) Ideology and Practice in Schooling. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Asante, M. (1987) The Afrocentric Idea. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1987.

Bell, D. (1992) Faces at the Bottom of the Well: the permanence of racism. New York: Basic Books

Bell, D. (2004) Silent Covenants: Brown V. Board of Education and the Unfulfilled Hopes for Racial Reform. New York: Oxford University Press

Bellamy, R. (1997) The Intellectual as Social Critic, Antonio Gramsci and Michael Walzer. In A. Kemp-Welsh and J. Jennings (eds.) Intellectuals in Politics: From the Dreyfus Affair to the Rushdie Affair. London: Routledge.

Bhatti, G. (1999) Asian Children at Home and School: an Ethnographic Study. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Borbas, G., Haslam, D. and Sampla, B. (2006) No Escape: Caste Discrimination in the UK. Dalit Solidarity Network UK Report, London: Institute for Race Relations.

Bourne, J. (2002) Racism, Postmodernism and the Flight from Class. In D.Hill, P. McLaren, M. Cole, and G. Rikowski (eds.) Marxism Against Postmodernism in Educational Theory. Lanham, MD.: Lexington Books.

Brosio, R. (1994) A Radical Democratic Critique of Capitalist Education. New York: Peter Lang.

Brosio, R. (2008) Comments on this chapter. Unpublished.
   
Callinicos, A. (1989) Against Postmodernism: a Marxist Critique. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Chakrabarty, N. and Preston, P. (2007) Putnam's pink umbrella? Transgressing melancholic social capital. In H. Helve and J. Bynner (eds.), J (2007) Capitals, Cultures and Identities. London: Tufnell Press.

Cole, M (2004a). 'Brutal and Stinking' and 'difficult to handle': the historical and contemporary manifestations of racialisation, institutional racism, and schooling in Britain. Race, Ethnicity and Education, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 35-56

Cole, M (2004b). F*** you - human sewage: contemporary global capitalism and the xeno-racialization of asylum seekers. Contemporary Politics, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 159-165

Cole, M. (2006). Marxism and Educational Theory: An E-Interview with Mike Cole. Interviewed by Glenn RikowskiInformation for Social Change, 23.

Cole, M. (2007). 'Racism' is about more than colour , Times Higher Education Supplement, 23 November.

Cole, M. (2008a). Marxism and Educational Theory: Origins and Issues. London: Routledge.

Cole, M. (forthcoming) (2008b). Critical race theory comes to the UK: a Marxist response, Ethnicities.

Cole, M. (forthcoming) (2009) Critical Race Theory and Education: a Marxist Response. New York: Palgrave Macmillan

Cole, M. and Maisuria, A. (2007) 'Shut the f*** up', 'you have no rights here': Critical Race Theory and Racialisation in post-7/7 racist Britain . Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 5(1).

Cole, M., Hill, D., McLaren, P. and Rikowski, G. (2001) Red Chalk: On Schooling, Capitalism and Politics . Brighton: Institute for Education Policy Studies.   

Commisssion for Racial Equality (2007). Diversity and Integration. London: CRE.

Cox, O. Cromwell  [1948] (1959) Caste, Class, and Race. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Cox, O. Cromwell [1948] (2000) Race: a Study in Social Dynamics. (50th anniversary edition of Caste, Class and Race). New York: Monthly Review Press.

Dehal, I. (2006) Still Aiming High .

Delgado, R. (1995) The Rodrigo Chronicles: Conversations about America and Race. New York: New York University Press.

Delgado, R. and Stefancic, J. (Eds.). (2000) Critical race theory: The cutting edge. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. (2nd Edition).

Delgado, R. and Stefancic, J. (2001) Critical Race Theory: an Introduction. New York: New York University Press

Demie, F. Lewis, K. and McLean, C. (2007) Raising the Achievement of Somali Pupils: Challenges and School Responses. London: Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit.  

Demie, F. and Tong, R. (2007) Education Statistics. London: Lambeth Research and Statistics Unit.

DfES (2007) National Curriculum assessments, GCSE and equivalent attainment and post-16 attainment by pupil characteristics in England 2005/06 (Revised). SFR04/2007. London: DfES.

Dumenil, G. and Levy, D. (2004) Capital Resurgent: Roots of the Neoliberal Revolution. London: Harvard University Press.

Eaglerton, T. (1996) The Illusions of Postmodernism. Malden: MASS: Blackwell.

Farahmandpur, R. (2004) Essay Review: a Marxist critique of Michael Apple's neo-Marxist approach to education reform , Journal of Critical Education Policy Studies, 2 (1).

Fekete, L (2001) The Emergence of Xeno-racism . Institute of Race Relations.

Gillborn, D. (2005) Education policy as an act of white supremacy; whiteness, critical race theory and education reform. Journal of Education Policy, 20 4, pp.485-505.

Gillborn, D.  (2006a) Critical Race  Theory  and  Education:  Racism  and  Antiracism  in Educational Theory and Praxis,Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 27 (1), pp. 11-32.

Gillborn, D. (2006b) Rethinking white supremacy: who counts in 'WhiteWorld', Ethnicities, 6 (3), pp. 318-340

Gillborn, D. (2008) Racism and Education: Coincidence or Conspiracy? London: Routledge.

Gillborn, D and Mirza, H. (2000) Educational Inequality; Mapping race, class and gender- a synthesis of research evidence. London: Ofsted.

Gilroy, P. (2000) Against Race. Cambridge, Masschusetts: Harvard University Press

Gimenez, M. (2001) Marxism and Class, Gender and Race: Rethinking the trilogy, Race, Gender and Class, 8, 2, pp. 23-33.

Greaves, N. M., Hill, D. and Maisuria, A. (2006) Embourgeoisment, Immiseration, Commodification - Marxism Revisited: a Critique of Education in Capitalist Systems, Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 5 (1).

Hall, S. (1980/1996) Race, Articulation, and Societies Structured in Dominance. In H. A. Baker Jr, M. Diawara and Lindeberg (eds.) Black British Cultural Studies Reader. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996).

Harvey, D. (2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Hill, D. (2001) State theory and the Neo-Liberal reconstruction of schooling and teacher education: a structuralist Neo-Marxist critique of Postmodernist, Quasi-Postmodernist, and Culturalist Neo-Marxist theory. The British Journal of Sociology of Education, 22, (1) pp.137-157.

Hill, D. (2005a) State Theory and the Neoliberal Reconstruction of Schooling and Teacher Education.  In G. Fischman, P. McLaren, H. Sünker and C. Lankshear, (eds.) Critical theories, Radical Pedagogies and Global Conflicts. Boulder, CO, Rowman and Littlefield.

Hill, D. (2005b) Globalisation and its educational discontents: Neoliberalisation and its impacts on education workers' rights, pay, and conditions. International Studies in the Sociology of Education 15 (3) pp.257-288

Hill, D. (2007a). Education, Class and Capital in the Epoch of Neo-liberal Globalisation. In A. Green and G. Rikowski (eds). Marxism and Education: renewing dialogues. Vol. 1, Opening the Dialogue. London: Palgrave Macmillan

Hill, D.. (2007b) Critical Teacher Education, New Labour in Britain, and the Global Project of Neoliberal Capital, Policy Futures, 5 (2).

Hill, D. (2007c). Socialist Educators and Capitalist Education, Socialist Outlook, 13.

Hill, D. (2007d). Education: Their Agenda and Ours, Socialist Resistance, 49, p.9. November.

Hill, D. with Anijar, K., Brown, C., Carroll, E., Davidson-Harden, A., Gabbard, D., Gindin, J., Kuehn, et al (2006) Education Services Liberalization. In E. Rosskam (ed.). Winners or Losers? Liberalizing public services. Geneva: International Labour Organisation.     

Hill, D; McLaren, P., Cole, M., and Rikowski, G. (eds.) (2002) Marxism Against Postmodernism in Educational Theory, Lanham, MD, USA: Lexington Books.

Hill, D., Greaves, N., and Maisuria, A. (2009) Education, Inequality and Neoliberal Capitalism: a Classical Marxist Analysis. In Hill, D. and Kumar, R. (eds.) Global Neoliberalism and Education and its Consequences. New York: Routledge

Hill, D. and Kumar, R. (eds.) (2008) Global Neoliberalism and Education and its Consequences. New York: Routledge.

Ilaiah, K. (2005) Why I am not a Hindu: a Sudra Critique of Hindutva Philosophy, Culture and Political Economy. Calcutta, India: Samya.

Independent Working Class Association 2005. Cheering News to celebrate?
   
Kelsh, D. (2001) (D)evolutionary socialism and the containment of class: For a red theory of class , The Red Critique:  Marxist Theory and Critique of the Contemporary 1(1), 9-13.

Kelsh, D. and Hill, D. (2006) The Culturalization of Class and the Occluding of Class Consciousness: The Knowledge Industry in/of Education. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 4 (1).

Kumar, Ashwani (2008) Personal comments on a draft of this paper following the Canadian Society for the Study of Education Annual Conference, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. May 31- June 3.   

Kumar, Arun and Kumar, Sanjay. (eds.) (2005). Dalit Studies in Higher Education. Delhi: Deshkal Publication.

Kumar, Ravi (2008a) Unpublished comments on a draft of this chapter.

Kumar, Ravi (2008b) State, Class and Critical Framework of Praxis:  The Missing Link of Indian Educational Debates. In Kelsh, D., Hill, D. and Macrine, S. (eds.), Teaching Class: Knowledge, Pedagogy, Subjectivity. Routledge: New York

Kumar, Ravi. (2008c) Dynamics of Identity Formation: Political Economy of Backward Castes in Bihar, PHD Thesis. Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi, India. Unpublished.

Kumar, Ravi (2008d) Against Neoliberal Assault on education in India: a Counternarrative of Resistance. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 6 (1).

Laclau, E. (1996) Deconstruction, Pragmatism, Hegemony, in Mouffe, C. (ed.), Deconstruction and Pragmatism. London: Routledge, pp. 47-67.

Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C. (1985) Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. London: NLB.

Leonardo, Z. (2004). The Unhappy Marriage between Marxism and Race Critique: political economy and the production of racialized knowledge. Policy Futures in Education, 2, 3-4.

Luxemburg, R. (1899/1900/1970)  Reform or revolution.  Rosa Luxemburg speaks.  NY: Pathfinder.

Marx, K. [1852] (1969) The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. In Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works. Moscow: Progress Publishers.

Marx, K. [1867] (1996) Capital, Vol.1 . In Collected Works 5. New York: International publishers.

Marx, K. (1977) Selected Writings. (ed. D. McLellan). (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press).

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1848/1985) The communist manifesto. (New York: Penguin Books).

McLaren, P. and Farahmandpur, R. (2005) Teaching against Global Capitalism and the New Imperialism. Lanham, MD, USA: Rowman and Littlefield.

McLaren, P. and Jaramillo, N. (2007) Pedagogy and Praxis in the Age of Empire. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

McLaren, P. and Rikowski, G. (2006) Critical Pedagogy Reloaded: An Interview with Peter McLaren (interviewed by Glenn Rikowski), Information for Social Change, 23.

Miles, R. (1987) Capitalism and Unfree Labour: Anomaly or Necessity? London: Tavistock

Miles, R. (1989) Racism London: Routledge.

Miles, R. (1993) Racism after 'Race Relations' . London: Routledge.

Mills, C (1997) The Racial Contract. New York: Cornell University Press

Mills, C. (2003) From Class To Race: Essays In White Marxism And Black Radicalism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Motala, E. and Vally, S. (2009) Class, "Race" and State in Post-Apartheid Education. In Kelsh, D., Hill, D. and Macrine, S. (eds.) (2009) Teaching Class: Knowledge, Pedagogy, Subjectivity. London: Routledge

Murali Krishna, M. (2007) Marginalization of Dalits: Role of Oppressive Pedagogic Practices in Indian Schools: A Dalit Perspective, Paper presented to the Deshkal Society International Conference: School Education, Pluralism and Marginality: Comparative Perspectives, 14-16th Dec, 2007, New Delhi.

Murji, K. and Solomos, J. (2005) Racialization: Studies in Theory and Practice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

National Statistics (2001) Census 2001 - Ethnicity and identity .

Ngugi wa Thiong'o and Ngugi wa Mirii (1985). I Will Marry When I Want. London: Heinemann.

Preston, J.  (2007) Whiteness and class in  education. Dordrecht: Springer

Preston, J. (2007) All shades of a wide white world. Times Higher Education, 27 October.

Quadri, S. I. and Kumar, S. (eds.) (2003) Marginalisation of Dalit Muslims in Indian Democracy. Delhi: Deshkal Publication.

Reed, A. (Jnr.) (2001) Race and Class in the Work of Oliver Cromwell Cox. Monthly Review, Feb.

Rikowski, G. (2004)  Marx and the Education of the Future. Policy Futures in Education, 2 (3 and 4), pp. 565-577.

Rikowski, G. (2005) The Education White Paper and the Marketisation and Capitalisation of the Secondary Schools System in England, 24 October. Part I . The Volumizer.

Rikowski, G. (2006) In Retro Glide. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 5 (1).

Runneymede Trust (2000) The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain: The Parekh Report. London:  The Runnymede Trust.

Simpson, L., Purdam, K., Tajar, A., Feildhouse, E., Gavalas, V., Tramer, M., Pritchard, J., and Dorling, D. (2002)Ethnic minority populations and the labour market: an analysis of the 1991 and 2001 Census. London: Department for Work and Pensions.

Sivanandan, A. (2001) Poverty is the New Black, Race and Class, 43 (2), pp. 2-5. Edited version online at Guardian.

Strand, S. (2007) Minority Ethnic Pupils in the Longitudinal Study of Young People in England. DfES Research Report RR-002 . London: Department for Children Families and Schools (DCFS).

Strand, S. (2008a) Minority Ethnic Pupils in the Longitudinal Study of Young People in England . Warwick: Warwick Institute of Education.  

Strand, S. (2008b) Minority Ethnic Pupils in the Longitudinal Study of Young People in England Extension Report on Performance in Public Examinations at Age 16. Research Report DCSF-RR029 . London: Department for Children Families and Schools (DCFS).

Tudor, H. and Tudor, J. .M. (eds.) (1988) Marxism and Social Democracy: The Revisionist Debate, 1896-1898. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Young, R. (2006) Putting materialism back into Race Theory: Towards a Transformative Theory of Race . The Red Critique, 11.

Zavarzadeh, M. (2002) On "Class" and Related Concepts in Classical Marxism, and Why is the Post-Al Left Saying Such Terrible Things About Them, The Alternative Orange, Vol 3.
Quote this article on your site | Print | E-mail

http://radicalnotes.com/content/view/68/39

MARX ON CASTE

Ranganayakamma


Marx did not write a special treatise on 'caste' just as he wrote on 'capitalism' under the title 'Capital'. However, in his writings, he made some observations on the caste system in India and on certain regulations akin to castes in other countries. Through these observations, it is possible for us to understand the conception of castes and the solution that he indicated with regard to that question.

There are the people in India who oppose Marx's theory (either knowingly or unknowingly or with half-baked knowledge) just like similar people elsewhere in the world. Such Indian opponents express two types of opinions on Marx's theory - (1) Marx's theory was relevant to the 19th century Europe but precisely it is not relevant to even those countries. (2) Marx's theory may be relevant to other countries but it is not at all relevant to India because caste system exists here and this does not fall under the scope of Marx's theory.

These are the two views that are opposed to Marx's theory. However, both these views are completely wrong. Since Marx's theory talks about 'labour relations', it applies to each and every inch in human society. It applies to every relationship.

Any country or its society of any period lives in terms of 'labour relations' only. The nature of a given society will be in accordance with the nature of its labour relations.

Marx talked about those labour relations. He talked about 'exploitation of labour' that has been taking place since hundreds and thousands of yeas in the arena of labour relations. He discussed various kinds of problems that arise due to exploitation of labour. He indicated the solution to those problems. Therefore, it is our responsibility to understand our problems. First, we have to ascertain whether exploitation of labour is present in India. We also have to ascertain whether the caste question comes under the sphere of labour relations. If we ascertain that there is a connection between castes and labour, then we can undoubtedly arrive at the conclusion that Marx's theory applies to India also.

Any problem connected with human society is intertwined with labour relations. Since caste question is connected with human beings, it also comes under the purview of the theory that talks about labour relations.

Marx's theory applies to all countries, including India, which are based on 'exploitation of labour' and class distinctions, since it is the only and correct theory that discovered and explained exploitation of labour.

Further, this theory explains why human relations ought to be established from a use-value perspective and what sort of problems would arise if they lack that perspective. Hence, this theory will be useful as a guiding theory for organizing society even in future when exploitation of labour is absent.

Though caste system is a specific problem of India, we can understand how Marx's theory is relevant to it if we understand its connection with labour.

If we observe castes even though superficially we find certain obvious distinctions among them: that some castes are high and some are low. In what respect do we find this 'high-low' distinction? Generally speaking, all the upper castes are those which possess land, capital and money; those which have hegemony and engage in social organization and administration. Again, generally speaking, all the lower castes are those that do not have properties even as means of livelihood. They live as labourers and servants. They are subjected to the hegemony and ruling of the upper castes and live in dire poverty and social inferiority.

Among the upper castes, we find the way of life of 'not doing any labour'. Or if they do, they are engaged in mental labour and clean labour. On the other hand, the situation of lower castes is totally opposite. It is unimaginable for the lower castes to live without doing any labour. The kind of labour they perform is the bottommost manual labour. All kinds of unclean labour that are needed for cleaning the entire society are the responsibility of these castes.

According to the laws of economics, mental labour possesses higher value and manual labour possesses lower value. This is based on a natural law of formation of value. Values of different kinds of labour are formed differently depending on the resources required to learn a given kind of labour. There is nothing 'wrong' in it. As the mental labour possesses more value and manual labour less value, a person who always does mental labour gets higher income and a person who always does manual labour gets lower income. Societies based on exploitation further increase the naturally existing gap between values of different kinds of labour. Thus, such societies and their conventions pay more value to a mental labour than it inherently possesses and less value to a manual labour than it inherently possesses. Societies based on exploitation of labour exploit more intensely the manual labour, especially the bottommost manual labours. If we consider a doctor and an agricultural labourer in a society based on exploitation, we find unimaginable distinctions between their income and their way of life, although both perform labour.

The system has been in practise since remote past, whereby a class, which occupied all the means of production as its property, lives on exploitation of labour by extracting rent from land, interest and profit from capital in the name of property rights, without doing any labour. The division of labour that emerged from these relations of exploitation always ties labouring people to only one kind of labour. A person who performs manual labour has to languish in the same kind of labour through out his life. It is not possible for that person to expect to do some kind of mental labour, education relevant to such labour or income that it fetches. Mental labourers like doctors, engineers and scientists need not ever do any manual labour. They need not even undertake the responsibility of cleaning their own dirt.

The fact that some section of the population in a given society lives without doing any labour implies that it is the remaining section of the population that performs all that labour. This is what is happening either in India or in any other country. The fact that the upper castes of India are leading their lives without entering manual labour and unclean labour implies that they are throwing that burden onto the lower castes.

All this is connected with the question of division of labour. It is a question of division of labour if one class does not work and lives on the labour of others. In addition, it is a question of division of labour if a person is always tied to only one kind of labour. Formation of castes is not something that emerged without any connection with labour and labour relations. The caste question is one of many problems that arose due to faulty social relations. This is a problem that is intertwined with exploitative nature of labour relations, its laws of value, its division of labour and its property rights.

Therefore, only through such economic conceptual categories which Marxism uses namely, use value, exchange value, mental labour, manual labour, value of labour, value of labour power, property relations, master-hood and servitude and many such categories we have to understand the caste question.

Marx (along with Engels) talked about castes in India for the first time in "The German Ideology" (1845-6). He made some observations and offered explanation concerning castes on six or seven occasions including in 'Capital' (1867). By means of those observations and 'Capital', which elaborated Marx's theory in great detail, we can understand the caste question and get hold of its solution.

According to Marx's theory, there must be a material cause for the evolution of human history. If it is a correct answer, that cause is something that arises from labour relations. However, since the past times, there has been an idealist conception among philosophers predominantly with regard to the evolution of history. It is a conception which assumes that human history evolves based on the will of god, or of the kings who are incarnation of gods, or religious leaders or some supernatural power.

It is 'idealism' if it fails to see some material basis for a given problem.

Criticizing the wrong conception concerning the process of history in general and the idealist conception of post-Hegelians in Germany in particular, Marx made the following observations on caste in "The German Ideology":

"When the crude form of the division of labour which is to be found among the Indians, and Egyptians calls forth the caste-system in their state and religion, the historian believes that the caste-system is the power which has produced this crude social form." (Moscow edition 176, p. 63)

This is a question of whether division of labour gave rise to castes or castes gave rise to division of labour. According to Marx, division of labour is primary. The same formed into caste occupations in the subsequent period. While this was the situation, historians assumed castes as primary and they gave rise to division of labour. Hence, Marx criticized such historians.

How could castes emerge in the society in the beginning? If they emerged so, there must be some cause. If there were a cause, such cause would be the fundamental point.

Various kinds of labour are necessary for human beings to live. While different kinds of labour emerge and continue, some division would emerge among them. If we keep aside the question 'how a given division of labour transformed subsequently', the initial basis would be existence of different kinds of labour.

When we observe what castes do, we find that different castes perform different kinds of labour. From ancient times to the present time, there has been a connection between castes and different kinds of labour. By logical thinking, we can grasp that division among different kinds of labour itself gradually transformed into castes. However, different kinds of labour and division of labour exist in all countries and all societies. However, why did the division of labour transform into castes only in India?

Those who conducted considerable research too have not offered any answer to this question. No researcher could say anything more than observing, 'Castes are not found elsewhere. They are found only inIndia.'

Therefore, the task that remains before us is to find out the solution for the caste question. In order to grasp the solution, we have to ascertain the point, 'whether division of labour gave rise to castes or castes gave rise to division of labour'. Unless we ascertain this point, we cannot take even a single step toward the solution.

We have seen that, according to Marx, division of labour is primary. The same had crystallized into the caste system. Therefore, the solution for the caste system is to transform the division of labour that created the problem.

The first change that has to take place is: Dragging the class which does not perform any labour but lives on exploitation into labour process. The labouring class (hereafter 'working class') which is subjected to exploitation must wage this struggle. This class struggle had begun in the period of slaves.

The entire population of lower castes who perform manual labour are part of the working class. This class must realize that liberation from the exploitative relations of labour is its goal. In addition, it must accomplish the task of changing the division of labour in the course of its struggle. The change should be such that every individual ought to do certain kinds of mental labour as well as certain kinds of manual labour instead of one person always doing manual labour alone, while another person always doing mental labour alone.

Every person must do labour.

Every person must do various kinds of labour. We have to sustain and stabilize this kind of new relations of labour gradually through our experiences. This alone is the path of liberation for the lower castes who have been leading the unbearable life of manual labour and servitude for many thousands of years. This path is possible by means of class struggles only.

In December 1846, Annenkov, a Russian intellectual, asked Marx's opinion on Proudhan's book "Philosophy of Poverty". Replying to Annenkov's letter, Marx comments that Proudhan does not have a proper understanding of division of labour and that he assumes it to be identical at all times. Marx wrote to Annenkov as follows:

"But was not the caste regime also a particular division of labour? Was not the regime of the corporations another division of labour? And is not the division of labour under the system of manufacture, which in England begins about the middle of the seventeenth century and comes to an end in the last part of the eighteenth, also totally different from the division of labour in large-scale modern industry?" (Poverty of Philosophy, p. 158, Moscow 1966).

In 1847, Marx wrote 'Poverty of Philosophy', a critique of Proudhan's book. There he says:

"Under the patriarchal system, under the caste system, under the feudal and corporative system, there was division of labor in the whole of society according to fixed rules. Were these rules established by a legislator? No. Originally born of the conditions of material production, they were born of the conditions of material production; they were raised to the status of laws only much later. In this way these different forms of the division of labour became so many bases of social organization." (p. 118).

While commenting on 'how capitalist economists wrongly understand the relationship between production and distribution', in his 1859 work, "A contribution to the critique of political economy", Marx makes a reference to castes.

"Or, legislation may perpetuate land ownership in certain families, or allocate labour as a hereditary privilege, thus consolidating it into a caste system." (p. 201, Moscow edition 1970)

In his 1853 article on "The Future Results of British Rule in India", Marx expressed certain views on castes and division of labour.

"Modern industry, resulting from the railway system, will dissolve the hereditary divisions of labour, upon which rest the Indian castes, those decisive impediments to Indian progress and Indian power." (On Colonialism, Moscow edition 1974, p. 85)

"I know that the English millocracy intend to endow India with railways with the exclusive view of extracting at diminished expenses the cotton and other raw materials for their manufactures." (p. 84)

"All the English bourgeoisie may be forced to do will neither emancipate nor materially mend the social condition of the mass of the people, depending not only on the development of the productive powers, but on their appropriation by the people. But what they will not fail to do is to lay down the material premises for both." (p. 85)

From what Marx had said (that the 'modern industry will dissolve the hereditary divisions of labour'), we can infer that it will transform traditional aspects of the division of labour here. He is saying that such changes will not suffice to liberate the working class. He is also saying that the working class must wage struggles against the class of owners primarily to appropriate the means of production. As a result of this, the means that enables the exploiting class to snatch land rent, interest and profit from the working class in the name of property rights will be abolished. There arises a need for the class of owners to live on its own labour. When all the people work, the master-worker relations will transform into relations between producers who are equal to one another.

We have to transform labour relations at every place wherever they are unequal. Transforming division of labour applies to all these conditions.

Changes in the division of labour between castes, changes in the traditional division of labour between men and women all those things come under this.

Only by following the path of class struggles that are waged from a correct perspective against exploitation of labour, is it possible for the working class to transform various forms of "faulty social relations" (to use Marx's expressions) and liberate itself from the slavery to the class of masters.

If all the lower castes in society are part of the working class and if they are living within traditional division of labour based on exploitation, then elimination of faulty relations of labour alone will be the correct solution for the liberation of those castes.

Marx's observations on castes in volume one of 'Capital' that appeared in 1867:

"Manufacture, in fact, produces the skill of the detail labourer, by reproducing, and systematically driving to an extreme within the workshop, the naturally developed differentiation of trades which it found ready to had in society at large. On the other hand, the conversion of fractional work into the life-calling of one man, corresponds to the tendency shown by earlier societies, to make trades hereditary; either to petrify them into castes, or whenever definite historical conditions beget in the individual a tendency to vary in a manner incompatible with the nature of castes, to ossify them into guilds. Castes and guilds arise from the action of the same natural law that regulates the differentiation of plants and animals into species and varieties, except that when a certain degree of development has been reached, the heredity of castes and exclusiveness of guilds are ordained as a law of society." (p. 321. Moscowedition 1974).

Here, at the end of these words, Marx cited the words of another writer as a footnote:

"The arts also have…in Egypt reached the requisite degree of perfection. For it is the only country where artificer may not in any way meddle with the affairs of another class of citizens, but must follow that calling alone which by law is hereditary in their clan….In other countries it is found that tradesmen divide their attention between too many objects. At one time they try agriculture, at another they take to commerce, at another they busy themselves with two or three occupations at once. In free countries, they mostly frequent the assemblies of the people…In Egypt, on the contrary, even artificer is severely punished if he meddles with affairs of State, or carries on several trades at once. Thus there is nothing to disturb their application to their calling….Moreover, since, they inherit from their forefathers numerous rules, they are eager to discover fresh advantages." (pp. 321-22)

The handicrafts reached such a stage in Egypt since it was a rule that they ought to remain in those trades only. They were not allowed to pursue another trade. If they do, they will have punishments. Hence, every trade reached there to a stage of specialized occupation.

This is also a question related to division of labour. Just as we do not know why castes emerged only inIndia, it is not known why these restrictions of occupations and severe punishments were present in onlyEgypt. We can grasp no more than that division of labour assumed such a form there.

As a result of development of capitalism, forms of division of labour throughout the world are changing to some extent. These changes are taking place in India also. Rules concerning hereditary occupations have changed. However, these changes will not be such that they could eliminate the institution of caste itself. Caste related occupations are still prevalent among the majority population of lower castes. Because they lack economic conditions that enable them to leave their caste-related occupations and enter mental labour.

Based on Marx's observations so far, we have to understand the fact that the basis for caste question is division of labour of the past. However, there is no evidence to explain why it happened only India.

Caste system is a kind of division of labour. Though there are no laws that defend caste distinctions all the social conditions are such that they keep castes in tact.

Following Marx's repeated observations, if we examine classes in India, all the lower castes are part of working class. Further, these are sections that are subjected to exploitation of labour to a large extent. They have to liberate themselves from exploitation. They have to change the division of labour that exploitative societies created. For that, they have to go along the path of class struggle only. If they do not recognize that path and go in that direction, there will not be a way out for them from this problem. The same situation will continue in future also just as they have been languishing in the caste system for the past hundreds and thousands of years. It is not possible to escape from it in any other way.

However, the intellectuals of lower castes have not yet opened their eyes. They have not yet grasped the difference between the alms of reservations, which the exploiting class throws as a tactic, and the real liberation. Satisfied with finger-food sort of opportunities available to handful of population in the form of reservations, they consider permanent retention of their low caste position as a protection. They think that their goal is to intrude into the existing government of the exploiting class.

Imagine that there formed a government in India where in the representatives of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Castes constitute the majority! What can that government do in respect of elimination of caste? What will be their programmes in that respect? How will it abolish exploitative property relations? With what programmes will it change the economic conditions of lower castes that are living by performing all kinds of unclean labour?

At the most, it may make some laws with haphazard sayings like - 'Don't observe caste distinctions!' Whom can it order with such laws? Can it arrange a marriage between a Brahmin girl and a Chamar boy by means of commands of law? Can it bring together any two persons any time by means of laws? How can it pave the way to intercaste marriages without changing economic conditions? Can it change even a single aspect of social relations by means of its administration? Then what will a government of lower castes accomplish by taking the reigns of state power?

What it will achieve is this: It will accomplish the sharing of its spoil in the process of exploitation of labour. It attains a place that enables it to stand as lower caste bourgeoisie beside the upper caste bourgeoisie.

We are seeing governments of lower castes also. Their entire aim is to create Dalit BahujanBourgeoisie. Do you know what it means? Nothing but the exploitation of the ordinary masses of lower castes by the bourgeoisie of the lower castes! Governments of lower castes will achieve this wonderfully.

(Translation: B. R. Bapuji. Appeared in FRONTIER, dated  January 18-24, 2004.)
http://ranganayakamma.org/Marx%20on%20Caste.htm

Caste, Class and the Dalit Question

[Below we reproduce the paper presented by Comrade Shankar at the Central Party School of CPI(ML) held on 28-30 November, 2001 at Bhuvaneshwar]

Reductionism of Marxism or Reductionist Approach to Marxism?

THE DALIT movement today, as a whole, is basically led by the petty bourgeoisie and is representing their interests in society and politics. Even the so-called Marxists, who claim to have integrated Marxian theory with the concrete conditions in pre-capitalist Indian society, are only trying to 'appropriate' class into a caste framework as against Marxists' attempt at interpreting caste within a Marxist framework. This only leads them to utopian ideas on abolition of caste. In the process of bringing out the significance of the caste question they tend to include caste in the 'basic structure' and class in the 'superstructure,' and thereby, liquidate the revolutionary essence of Marxist philosophy. The framework does matter as it involves the question of annihilation of caste. Marxists stand for the annihilation of caste through scientific analysis and through abolition of its material basis, the capitalist system, and by mobilizing various sections of people along class lines against the exploitative social system – in dalitbahujan parlance, the brahminical, varnashrama system.

It is true that the communist movement as a whole, in the early phase of its birth, had streaks of economic reductionist approach to Marxism. The emergence of Naxalism and the subsequent formation of the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) are the negation of social-democratic theoretical and political positions and of all streaks of dogmatism or mechanical interpretation of Marxism. Marxist-Leninists have contributed to the creative application of Marxism in concrete Indian conditions. They have come up with a radical theoretical and political framework that can effectively address the complex issues of Indian society such as caste, nationality, gender, etc. They recognized Ambedkar's radicalism as a radical bourgeois democratic vision in contrast to Gandhi's conservative bourgeois vision. They hailed the implementation of Mandal recommendations as a progressive measure, despite being critical of the Mandalist political parties. It is mainly under the communist leadership that dalits could snatch even the right to vote in some states. Communists work for the accentuation of class differentiation among various castes. Class is a universal category and looking for a "pure" class category in an underdeveloped capitalism with the dominance of semi-feudal or pre-capitalist production relations is nothing but self-deception. Eliminating caste is one of the major questions of New Democratic Revolution because the process of elimination of caste facilitates class formation, accentuates class polarization and makes class struggle more open, broad and direct, and brings out the class in a purer form. But, this can be accomplished only by mobilizing people along class lines and not the other way round. The communists are exploring ways of greater interaction with radical dalit organizations even as many dalit organizations are getting closer to status-quoist parties like the Congress, centrist parties and the BJP. In this context, it is the task of communists to liberate various downtrodden castes from the shackles of the caste system that is backed by the semi-feudal, underdeveloped capitalist society.

So, it is not the reductionism of Marxism but the reductionist approach to Marxism that categorises class merely as an economic category and Marxist Philosophy as a philosophy of "economic revolution," devoid of the idea of elimination of caste and other complex issues that are confronted in Indian society. The subsequent sections will deal with this reductionist approach to Marxism in some detail.

New Breed of "Social" Revolutionaries

THE DECADE of 1990s began with the Mandal agitation. It also witnessed the dramatic rise of the BSP and the dalit movement in some parts of the country, which introduced a new genre of dalit discourse on 'social justice' and paved the way for the birth of a new breed of "social" revolutionaries and ideologues. We have also seen the 'globalisation' of dalit discourse in its recent attempt to include caste in the agenda of the UN Conference against Racism, Racial Discriminations, Xenophobia and Related Intolerances.

Marx said: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles". But the new breed of "social" revolutionaries has come up with the formulation, "The history of the hitherto existing society in India is the history of caste struggles". This new breed of scholars includes Kancha Ilaiah. Gail Omvedt and Gopal Guru represent other major strands of dalit discourse. These are essentially the major strands of dalit discourse in the recent period.

If the first phase was marked by dalit discourse against Brahminism, the second phase is marked by the dalit-bahujan variety. This variety of discourse particularly refuses to see the socio-economic roots of caste oppression. It considers the varna system and caste-based oppression mainly as a 'conspiracy' of the Brahminical forces. The dalit question today cannot be simply viewed as confined to dalits vs. Brahminical upper castes. Rising kulaks from among upwardly mobile intermediate castes, too, indulge in oppression on dalits in order to scuttle the demands of the agricultural workers and poor peasants for wages, land, social dignity and political emancipation.

Many dalitbahujan ideologues share a common perception. They equate the Marxist perception with the vision of Congress-led state capitalism represented by Nehru and with the social democratic streams of the communist movement. They call Marxism 'caste-blind'. They over-emphasise the caste background of an individual rather than directing fire against Brahminism as an ideology and system. They consider elimination of caste, a superstructural category, to be a precondition to any transformation and fail to see the dialectical relation between caste and class. Rather, they also end up failing to propose any real, practical solution to the caste question except for suggesting some sort of 'cultural/social revolution'. This is best articulated in their upholding conversion to Buddhism, another religion, as the means of ending exploitation and oppression based on caste hierarchy. They also believe in non-violent means, in other words, class collaborationism, for achieving their desired goal.

The recent dalitbahujan discourse has made a definite departure from Ambedkar and the major/central themes of the dalit movement of his period. Ambedkar denounced the twin enemies of Brahminism and capitalism whereas the recent discourse, particularly that of the BSP, denounces communism and the left in general and even considers 'Manuvadi' parties less dangerous than the communist parties, thus revealing its class character. This variety of dalit-bahujan discourse attaches one-sided importance to political power ignoring every other aspect of the dalit question and advances concepts of mobilizing 'dalit-bahujans'. That, on many occasions, degenerates to the level of mobilizing 'sarvajan' and dalitisation of bahujans etc.

Gail Omvedt claims to have adopted a 'revised' historical materialist approach to study the issues related to dalits and democratic revolution. Kancha Ilaiah believes in the argument that presenting the facts, in itself, is emancipatory and he shot into prominence as a dalitbahujan ideologue through his book Why I am not a Hindu. Gopal Guru advocates the line of combining both, caste and class, and ends up in an eclectic combination. He has a limited understanding of the category of 'class' and finds it somewhat lacking so he suggests supplementing with 'caste' – the eclectic combination – but it is also true that he doesn't share the crude version of reductionism of others who just reduce, and deride Marxism to an 'economic' category.

Petty-Bourgeois Utopianism

MARX SAYS that the petty-bourgeois utopianism and varieties of utopian socialist systems sprang into existence in the early underdeveloped period of the struggle between the proletariat and bourgeoisie. Petty-bourgeois utopianism is the natural product of any pre-capitalist society and the BSP variety is only an Indian variant of petty-bourgeois utopianism. Utopianism, in general, advocates so many concepts for socialism and democracy but never attacks private ownership and the interest accruing from capital. It fails to see the historical mission of the proletariat and believes that governmental reforms and moral training in the society in the spirit of a new religion would lead to the abolition of all contradictions (Communist Manifesto).1 The Indian variant of petty-bourgeois utopinaism manifests in terms of the concepts of class peace, reforms for the resolution of antagonistic contradictions in society, and refusal to attack private ownership and the capitalist system. In fact, it advocates a peaceful parliamentary path to capture political power to attain change of hearts in the exploiters, in their parlance the Manuvadis. They also propose Buddhism, another religion, as a solution and a counter to exploitative Manuvadi, Brahminical Hinduism. These are the main features of various shades of ideas that are encountered in any pre-capitalist or underdeveloped societies. The ideas of various streams of dalit ideologues and dalit organizations and parties regarding annihilation of caste, dalit liberation and dalit democratic revolution, etc., are no different. Kanshi Ram, and various dalit organizations in the country, with rare exceptions, prefer to overlook private property and capital; adopt a negative attitude towards revolution (that it is basically violent); refuse to see the historical mission of the proletariat; believe that governmental reforms, education, and salaried jobs and avenues of petty commodity production to the dalits will lead to abolition of all caste/class contradictions in the society. In that sense, these streams represent the Indian variants of petty-bourgeois utopianism, which subjugates oppressed caste/class interests to the ruling classes, including those belonging to the emerging intermediate castes.

Kancha Ilaiah says, "... this transformation – in Kanshi Ram's language, social transformation and economic emancipation – has the essential potential of democratic revolution, it is like what happened in France in 1789 during the French Revolution, where liberty, equality and fraternity were notionally made the rights of all individuals. This is materializing in India now".2 There cannot be any social transformation without economic emancipation and, in fact, it is a precondition. The relation between economic emancipation and social transformation is the point all "social" revolutionaries prefer to overlook: either because of their antipathy to Marxism or their overemphasis on the potential of mobilization based on pure caste category. Kancha Ilaiah also fails to note that the French Revolution essentially entailed a curb on the rights of the proletariat and the liberties enshrined in the American constitution meant the white man's liberty 'to larrup his nigger'. So also all such 'rights inherent to every human being' contain the seeds of historically posited inequality. To quote Moni Guha, "The passionate call for all such equality today, abstracts from the class struggle and glosses over the inherent inequality between, say, a Kanshi Ram and a Butan Musahar (A hero of the Bhojpur Naxalite movement). By depriving the oppressed of materialist class analysis such ideologies actually subvert the cause of emancipation".3

Kancha Ilaiah calls for the dalitisation of civil society, a dalitbahujan knowledge system, developing organic intellectuals, establishing dalitbahujan democracy and dalit democratic revolution, etc. But, he is dependent on the very same "Brahminical" state, parliamentary means and conversion to Buddhism to accomplish it. He could only think of jargons like rehumanisation of Brahmins, dalitisation of society, bahujanisation of fewjans etc.

Dalit Democratic Revolution

IN ANOTHER article, Kancha Ilaiah asserts that "the casteist enemies of democratic transformation are much more powerful than capitalist class enemies of socialist transformation because the capitalists are shaken up in the class war, whereas in this democratic transformation the brahminical caste enemies are not at all shaken. The strategy of dalit democratic revolution is to disempower them gradually".4 Dalit Democratic Revolution is the strategy mooted against New Democratic Revolution advocated by communists. The motive forces of this 'dalit' revolution are the dalits and OBCs. Their contradiction is not an antagonistic one according to Kancha Ilaiah. This he had said when Mulayam was the Chief Minister. And the reason attributed to this non-antagonistic contradiction was Mulayam's lack of clear vision of establishing a casteless society, because 'he emphasizes on Gandhian economy that is nothing but a caste economy'. Thus, Mulayam's flawed vision is the hurdle in the process of establishing unity between these non-antagonistic castes – dalits and OBCs – according to Kancha Ilaiah. He says, "The scope for OBC-dalit unity lies in their productive relations with nature, their food culture, the democratic man-woman relations that they have preserved all these years, the culture of their female-centred goddesses etc."5 This is nothing but building castles in the air. There are several classes engaged in productive relations with nature, including kulaks of most of the intermediate castes. His conception is misplaced because he looks only at the productive relations with nature as the scope for the unity instead of production relations that govern the relationship among the classes/castes engaged in production. In fact, it is these relations that are the sources of caste hostility and rivalry, which lead to caste clashes in many places. He refuses to see the inherent contradictions in society, between two different, rival classes in the present social setting.

Thomas Mathew also advocated dalit democratic revolution but from a different premise. His premise was to build a model of revolution "on the grammar of caste society with the dynamics of class struggle" whereas Kancha Ilaiah stresses the 'dynamics of caste-based election victory'. Mathew has taken the cue from Ambedkar while Ilaiah has taken the cue from Kanshi Ram, the "harbinger of a new paradigm in social science discourse". Comrade Vinod Mishra has best articulated the counter to such arguments, "The broad united front [proposed in the so-called Dalit Democratic Revolution], if at all it materializes, will inevitably transfer the leadership to the national bourgeoisie and shall only ensure the domination of kulaks of backward castes over the rural poor. The programme of dalit democratic revolution is actually the maximum limit of the most radical of Janata Dal men and our author (Thomas Mathew) has not been able to transcend that limit".6 In the process of going further, Kancha Ilaiah is also proposing a concession to upper castes saying that, "the present strategy is in the interests of 'fewjans' because this strategy aims to achieve the change with less violence".7 Marx also encountered such utopians who opposed the idea of a violent revolution and who held that the transition to future socialist society could be made only through peaceful advocacy of model phalansteries. They, however, did not abolish private ownership and there were rich as well as poor in his phalansteries.

Base and Superstructure

GAIL OMVEDT is one of the prominent scholars who had often been questioning Marxist positions on caste and class. She started with adopting a methodology of revised historical materialism and has ended up in advocating vulgar Marxist positions in the name of scientific interrogation of the theory. According to her, liberalisation and market are beneficial to dalitbahujans, and they should strive to derive maximum benefit out of it. She has ultimately turned into a staunch proponent of liberalization and market forces in the process of her quest for a 'revised' historical materialist approach towards dalit democratic revolution.

She had been repeatedly talking about the relationship between base and superstructure. She says, "Marxism set up, for decades to come, the paradigmatic polarities of class and caste, base and superstructure, economic and social/cultural/ideological. For communist and socialist radicals, this meant taking class/the base/economic as primary…"8 Its disadvantage, according to Gail Omvedt, was that it took the overriding reality of 'class' and 'class struggle' so strongly as to assert the fundamental irrelevance of every other sociological category. She says that the proponents of Marxism and Socialism treat family, kinship, the state, gender and in India, of course, caste, as not only secondary but practically non-existent factors. She characterises the assertion that behind the apparent reality of caste ultimately lay class and its dialectics, 'a class content to a caste form,' as Marxist mechanical materialism.9 The positive side of the dalit movement in the period of Jyotirao Phule and Ambedkar, in contrast to their followers today, was that it had a very strong democratic content and not much of hostility towards the broad left current while asserting the centrality of caste. At least, there was an attempt to discover the roots of exploitation, unlike the new social movements that fight exploitation without the goal of 'expropriating the exploiters', so as to eliminate caste. Gail Omvedt, in fact, has only revised the Marxist framework to suit her framework of 'New Leftism' adopted by new social movements and accuses communists of remaining wedded to Marxist mechanical materialism. She also equates state capitalism with socialism and acknowledges Nehru's philosophy as a socialist one.

Unravelling the 'class content of a caste form' enriches the scientific, dialectical understanding of the caste question so as to eliminate caste. Or else, one is bound to look for solutions only at the cultural or ideological level and is sure to end up preserving the system in spite of good intentions. The form and content do matter in a scientific analysis. For the naked eye, it appears as if the sun is revolving around the earth. But this is only an appearance. In essence, it is the earth that is revolving around the sun. That is the scientific truth. In this case, the cognizance by mere visual observation (the sun revolving around the earth) is only an absurdity. A scientist has to go deep into an appearance and unravel its content. This applies to social science as well. Even in social science and science, on many occasions, in appearance, form stands opposed to the content. Likewise, in the concrete conditions of India, too, it appears as if caste, rather than class, is a basic category of social structure.

Comrade Vinod Mishra, too, said that in certain historical situations class might express itself in the form of castes, in other situations the two might be interwoven, overlapping and at the same time criss-crossing each other, and in yet another situation castes are disintegrated to crystallize as classes, but he never mixed up both. He unraveled the dialectical relation between caste and class, maintaining class as a distinct category, firmly upholding application of Marxism in Indian conditions. This is one of his major contributions to Marxism in the Indian context. He could achieve it not because of his 'Althusserian influence' but by applying Marxism in the concrete conditions of our country.

How to comprehend this phenomenon of caste and class in the backdrop of the relations between base and superstructure? This is one crucial point on which there is a need for greater clarity in many circles. Again, it is more appropriate to return to Comrade Vinod Mishra. He says that the introduction of class-caste duality sabotages the study of appearance of caste struggle to unravel the essence of class dynamics in our society. VM explains the interrelation between class and caste, base and superstructure using the tool of dialectical materialism: "For me, the caste system itself was a product of a certain mode of production and corresponding level of production relations. Class relations here assume the form of castes, which, in their turn, are given a divine sanction by priests. Their permanence, however, is determined primarily not by any divine sanction but by the static social organization of the village community which again is the product of definite level of productive forces. The caste and class here appear in apparent harmony. This harmony of class and caste, this correspondence of base and superstructure, is apparent because the two are distinctly separate categories, rooted respectively in the base and superstructure, in the mode of production and regulation of distribution.

"As the level of productive forces develops and the mode of production undergoes a slow change, the harmony is broken; class and caste, base and superstructure come into conflict, each trying to define the other. And you have a long transitory phase where class assertions become pronounced, and oddly enough, often manifest themselves in the vortex of caste mobility. The so-called permanence of division of means of production among different castes is shaken. The institutional banner of caste is, however, invoked by new modern economic classes to fight it out among themselves, for the share of power – both political and administrative. The instrument is old but the content is radically changed. In this phase, the harmony of the first phase is negated and the classes and castes crisscross and overlap each other. This is also the phase of sharpening of the conflict between class and caste identities. Eventually, the historical movement shall negate this phase, too, and bring back the harmony and correspondence between the base and superstructure, albeit in a higher form, when castes stand annihilated and class relations and class struggles appear in a purer form. This correspondence cannot just be brought about subjectively. As I had already mentioned, caste system was the product of a definite mode of production and corresponding level of production relations. Its annihilation too will be accomplished at a higher level of productive forces and mode of production. I had said that the unfettered development of capitalism, which abolishes the extra-economic form of coercion, makes class the direct arbiter in the mode of distribution, too, and thus has the great potential of annihilating castes".10

The Limits of Casteist Framework and The Issue of Power to the Dalits

WE ALSO acknowledge the progressive role played by Mandal implementation and the rise of dalit movement. Implementation of Mandal recommendations has led to the growth of a new elite and a middle class from among the intermediate castes. These movements have really checked the onward march of the forces of Hindutva in our society, albeit temporarily. In fact, these movements rose, also partly, as a reaction to the rise of the forces of Hindutva. It has spread on a large scale, particularly after the demolition of Babri Masjid, as a reaction to the threat posed by Brahminical, Hindutva forces to the very secular fabric of the society. But, it cannot lead one to theorise that 'casteism in politics' is an agenda for the very transformation of the caste system. But, Rajini Kothari is precisely doing it. He argues, "The point is that the caste does resurface as a result of the democratic process but in its resurfacing it gets transformed".11

No transformation is automatic. Mere resurfacing of caste by itself cannot bring about the much-needed social transformation. Rather, caste movements should have to look beyond caste to eradicate caste. It is true that the assertion of dalits and backwards just cannot be considered as a 'reactionary' one in a semi-feudal society as long as it challenges the very existence of feudal oppression and power. Assertion of weaker sections of society, even if along caste lines, can play a progressive role at a particular juncture of history. It can continue to play the same progressive role only when it moves beyond the confines of caste and grapples with the real issues of the society at large. Or else, there is also a danger of the movement degenerating into a reformist one, just scratching the surface of the oppressive social system. It will defeat the very purpose of the movement.

Talking about political power to the dalits and backwards in itself cannot bring power to the dalits. It should be accompanied by a democratic programme for the transformation of society as a whole. Then, it should have a clear-cut analysis about the state. Trying to establish dalit power by attaining majority in the assembly can at best be a half measure. Because, the administration is brahminical, even according to these "social" revolutionary ideologues. We don't expect a new democratic programme from the Kanshi Rams and the Kancha Ilaiahs. They should at least have a vision for a programme to eradicate this brahminical mindset in politics and in the state administrative structure.

Annihilation of Caste

CASTE STRUCTURE has developed in India in the process of evolving division of labour in the society. Caste and class existed in an undifferentiated form when production and distribution in the society were organized basing on caste structure. Caste and class were of inseparable single category at that stage. The caste structure became much more rigid over a period of time. Later, the priests of the community accorded a divine sanction to it and preserved the caste structure. Vertical hierarchies, ritual ranking, etc., replaced the conception of caste as a division of labour. Autonomous, self-sufficient villages of the early period have begun to be integrated by a system of centralized government. The mobility within the caste structure, either upward or downward, got blocked and even the very slight mobility was possible only through a war of attrition. This is how caste structure remained a rigid structure of vertical hierarchy.

Caste mobility within caste structure gained impetus with the advent of the British and the process of industrialization. The process of industrialization created rifts in the caste structure and propelled caste mobility. Hitherto dominant castes like Brahmins begun to shift towards new industrial settings and one miniscule section turned into industrial owners while the other section emerged as industrial workers. This process enabled a section of the rest of backwards to get elevated on the social ladder. And thus, the caste-class relations assumed complex dimensions, complicating the nature of society. This complex relation of production gets resolved only in an advanced stage of capitalist development. Caste gets abolished as a form of division of labour, as a tool of oppression, and as a means of discrimination, only in an advanced stage of capitalist development.

But, the transitory phase that involves transformation from a feudal society to a full-fledged capitalist one is marked by a pretty long period and a painstaking process of social churning. In a new and higher stage of society, the mode of production and production relations, all old institutions of the previous society would inevitably become incompatible with the new order and are supposed to face a natural death. In this process, they are supposed to whither away. That is the general law of social development. Still, in a semi-feudal, pre-capitalist or underdeveloped society these old institutions, including the caste structure, get a new lease of life in the new situation. This is the resilience that the system has developed over a period of time. This is the peculiarity of the particular transitory phase witnessed in Indian society.

If an old structure, that is supposed to have lost its relevance and turned into an obsolete one in the course of history, continued to exist even in the new stage that can only mean that such old institutions are backed by some of the newly emerging modern classes in society. In our context, the old institutions, including the rigid caste structure, are backed, protected and reinforced by the modern classes such as rural bourgeoisie and kulaks. Hence, the struggle against caste system has to be waged also against such modern classes on the one hand, and for removing the hurdles in the path of capitalist development, on the other. Only revolutionary classes of society can accomplish this task as the bourgeoisie becomes impotent. And then, parliamentary democracy based on universal adult franchise, the higher form of representative democracy, only acts as a bulwark of this reactionary caste system. This parliamentary system further reinforces the caste structure because of the ruling classes interest in winning elections. That is why, any movement for annihilation of caste has to deal a body blow to the forces that reinforces the caste system i.e., the modern exploiting classes in society. The whole thing has to be turned upside down. This is possible only by expropriating the expropriators, only by turning the ruled into rulers. That can be accomplished only by a New Democratic Revolution in Indian conditions.

This revolution will snatch political power from the exploiting, ruling classes and transfer it into the hands of revolutionary classes. Then again, the transformation into a full-fledged capitalist mode of production that enables complete abolition of caste is also accomplished under the leadership of the revolutionary proletariat. No amount of reform, no amount of spiritual solace in any religion, no amount of peace and collaborationism, can replace the accomplishment of this process for a revolutionary change. Because, all such attempts can at best play within the framework of the existing system and they do not have the potential of any revolutionary change.

There cannot be any alternative to new democratic revolution. Struggle against caste-based oppression and for the annihilation of caste has to be a part and parcel of a new democratic programme. The proletariat will accomplish this social transformation not merely because of its ideal of abolition of caste but because such an abolition is an integral part of the democratic revolution and a precondition for establishing a socialist society. A socialist society cannot be a reality without annihilation of caste and it is only the new democratic revolution that provides the real, objective basis for such annihilation. All other theories of annihilation of caste perceived by these 'social' revolutionaries are nothing but petty-bourgeois utopianism, pure and simple.

Caste as an Ideology: The Paradox and Degeneration

KANCHA ILAIAH has emerged as the foremost ideologue of dalitbahujan politics and its theory of class collaborationism and its practice of mortgaging the interests of dalitbahujans under the pretext of securing political power to dalits. He is so overwhelmed by the dramatic rise of the BSP that he goes to the extent of praising Kanshi Ram as a dalit ideologue par excellence who has gone beyond Ambedkar raising dalit movements in the country to newer heights. He declares that Kanshi Ram has emerged as the harbinger of a new paradigm in social science discourse, who has brought out caste as an ideology for mobilization against 'fewjans'. He acknowledges that Ambedkar had analysed caste, in a much more radical way than his contemporaries. Yet, for him, Ambedkar is not up to the mark, perhaps, because Ambedkar said that caste was an enclosed class. He could still agree with Ambedkar, despite this not being up to his standards, because "Ambedkar was not willing to put caste in the kind of mode outside electoral political struggle – in the mode of class war in the west – to make it a violent struggle".

Kancha Ilaiah claims that "The post-Mandal period, on the one hand, conscientised the OBCs, on the other, it began to homogenize SC, ST and OBCs, at least politically if not socially, and led to the bahujanisation of this social base'.12 Perhaps, he realised the absurdity of his statement only after making it and hastened to add, "this is not to say that such homogenization has already happened in the all-India context but notionally there is such a mood and the BSP is constantly working to strengthen it".13 Ilaiah is living in his own dream world. Perhaps, he thought that BSP's fielding 102 candidates from among OBCs and winning 26 seats, is the consummation of 'bahujanisation of this social base'. Then, we have another question. By the same token, did the bahujanisation of upper castes take place because 57 upper caste candidates, including 2 brahmins and 4 thakurs, were fielded in the same election by the BSP? Then how does he explain the increased level of caste atrocities on dalits even while Mayavati was the CM, and the subsequent end of a honeymoon with Mulayam? Its hostility with the SP had reached the level of branding it, the party of OBCs, as No. 1 enemy, while Brahminical upper caste Manuvadi parties like the BJP and the Congress were more acceptable to it for retaining the seat of power. Is it wrong if we call this a 'fewjanisation' of the 'bahujans'?

In an interview for the magazine Ghadar (26 November 1997), Kancha Ilaiah has thrown a surprise saying that the BSP had made a blunder by aligning with the BJP. This was a surprise because it was a shift from his previous position on the issue. Then, we find that this has not altered his fundamental position. Rather, he is trying to articulate a theoretical framework to justify it on a much broader plane. He has invented a bahujan left in Uma Bahrti, Kalyan Singh (then the BJP CM of UP) etc., who are supposedly engaged in constant confrontation with the Brahminical right within the BJP. He describes them as dalitbahujan left in contrast to communist leaders, because Kanshi Ram could straightaway establish a rapport with them whereas the same could not be done with the communists. He stretches it to ridiculous proportions that the dalitbahujan left are to carry out the dalibahujan agenda within BJP. He says, "Wherever you (dalibahujan) are, you should capture power, overthrow brahminism lock stock and barrel, irrespective of parties". What a wonderful tactics to overthrow Brahminism from within!

The contradiction between the OBC and dalit social bases is quite objective and real so that the BSP is unable to overlook this reality in order to retain its own social base. The neo-rich kulaks in the rural areas also belong to the intermediate castes, OBCs, and they are the perpetrators of caste atrocities because these two communities are at loggerheads within the rural economy. This is the backdrop in which the SP and the BSP, the representatives of two different, rival social forces because of their class nature, are at loggerheads. Here, we can also draw a little parallel between Kanshi Ram and the petty-bourgeois utopians of Marx's contemporaries. One such contemporary of Marx strongly criticized the capitalist system but could not reveal the root cause of capitalist contradictions; he held that the main cause for social inequality was the inadequate enlightenment among workers and not the capitalist mode of production; he maintained that social inequality could be eliminated by education and social reforms. Does it not sound like Kanshi Ram's idea – education and salaried jobs to dalits would remove social inequality!

Caste-Class Interface and the Rise of the BSP

LEAVING DEBATES apart, the rise of the BSP in UP has really made a big impact among the dalits in the state. An objective, comprehensive analysis of the BSP might be of help in understanding the dalit resurgence, and the rise in dalit consciousness in the state. This is also an attempt to grapple with the interface between caste and class in UP and the changes in agriculture and the relational position of dalits in it while studying the impact of the BSP and its government on rural relations. There is an argument that rise of the BSP in UP is closely linked to the question of rural agrarian labourers becoming relatively free, if not totally free, from feudal bondage in production relations.

Green revolution has brought about some changes in agriculture like increased sharecropping, introduction of modern agricultural implements, etc. From the labourers' point of view, agricultural wage labour and sharecropping has begun to lose their position as the most important source of income. In agrarian labour relations, there has been a transformation of wholly unfree labour relations into relations involving various degrees of unfreedom. The tendency towards a substantial decrease in the amount of agricultural labour performed by rural labourers and a corresponding increase in non-agricultural rural employment has been noted in several studies.

In UP, significant overlaps exist between class and caste hierarchies. In broad terms, the old landlord class belonged mainly to the upper castes, their ex-tenants, who now constitute the majority of the landowning peasants are mainly from the intermediary castes, and agricultural labourers are primarily from untouchable and very low ranking castes. The Green Revolution and related changes in agricultural labour relations also led to a rise in the political profile of many untouchable castes.

The BSP gained prominence when it formed a winning coalition (with the SP), based mainly on dalits and middle castes in 1993. In 1995, it formed a minority government, supported by the Congress and the BJP, which lasted for four-and-a-half months. In 1997, it entered into a formal power-sharing arrangement with the BJP and held the office of CM for 6 months. Later the arrangement broke down.

Kanshi Ram founded the Backward and Minority Group Community Employees Federation (BAMCEF) in 1978. Dalit Shoshit Samaj Sangharsh Samiti (DS4) was formed in 1981, followed by the formation of the BSP in 1984. In 1989, it polled 9% votes and in 1996 21%. Chamars, a relatively well-off section among dalits, are by far the largest and most politicized untouchable caste in UP who formed the major support base of the BSP. This is also a relatively well-off section among dalits in the state. A small, educated and relatively well-off section of Chamar government officials seem to be at the forefront.

The BSP does not have an economic programme to attain its declared goal and claims to have no ideology but for caste. It also claims to transcend the left-right political divide. It considers left parties more dangerous than any rightwing party. The BSP, on its part, focuses on enabling dalit labourers to take up independent means of earning. Their spelt-out programme is that they would stress on the redistribution of government land and excess land of the landlords to dalits, thereby creating a vast army of self-employed and salaried dalits. Their main focus was on the politicization of dalits on issues related to caste-based oppression and discrimination and using state power to fight upper caste dominance. Their strategy: Power is the key, the master key with which all doors can be opened.

During its rule it has installed 15,000 statues of Ambedkar in 6 months in 1997 as a symbol of their politicization campaign. Dalit victims of caste atrocities were paid Rs.6000 to fight cases in courts. The government also adopted 15,000 villages with predominantly dalit populations for implementing its welfare programmes. But, almost all welfare programmes were rolled back following the BSP losing power. The BSP's slogan of 'all government lands are our lands' also exposed its limits. Redistributive land reform is not part of their policy. It limited itself to enabling dalits to take possession of already allotted lands.

The BSP emerged at a time of ferment among untouchable groups in North India. It has kindled the desire for emancipation among dalits. Green revolution, changes in labour relations, increase in non-agricultural occupations and thus a relative decrease in economic dependency on the landowners, politicization of groups of untouchables and increased class struggle from above created a new situation. The BSP succeeded in expressing and enhancing this movement among low-caste people, mainly because of its anti-upper caste agenda. But it is propagating a petty-bourgeois utopia where the ideal for low-caste people is to become independent petty commodity producers or well-educated civil servants. Its main aim is to carve out a niche for the low castes within the existing structures of society.

The BSP, step by step, is heading towards its ideological bankruptcy. In recent the elections, Mayavati has been reiterating that the BSP is a party of 'sarvjan'. Its popular slogans like 'government land is our land', 'Tilak, Taraju, Talwar, Hit them with shoes' have been dropped for all practical purposes. So, the politics of class collaborationism and its opportunistic electoral alliances with Manuvadi parties are not just accidental. Rather, they are part of the larger issue of subjugating labouring classes and castes. This is part of the faulty vision and perception of dalit liberation articulated by the BSP. Ambedkar, in contrast to Kanshi Ram, at least had a vision for the emancipation of dalits, though of a bourgeois democratic variety, if not a comprehensive programme for a thorough democratization of the society. In socio-economic terms Ambedkar was much more radical.

Dalit Movement and the Left

SINCE VAST majority of dalits are agrarian labourers and rural poor, the social organisations of dalits are supposed to be natural allies of the communist movement. Unfortunately, most of these dalit organizations, barring rare exceptions, consider communists to be inimical to them. This is largely because of their ideological framework that considers communists to be 'green snakes hidden in green grass' and also because of a whole lot of misconceptions about the Marxist approach on caste. Moreover, their approach towards the resolution of the dalit question, the tactics of entering into opportunistic electoral alliances even with the forces engaged in war of attrition with the dalits, etc., are totally contradictory to that of revolutionary communists. Another major reason is that communists are the natural competitors for parties like the BSP on the question of organizing dalits. By experience, we have seen that the BSP, in spite of its best efforts, is unable to make any inroads into any of the strongholds of CPI(ML) in Bihar. These are the basis of prolonged anti-left tirade of many dalit organizations.

All these cannot be justifications for the mistakes committed by the social democratic stream of the communist movement. Firstly, the communist movement failed to formulate an alternative strategy for the freedom struggle, which must have incorporated radical bourgeois democrats of all hues as an inalienable part of the democratic movement so as to develop a close political alliance with the dalits. Secondly, the questions of social dignity and political emancipation of the dalits were not accorded adequate importance by the social democratic stream. Thirdly, the social democratic tactics of pan-peasant unity in rural areas tended to gloss over the contradictions in favour of rich peasants.

According to the CPI(M), the core of People's Democratic Front in the countryside consists of agricultural workers and poor peasants, but the front also includes the middle and even the rich peasantry. Confrontational labor action against peasant employers is not seen as the best way forward for the agricultural labourers, presumably because it would undermine building the broad democratic front. In this background, Jens Lerche, a research scholar, has upheld our party's tactics regarding rural rich, elaborated in our policy resolution on agriculture.14

Dalit Movement Today

DALIT MOVEMENT today is at the crossroads. The early center of the movement was Maharashtra since the pre-Independence period. Ambedkar and the Maharashtra movement were the source of inspiration for the dalit movement elsewhere. But, the Dalit Panthers of 1970s could not withstand for more than a decade. The Republican Party of India (RPI) has splintered into so many factions and the main faction led by Athavale is clinging on to the Congress apron strings. The BRP led by Prakash Ambedkar is still enjoying mass respect and influence. Still, there is no movement worth the name.

The dalit movement in Karnataka, symbolized by the Dalit Sangharsh Samiti (DSS) was known for its agitational and movemental character. There was a powerful current within the DSS against entry into parliamentary politics. Finally, the other line gained upper hand and the movement has been blown to pieces in the period that followed the immediate aftermath of their entry into electoral politics. Even now the DSS is a household name in every dalit locality in Karnataka. But, it has lost its movemental character and has become localized. There is no organization. No centralized leadership. Yet, people mobilize in good numbers if a call is given under the DSS banner in case of atrocities on dalits or on issues of some major significance. The major splinter factions have become supporters of either Congress or JD. Karnataka is also pregnant with the possibility of a movement by Madigas against Holeyas, demanding compartmental reservation along the lines of Andhra Pradesh.

In Andhra Pradesh, the dalit movement showed some signs of revival in the mid-1990s when the BSP made an attempt to expand its wings to South India. Lakhs of people got mobilized in the inaugural rally. Ex-PWG leaders, prominent dalit leaders etc., joined the BSP in the presence of Kanshi Ram. But the attempt turned out to be a flop. All hopes were belied very soon. Congress effectively consolidated its traditional base among Malas while Madigas under the banner, Madiga Dandora, launched vehement attacks against Malas, accusing them of garnering a lion's share of the SC reservations. Madigas demanded compartmental reservation. Madigas were the social base of Chandrababu Naidu and the TDP. After prolonged, consistent, militant movements by Madigas, the state government conceded the demand. The contradiction between Malas and Madigas is only a disunity that does not have class content. It does not involve any structural oppression or caste discrimination by Malas but is a symptom of unevenness in dalit society. In fact, unifying forces are stronger than the divisive forces. It is mainly a political game by Chandrabau Naidu to divide dalits and to attract Madigas into the fold of TDP.

Tamil Nadu: A Case of Neo-Brahminism

THE CASE of Tamil Nadu is quite different when compared to Karnataka and Maharashtra. Here the movement is now in its hightide. Unlike other states, this state had not witnessed the assertion of dalits as a separate category, thanks to the powerful current of Dravidian movement. The political differentiation among dalits was much more prominent. Traditionally, they were divided among the Congress and the AIADMK led by MGR. After the demise of MGR, AIADMK emerged as a party of Thevars alienating a large section of dalits from its fold. A sizable section of kulaks have emerged in the countryside from among Thevars, a powerful intermediate caste. Brahmins and upper castes constitute a very small percentage of the population in the state and have moved towards government services and industrial sector long back. Thevars emerged as a powerful caste only in this period and became the landed gentry. They also had their share in state politics thanks to the Dravidian movement. Tamil Nadu has seen powerful movements of agricultural labourers led by communist parties in well-irrigated Tanjore belt (cental part of TN) in the past. This is the background in which dalits (Pallars) of southern Tamil Nadu started asserting themselves because of upward mobility and education. They rose against the caste atrocities inflicted on them by BC kulaks. The atrocities took a nasty turn when Jayalalitha was the CM. The police administration in southern Tamil Nadu also displayed high level of casteist overtones. This is the background that gave birth to dalit rebellion against the backward caste of Thevars. The caste war in the south had always been bitterly violent and this time it was a long drawn battle. Buses were not plying in villages for months together. It was a chain reaction and its echo could be heard in all southern districts even if one small incident of caste clash took place at some remote corner of some district. The people in southern districts were under permanent tension. This was the period when dalit consciousness and movement started taking shape and was symbolized by Dr.Krishnasamy. He also won the assembly elections close on the heels of an incident at Kodiankulam. And he floated a dalit party called Puthia Thamizhagam (New Tamil Nadu).

Then came the assertion of dalits (Paraiahs) of northern Tamil Nadu. The organization is called 'Liberation Panthers' and is led by Thirumavalavan. Here, their rivalry was mainly with a most backward community called Vanniyas led by Dr.Ramadas. Economically speaking, majority of Vanniyas and Paraiahs are more or less at par with each other, despite their inequal positions in the social hierarchy. A section of Vanniars have emerged as the neo-rich in the recent period. The rivalry broke out during their earlier phase of anti-government agitation for compartmental reservation, too, but was not so intense. Now, the clash of economic interests between these two communities and the social hierarchy are the source of rivalry and they manifest in the form of caste struggle. So, the assertion of dalits of northern Tamil Nadu is also a latest phenomenon. To top it all, dalits in Tamil Nadu have asserted as a political force in a very short span unlike their counterparts in Maharashtra or in Andhra or in Karnataka.

Dalit assertion in Tamil Nadu is a direct fallout of the Dravidian movement in the state. Dravidian movement has played a progressive role in many respects. It could strike an effective alliance between BCs and SCs under the umbrella of Dravidian politics. It secured a political space for the downtrodden masses in the state structure. It effectively challenged Brahminism as an ideology. Its progressive role, that resulted in education and upward mobility of the downtrodden also contained seeds rivalry between the dalits and backwards. After securing political power, the dominant backwards started asserting their class interests although this was not their expected goal in the beginning. These dominant backwards evolved as the ruling caste, representing the interests of rising kulaks and the regional big bourgeoisie. In the process of assertion of their class interests they had to face the wrath of the dalits.

Another major point is that dalit organizations in TN, too, consulted Kanshi Ram in the beginning and then they have restricted themselves to organising their own support base. The distinction is that these parties do not advocate unity between dalits and OBCs like Kanshi Ram. They have learnt their lesson through their own experience and because of the ground realities wherein these two castes are at loggerheads in day-to-day life. Rather, their main consideration, for now, is not to be part of an electoral alliance with PMK (party of Vanniyars, the most backwards) as far Thirumavalavan is concerned, and with AIADMK (party of Thevars, the dominant backwards) as far as Krishnaswamy is concerned, irrespective of the presence of 'Manuvadi Hindutva' BJP. They are the followers of Kanshi Ram mainly at the level of following unprincipled, opportunistic electoral alliances and they project themselves as the followers of Ambedkar. These parties do not advocate the line of dalit-BC unity because it is the intermediate castes that are at the helm of affairs at all levels displaying the characteristic of neo-Brahminism. For them, these intermediate castes are the bigger enemies which are encountered at grassroots level. Perhaps Dravidian politics is a reason for their disillusionment with the BCs, unlike the BSP in UP. And accentuation of class and political polarization among castes, particularly among backward castes, has also taken place to a considerable extent. A small section of dalits has also emerged as an elite middle class from among them. These are the major reasons, for escalating tensions, besides the domination of backwards in political power.

Durban Conference

'DURBAN CONFERENCE Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerances' has evoked a lot of debate on the dalit question. The dalit discourse has once again occupied the centerstage attracting global attention. The demand was to include the caste question in the agenda of the conference. This discourse took various dimensions in the process, ranging from Emancipatory Discourse, Anthropological Discourse, Sociological Discourse, Human Rights Discourse, Discourse on Positive Discrimination, etc., etc. Andre Beteille argued against the inclusion of caste in the UN agenda saying that caste could never be equated with race and termed all those raising the issue as 'irresponsible' and the debates as mere 'absurdity'. Gail Omvedt defended the demand and attacked Andre Beteille. The advocates of inclusion of the issue in UN agenda argued that 'discrimination based on work and descent' falls under the category of 'racism related intolerances' and hence it should be included. Some were skeptical about the inclusion in a UN conference while the scores are to be settled on the streets and fields inside the country. The advocates of the demand wanted a debate at the international forum so as to globalise the issue to bring international pressure on the Indian government to enforce the laws and to eradicate caste discriminations.

It was only leaflets and pamphlets and the pages of The Hindu that played the role of propagandist. The Hindu acted as a debating forum. NGOs put all their international networks and networking skills into full play. Finally, the conference included it as an agenda. Mainly, NGOs were the forces that articulated the demand eloquently. They were strongly backed by dalit activists from the grassroots. It is true that raising the issue at an international forum is not a solution to the barbaric caste discrimination inside the country. The nature of the issue itself, in the given settings, had its own limits. Still, we supported the demand because the process of raising the issue at an international forum itself is an exposure of the issue and of the reactionary government led by saffron, Brahminical fascist forces. Moreover, it has also triggered a debate on nation building etc., enabling the activists to look beyond their grassroots and village confines. We also made a differentiation between NGOs and the real grassroots dalit activists.

Caste discrimination in India, thus, attracted international attention and also got an international audience. The Government of India, at first, tried its best to prevent the inclusion of caste in the agenda and later, vociferously dismissed it as an internal matter on which international community did not have a jurisdiction to debate. Finally, the government view prevailed at the UN Conference just like the view of Israel and US prevailed regarding the Palestinian question. Perhaps the caste and Palestine questions were the two issues that received wide coverage and attention. In this melee, the major shift in external affairs policy of Indian government was not taken note of with the due concern. India had withdrawn its traditional support to Palestine in favour of Israel and the US. Perhaps, they withdrew it as both the US and India have come together to fight against Islam and terrorism.

Politics of Reservations

OF COURSE, the Mandal wave has really seen the backwards moving into the centerstage and it marked a watershed in the social alignment. It brought the agenda of social justice to the centerstage of Indian politics and provided the space for the hitherto excluded backwards in the political power structure. We too welcomed Mandal but did not exaggerate its significance. We raised the demand of Dam Bando, Kam do, (Curb price rise, provide jobs) when the whole country was torn asunder between forces of Mandal and Kamandal. The Mandal inspired agenda of reservations has come a full circle. This is the second phase. Already, there was a demand for compartmental reservation for MBC (Vanniayas) within the quota of BC reservation. It was a movement from below. They succeeded. Then we have seen the demand from Madiga Dandora for a compartmental reservation within SCs in Andhra Pradesh. Now, it is the turn of UP. The very same forces that vehemently opposed the implementation of the Mandal report have suddenly become concerned about the MBCs. They had been arguing that Mandal will divide the Hindu society along caste lines and that at no cost Hindu identity/unity should be lost. The very same Hindutva forces are now advocating reservations within reservations so as to attract the MBCs to their fold. Now, the government is looking for the 'most backwards' among backwards and 'most dalits' among dalits. This is the BJP's well-calculated move to carve out a base for themselves from among the backwards, particularly among more aggressive castes like Jats, to consolidate its fragile base when the UP elections are round the corner. One can very well predict that this will go on for another round in the caste-ridden society, that too when minorities from within communities have garnered the lion's share of benefits of reservation. Madigas of Karnataka are waiting in the wings.

Land and dalits

REDISTRIBUTION OF land still remains an important measure for improving the living standards of dalits and also to facilitate the process of their emancipation from feudal clutches. Any land reform legislation or land redistribution could be achieved only because of the peasant/dalit movements. Dalits have not yet got their share of land even after 53 years of independence and the total land holdings of the dalit population are very meager and ridiculously disproportionate to their population. A majority of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are landless, without any productive assets and sustainable employment. According to the Census of India, 1991, 64% of SCs and 36% of STs in the category of main workers are agrarian labourers compared to 31% of all other castes. Only 25% of SCs are cultivators compared to 40% of other castes. Majority of the cultivators from among dalits are either small or marginal peasants.

Perhaps, Karnataka has one of the progressive pieces of land reform legislation wherein dalits have the right to reclaim the land alienated from them for any reason and the act also imposes penalty on purchasers, at least theoretically. Bihar legislation provides scope for the restoration of land alienated from dalits beyond 12 years but within 30 years. The UP legislation gives legal protection only to STs against land transfers. Tamil Nadu has given legal protection against land alienation from dalits. It is another story that even a big mass movement in Tamil Nadu to restore Panchami lands allotted to SCs that was not under their possession could not succeed.

Legislations and legal safeguards only remain on paper and the implementation part is left to the strength of the mass movement. These legislations also have a lot of loopholes. Though provisions have been made to prevent land transfers from scheduled groups to non scheduled groups, in many states (for example, Orissa, MP, Rajasthan and Kerala) such transfers can be made with the prior permission of the competent authority (collector, sub-divisional officer, among others) which ultimately left the implementation of these measures to the discretion of bureaucrats and also made them powerful.15 It is a known fact that the local administration almost all over the country is vulnerable to all kinds of political manipulation and corruption and only the local power groups effectively call the shots. In states like Bihar where there are no proper land records and where the law of the land does not exist, all these legislations, in reality, are only a farce.

In most of the states, the total number of operational holdings among dalit population is far less compared to that among other castes. Tamil Nadu has a dalit population of 19% and they possess only 7% of the total operated area. It is an increase of around 2% in the period from 1980-81 to 1990-91. Likewise, Karnataka dalits who are 16% of total population in the state hold only 8% of operated area. UP, AP and Gujarat report a very slow process of improvement despite their poor land holding position. In Andhra, dalits, who constitute 16% of total population, hold only 7.5% of the total operated area and it is an increase of a meagre 0.5%. In UP, 21% dalits operate only 10.5% the total operated area and it is an increase of 1.3% compared to 1980-81. This too was possible only because of the rise of a strong dalit movement in the state. Bihar and UP are the major states of Hindi heartland where upper castes are numerous and have a strong dominance in every sphere of life. Any measure for the upliftment of the downtrodden in the states is powerfully challenged by the upper caste landed gentry. The allotment of land to weaker communities in these states very often leads to bloody confrontation with powerful feudal forces. In Bihar 14.5% of dalits operate only 5.2% of the area. It is an increase of 0.7% compared to 1980-81. In spite of the fact that Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Orissa have a scheduled groups population of 30, 30 and 40 per cent respectively they operate an area of 8, 11.7 and 8.6 per cent respectively. So, only in those sates that witnessed strong peasant/dalit movements, the dalits could secure some land, at least marginally. The population and land holding are not proportionate. Rather, the rise of strong movements is directly proportional to the consequent atrocities on dalits.

According to Agricultural Census Report, 1991, nearly half (49.06%) of the SC and one third (32.69%) of ST main workers are agrarian labourers. Agricultural labourer population from among dalits has increased from 34.48% in 1961 to 49.06% in 1991. In fact, sharp increase has occurred during the period of green revolution and has maintained since then. Likewise, dalit cultivators' share has fallen down from 37.76% to 25.44% in 1991. Whereas, the trend is not that sharp as far as the general category is concerned.

In lieu of conclusion

MARXISM IS a unified theory of all categories and not an exclusive theory of class as an economic category. Our movement in Bihar has emerged as a forward post of the movement of agrarian labourers and other rural poor challenging the very foundations of the feudal system. The movement has upheld the Marxist viewpoint that expanding the frontiers of class struggle can be the only point of departure for Marxists, while they undertake class struggles against caste oppression and for the social equality of dalits. In Bihar, dalit movements for social dignity and equality have become part of the class struggle of the rural poor. This has emerged in bold relief in sharp contrast to the ideas of dalit democratic revolution et al. This model has proved that broad dalit masses can definitely be mobilised under the red banner for wages, land, social dignity and political emancipation. Hence, the goal to be achieved is the proletarianisation of dalits and not dalitisation of the proletariat.

POSTSCIPT

The Bhopal Declaration and Mr. Chandrabhan Prasad

THE BHOPAL Declaration adopted by the conference on the theme, "Charting A New Course for Dalits for the 21st Century" on 12-13 January 2002, is basically a petty-bourgeois agenda for dalits in the era of globalisation and liberalization. Digvijay Singh brought together 200-odd dalit intellectuals and activists of various shades from all across the country. The main focus of the declaration lies on three points although it was a 21-point charter of demands. This declaration talks about 'affirmative action' and 'diversity policy' along the lines of policies adopted towards African-Americans in the USA. This demand can also be considered as a call to 'democratize capital', in Chandrabhan Prasad's parlance. It is looking for employment and wealth creating opportunities for dalits in private sector. For that purpose, they want reservation to be extended to the private sector too, particularly to industries that receive government patronage in the form of land, tax concession or subsidies. They also want the private industry and corporate houses to bring diversity in the workforce. And another main focus point was the much talked about 'land reforms'. Ambedkar said, "A democratic form of government presupposes a democratic form of society. The formal framework of democracy is of no value and would indeed be a misfit if there was no social democracy". So, they argue that they are attempting to evolve a programme to accomplish 'social democracy'. From their point of view, social democracy means 'equitable share in the appropriation and use of rural and urban common property resources' and equitable share in the nation's wealth for dalits. This, according to them, is one major aspect of 'social democracy'. In order to achieve social democracy, they insist on so-called 'democratization of capital'. So, the declaration seeks diversity in the workforce not only in public institutions but also in private industry and corporate houses. It demands that every government and private organization must implement "supplier diversity" from socially disadvantaged businesses and "dealership" diversity in goods and services. For that purpose, they demand the government to 'make budgetary allocation for SC, STs to enable them to enter the market economy with adequate investment resources and develop their capacities and skills for such market enterprises'. This, according to Mr.Chandrabhan Prasad, is democratization of capital. One can very well welcome the demand, as they aspire for some opening, some place for dalits in the nation's economy. But, the point is the agenda is based on petty-bourgeois illusions and the feasibility of the demand is open to question. Another major point on land reforms insists on "radical land reform measures" along the lines being implemented by the MP government, which claims to have distributed over one lakh acres of land, mainly grazing land, to 45,000 SC/ST families in recent years and promises to distribute 6 lakh acres more in the coming years. According to their claim, about a sixth of agricultural labourers will be turned into independent cultivators if the scheme becomes successful. But, this demand for land redistribution is not part of any anti-feudal struggle. Rather, the declaration even goes to the extent of expecting the government, if the need be, to purchase cultivable land and distribute it among dalits. It is looking for patronage from the government. And here lies the 'petty-bourgeois utopianism'.

Perhaps, for the first time, there is an attempt to go beyond the paradigm of 'social justice through reservations'. It would generate at the most 45 lakh jobs even if the government were to do the fiscally impossible thing of filling up all the existing quotas. Digvijay Singh pointed out in his inaugural speech that reservation was no longer the only effective tool to empower dalits as it would leave out about 18 crore dalits from its ambit even if the system were to be implemented properly. So, the document advocates reservation in a section of private sector and expects the private sector, including corporate houses, to adopt 'diversity' in its workforce. This document, on the one hand, has made a departure from the conventional approach of considering reservation, that too in government organizations, to be the major means for the progress of dalits. On the other hand, unlike Kanshi Ram, it is also looking for solution to the dalit question outside the framework of capturing political power.

If the report presented in the conference was against the "upper varnas" and "upper shudras", its own proposal focuses only on developing a stratum of "upper dalits" in a much more unrealistic way. This can also be termed as an attempt to seek a place in, and at the same time to politically legitimize market economy and to make the system responsive to the lower stratum of people. Perhaps this is the meeting point between dalit petty bourgeois utopianism and bourgeois liberalism. We have already seen the cruelty of 'liberalization with human face'. May be we are also going to witness the so-called 'social face to industrialization and capital' in the coming days. The authors of the declaration are dreaming of the birth of dalit billionaires and dalit entrepreneurs in the coming decades. This declaration, in itself, is a sad commentary of the system that has alienated a major and significant section of people from its ambit. But, they fail to note that the inherent nature of capitalism, especially the Indian variety, is 'undemocratic' and it is incapable of developing its own capitalist productive forces in the backdrop of a semi-feudal society like India. In such a semi-feudal situation, the bourgeoisie who are supposed to be radical in an emerging capitalist society turn into a reactionary class by aligning with feudal forces and thereby maintaining status-quo and losing its potential for achieving any real change. If there are billionaires and millionaires among upper castes, why can't billionaires emerge from among dalits? But, the matter of concern is the utopianism involved and the attempt to get accommodated in the oppressive system that is responsible for the oppression of dalits as a caste and a class as well. This conference was sponsored by the Madhya Pradesh state government led by the Congress. The bourgeoisie is looking for its own agenda for dalits, that too in the context of drastically declining purchasing power of the people leading the economy into a crisis. If Yashwant Sinha is planning to overcome this crisis by focusing on corporatisation of agriculture in the short term, Digvijay Singh is planning to overcome the same by infusing new market forces from among dalits in the long term. But, unfortunately, the document lacks in practical planning and in understanding the law of capitalist development in a semi-feudal society. One can never be opposed to see a dalit billionaire, a dalit industrialist, a dalit entrepreneur or a dalit trader as it can accentuate class polarization within the caste. But, one has to be really concerned about the 'grand old utopianism' of the whole scheme and the impracticability of the method of resolution involved. On the whole, the declaration wants to extract something for dalits from the agenda of globalisation and liberalization. It appears that Chandrabhan Prasad has emerged as the foremost ideologue of this line of dalit development. He is a staunch proponent of social democracy and democratization of capital, on the one hand. On the other hand, he is coming up with a whole set of formulations ranging from dalit-artisan shudra (MBC) unity in contrast to Bahujanwad (dalit-OBC unity) advocated by Kanshi Ram to developing a dalit billionaire in the coming decades. He proclaims that dalit-bahujan unity is theoretically most undesirable whereas dalits should look for a social, political alliance with Brahmans (who are the numerical minorities) to overthrow the dominance of OBCs in all spheres. Moreover, he also says that communal fascism is only a bogey created by brahmans belonging to all hues of left-right ideologies (Here, it is worthwhile to note that Prasad prefers to call rightists as liberals) whereas the biggest threat is the 'social fascism' that is expected to be unleashed by 'upper shudras' when they capture power at all-India level. He also says that the real danger of revival of brahminism lies with 'upper shudras' rather than Brahmans themselves. Because, it is only brahmans who would not suffer from the demand of land reforms for dalits. According to him, they are also the worst sufferers of the very same brahminism unleashed by 'upper shudras'.

He is eagerly waiting for the 'second coming of the empire', next only to the British, to play a radical role for the upliftment of dalits, particularly for creating an articulate elite and middle class from among dalits. Central questions of dalit movement, according to Prasad, are: land, democratization of capital, redefining democracy (social democracy), quality education, democratization of knowledge, etc. He argues for securing immediate benefits for dalits instead of dalit liberation, as it is a far-fetched dream in the present circumstances. He says that dalit liberation can be thought of only when there is no dalit agricultural labourer, only when dalits are fairly represented in English medium schools, only when there are several hundreds of dalit billionaires, and only when their housing issues are resolved. He is opposed to Kancha Ilaiah's formulation saying that Ilaiah is drafting an intellectual trap to 'shudraise' the nation's culture.

If Kancha Ilaiah provided a theoretical framework for the BSP's bahujanwad, Chandrabhan Prasad is providing a theoretical framework for its opportunistic political alliances, particularly with the BJP. That is the meeting point for Ilaiahs and Prasads. The person who advocates westernization of dalits finds allies in Hindutva, the staunch proponents of revivalism in Indian society and considers communal fascism merely as a mischievous construct. Unfortunately, both of them claim to be interpreting Ambedkar in the present conditions. Prasad says that Kanshi Ram cannot become an Ambedkar as Lenin or Mao cannot become a Marx while Kanshi Ram, being a follower of Ambedkar, can very well become one like Lenin or Mao. It is easier for Mr.Prasad to 'negotiate with Bill Gates than a Birla'. It is true that it will be much easier for him to relate with a dalit billionaire. Well, one has to wonder as to when Mr.Prasad will find it easier to get in touch with the reality to realize his 'utopianism in full bloom' and the practical resolution to the plight of crores of poor, downtrodden dalits? May be, when India becomes an America!

Notes

1 Karl Marx and Engels, The Manifesto of The Communist Party, 1977

2 The BSP and Caste as Ideology, 19, March 1994, EPW, pp 669

3 Moni Guha, Proletarian Path (Vol.II, No.1), December, 1995 reproduced in Liberation, April, 1996

4 Caste and Contradictions, 22 October 1994, EPW, pp 2836

5 Interview with Kancha Ilaiah by Anand, May 2000, www.ambedkar.org

6 Antithesis of Caste and Class, Vinod Mishra Selected Works, pp180

7 Caste and Contradictions, 22 October 1994, EPW

8 Gail Omvedt, Dalits and the Democratic Revolution, pp25

9 9 ibid, pp24

10 Vinod Mishra, More on the Anti-thesis of Caste and Class, VM Selected Works, pp 187

11 Rajni Kothari, Rise of the Dalits and the Renewed Debate on Caste, EPW, 25 June 1994, pp1590

12 Kancha Ilaiah, Ibid

13 Kancha Ilaiah, Ibid

14 Jens Lerche, Politics of the Poor: Agrarian Labourers and Political Transformation in UP, Rural Labour Relations in India Today, 2000, pp 224

15 B.B.Mohanty, Land Distribution Among SCs and STs, 6 Oct 2001, EPW, pp 3857

 

Antithesis of Caste and Class - An Orthodox Marxist Hypothesis

[From Liberation, April 1994.]

The Debate

India has been witness to a great social turmoil in recent years where the twin entities of caste and religion have played a major catalytic role. It all came to the fore after VP Singh-led Janata Dal government decided to implement the Mandal Commission recommendations on reservation of jobs to Other Backward Classes in 1990. Although Janata Dal came to power on a plank of anti-Congressism with a tacit support from BJP, the alliance soon ran into rough weather. And interestingly, the two became protagonists of two major socio-political movements in contemporary history of India. Pitted against each other, the movements were popularly known as Mandal and Mandir movements. Janata Dal, in the beginning, enjoyed a much larger support base in its crusade against corruption (Bofors). Its championing of Mandal to the exclusion of everything else, however, vastly eroded its support base and led to a whole chain of political crisis which eventually reduced it to a marginal force in Indian politics.

Mandal, if one were to believe the rhetoric of VP Singh and his cohorts, would usher in an unparalleled social revolution in India against the forces of statusquoism and obscurantism, the forces who were politically represented by Congress(I) and BJP.

In an ironic twist of history, Mandal recommendations were implemented by Congress(I) government taking, in the process, much wind out of the Janata Dal sails.

The crusader in VP Singh dies hard and now it is reduced to the ridiculous demand of a dalit President or a backward Prime Minister, irrespective of his/her ideological-political predilection. Then there is the gimmick of staying away from Delhi till a backward gets employment on the basis of reservation quota. The revolution thus has degenerated into cosmetic reforms and the movement into tokenism.

As regards reservation proper Janata Dal is now left with the options of opposing the creamy layer verdict and to pressurise for 10 per cent reservation quota for upper castes on economic criterion — a promise that V P Singh made to diffuse the anti-Mandal agitation. Neither of the options, however, can be pursued with any zeal for obvious reasons.

Political eclipse of Mr.VP Singh and his Janata Dal signalled the rise of Mulayam Singh and Kanshi Ram. Mulayam Singh claims himself to be the natural representative of backwards as compared to VP Singh, the outsider, and invoking Lohia he has couched his politics in a socialist phraseology with a greater force of inheritance and sincerity of purpose. Kanshi Ram, the rising star of dalit politics, on the other hand, invokes the legacy of Ambedkar. Armed with a radical dalit posture and anti-communist phobia he seems to be desperate to outsmart Ambedkar himself.

These dramatic events have exerted tremendous impact on Indian left and communist movement. While Mandal greatly eroded the communist base among backward peasantry in states like Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, BSP virtually swept away the traditional dalit support of left parties in Uttar Pradesh. Under the circumstances a polemics has surfaced within the left and communist circles that calls for a new approach to the caste phenomenon in Indian society and, particularly in the backdrop of soviet debacle, to redefine the "orthodox" concept of class. Recent desertion of first-ranking leaders of CPI to Samajwadi Party in Uttar Pradesh, PWG Naxalites swelling the ranks of BSP in Andhra Pradesh and defection of some IPF MLAs to Janata Dal in Bihar bring out the gravity and the complexity of the situation.

Here I have before me a book titled Caste and Class Dynamics — Radical Ambedkarite Praxis written by one Dr. Thomas Matthew. The author makes interesting observations about the interrelations between caste and class. I shall try to unravel the puzzle of caste and class relationship in course of my critical analysis of the ideas presented in this book.

The author's avowed aim is to achieve a synthesis of Marxism and Ambedkarism, which according to the author is "the only hope of the teeming millions of India". He takes up this stupendous job in a situation when "Marxian practice, at least the major versions, ended up in historic debacles at the world level" but "Ambedkarite praxis seems to move past its teething troubles in India". Still the synthesis is explained as "absorbing Ambedkarism in the Marxian framework" and not the opposite as one would have normally suspected from the above-mentioned contextual reference. The author's Marxist antecedents are revealed in his acknowledgement of gratitude to Mr.K. Venu "without whose pioneering leadership in attacking Marxist fundamentalism and the concept of 'revolutionary authority' of leadership, it would not have been possible for me to question many Marxist dogmas". More of it later.

Ambedkar Re-examined

To proceed. The first part of the book deals with Ambedkar's struggle against Gandhi and Gandhism. This struggle of great historical importance is narrated in Ambedkar's book Congress, Gandhi and the Untouchables, an old copy of whose original edition the author could manage from a Delhi library. This fact is important as the author claims that there have been attempts at modifying and diluting its contents in subsequent editions.

The author claims that Dr. Ambedkar's analysis and formulations on the ruling classes, Congress and Gandhism were quite different from the official Ambedkarite perceptions. Moreover, "his evaluation about the western parliamentary system and approving references to the Paris Commune and the soviet system exploded all theories that Ambedkar was anti-communist".

As it comes out, Gandhian approach was basically to undertake some reforms within Hinduism through what is called "constructive work" to secure the support of untouchables behind the savarna leadership of Congress in the freedom struggle. Ambedkar, on the other hand, strove for a radical restructuring of Hinduism to do away with caste system itself and to provide a political platform to the rising dalit aspirations. These two contradictory approaches of Gandhi and Ambedkar defined their relationship with each other, with other communities like Muslims and with the British Government.

Commenting on Gandhi's economic philosophy Ambedkar wrote, "there was nothing new in the Gandhian analysis of economic ills as attributable to machinery and the civilisation built upon it. These were old and worn out arguments, a repetition of Rousseau, Pushkin and Tolstoy. His economics was hopelessly fallacious because the evils produced by the mechanised production system and civilisation are not due to machinery as such... They are due to the wrong social organisation which has made private property and pursuit of personal gain a matter of absolute sanctity... The remedy therefore is not to condemn machinery and civilisation but to alter the organisation of society so that the benefits will not be usurped by the few but accrue to all."

In his conflict with Gandhi, Ambedkar undoubtedly emerges as the foremost exponent of a radical socio-economic programme in the freedom struggle.

From Harijans to dalits — there lies the whole course of transformation in the self-perception of untouchables and none but Ambedkar had been the moving spirit behind this transformation. He was perhaps the first dalit leader, who combined with a fair degree of success the social awakening of dalits with their political assertion.

Ambedkar's other major contribution was drafting the Constitution of independent India. He shared Nehru's vision of a modern India and in a certain sense exhibited a greater insight than Nehru. In contrast to Nehru's emphasis on discovery of India, he declared, "In believing that we are a nation we are chasing a great delusion. We can only attempt to become a nation-in the-making."

He opted for a constitutional state socialism, stood for a strong centre, and advocated an economic programme comprising nationalisation of land and its distribution among peasants for collective cultivation and nationalisation of key industries. He believed that such an economic programme backed by state welfare measures positively discriminated in favour of depressed classes will lead to the 'annihilation of caste', his ultimate goal.

His crusade for social liberation of dalits remained central to him and he parted company with Nehru when Nehru gave in to the conservative pressure on Hindu Code Bill! This further convinced Ambedkar that casteism was basic to Hinduism and dalits have no option but to break out of its fold.

And thus he embraced Buddhism which he interpreted in a modernistic sense hoping to herald a new socio-cultural awakening among dalits. In the realm of political action he envisaged the formation of the Republican Party as an independent democratic party of the oppressed classes.

Thus, Ambedkar's crusade reached its crescendo. Unfortunately for him only his community of Mahars joined him in conversion to Buddhism and after his death his political movement represented by the Republican Party of India got splintered and appropriated by the Congress.

In class terms Ambedkar represented the petty bourgeois stratum of dalits that included the small-medium peasantry. Their particular socio-economic conditions were the basic roots of Ambedkar's radicalism and also the source of his limitations. In given conditions he could only strive for a full-scale development of capitalism and a strong capitalist welfare state which shall be instrumental in breaking the age-old social immobility and inertia. His approving references to some aspects of communist practice and invoking socialist jargons only reveal his radical bourgeois democratic essence. This is not an indictment of Ambedkar. On the contrary, it places him high above many historical figures of his times who stood for a conservative path of capitalist development preserving the "Brahminical-Bania alliances" to use Ambedkar's own phrase.

Ambedkar's vacillations, compromises and ultimate recourse to a religious praxis too emanate from the same socio-economic conditions of his existence. The inherent limitations of a dalit petty bourgeois to chart out an alternative strategy of freedom movement forced him sometimes to enter into compromises with Gandhi and Congress and at other times to pin hopes on British. The alternative strategy could have been chalked out only by communists who represented the Indian urban and rural proletariat — a good majority of whom came from dalits. A close political alliance with radical bourgeois democrats of all hues must have been an inalienable part of the alternative strategy. Communist Party of India failed to undertake this responsibility. But that is another story.

Coming back to our author, he is found slipping into the quagmire of idealism while explaining the roots of Ambedkar's vacillations and compromises. Listen to him: "It was the sincerity of purpose, the human weakness and 'forget and forgive' characteristic of the dalits, the oppressed, as opposed to the cunning and calculating nature of the Brahminical classes" that made Ambedkar adjust with Congress over and over again.

The author laments that "Ambedkarism remained within the confines of bourgeois democratic consciousness" for 'it could not transcend the limit set by its peasant roots".

To transcend the limits which Ambedkar failed to do our distinguished author embarks on an adventurous theoretical journey. He starts with a queer analysis.

"Ambedkarism was not rooted in a class with total upward mobility permitting complete merger of the class or even individuals and small groups within the bourgeois system. It represented a peasant society in the process of partial proletarianisation and partial dispossession with an upper crust eagerness for upward mobility being frustrated. It was this phenomenon which destroyed all the efforts at alignment between the untouchables and the ruling bourgeoisie. This was why Dr. Ambedkar was repulsed from the ruling classes after each and every encounter with them. It provides the great potential of Ambedkarism to grow out of limits of bourgeois society."

Having thus established the potential, the author then takes at face value Ambedkar's certain approving references on Marx, Paris Commune and Soviet system. Combined with Ambedkar's denunciation of twin enemies of Brahminism and capitalism and his advocacy of "Socialist programme", all this is taken to symbolise Ambedkar's journey towards communism. Even conversion to Buddhism is interpreted as an answer to the problems raised by Marxism in general and by its concrete application in India in particular. His religio-political praxis becomes a precursor to the Cultural Revolution and democratic resurgence within Marxist ideology and movement. "In some sense Ambedkar's Buddhist resurrection presaged Mao's Cultural Revolution". This is how our author lays the foundation of synthesis of Marxism and Ambedkarism and in later chapters accomplishes this feat with a great finesse.

In Search of A Pan-Dalit Unity

The author finds to his dismay that "immediately after Ambedkar's exit the five-year plans were launched and 'socialism' was adopted by the Congress. The Kaka Kalelkar Commission was set up on reservation for the backward classes. Around the same time, Nehru's Government organised the 2500th of Mahaparinirvana of Buddha at Delhi... Cooperation with Soviet Union also increased." A strange explanation is added thereafter: "Indian ruling classes dispensed with Ambedkar after making up with Stalin."

While analysing the post-Ambedkar scenario, the author rightly observes the process of upward mobility of various backward communities.

"In Kerala a numerically strong shudra community has been upgraded as a savarna group, particularly because the Brahmin-Kayastha-Bania population is very insignificant. The Nair community, which was considered a pollutant by the 'gods', is almost the 'God on Earth' now... Another untouchable community, Ezhawas, has made much headway in socio-economic and political terms."

What is true for Kerala is also true for other parts of India in varying degrees. Land reforms and various other measures of socio-economic upliftment coupled with different varieties of anti-Brahminical mass movements led to this upward mobility of several major backward communities. In Hindi belt, the credit goes chiefly to the Lohiaite socialist movement.

Every major socio-political upheaval in society is invariably accompanied by broadbasing of the social composition of the ruling classes. Post-British India could not have persisted with the old social alliance of British rule and hence the upward mobility of certain backward communities and appropriation of its privileged members within the ruling classes was an inevitable process. Apart from sharpening backward-forward polarisation in certain states, the process brought in its wake growing class-caste differentiation among and within hitherto backward communities. A notable development was the accentuation of conflict between dalits who were mostly agrarian labourers and intermediate castes of well-to-do peasantry who benefited most from the policies of agrarian development.

The author, however, ascribes the whole phenomenon of assimillation certain dalit castes, groups and individuals within the ruling system to the "manipulative" skills of cunning Brahminical ruling classes. By dalit castes the author implies the whole spectrum of untouchables and shudracastes — in official parlance Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes — and engages himself in search of a theoretical praxis that encompasses a pan-dalit unity. He finds it in Bahujan Samaj Party.

"The republican movement foundered on the question of a united front. The party was conceived as a movement of the Deprived Classes to become the ruling class, the political aim of Dr. Ambedkar. But this would not have been possible without alliance with the political forces representing the oppressed sections. Dr. Ambedkar could not give this direction and the party also could not evolve the strategy. If at all they aligned with others it was with the Brahminical ruling class parties. The alternative strategy was to visualise the party framework itself as a coalition of all the oppressed and exploited classes and communities. This, the Bahujan Samaj Party has done. The BSP thus becomes a major theoretical advance in Ambedkarite praxis. The BSP vision is a broader platform covering the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, backward communities and the minorities. It is the most powerful theoretical answer to the Indian ruling class politics of divide and rule."

Well, how far BSP can build and sustain this pan-dalit unity of author's choice in the face of growing social differentiation is yet to be seen; but to present a pragmatic hotchpotch as a major theoretical advance over Ambedkar is the height of theoretical absurdity. By accusing Ambedkar of failing to give the direction of alliance with the political forces of oppressed sections and rather clinging with the Brahminical ruling class parties, the author is both guilty of ahistorical analysis of Ambedkar as well as distortion of facts.

The author who had just eulogised BSP with the "most powerful theoretical answer etc." in a perfect theoretical acrobatics immediately switches over to Janata Dal crediting it with the adoption of "same (BSP) platform" while putting forward "Mandal-Masjid plank". More so, the Janata offensive that came from above created much more furore than the Kanshi Ram crusade at grassroots. Moreover, "BSP's partisanism hardly had any friends outside the dalit fraternity (emphasis added). It was a spectacular political feat that the Janata leadership was made to adopt specific and definite social justice plank that represented the common interests of all the oppressed communities. It was the militant socialist tradition of the North Indian belt which spearheaded this ideological coup de grace."

Mandal Mania

Almost assuming the role of Janata Dal's spokesperson the author lists various achievements of Janata Dal's social justice plank. AwardingBharat Ratna to Ambedkar; organising his birth centenary celebrations; proportional plan allocation for rural areas, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes; considerable relief to bonded labour, contract labour and agricultural workers; (proposed) relief for organised sector workers; (proposed) right to work as a fundamental right; major relief to peasants; (proposed) massive literacy programme, some breathing space to oppressed nationalities; determined offensive against communal forces on Babri Masjid issue, etc. Bihar Government of Janata Dal comes in for a particular praise because of its extending reservations to judiciary and implementing the principle of proportional allocation of plan funds to Scheduled castes and Scheduled tribes. According to the author, "The Mandal agenda came on the heels of all these measures. The political slogans and the orientation became a real threat to the forces of status quo. "And hence the conspiracy by the ruling classes to dethrone and destroy the Janata Dal". Now the question whether the Mandal agenda came on the heels of aforesaid measures or at the cost of a radical socio-economic programme — particularly to sidetrack the promised right to work as fundamental right remains far from settled. Whether these political slogans and orientations were a real threat to the forces of status quo or a device to strike a balance in the power structure corresponding to the growing socio-economic and political clout of certain backward castes — this question too remains open to scrutiny. Adoption of Mandal recommendation by Congress Government only goes to substantiate the latter postulate. Janata Dal is only distinguished by its opposition to the creamy layer concept, exposing in the process its real essence.

Our author, however, regards Mandal as the central theme that polarised not only the Indian society but the communist movement as well.

"All these (Naxalite) movements rooted among dalits have supported Mandal reservation as a democratic measure whereas all the traditional communists rooted in the urban working class have opposed Mandal". "The traditional communist parties wavered and the CPI(M) leadership and even the Indian People's Front, a Naxalite organisation, veered round to the 'economic criterion' principle of the Congress and the BJP."

This is a clear case of twisting the facts to suit one's theoretical framework. CPI went whole hog with Janata Dal on Mandal issue and even went on record opposing the creamy layer verdict and the so-called economic criterion. CPI(M) never opposed Mandal recommendations and the economic criterion it talked of was in relation to stratification within backward communities and thus it welcomed the creamy layer verdict. Indian People's Front never veered round to the so-called economic criterion. On the contrary, it took VP Singh to task for his advocacy of 10 per cent reservation for economically backwards among upper castes. It firmly held that social and educational backwardness alone can be the criterion for reservation.

Our Party did welcome the creamy layer verdict because any measure that articulates class differentiation among powerful backward communities can only be supported by Marxists. We know that conditions had matured for the restructuring of power structure and VP Singh only played a catalytic role in that. Thus we refused to endorse Mandal as a harbinger of any social revolution and went on exposing the hypocrisy of Janata Dal, a bourgeois-landlord formation, and zealously guarded our Party's ideological-political and organisational independence.

Our Party stuck to its position despite a powerful backlash of backwardism, despite Janata Dal's concentrated onslaught against us in Bihar and despite the price we had to pay in the form of defection of some MLAs to Janata Dal. With the Mandal euphoria over our Party is back to the course of rapid advance in Bihar while CPI which had tied itself to Janata Dal's apron strings faces virtual decimation of its traditional mass base, the threat of disintegration and total loss of orientation.

The author is full of praise for PWG "which called for an Andhra Bandh to protest against the judiciary's highhandedness in the matter... and Janata Dal leaders addressed public meetings supported by the PWG on the Mandal issue." The other Naxalite group that received compliments from the author is of course MCC which is credited with leading the "dalit resistance against upper caste tyranny in Bihar". We also find the mention of Satyashodhak Communist Party which, with Marx-Phule-Ambedkar as its philosophical guide, supposedly offers "an ideological challenge to the parliamentary communist movement".

The author thus reaches the final stage of his project synthesis and there he seems to have lost all the balance. Look at this gem: "While dalit songs of revolt reverberated in the heavens, the fire and fury of the (Dalit) Panthers, Naxalites and Militants (Khalistanis and Kashmiris) got a theoretical outline. It was this emerging unity of theory and practice that Ram Vilas Paswan tried to capture through Dalit Sena and Ambedkar Centenary Celebrations."

From Ambedkar to Kanshi Ram to Ram Vilas Paswan! It's really a fantastic journey!

Caste-Class Antithesis

The author presents certain novel ideas about caste. "While Marx saw caste as the decisive impediment to India's power and progress, they (Indian Marxists) took caste as a matter of superstructure... Caste being a production relation does not belong to the superstructure, but to the socio-economic base. The biggest theoretical failure of Indian Marxists has been their refusal to recognise caste as part of the substructure of the society." Now, in Marxist discourse, one has definitely heard of an economic base over which all superstructure lies but never of a socio-economic base. The author himself seems perplexed over relating caste to the social as well as economic base. The dichotomy is explained in the following way:

"Here one has to distinguish between caste as an institution of permanent division of means of production and profession and caste as an attitude of untouchability and discrimination. Caste contains both these aspects, the former belonging to the base and the latter to the superstructure."

In fact, egalitarian societies got split into class societies with the rise of economic surplus and since then history of all existing societies has been the history of class struggle. In pre-capitalist societies, however, inequalities generated by the surplus were adjusted through a social stratification known as social estates. Internal cohesion among existing clans blocked the class formation in a classical sense, and moreover, socio-political formations based on extra-economic coercion perpetuated the system of social estates. In India the stratification did assume a greater permanence owing to the divine sanction accorded to the caste system and more importantly due to the coexistence of a despotic central power with the self-sufficient village communities.

Classes are rooted in the mode of production and their respective economic conditions of existence put them in hostile conflict with each other and this accelerates the process of class differentiation in society. Social estates or castes, however, regulate the mode of distribution and thus block the formation of classes as a 'pure' category. Class struggle permeates each and every social and political movement and thus assumes a variety of complicated forms.

Modern capitalist society accelerates this process of class differentiation and for the first time conditions are created for the self-perception of classes and open class battles. In India too the advent of capitalism and large-scale manufacturing for the first time brought a breach between caste and occupation and there arose a new class of industrial proletariat. The first generation of the proletariat despatched to plantations, mining, textile, jute etc. overwhelmingly belonged to the untouchable and shudra castes and was later joined by the members of upper castes too.

Factories were thus also the social factories which carried the potential for annihilation of caste. The conservative path of development of Indian capitalism did slowdown this process of class differentiation. The parliamentary democracy gave a new lease of life to caste stabilisation as new dominant social classes fought their battles for share in political power by invoking caste equations. And the economism and parliamentarism practised by social democrats corrupted the vision of working class as the class-for-itself. Still, in comparison to the intelligentsia which remained overwhelmingly composed of upper castes, working class is the cauldron of melting caste identities. The new era of globalisation and liberalisation has started disorganising the organised sector of workers and it is once again rising from slumber to resume its historical mission.

So, class is the basic category. In certain historical situations it may express itself in the form of castes, in other situations the two may be interwoven, overlapping and at the same time criss-crossing each other, and in yet another situation castes are disintegrated to crystallise as classes. This is how the antithesis between two proceeds, until the caste as the regulator of mode of distribution stands annihilated.

Our distinguished author, however, feels otherwise. He condemns Indian communists for mechanically applying the European categories in the Indian conditions and questions the very search of industrial proletariat in India. "Indian industrial working class, which they (Marxists) took to represent the proletarian, is not in fact proletarian. It was also a class born with a silver spoon. It largely belonged to the upper echelons of caste hierarchy. It not only had landed property in the villages and towns, but also inherited intellectual property which the masses lacked. They were not the dispossessed proletarians who had nothing to lose but chains. They were a class whose militancy and radicalism was linked with the rich peasant consciousness and ended with the Kulakisation in Rural India."

The author makes a curious distinction between Indian and Western intellectuals. "Western intellectual has nothing other than his mental labour power. In India, knowledge transcends its domain of religion and philosophy and enters the phase of material production and society. Science, knowledge and skill get separated from physical labour and assume dominance in the production... Hence declassing of Indian intellectual becomes a very difficult task." Make a head or tail of all this meaningless talk if you can. Such an unabashed praise of western intellectual, however, does signify the 'declassing' of Mr.Author. Western intellectuals, the possessors of so-called mental labour-power(!), have been essentially bourgeois and petty bourgeois intellectuals engaged in the service of bourgeois society. Open class battles of working class brought a split among them and a section associated itself with the working class. Marx, Lenin and countless others represent that section. Proletarian revolutions, however, encountered, and continue to encounter, a tough resistance from their overwhelming majority.

In contrast, petty-bourgeois intelligentsia in India despite its vacillations and upper caste bias joined progressive democratic and left movements in far greater numbers. The Naxalite movement in particular effected the integration of a large number of petty bourgeois youth with the dalit landless labour.

The author is greatly concerned about educated dalits gravitating towards Brahminism and turning into dalit aristocracy fostered by the bribes and privileges from the state. In explaining this phenomenon he brings in the comparison of Indian dalit vis-a-vis the western proletariat! "While the proletariat fought to regain their mastery over the tools and products of labour which they possessed in the immediate past, the dalits had been dispossessed for generations. The pride, glory and honour were fresh in the memory of the revolutionary proletariat; but the dalit battle was to regain the human personality, which was lost over generations of slavery, untouchability and thralldom. The class was vulnerable enough to fall prey to ruling class stratagems of ideological subversion and cooption." A strange logic! Everything western is good, everything Indian is bad. How come then a whole stratum of labour aristocracy the social base of social democracy arose in the west? How come a dalits in revolutionary struggles played a consistent heroic role in India? A section of labouring people always get co-opted with the system and there is nothing East-West about that. In author's analysis, the whole class of dalits, being "vulnerable enough to fall prey to ruling class stratagems", stands condemned. Ironically, it is to this class that the author accords the leadership to what he prefers to call "Dalit Democratic Revolution".

Dalit Democratic Revolution

For the author, 'dalit' represents all the castes and strata discriminated against by the Brahminical ruling classes. Thus, he emphasises a Dalit Democratic Revolution. Organised sector workers, intelligentsia, professionals belonging to upper castes can only be the wavering and undependable ally.

National bourgeoisie, however, constituting the emerging bourgeois elements of the backward classes and oppressed minority nationalities can of course be consistent ally, more so in the context of increasing globalisation and the growing grip of the Brahminical ruling classes over the centralised state.

Rural proletariat as well as proletarian sections in the unorganised and informal sectors belonging to dalit castes will be the leader. And of course, poor peasants or semi-proletarians as well as peasantry at large coming from dalit and shudra castes will be staunch ally.

The whole revolution has thus been turned upside down. Working class being the undependable ally whereas national bourgeoisie being the consistent ally. This revolution author claims will destroy the Brahminical social order and chart the path of genuine democracy. But the author here clearly evades the mention of social order — capitalist or socialist — that the revolution will establish.

The author thus arrives at the united front of all the backward classes and communities as against "class reductionism" and "working class centrism". This he proclaims, as the biggest breakthrough in the Marxist dogma. Biggest breaking through Marxism indeed!

Coming to the specific economic programme of Dalit Democratic Revolution, the author rejects Ambedkar's programme of land nationalisation and its distribution to cultivators including the landless untouchables with special state assistance. The author argues that "dalits have realised that emancipation lies in ownership of land which means 'power' in rural India" and also "the Ambedkarite prescription of distribution of nationalised land by the state misses the essential element, people's consciousness, that becomes a dynamic material force through direct dalit action for land". He advocates "agrarian revolution through land distribution at the instance of (!) landless and land-poor. Land should be distributed to the agricultural communities on the basis of their proportion in the population. The mode of organisation of production could be left to the democratic decision of the respective communities."

The author opposes the Ambedkar's programme of nationalisation of key industries under the pretext that the state sector is always used in the interest of the ruling classes. He advocates rather privatisation of public sector by distributing public shares equally to the people.

The author fails to understand that it is only the industrial working class through its control over big industries which can undertake any radical agrarian transformation and also control and transform the national bourgeoisie and thus effect the transition from a democratic to socialist revolution. Leadership of working class is thus inbuilt in a new democratic revolution, new only because it shall pass over to socialism and doesn't stop at capitalism. Rural and unorganised proletariat — attached as they are with the lower stage of mode of production can never effect this transition on their own. Their limitations are accepted by the author himself when he talks of land distribution only at the instance of landless and leaves the entire organisation of production to peasant communities themselves. It is just a programme of status quoism in the countryside to keep higher rungs of backward caste peasantry — staunch ally of Dalit Democratic Revolution in good humour.

State sector does serve the ruling classes no doubt, but it also raises the solidarity of working class at the national level and educates them in socialist consciousness in the sense that capitalist owner can be dispensed with and industries can be run by a paid management under working class control. That is why Lenin said that socialism is just a step ahead of state capitalism.

The broad united front, if at all it materialises, will inevitably transfer the leadership to the national bourgeoisie and shall only ensure the domination of kulaks of backward castes over the rural poor. The programme of Dalit Democratic Revolution is actually the maximum limit of the most radical of Janata Dal men and our author has not been able to transcend that limit.

Taking his cue from Ambedkar, the author had embarked upon building a model of revolution "on the grammar of caste society with the dynamics of class struggle". He only succeeded in building a model of reform at the full stop of class struggle with the statics of caste society.

Synthesis Par Excellence

The ambitious project synthesis was based on the one hand on rejection of economism, parliamentarism and the dogma of leadership of the industrial working class in Marxist theory and practice, and on the other on the rise of Ambedkarism from petty bourgeois peasant politics to the consciousness of liberation. In the process, first casualty was Marxism and then the radical economic vision of Ambedkarism on which alone Ambedkar, to a great extent, had based his hopes of dalit liberation.

The end product of the strenuous exercise of his mental labour power spread over 140 pages and priced at Rs. 150 has been the hybrid of K Venu and Ram Vilas Paswan at the level of theory and of Janata Dal and PWG-MCC at the level of practical politics. Many many kudos to the author for laying bare this unholy alliance which we had been hinting at for long.

THEORIES OF ETHNIC RELATIONS

FUNCTIONALISM THEORIES

most concerned with majority-minority relations because of their potential for serious disruption in a society, i.e. it is not functional for a society to become severely divided along lines of race, ethnicity or religion

if a society has ethnic inequality, one of two conditions must be present – either the inequality itself is meeting some kind of social need in the society, or more likely the inequality is a result of some social condition that is in some ways useful to society

in general sense of stratification: possible function - creates incentives, e.g. in terms of jobs some jobs are more critical to the functioning of society and require longer, more difficult periods of training and thus these jobs carry greater rewards, therefore socioeconomic inequality is necessary and inevitable – however no explanation is given for why stratification should occur on basis of race or ethnicity

in case of race, ethnic minorities fill an important need by their willingness to work at jobs and/or wages that are unattractive to others but needed – fills essential jobs, especially true for immigrant minorities who view such positions as superior to those available in their place of origin, and can be applied to rural migrants to cities

Key function: it sees ethnic stratification not so much as something that is useful to society itself but rather ethnic stratification is the product of ethnocentrism which is what is useful – because society needs a shared identity, a "we" feeling, cooperation which is only possible when society's members share certain basic values

most functionalists agree that ethnic stratification is a problem and it ought to be minimized but it is seen as inevitable as long as there is diversity within a society, because of need for consensus and group identity, ethnocentrism will always tend to occur

ways to minimize ethnocentrism are:

to reduce cultural differences between dominant group and minorities

to eliminate legal and other barriers set up by dominant group to exclude minorities,

to develop any skills that may be lacking in the minority groups to enable them to participate in society

this will result in assimilation which is only way out

 

Criticisms:

burden of change is on minority groups

minority groups will experience hostility

most inequality is inherited not earned and there is not free mobility between generations, and thus incentive argument cannot work,

 

1) Assimilation theories – Melting pot assumption

 Proposed stages of assimilation (Robert Park):

initial contact

competitive phase: ethnic populations compete over resources, such as jobs

accommodation phase: immigrants and descendants are forced to change and adapt to their new environment

assimilation

 

Types of assimilation:

Cultural assimilation: values, beliefs, dogmas, ideologies, language and other systems of symbols of the dominant culture are adopted.

Structural assimilation: migrant ethnic groups become members of the primary groups within dominant ethnic populations, their families, close friends, cliques within clubs, and groups within organizations

Marital: emergence of high rates of intermarriage between the migrant and dominant ethnic groups

Identification: individuals no longer see themselves as distinctive and, like members of the dominant groups, stake their personal identities to participation and success in the mainstream institutions of a society

Attitude-receptional assimilation: lack of prejudicial attitudes and stereotyping on the part of both the dominant and migrant ethnic groups

Behavioural-receptional assimilation: absence of intentional discrimination by dominant ethnic groups against subordinate ethnic groups

Civic assimilation: reduction of conflict between ethnic groups over basic values and access to political arena

By the 3rd generation, white ethnic groups have assimilated a considerable amount. For non-white ethnic groups take much longer

 

Criticisms:

paint an overly benign view of ethnic relations, viewing assimilation as inexorable/relentless

does not explain how discriminatory forces operate instead provides consequences of these

 

2) Pluralism theories (Nathan Glazer, Daniel Moynihan)

stresses the process of maintaining patterns of ethnicity, maintaining distinctive cultural, organizational and behavioural characteristics is a way to cope with discrimination

When ethnic identity is nurtured, a pluralistic and permanent mosaic of ethnic sub-populations is evident

Recognizes that some assimilation does occur

Ethnogenesis is process of creating a distinctive ethnicity as a means of adapting to discrimination even as some assimilation occurs

Ethnic groups retain elements of their past but also construct and create new ways of adjusting – selectively retain elements of ethnic heritage and create new elements, new symbols to mark with pride their heritage, e.g. Irish, Poles & Italians

Criticisms: still do not explain broader social forces that cause and sustain discrimination, concerned more with ethnogenesis – internal process rather than external structures in society that set ethnogenesis in motion

 

3) Biological theories – sociobiology (Pierre van den Berghe)

units of natural selection are genes not individual, selfish genes which drive to maximize their fitness

evolutionary explanation

kin selection or inclusive fitness concept holds that family structures area strategy allowing males and females to maximize their fitness by keeping as much of their genetic material as possible in the gene pool, i.e. strategy of familism

reciprocal altruism concept explains why nonfamily members help each other survive

sociobiologists extend these concepts to a larger subpopulation, larger kin groups composed of lineages constitute a breeding population of close and distant kin

ethny term coined which is an extension of more primordial breeding populations, a cluster of kinship circles created by endogamy - in which mate selection is confined to specific groups, and territoriality – physical proximity of its members and relative isolation from nonmembers

 

4) Human Ecology theories (Susan Olzak) – social darwinian

stresses the forces of competition, selection and speciation of distinctive ethnic groupings

emphasis on relative size of ethnic subpopulations, patterns of migration, movement into various social niches, and competition with other ethnic groups in markets for housing and jobs

used to analyze urban areas where there is competition for scarce resources, e.g. land, housing and jobs, escalating the level of conflict between ethnic sub-populations and thus forcing ethnic groups into segregated housing niches and narrow range of economic position

niches are distinctive and have boundaries making them easy targets for discrimination, acts of violence erupt when dominant populations feel threatened

 

CONFLICT THEORY

if a society has ethnic inequality, would see this as mainly a case of domination and exploitation

ethnic stratification is a pattern that serves the interests of some dominant elite

cause of problem is found in exploitative behaviour of either majority group as a whole or some wealthy and powerful segment of it, minority groups are subordinated because doing so provides some benefit to the elite and because the minority lacks either the power or the awareness to prevent such exploitation

ethnocentrism and other forms of prejudice develop as a way of rationalizing exploitation of minority groups

sees arguments for assimilation as a form of false consciousness whereby supporting a system of beliefs and values that go against one's own self-interest

assimilation also blames the victim behaviour of majority group is what needs to be changed since they are the ones doing the exploitation

 

1) Caste theories: used to describe the black-white relations where blacks were confined to lower socioeconomic positions, denied access to power, prevented from intermarriage, segregated in their own living space. Marxist twist where importation of slaves was a business enterprise but which needed to be legitimated by highly prejudiced beliefs and stereotypes based on biological characteristics of the black race.

 

2) Colonialism theories: (one end of spectrum focus on race)

External colonialism: process by which one nation controls the political and economic activities of another, less developed and less powerful society

 

Colonization complex (Robert Blauner)

forced entry into territory and its population

alteration or destruction of indigenous culture and patterns of social organization

domination of indigenous population by representatives of invading society

justification of such activities with highly prejudicial, racist beliefs and stereotypes

 

Internal colonialism

process in which dynamics of colonization complex are seen to operate within a society, e.g. African-Americans, Native Americans (reservations), and Mexicans as colonies within white America

There was a need for cheap labour pool and to take control of land

Governments must actively participate to create such internal colonies, providing coercive force to control those who are colonized, while legitimating patterns of domination with laws

racial and ethnic groups would be best served by rejecting attacks on their culture rejecting calls for assimilation, and promoting and maintaining their own set of values, and control of resources in their own communities

 

3) Split-Labour market theories (Edna Bonacich) (middle of spectrum – focus on both race & class)

emphasis on competition between ethnic groups for resources but also on mobilization and use of power

society divided in three classes – those who own means of production, higher paid labourers, lower paid labourers

markets for labour become partitioned with members of certain ethnic groups confined to some jobs in the market and not allowed to work in others, some ethnic groups become higher paid labourers, most lower paid

pressure to split labour market comes from those in more powerful ethnic populations who fear losing their advantage if labour market were to be opened up to other racial & ethnic minority groups who would be willing to work for less and who would increase supply of labour relative to market's demand and thus drive down wages in competition for jobs

 

4) Split-class theories – (Marxist theory, version of split-labour) (other end of spectrum – focus on class with race subordinate)

society divided into two classes, those who own means of production and those who work for wages

emphasis is on economic exploitation of the lower classes by those in the higher classes, however within each class are isolated segments or sectors and thus subject to discriminatory practices, i.e. splits within each class along ethnic lines

racism is mechanism used by upper class to prevent working class recognizing its own interests, and means by which wager earners are manipulated and divided

working class would be best served if put aside racial and ethnic divisions, thus they could see themselves as workers first and then act on their common class interests

strong racial and ethnic consciousness carries risk of dividing working class

 

Both Split-Labour and split-class theories involve stimulation of competition between ethnic groups by upper classes.  

 

5) Middleman minority theories – (focus on middle class, sub theory of split class theories)

emphasis on splits with middle class

petit bourgeoisie who rely on family labour and ethnic networks

middlemen along the following dimensions: middle or moderate levels of resources, serve as distribution links between producers of goods and those who buy them, go-betweens between members of elite classes and subordinate classes

these minorities have entrepreneurial skills and some capital and thus pose a threat to dominant groups, and lower classes who are clients feel exploited

e.g. Koreans and African Americans

 

 

RACE RELATIONS
American Minority Group course documents
American Minority Group syllabus
Return to MAIN PAGE
http://stmarys.ca/~evanderveen/wvdv/race_relations/theories_of_ethnic_relations.htm
--

Caste system in India

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gandhi visiting Chennai in 1933 on an India-wide tour for Harijan causes. His speeches during such tours discussed the discriminated castes of India and appealed for the eradication of untouchability.

The Indian caste system is a system of social stratification and social restriction in India in which communities are defined by thousands of endogamous hereditary groups called Jātis.

The Jātis were hypothetically and formally grouped by the Brahminical texts under the four well known categories (the varnas): viz Brahmans (priests), Kshatriyas (kings, warriors, law enforcers, administrators), Vaishyas (agriculturists, cattle-herders and traders), and Shudras (menials, Artisans, labourers, craftsmen, service providers).[1][2] [3][4] Certain people like the chandalas (who dealt with disposal of the dead) were excluded altogether and treated as untouchables.[5] Although identified with Hinduism, in the past (1883 year data)[6][Full citation needed] the caste-like systems were also observed among followers of other religions in the Indian subcontinent, including some groups of Muslims and Christians, most likely due to common cultural elements.

In 2001, the proportion of Dalit population was 16.2 percent of India's total population.[7] The Dalit population of India is officially recognized and protected by Indian government as Scheduled Castes. The term Dalit includes all historically discriminated lowest castes of India such as Shudras and Untouchables.[8][5]

Since 1950, India has enacted and implemented many laws and social initiatives to protect and improve the socio-economic conditions of its Dalit population.[9] By 1995, of all jobs in India, 17.2 percent of the jobs were held by Dalits, greater than their proportion in Indian population.[10] Of the highest paying, senior most jobs in government agencies and government controlled enterprises, over 10 percent of all highest paying jobs were held by members of the Dalit community, a ten fold increase in 40 years. In 1997, India democratically elected K.R. Naryanan, a Dalit, as the nation's President.[10] In last 15 years, Indians born in historically discriminated minority castes have been elected to its highest judicial and political offices.[11][12] The quality of life of Dalit population in India, in 2001, in terms of metrics such as access to health care, life expectancy, education attainability, access to drinking water, housing, etc. was statistically similar to overall population of modern India.[13][14][15]

A 2003 report claims inter-caste marriage is on the rise in urban India. Indian societal relationships are changing because of female literacy and education, women at work, urbanization, need for two-income families, and influences from the media.[16]

India's overall economic growth has produced the fastest and more significant socio-economic changes to the historical injustice to its minorities. Legal and social program initiatives are no longer India's primary constraint in further advancement of India's historically discriminated sections of society and the poor. Further advancement are likely to come from improvements in the supply of quality schools in rural and urban India, along with India's economic growth.[17]

Contents

  [hide

[edit]History

There is no universally accepted theory about the origins of the Indian caste system. The Indian classes and Iranian classes ("pistras") show similarity,[18] wherein the priests are Brahmins, the warriors are Kshatriya, the merchants are Vaishya, and the artisans are Shudras.[19][20]

Nair soldiers attending the King of Cochin: A 16th Century European portrait.

From the Bhakti school, the view is that the four divisions were originally created by Krishna. "According to the three modes of material nature and the work associated with them, the four divisions of human society were created."[21]

Criticisms of these understandings of the caste system point out that Varna itself means a complexion, and these Varnas are nothing more than a social classification based on the activities that the individual is involved in. Restrictions to performing religious rites were more related to the profession rather than the caste in which the person is born. i.e., an individual born in a Brahmin family involved in sweeping houses would be considered a Shudra, even though a Brahmin by birth.[citation needed] Such an individual would have to go through a 'shuddhikaran' (purification), a bath in the Ganges or an equivalent procedure before being eligible to enter a temple.[citation needed] There are instances in the Hindu religious tales illustrating birth not determining religious restrictions (Shabri, Valmiki, and others).[citation needed] However, there are also instances showing birth determining religious restrictions (ShambukaEkalavya, and others).

[edit]Caste and social status

Traditionally, in north Indian society, the political power usually lay with the Kshatriyas, the economic power with the Vaishyas and Shudras, while the Brahmins, as custodians and interpreters of Dharma, enjoyed much prestige and were given many advantages by society, even though they were economically poor. Practising Brahmins, were in fact prohibited from owning wealth. [22]

Fa Xian, a Buddhist pilgrim from China, visited India around 400 AD. "Only the lot of the Chandals he found unenviable; outcastes by reason of their degrading work as disposers of dead, they were universally shunned... But no other section of the population were notably disadvantaged, no other caste distinctions attracted comment from the Chinese pilgrim, and no oppressive caste 'system' drew forth his surprised censure."[23] In this period kings of Sudra and Brahmin origin were as common as those of Kshatriya Varna and caste system was not wholly prohibitive and repressive.[24]

A page from the manuscript Seventy-two Specimens of Castes in India, which consists of 72 full-color hand-painted images of men and women of the various castes and religious and ethnic groups found in Madurai, India in 1837.[25]

The castes did not constitute a rigid description of the occupation or the social status of a group. Since British society was divided by class, the British attempted to equate the Indian caste system to their own social class system.[citation needed] They saw caste as an indicator of occupation, social standing, and intellectual ability.[26] Intentionally or unintentionally, the caste system became more rigid during the British Raj, when the British started to enumerate castes during the ten-year census and codified the system under their rule.[citation needed]

The Harijans, the people outside the caste system, had the lowest social status. The Harijans, earlier referred to as untouchables by some, worked in what were seen as unhealthy, unpleasant or polluting jobs. In the past, the Harijans suffered from social segregation and restrictions, in addition to extreme poverty. They were not allowed temple worship with others, nor water from the same sources. Persons of higher castes would not interact with them. If somehow a member of a higher caste came into physical or social contact with an untouchable, the member of the higher caste was defiled and had to bathe thoroughly to purge him or herself of the impurity. Social discrimination developed even among the Harijans; sub-castes among Harijans, such as the Dhobi andNai, would not interact with lower-order Bhangis, who were described as "outcastes even among outcastes."

Sociologists have commented on the historical advantages offered by a rigid social structure as well as its drawbacks. While caste is now seen as anachronistic, in its original form the caste system served as an instrument of order in a society where mutual consent rather than compulsion ruled;[27] where the ritual rights and the economic obligations of members of one caste or sub-caste were strictly circumscribed in relation to those of any other caste or sub-caste; where one was born into one's caste and retained one's station in society for life; where merit was inherited, where equality existed within the caste, but inter-caste relations were dynamic — often unequal and hierarchical. A well-defined system of mutual interdependence through a division of labour created security within a community.[27][28] In addition, the division of labour on the basis of ethnicity allowed immigrants and foreigners to quickly integrate into their own caste niches.[29]

The caste system played an influential role in shaping economic activities,[30] where it functioned much like medieval European guilds, ensuring the division of labour, providing for the training of apprentices, development and protection of intellectual property and, in some cases, allowing manufacturers to achieve narrow specialisation and global monopoly. For instance, producing each variety of cloth was the specialty of a particular sub-caste, but the weavers of Dhaka produced the renowned muslin that was in demand internationally. It has been suggested that the majority of people tend to be comfortable in stratified endogamous groups, as they have always been, since ancient times.[31][not in citation given (See discussion.)]

Seventy-two Specimens of Castes in India, 1837.

Before the British use of Varna categories for enumerating and ranking the Jatis in the decennial census, the relative ranking of the Jatis and castes was fluid and differed from one place to another, based on their political and economic power.[32] Sociologists such as Bernard Buber and Marriott McKim describe how the perception of the caste system as a static and textual stratification has given way to the perception of the caste system as a more processual, empirical and contextual stratification. Other sociologists such as Y.B. Damle have applied theoretical models to explain mobility and flexibility in the caste system in India.[33]

According to these scholars, groups of lower-caste individuals could seek to elevate the status of their caste by attempting to emulate the practices of higher castes. Flexibility in caste laws permitted very low-caste religious clerics such as Valmiki to compose theRamayana, which became a central work of Hindu scripture. There is also precedent of certain Shudra families within the temples of the Sri Vaishnava sect in South India elevating their caste.[33] The following is a list of changes in varna cited in Hindu texts:

  • Manu eldest son [Priyavrata] became king, a Kshatriya. Out of his ten sons, seven became kings while three became Brahman. Their names were Mahavira, Kavi and Savana. (Ref bhagwat puran chap.5)
  • Kavash Ailush was born to a Sudra and attained the varna of a Rishi. He became mantra-drashta to numerous Vedic mantras in Rig-Veda 10th Mandal.
  • Jabala's son [Satyakama] born from unknown father became Rishi by his qualities.
  • [Matanga] became a Rishi after his birth in low Varna.

According to some psychologists, mobility across broad caste lines may have been "minimal", though sub-castes (jatis) may have changed their social status over the generations by fission, re-location, and adoption of new rituals.[34]

Seventy-two Specimens of Castes in India, 1837.

Sociologist M. N. Srinivas has also debated the question of rigidity in caste. In an ethnographic study of the Coorgs of Karnataka, he observed considerable flexibility and mobility in their caste hierarchies.[35][36] He asserts that the caste system is far from rigid — in which the position of each component caste is fixed for all time; instead, movement has always been possible, especially in the middle regions of the hierarchy. It was always possible for groups born into a lower caste to "rise to a higher position by adopting vegetarianism and teetotalism," i.e., adopt the customs of the higher castes. While theoretically "forbidden," the process was not uncommon in practice. The concept ofsanskritization (the adoption of upper-caste norms by the lower castes) addressed the complexity and fluidity of caste relations.

The fact that many of the dynasties were of obscure origin suggests some social mobility: A person of any caste, having once acquired political power, could also acquire a genealogy connecting him with the traditional lineages and conferring Kshatriya status. A number of new castes, such as the Kayasthas (scribes) and Khatris (traders), are mentioned in the sources of this period. According to the Brahmanic sources, they originated from intercaste marriages, but this is clearly an attempt at rationalizing their rank in the hierarchy. Khatri appears to be unquestionably a Prakritised form of the Sanskrit Kshatriya.[37] Many of these new castes played a major role in society. The hierarchy of castes did not have a uniform distribution throughout the country.[38]

[edit]Reforms

Gandhi collecting money for Dalits.ogg
Gandhi collecting money for Dalits, 1930s.

There have been challenges to the caste system from the time of Buddha,[39] Mahavira andMakkhali Gosala. Opposition to the system of varṇa is regularly asserted in the Yoga Upaniṣad-s and is a constant feature of Cīna-ācāra tantrism, a Chinese-derived movement in Asom; both date to the medieval era. The Nātha system, which was founded by Matsya-indra Nātha and Go-rakṣa Nātha in the same era and spread throughout India, has likewise been consistently opposed to the system of varna.

Many Bhakti period saints rejected the caste discriminations and accepted all castes , including untouchables, into their fold. During the British Raj, this sentiment gathered steam, and manyHindu reform movements such as Brahmo Samaj and Arya Samaj renounced caste-based discrimination. The inclusion of so-called untouchables (Many untouchables converted to Buddhism) into the mainstream was argued for by many social reformers (see Historical criticism, below). Mahatma Gandhi called them "Harijans" (children of God) although that term is now considered patronizing and the term Dalit (downtrodden) is the more commonly used. Gandhi's contribution toward the emancipation of the untouchables is still debated, especially in the commentary of his contemporary Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, an untouchable who frequently saw Gandhi's activities as detrimental to the cause of upliftment of his people.[citation needed]

In the south, Periyar E.V. Ramasamy had significantly contributed to social and caste reforms.

The practice of untouchability was formally outlawed by the Constitution of India in 1950, and has declined significantly since then, to the point of a society allowing former untouchables to take high political office, like former President K. R. Narayanan, who took office in 1997,[40]and former Chief Justice K. G. Balakrishnan.[41]

[edit]British rule

The fluidity of the caste system was affected by the arrival of the British. Prior to that, the relative ranking of castes differed from one place to another.[32] The castes did not constitute a rigid description of the occupation or the social status of a group.[citation needed] The British attempted to equate the Indian caste system to their own class system, viewing caste as an indicator of occupation, social standing, and intellectual ability.[26] During the initial days of the British East India Company's rule, caste differences and customs were accepted, if not encouraged,[42] but the British law courts disagreed with the discrimination against the lower castes. However, British policies of divide and rule as well as enumeration of the population into rigid categories during the 10 year census contributed towards the hardening of caste identities.[43]

Theoretically, all foreigners are considered[not in citation given] to be casteless; in the 18th century, the high-caste Brahmins avoided[not in citation given] undertaking sea trips, as they considered[not in citation given] the European merchants as untouchable.[44][better source needed]

[edit]Modern status of the caste system

The massive 2006 Indian anti-reservation protests by higher-caste Hindus

The injustice of caste system, and the means of addressing it, has been an active topic of modern Indian discourse, particularly in the last 80 years. In 1933, the seriousness of the issue and its trauma on Indian consciousness, is exemplified by the following message from Ambedkar to Gandhi:

The Out-caste is a bye-product of the Caste system. There will be outcastes as long as there are castes. Nothing can emancipate the Out-caste except the destruction of the Caste system. Nothing can help to save Hindus and ensure their survival in the coming struggle except the purging of the Hindu Faith of this odious and vicious dogma.

— Dr. Ambedkar, 1933[45]

A 2004 report, compiled by a society of Dalits and people against caste-based discrimination, summarized the developments over last 60 years, and status of the caste system in modern India, as follows:[10]

  • Article 15 of Indian Constitution, as enacted in 1950, prohibits any discrimination based on caste.[9]
  • Article 17 of Indian Constitution declared any practice of untouchability as illegal.[9]
  • India created National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to investigate, monitor, advise, and evaluate the socio-economic progress of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.[46]
  • In 1955, India enacted the Untouchability (Offenses) Act (renamed in 1976, as the Protection of Civil Rights Act). Its extended the reach of law, from intent to mandatory enforcement.
  • In 1989, India passed a new law, namely the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. This law is similar to the Hate Crime Laws in the United States.[47]
  • India implemented a reservation system for its citizens from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes; this program has been in use in India for over 50 years. This program is similar to Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunities statutes in the United States.
  • In India, where the presence of private free market corporations is slowed or prevented by regulations, government jobs have dominated the percentage of jobs in its economy. In 1990s, India adopted free market reforms which has led to rapid growth of its economies; still, a 2000 report estimated that most jobs in India were in companies owned by the government or agencies of the government.[10] The reservation system implemented by India over 50 years, has been partly successful, because of all jobs, nationwide, in 1995, 17.2 percent of the jobs were held by those in the lowest castes. In 1995, some 16.1 percent of India's population were the lowest castes.
  • The Indian government classifies government jobs in four groups. The Group A jobs are senior most, high paying positions in the government, while Group D are junior most, lowest paying positions. In Group D jobs, the percentage of positions held by lowest caste classified people is 30% greater than their demographic percentage. In all jobs classified as Group C positions, the percentage of jobs held by lowest caste people is about the same as their demographic population distribution. In Group A and B jobs, the percentage of positions held by lowest caste classified people is 30% lower than their demographic percentage.
  • The presence of lowest caste people in highest paying, senior most position jobs in India has increased by ten-fold, from 1.18 percent of all jobs in 1959 to 10.12 percent of all jobs in 1995.[10]
  • In 1997, India democratically elected K. R. Narayanan, a Dalit, as the nation's President.
  • In 2007, India elected K. G. Balakrishnan, a Dalit, to the office of Chief Justice.
  • In 2007, Uttar Pradesh, the most populous state of India, democratically elected Mayawati as the Chief Minister, the highest elected office of the state. BBC claims, "Mayawati Kumari is an icon for millions of India's Dalits, or untouchables as they used to be known."[11]
  • In 2009. Indian parliament unanimously elected Meira Kumar, as the first woman speaker. She is from Dalit community.[12]

In addition to taking affirmative action for people of schedule castes and schedules tribes, India has expanded its effort to include people from poor, backward castes in its economic and social mainstream. In 1990, the Government of India introduced reservation of 27% for Backward Classes on the basis of the Mandal Commission's recommendations. This became the law with the issuance of Gazette notice 36012/31/90-Estt. (SCT) dated 13th August 1990. Since then, India has reserved 27 percent of job opportunities in government-owned enterprises and agencies for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs). The 27 percent reservation is in addition to 22.5 percent set aside for India's lowest castes for last 50 years.[48]

In a 2008 study, Desai et al. focussed on education attainments of children and young adults aged 6–29, from lowest caste and tribal populations of India. They completed a national survey of over 100,000 households for each of the four survey years: 1983, 1987–1988, 1993–1994, and 1999–2000. They found:[49]

  • Over the 16 year period, from 1983 to 1999, there is a significant increase in dalits and tribal children in their odds of completing primary school. The number of dalit children who completed either middle, high or college level education increased by 81 percent, from 21 percent in 1983 to 38 percent in 1999. This compares to national average increase of 36 percent.
  • The number of dalit girls in India who attended school went from 16 percent in 1983, to 33 percent in 1999.
  • According to χ2 tests and regression analysis on 100,000 household data across the nation, there is statistically significant change at both early and late educational transitions for males and females alike, in dalit populations of India. This suggests that, as of 1999, the social inequalities with respect to school enrollment have changed over time, within 16 years, as have the inequalities in college completion. These changes are net of any secular changes that might have occurred due to rising levels of household income or urbanization for the entire nation.
  • Educational inequalities, Desai et al. claim are a function of many different factors: availability and quality of schools, returns to education, parental demand for schooling, and teachers' attitudes. Within the context of their analysis, it is not possible to show unambiguously that the changes observed were the results of government programs.
  • Compensatory and positive discrimination policies such as reservations and government funded scholarships have created a resentment from poor upper caste Indians who are denied the benefit of reservations and who are too poor to afford an education on their own, midst the general shortage of quality and quantity of schools.
  • Other poor ethnic groups such as Muslims in India have also made improvements over the 16 year period, but their improvement lagged behind that of dalits and adivasis. The net percentage school attainment for Dalits and Muslims, were statistically same in 1999.

A 2007 nationwide survey of India by the World Bank found that over 80 percent of children of historically discriminated castes were attending schools. The fastest increase in school attendance by Dalit community children occured during the recent periods of India's economic growth.[13] The quality and quantity of schools are now India's major issue.[50]

A study by Singh presents data on health and other indicators of socio-economic change in India's historically discriminated castes. He claims:[15]

  • In 2001, the literacy rates in India's lowest castes was 55 percent, compared to a national average of 63 percent.
  • The childhood vaccination levels in India's lowest castes was 40 percent in 2001, compared to a national average of 44 percent.
  • Access to drinking water within household or near the household in India's lowest castes was 80 percent in 2001, compared to a national average of 83 percent.
  • The poverty level in India's lowest castes dropped from 49 percent to 39 percent between 1995-2005, compared to a national average change from 35 to 27 percent.

An indicator of caste-based violence, extent of hate crimes, disease and systematic discrimination in health care availability is the average life expectancy distribution for various castes. Table below presents this data for various caste groups in modern India. Both 1998 and 2005 data is included to ascertain the general trend. The Mohanty and Ram report suggests that poverty, not caste, is the bigger differentiator in life expectancy in modern India.[14]

Life expectancy statistics for Indian caste groups
Life expectancy at birth (in years)
Castes group 1998-1999 2005-2006
Lowest castes 61.5 64.6
Other backward castes 63.5 65.7
Poor, tribal populations 57.5 56.9
Poor, upper castes 61.9 62.7
National Average 63.8 65.5

A 2003 article in The Telegraph claimed that inter-caste marriage and dating are not uncommon in urban India. Indian societal and family relationships are changing because of female literacy and education, women at work, urbanization, need for two-income families, and global influences through the television. Female role models in politics, academia, journalism, business, and India's feminist movement have accelerated the change.[16]

The caste system is still socially relevant in India. Caste has become (see Caste politics in India) an important factor in the politics of rural India, although elections in the first decade of the 21st century seem to have diminished a hold that was very much evident in the previous few decades.

The Government of India has officially documented castes and sub-castes, primarily to determine those deserving reservation (positive discrimination in education and jobs) through the census. The Indian reservation system relies on quotas. The Government lists consist of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes:

Scheduled castes (SC)
Scheduled castes generally consist of "Dalit". The present population is 16% of the total population of India (around 165 million).[51] For example, the Delhi state has 49 castes listed as SC.[52]
Scheduled tribes (ST)
Scheduled tribes generally consist of tribal groups. The present population is 7% of the total population of India i.e. around 70 million.
Other Backward Classes (OBC)
The Mandal Commission covered more than 3000 castes under Other Backward Class (OBC) Category, regardless of their affluence or economic status and stated that OBCs form around 52% of the Indian population. However, the National Sample Survey puts the figure at 32%.[53] There is substantial debate over the exact number of OBCs in India; it is generally estimated to be sizable, but many believe that it is lower than the figures quoted by either the Mandal Commission or the National Sample Survey.[54]

The caste-based reservations in India have led to widespread protests, such as the 2006 Indian anti-reservation protests, with many complaining of reverse discrimination against the forward castes (the castes that do not qualify for the reservation).

The government is carrying out caste census for 2011.[55] It will help in verifying the claims and counterclaims by various sections of the society about their actual numbers. It would also help the government to re-examine and even undo some of the policies which were formed in haste like Mandal commission and bring more objectivity to the policies with contemporary realities.[56] Others believe that there is actually no social stigma at all associated with belonging to a backward caste, and that because of the huge constitutional incentives, in the form of educational and job reservations, a large number of people will falsely declare themselves to be from a backward caste, to avail of the benefits. This will not only result in a marked inflation of the backward castes numbers, but also lead to enormous administrative and judicial resources being devoted to social unrest and litigation, if such dubious caste declarations are challenged.[citation needed]

[edit]Caste systems among non-Hindus

[edit]Christians

In some parts of India, Christians are stratified by sect, location, and the castes of their predecessors,[57] usually in reference to upper classSyrian Malabar Nasranis. Christians in Kerala are divided into several communities, including Syrian Christians and the so-called "Latin" or "New Rite" Christians.

Kerala

Syrian Christians derive status within the caste system from the tradition that they are converted High caste Hindus such as Namboodiris,Nairs and Jews (Israelites), who were evangelized by St. Thomas.[58] Writers Arundhati Roy and Anand Kurian have written personal accounts of the caste system at work in their community.[59][60][61][62][63] Syrian Christians, especially Knanaya Christians, tend to be endogamous and not intermarry with other Christian castes.[59] This is because they wish to preserve their Jewish heritage.

The Latin Rite Christians were among the scheduled castes in the coastal belt of Kerala, where fishing was the primary occupation. They were actively converted by missionaries in the 16th and 19th centuries. These missionary activities were carried out by Western Latin Rite missionaries who did not understand the significance of the caste system in India; none of the Syrian churches had participated in such activities among the scheduled castes of India because they were aware of the prejudices of the caste system.[citation needed] The government of India later granted this group OBC status. Very rarely are there intermarriages between Syrian Christians and Latin Rite Christians.

Anthropologists have noted that the caste hierarchy among Christians in Kerala is much more polarized than the Hindu practices in the surrounding areas, due to a lack of jatis. Also, the caste status is kept even if the sect allegiance is switched (i.e. from Syrian Catholic toSyrian Orthodox).[64]

Goa

In the Indian state of Goa, mass conversions were carried out by Portuguese Latin missionaries from the 16th century onwards. The Hindu converts retained their caste practices. The continued maintenance of the caste system among the Christians in Goa is attributed to the nature of mass conversions of entire villages, as a result of which existing social stratification was not affected. The Portuguese colonists, even during the Goan Inquisition, did not do anything to change the caste system. Thus, the original Hindu Brahmins in Goa now became Christian Bamonns and the Kshatriya became Christian noblemen called Chardos. The Christian clergy became almost exclusively Bamon.Vaishyas who converted to Christianity became Gauddos, and Shudras became Sudirs. Finally, the Dalits or "Untouchables" who converted to Christianity became Maharas and Chamars, the latter an appellation of the anti-Dalit ethnic slur Chamaar.

[edit]Muslims

Despite Islam's clear prohibitions against a caste-like system, units of social stratification have developed among Muslims in some parts of South Asia.[65][66] Sources indicate that the castes among Muslims developed as the result of close contact with Hindu culture and Hindu converts to Islam.[65][66][67][68] The Sachar Committee's report commissioned by the government of India and released in 2006 documents the continued stratification in Muslim society, though stratification is not as rigid as the Hindu system, nor is it condoned by Islam.

Among Muslims, those who are referred to as Ashrafs are presumed to have a superior status derived from their foreign Arab ancestry,[69][70]while the Ajlafs are assumed to be converts from Hinduism, and have a lower status. However, this may be more accurately described as ethnocentrism, since no prohibitions or rules are imposed on Aljafs, or their mingling with Ashrafs. In addition, the Arzal caste among Muslims was regarded by anti-caste activists like Ambedkar as the equivalent of untouchables, due to their low socioeconomic status.[71][72]In the Bengal region of India, some Muslims stratify their society according to 'Quoms,' though this is a description of their menial labour, and is not a rigid strata of society in strictly the same manner as a caste.[73] While many scholars have asserted that the Muslim "castes" are not as acute in their discrimination as those of the Hindus,[68][74] some like Ambedkar argued that the social evils in Sub-continental Muslim society were "worse than those seen in Hindu society", which maybe due to the influence of Hindu society in which they dwell.[71][72]

[edit]Sikh

The Sikh Gurus criticized the hierarchy of the caste system. While some castes were widely perceived as being better or higher than others, they preached that all sections of society were valuable and that merit and hard-work were essential aspects of life. In the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, out of 140 seats, 20 are reserved for low caste Sikhs. However, the quota system has attracted much criticism due to the lack of meritocracy, since merit is considered the single most important component of winning a seat.[75]

[edit]Buddhists

The Buddha specifically denounced the caste system and there was no practice of caste amongst his immediate followers. So the rest of this section has a questionable status. The Buddhists also had a caste system. In Sri Lanka, the Rodis might have been outcast by the Sri Lankan Buddhists due to the absence of ahimsa (non-violence), a central tenet of Buddhism, among their beliefs. The writer Raghavan notes, "That a form of worship in which human offerings formed the essential ritual would have been anathema to the Buddhist way of life goes without saying; and it needs no stretch of imagination that any class of people in whom the cult prevailed or survived even in an attenuated form would have been pronounced by the sangha (i.e. the Buddhist clergy) as exiles from the social order." Savarkar believed that the status of the backward castes (e.g. Chamar) that performed non-violence[clarification needed] only worsened.[76] When Ywan Chwang traveled to South India after the period of the Chalukyan Empire, he noticed that the caste system had existed among the Buddhists and Jains.[77]

[edit]Jains

Jains also had castes in places such as Bihar. For example, in the village of Bundela, there were several "jaats" (groups) amongst the Jains. A person of one "jaat" cannot intermingle with a Jain or another "jaat". They also could not eat with the members of other "jaats".[78]

[edit]Baha'i

The Baha'i Faith has grown to prominence in India, since its philosophy of the unity of humanity attracted many of the lower castes.[79]

[edit]Caste-related violence

Independent India has witnessed a considerable amount of violence and hate crimes motivated by caste. According to a UN report, approximately 110,000 cases of violent acts committed against Dalits were reported in 2005.[51] Various incidents of violence against Dalits such as Kunbis Kherlanji Massacre and Jats Mirchpur killings in 2010, have been reported from many parts of India. Many violent protests by Dalits, such as the 2006 Dalit protests in Maharashtra, have also been reported.

An exception to the norm is the Ranvir Sena, a caste-supremacist fringe paramilitary group based in Bihar, which committed violent acts against Dalits.

Phoolan Devi, who belonged to the Mallah lower caste, was mistreated and raped by upper-caste Thakurs at a young age. She became a bandit and carried out violent robberies against upper-caste people. In 1981, her gang massacred twenty-two Thakurs, most of whom were not involved in her kidnapping or rape. Later, after an amnesty scheme, she became a politician and Member of Parliament.

[edit]Caste politics

B. R. Ambedkar and Jawaharlal Nehru had radically different approaches to caste, especially concerning constitutional politics and the status of untouchables.[80] Since the 1980s, caste has become a major issue in the politics of India.[80]

The Mandal Commission was established in 1979 to "identify the socially or educationally backward" and to consider the question of seat reservations and quotas for people to redress caste discrimination.[81] In 1980, the commission's report affirmed the affirmative action practice under Indian law, whereby additional members of lower castes - the other backward classes - were given exclusive access to another 27 percent of government jobs and slots in public universities, in addition to the 23 percent already reserved for the Dalits and Tribals. When V. P. Singh's administration tried to implement the recommendations of the Mandal Commission in 1989, massive protests were held in the country. Many alleged that the politicians were trying to cash in on caste-based reservations for purely pragmatic electoral purposes.

Many political parties in India have openly indulged in caste-based votebank politics. Parties such as Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), theSamajwadi Party and the Janata Dal claim that they are representing the backward castes, and rely on OBC support, often in alliance with Dalit and Muslim support, to win elections.[82] Remarkably, in what is called a landmark election in the history of India's most populated state of Uttar Pradesh,[by whom?] the Bahujan Samaj Party was able to garner a majority in the state assembly elections with the support of the high caste Brahmin community.

[edit]Criticism

There has been criticism of the caste system from both within and outside of India.[83] Criticism of the Caste system in Hindu society came both from the Hindu fold and without.

[edit]Historical criticism

Both Buddha and Mahavira preached people to break the bonds of the caste system, and severely criticised untouchability, that was prevalent throughout the society. In 12th century, Basavanna, a philosopher and a social reformer, fought against caste system and preached that all humans are to be treated as equal regardless of caste and gender. Many bhakti period saints, including MeerabaiGuru NanakKabir,ChaitanyaDnyaneshwarEknathSubramanya BharathiRamanujan and Tukaram, rejected all caste-based discrimination and accepted disciples from all the castes. Many Hindu reformers such as Swami Vivekananda believe that there is no place for the caste system in Hinduism. The 15th century saint Ramananda accepted all castes, including untouchables, into his fold. Most of these saints subscribed to the Bhakti movements in Hinduism during the medieval period that rejected casteism. Nandanar, a low-caste Hindu cleric, also rejected casteism and accepted Dalits.[84]

Some other movements in Hinduism have also welcomed lower-castes into their fold, the earliest being the Bhakti movements of the medieval period. Dalit politics involved many reform movements; these arose primarily as a reaction to the advent of Christian missionaries in India and their attempts to convert Dalits, who were attracted to the prospect of escaping the caste system.

Untouchables of MalabarKerala (1906)

In the 19th Century, the Brahmo Samaj under Raja Ram Mohan Roy actively campaigned against untouchability and casteism. The Arya Samaj founded by Swami Dayanand also renounced discrimination against Dalits. Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa and his disciple Swami Vivekananda founded the Ramakrishna Mission that participated in the emancipation of Dalits. Upper-caste Hindus such as Mannathu Padmanabhan participated in movements to abolish untouchability against Dalits; Padmanabhan opened his family temple to Dalits for worship.Narayana Guru, a pious Hindu and an authority on the Vedas, also criticized casteism and campaigned for the rights of lower-caste Hindus within the context of Hinduism.

The first upper-caste temple to openly welcome Dalits into their fold was the Sri Padmanabhaswamy temple in Thiruvananthapuram, erstwhile Travancore in the year 1936; the move was spearheaded by social reformer Ayyankali. In 1936, the Maharaja of Travancoreproclaimed that "outcastes should not be denied the consolations and the solace of the Hindu faith". Even today, the Sri Padmanabhaswamy temple that first welcomed Dalits in the state of Kerala is revered by the Dalit Hindu community.

The caste system has also been criticized by many Indian social reformers. Some reformers, such as Jyotirao Phule and Iyothee Thass, argued that the lower caste people were the original inhabitants of India, who had been conquered in the ancient past by "Brahmin invaders."Mahatma Gandhi coined the term Harijan, a euphemistic word for untouchable, literally meaning Sons of GodB. R. Ambedkar, born in HinduDalit community, was a heavy critic of the caste system. He pioneered the Dalit Buddhist movement in India, and asked his followers to leave Hinduism, and convert to Buddhism. India's first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, based on his own relationship with Dalit reformer.Ambedkar, supported the eradication of untouchability for the benefit of the Dalit community.

[edit]Contemporary criticism

Some activists consider the caste system a form of racial discrimination.[85] At the United Nations Conference Against Racism in Durban,South Africa in March 2001, participants condemned discrimination based on the caste system and tried to pass a resolution declaring caste as a basis for segregation and oppression a form of apartheid. However, no formal resolution was passed.[86]

Threshing/winnowing people in a Dalitvillage near Madurai, Tamil Nadu, India

The alleged maltreatment of Dalits in India has been described by some authors as "India's hidden apartheid".[87][88] Critics of the accusations point to substantial improvements in the position of Dalits in post-independence India, consequent to the strict implementation of the rights and privileges enshrined in the Constitution of India, as implemented by the Protection of Civil rights Act, 1955.[89] They also note that India has had a Dalit presidentK.R. Narayanan, and argue that the practise had disappeared in urban public life.[90]

According to William A. Haviland, there were allegations to the contrary by a Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in India. He quotes from the Committee's March 2007 report the following:

Although India's national constitution of 1950 sought to abolish caste discrimination and the practice of untouchability, the caste system remains deeply entrenched in Hindu culture and is still widespread throughout southern Asia, especially in rural India. In what has been called India's "hidden apartheid", entire villages in many Indian states remain completely segregated by caste. Representing about 15 percent of India's population—or some 160 million people—the widely scattered Dalits endure near complete social isolation, humiliation, and discrimination based exclusively on their birth status. Even a Dalit's shadow is believed to pollute the upper classes. They may not cross the line dividing their part of the village from that occupied by higher castes, drink water from public wells, or visit the same temples as the higher castes. Dalit children are still often made to sit in the back of classrooms.[91]

Sociologists Kevin Reilly, Stephen Kaufman and Angela Bodino, while critical of casteism, conclude that modern India does not practice apartheid since there is no state-sanctioned discrimination.[92] They write that casteism in India is presently "not apartheid. In fact, untouchables, as well as tribal people and members of the lowest castes in India benefit from broad affirmative action programmes and are enjoying greater political power." The Constitution of India places special emphasis on outlawing caste discrimination, especially the practice of untouchability.[93]

A 1995 study suggests that the caste system in India must be viewed as a system of exploitation of poor low-ranking groups by more prosperous high-ranking groups.[94] In many parts of India, land is largely held by high-ranking property owners of the dominant castes, including the politically privileged other backward classes (OBCs), who economically exploit low-ranking landless labourers and poor artisans.[citation needed] Such qualitative theories have been questioned though by other studies. Haque reports that over 90 percent of both scheduled castes (low-ranking groups) and all other castes (high-ranking groups) either do not own land or own very small land area only capable of producing less than $1000 per year of food and income per household. Over 99 percent of India's farms are less than 10 hectares, and 99.9 percent of the farms are less than 20 hectares, regardless of the farmer or landowner's caste. Indian government has, in addition, vigorously pursued agricultural land ceiling laws which prohibit anyone from owning land greater than mandated limits. India has used this law to forcibly acquire land from some, then redistribute tens of millions of acres to the landless and poor of the low-caste. However, but for some short term exceptions in some states, these laws have not met the expectations.[95][96] In a 2011 study, Aiyar too notes that such qualitative theories of economic exploitation and consequent land redistribution within India between 1950 and 1990 had no effect on the quality of life and poverty reduction. Instead, economic reforms since 1990s and resultant opportunities for non-agricultural jobs have reduced poverty and increased per capita income for all segments of Indian society.[97] For specific evidence, Aiyar mentions the following

Critics believe that the economic liberalization has benefited just a small elite and left behind the poor, especially the lowest Hindu caste of dalits. But a recent authoritative survey revealed striking improvements in living standards of dalits in the last two decades. Television ownership was up from zero to 45 percent; cellphone ownership up from zero to 36 percent; two-wheeler ownership (of motorcycles, scooters, mopeds) up from zero to 12.3 percent; children eating yesterday's leftovers down from 95.9 percent to 16.2 percent...[...]... Dalits running their own businesses up from 6 percent to 37 percent; and proportion working as agricultural laborers down from 46.1 percent to 20.5 percent. [...]

Cassan has studied the differential effect within two segments of India's Dalit community. He finds India's overall economic growth has produced the fastest and more significant socio-economic changes. Cassan further concludes that legal and social program initiatives are no longer India's primary constraint in further advancement of India's historically discriminated castes; further advancement are likely to come from improvements in the supply of quality schools in rural and urban India, along with India's economic growth.[17]

Matt Cherry claims[weasel words] that karma underpins the caste system, which traditionally determines the position and role of every member of Hindu society. Caste determines an individual's place in society, the work he or she may carry out, and who he or she may marry and meet. He states that Hindus believe that the karma of previous life will determine the caste an individual will be (re)born into.[98] Also seeKarma in Hinduism.

On 29 March 2007, the Supreme Court of India, as an interim measure, stayed the law providing for 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes in educational institutions. This was done in response to a public interest litigation — Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs. Union of India. The Court held that the 1931 census could not be a determinative factor for identifying the OBCs for the purpose of providing reservation. The court also observed, "Reservation cannot be permanent and appear to perpetuate backwardness".[99] However, the Supreme Court later upheld the reservation.[100]

[edit]Caste and race

Allegations that caste amounts to race were addressed and rejected by B.R. Ambedkar, an advocate for Dalit rights and critic of untouchability. He wrote that "The Brahmin of Punjab is racially of the same stock as the Chamar of Punjab. The Caste system does not demarcate racial division. The Caste system is a social division of people of the same race",[101]

Such allegations have also been rejected by Indian sociologists such as Andre Béteille, who writes that treating caste as a form of racism is "politically mischievous" and worse, "scientifically nonsensical" since there is no discernible difference in the racial characteristics betweenBrahmins and Scheduled Castes. He states, "Every social group cannot be regarded as a race simply because we want to protect it against prejudice and discrimination".[102]

The Indian government also rejects the claims of equivalency between caste and racial discrimination, pointing out that the caste issues are essentially intra-racial and intra-cultural. Indian Attorney General Soli Sorabjee insisted that "[t]he only reason India wants caste discrimination kept off the agenda is that it will distract participants from the main topic: racism. Caste discrimination in India is undeniable but caste and race are entirely distinct".[85]

Many scholars dispute the claim that casteism is akin to racism. Sociologist M. N. Srinivas has debated the question of rigidity in caste.[35][36] Others have applied theoretical models to explain mobility and flexibility in the caste system in India.[33] According to these scholars, groups of lower-caste individuals could seek to elevate the status of their caste by attempting to emulate the practices of higher castes.

In her book Democracy and Authoritarianism in South Asia, Pakistani-American sociologist Ayesha Jalal writes, "As for Hinduism, the hierarchical principles of the Brahmanical social order have always been contested from within Hindu society, suggesting that equality has been and continues to be both valued and practiced."[103]

Haviland in his book Anthropology: The Human Challenge suggests that race and caste systems are related and each a type of social stratification. Both create social classes determined by birth and fixed for life. Both are opposite of the principle that all humans are born equal, both tend to be endogamous, and offsprings are automatically members of parent's social strata. As examples, Haviland describes castelike situations in Central and South America where wealthy, upper class European-descent population rarely intermarries with people of non-European descent; the social strata in current practice by the royal families and nobility in modern Europe; racial segregation and castelike separation of people by their ethnicity in townships of modern South Africa; social stratification during recent decades in United States of America, where, for instance, dark-skinned individuals culturally classified as colored or black may encounter social rules making it difficult if not impossible to befriend or marry someone with a lighter skin color.[91] Race and caste may have different anthropological origins, yet have the same anthropological result.

[edit]Genetic analysis

There have been several studies examining caste members as discrete populations, examining the hypothesis that their ancestors have different origins. A 2002–03 study by T. Kivisild et al. concluded that the "Indian tribal and caste populations derive largely from the same genetic heritage of Pleistocene southern and western Asians and have received limited gene flow from external regions since theHolocene."[104] Some studies point to the various Indian caste groups having similar genetic origins[105] and having negligible genetic input from outside south Asia.[105] Because the Indian samples for this study[clarification needed] were taken from a single geographical area, it remains to be investigated whether its findings can be safely generalized.[106]

An earlier 1995 study by Joanna L. Mountain et al. of Stanford University had concluded that there was "no clear separation into three genetically distinct groups along caste lines", although "an inferred tree revealed some clustering according to caste affiliation".[107] A 2006 study by Ismail Thanseem et al. of Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (India) concluded that the "lower caste groups might have originated with the hierarchical divisions that arose within the tribal groups with the spread of Neolithic agriculturalists, much earlier than the arrival of Aryan speakers", and "the Indo-Europeans established themselves as upper castes among this already developed caste-like class structure within the tribes."[108] The study indicated that the Indian caste system may have its roots long before the arrival of the Indo-Aryans; a rudimentary version of the caste system may have emerged with the shift towards cultivation and settlements, and the divisions may have become more well-defined and intensified with the arrival of Indo-Aryans.[109]

A 2001 study (published in Genome Research) by researchers from India, Europe, and the U.S. found that "Analysis of these data demonstrated that the upper castes have a higher affinity to Europeans than to Asians, and the upper castes are significantly more similar to Europeans than are the lower castes" [110] In other words, members of higher castes are more closely related to Europeans than are the lower castes.[111][112]

According to the The Indian Genome Variation Consortium (2005),[113] the population of the subcontinent can be divided into fourmorphological types: Caucasoids in the north, Mongoloids in the northeast, Australoids in the south and Negritos largely restricted to the Andaman Islands; however, these groups tend to overlap because of admixture. The majority of genetic differences among Indians appears to be distributed along caste lines, rather than along ethnic lines, although genetic differences do exist between predominantly Indo-European-speaking northern and predominantly Dravidian-speaking southern Indian populations, as was also observed by Reich in a recent 2009 study.[114]

In 2008, the Indian Genome Variation Consortium produced another study, this time emphasizing the significant genetic differentiation which exists between Dravidian-speaking, Indo-European-speaking, Tibeto-Burman-speaking and Austro-Asiatic-speaking populations. The researchers write: "Thus, although there are no clear geographical grouping of populations, ethnicity (tribal/nontribal) and language seem to be the major determinants of genetic affinities between the populations of India. This is concordant with an earlier finding based on allele frequencies at blood group, serum protein and enzyme loci (Piazza et al. 1980)." The authors further observe that "it is contended that the Dravidian speakers, now geographically confined to southern India, were more widespread throughout India prior to the arrival of the Indo–European speakers (Thapar 1966). They, possibly after a period of social and genetic admixture with the Indo–Europeans, retreated to southern India, a hypothesis that has been supported by mitochondrial DNA analyses (Basu et al. 2003). Our results showing genetic heterogeneity among the Dravidian speakers further supports the above hypothesis. The Indo–European speakers also exhibit a similar or higher degree of genetic heterogeneity possibly because of different extents of admixture with the indigenous populations over different time periods after their entry into India. It is surprising that in spite of such a high levels of admixtures, the contemporary ethnic groups of India still exhibit high levels of genetic differentiation and substructuring."[115]

A 2009 genetic study published by David Reich et al. analyzed half a million genetic markers across the genomes of 132 individuals from 25 ethnic groups from 13 states in India across multiple caste groups. This 2009 study, based on the the presupposition that the modern Indian population was descended from two ancient lineages, Ancestral North Indians (ANI), who are most related genetically to Central and West Eurasian populations, and Ancestral South Indians (ASI), who are most related to the Negritos of the Andaman islands, concluded that: "By introducing methods that can estimate ancestry without accurate ancestral populations, we show that ANI ancestry ranges from 39-71% in India, and is higher in traditionally upper caste and Indo-European speakers." The study authors further note that: "ANI ancestry is significantly higher in Indo-European than Dravidian speakers (P=0.013 by a 1-sided test), suggesting that the ancestral ASI may have spoken a Dravidian language before mixing with the ANI. We also find significantly more ANI ancestry in traditionally upper than lower or middle caste groups (P=0.0025), and find that traditional caste level is significantly correlated to ANI ancestry even after controlling for language (P=0.0048), suggesting a relationship between the history of caste formation in India and ANI-ASI mixture."[116]

Genetic variations with phenotypic effects are seen between castes. For example, many members of the Arya Vaisya Chettiyar clan are fatally allergic to some anaesthetics such as Suxamethonium, also known as Scoline.[117]

[edit]In popular culture

Mulk Raj Anand's debut novel, Untouchable (1935) based on the theme of untouchability. Hindi film, Achhoot Kanya (Untouchable Maiden, 1936) starring Ashok Kumar and Devika Rani was an early reformist film. The debut novel of Arundhati RoyThe God of Small Things (1997) also has themes surrounding the caste system. A lawyer named Sabu Thomas filed a petition to have the book published without the last chapter, which had graphic description of sexual acts between members of different castes.[118] Sabu Thomas, a member of Syrian Christian community of Kerala, claimed the obscenity in the last chapter deeply hurts the Syrian Christian community, the basis of the novel.[119]

[edit]Caste system in India from an international perspective

Many scholars have compared and contrasted the caste system in India from an international perspective. For example, Neisser notes that although the word caste is usually associated with India, India is not the only such society. Numerous other countries have caste-like minorities, who have been ostracized, discriminated, denied civil rights, forced to sit in the back of bus, asked to use designated toilets, considered impure or shunned in recent human history. Examples include Burakumin in Japan, Maoris in New Zealand, Jews in certain parts of Europe, Afro-Americans in the United States, Oriental Jews in Israel, Al-Akhdam of YemenBaekjeong of Korea, Midgan of Somalia, and West Indians in Great Britain.[120][121][122][123][124]

Ogbu suggests that, in international context, the emotional feeling and the result is the same, that anyone born into a lower caste or caste-like minority - a Burakumin in Japan, a minority in America, or Shudra in India - is to grow up with this feeling that one's life will eventually be restricted to a small and poorly rewarded set of social roles.[125]

Berreman[123] is amongst those who use the term social stratification to discuss the caste system in India from an international perspective. He claims that regardless of its characteristics in a particular society, stratification is based upon three primary dimensions: class, status, and power, which are expressed respectively as wealth, prestige, and the ability to control the lives of people. Berreman suggests that, from an international perspective, social stratification systems present everywhere in the world share these crucial facts:

  • the identity is regarded as being a consequence of birth or ancestry and therefore is immutable;
  • the identity confers upon its possessor a degree of societally defined and affirmed worth which is regarded as intrinsic to the individual; and
  • this inherent worth is evaluated relative to that of all others in the society; that is, those of different birth circumstances are inherently unequal and are avoided, while those of similar birth circumstances are innately equal and are sought.

The issues and challenges with caste system in India have been, and are currently no different than religion, gender, ethnic or race-based social stratification and discrimination systems anywhere else in the world.[123]

[edit]See also

[edit]Notes

  1. ^ Manu ((Lawgiver)); Manu; Patrick Olivelle (2004). The law code of Manu. Oxford University Press. pp. 185–. ISBN 978-0-19-280271-2. Retrieved 6 January 2012.
  2. ^ Braja Dulal Mookherjee (2002). The Essence of Bhagavad Gita. Academic Publishers. pp. 472–. ISBN 978-81-87504-40-5. Retrieved 6 January 2012.
  3. ^ Kingship and community in early India - Page 85, Charles Drekmeier - 1962, ISBN 0804701148
  4. ^ Cultural Studies - Page 208, Lawrence Goodrich, ISBN 1449637280
  5. a b Sadangi (2008). Emancipation of Dalits and Freedom StruggleISBN 978-8182054813.
  6. ^ Francis Buchanan, Indian Census Record, 1883
  7. ^ "Scheduled castes and scheduled tribes population: Census 2001". Government of India. 2004.
  8. ^ "List of Schedule Castes". Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India. 2011.
  9. a b c "Constitution of India". Ministry of Law, Government of India. Retrieved 2012.
  10. a b c d e "Status of caste system in modern India". Dr. B.R.Ambedkar and His People. 2004.
  11. a b "Profile: Mayawati Kumari". BBC News. 16 July 2009.
  12. a b "Meira Kumar, a Dalit leader is the new Lok Sabha Speaker". NCHRO. 2009.
  13. a b Deepa Shankar (2007). "What is the progress in elementary education participation in India during the last two decades?". The World Bank.
  14. a b Mohanty and Ram (November 2010). "LIFE EXPECTANCY AT BIRTH AMONG SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC GROUPS IN INDIA". International Institute for Population Sciences.
  15. a b Darshan Singh (2009). "DEVELOPMENT OF SCHEDULED CASTES IN INDIA – A REVIEW"Journal of Rural Development28 (4): 529–542.
  16. a b "THE DOLLAR BRIDES - Indian girls marrying NRIs often escape to a hassle-free life". The Telegraph. 28 January 2003.
  17. a b Guilhem Cassan (September 2011). "The Impact of Positive Discrimination in Education in India: Evidence from a Natural Experiment". Paris School of Economics and Laboratoire d'Economie Appliquee.
  18. ^ The Cambridge History of Iran by Ilya Gershevitch, p. 651.
  19. ^ The World Year Book of Education by Columbia University. Teachers College, University of London Institute of Education, p. 226.
  20. ^ Origin and Growth of Caste in India by Nripendra Kumar Dutt, p. 39.
  21. ^ Bhagavad Gita As It Is, By A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, ISBN 0892131233, BBT press, chapter 4, verse 13
  22. ^ "Brahman"Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 2007-04-24.
  23. ^ John Keay, India: A History, HarperCollins Publishers Ltd, London, 2000. p. 145.
  24. ^ John Keay, India: A History, HarperCollins Publishers Ltd, London, 2000. p. 189.
  25. ^ "Seventy-two Specimens of Castes in India". Yale University.
  26. a b Kevin Hobson. "The Indian Caste System and The British: Ethnographic Mapping and the Construction of the British Census in India". Retrieved 2007-05-04.
  27. a b W. Klatt, "Caste, class and communism in Kerala," Asian Affairs, volume 3, issue 3 October 1972, pp. 275–287, DOI: 10.1080/03068377208729634.
  28. ^ The Varna and Jati Systems by Terence Callaham and Roxanna Pavich.
  29. ^ Nehru, J, Discovery of India, Oxford India Paperbacks.
  30. ^ Sankaran, S (1994). "3". Indian Economy: Problems, Policies and Development. Margham Publications. p. 50.
  31. ^ "Oriental Philosophy",lander.edu.
  32. a b "Govind Sadashiv Ghurye: Ghurye's Views about Indian Society" (PDF). Archived from the original on 2007-02-26. Retrieved 2007-05-04.
  33. a b c James Silverberg (November 1969). "Social Mobility in the Caste System in India: An Interdisciplinary Symposium". The American Journal of Sociology 75 (3): 443–444.JSTOR 2775721.
  34. ^ Social Structure & Mobility in Economic Development, by Neil J. Smelser, Seymour Martin Lipset, Published 2005.
  35. a b Srinivas, M.N., Religion and Society among the Coorgs of South India, p. 32 (Oxford, 1952).
  36. a b Caste in Modern India; And other essays: p. 48. (Media Promoters & Publishers Pvt. Ltd, Bombay; first published: 1962, 11th reprint: 1994).
  37. ^ Glossary of the tribes and Castes of the Punjab and N.W. Frontier Province, vol. 2, p. 501, by H.A. Rose, first ed. 1911.
  38. ^ "India." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 6 June 2008.
  39. ^ The Buddha – Caste Problem.
  40. ^ Burns, John F. (26 July 1997). "Lowest-Caste Hindu Takes Office as India's President"The New York Times. Retrieved 29 August 2010.
  41. ^ Akhter, Andalib (5 April 2001). "Justice K. G. Balakrishnan: Rising From Down Under". Retrieved 30 August 2010.
  42. ^ Alavi, Seema (1998). Sepoys And The Company Tradition and transition in Northern India 1770–1830. Oxford University Press India. p. 5. ISBN 0-195-63484-5.
  43. ^ Corbridge, Staurt; Harriss, John (2000). Reinventing India: Liberalization, Hindu Nationalism and Popular Democracy. Polity press. p. 8.
  44. ^ "A Social History of India, APH Publishing, 2029 p. 388
  45. ^ B.R. Ambedkar (February, 1933). "A note to Gandhi"Harijan 3.
  46. ^ "About NCST". Government of India. 2011.
  47. ^ "India: (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; No. 33 of 1989". Human Rights Watch. 1989.
  48. ^ "Annual Report, 2007-2008". National Commission for Backward Classes, Government of India. 2009.
  49. ^ Desai and Kulkarni (May, 2008). "Changing Educational Inequalities in India in the Context of Affirmative Action".Demography 45 (2): 245–270.
  50. ^ "India Journal: The Basic Shortages that Plague Our Schools". The Wall Street Journal. 3 January 2012.
  51. a b "UN report slams India for caste discrimination". CBC News. March 2, 2007.
  52. ^ List of Scheduled Castes Delhi Govt.
  53. ^ Reply to SC daunting task for governmentTribune India.
  54. ^ What is India's population of other backward classes?,Yahoo News.
  55. ^ http://www.thestatesman.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&show=archive&id=370188&catid=35&year=2011&month=5&day=20&Itemid=66
  56. ^ The Hindu (Chennai, India).http://www.hindu.com/fline/fl1718/17180910.htm.
  57. ^ Christian Castes Encyclopædia Britannica.
  58. ^ Fuller, C.J.Indian Christians: Pollution and Origins.Man, New Series, Vol. 12, No. 3/4. (Dec., 1977), pp. 528–529.
  59. a b Rao Babadur L. K. Anantakrishna Ayyar, Anthropology of the Syrian Christians. Cochin Government Press. 1926
  60. ^ "Caste among Syrian Christians". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved 19 March 2010.
  61. ^ "Racing on the fast track". Hindustan Times.
  62. ^ Fuller, C.J.Indian Christians: Pollution and Origins.Man, New Series, Vol. 12, No. 3/4. (Dec., 1977), pp. 528–529.
  63. ^ "Nambudiri origin". www.hindutva.org. Retrieved 19 March 2010.
  64. ^ Kerala Christians and the Caste System C. J. Fuller Man, New Series, Vol. 11, No. 1. (Mar., 1976), pp. 53–70.
  65. a b "Islamic caste." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 18 Oct. 2006.
  66. a b Burton-Page, J. "Hindū." Encyclopaedia of Islam. Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzeland W.P. Heinrichs. Brill, 2006. Brill Online.
  67. ^ Muslim Caste in Uttar Pradesh (A Study of Culture Contact), Ghaus Ansari, Lucknow, 1960, p. 66.
  68. a b Singh Sikand, Yoginder. "Caste in Indian Muslim Society". Hamdard University. Retrieved 2006-10-18.
  69. ^ Aggarwal, Patrap (1978). Caste and Social Stratification Among Muslims in India. Manohar.
  70. ^ Social Stratification Among Muslims in India by Zarina Bhatty.
  71. a b Ambedkar, BhimraoPakistan or the Partition of India. Thackers Publishers.
  72. a b Web resource for Pakistan or the Partition of India.
  73. ^ Leach, Edmund Ronald (1971-11-24). Aspects of Caste in South India, Ceylon and North-West Pakistan (p. 113). Cambridge University Press.
  74. ^ Muslim Communities of South Asia: Culture and Society Edited by T.N. Madan. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House, 1976 p. 114.
  75. ^ Dr. Sewa Singh Kalsi. "Problems of Defining Authority in Sikhism". DISKUS Vol.3 No.2 (1995) pp. 43–58. Archived fromthe original on 2006-12-31. Retrieved 2007-04-24.
  76. ^ "Are neo-Buddhists Hindus?" by Koenraad Elst.
  77. ^ Durga Prasad, p. 115, History of the Andhras upto 1565 A. D..
  78. ^ Martin, Robert Montgomery, p. 216, The History, Antiquities, Topography, and Statistics of Eastern India.
  79. ^ Notes on Bahá'í population in India by Charles Nolley and William Garlington, 1997-03
  80. a b Danny Yee. "Book review of Caste, Society and Politics in India: From the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age". Retrieved 2006-12-11.
  81. ^ Bhattacharya, Amit. "Who are the OBCs?". Archived from the original on 2006-06-27. Retrieved 2006-04-19. Times of India, April 8, 2006.
  82. ^ "Caste-Based Parties". Country Studies US. Retrieved 2006-12-12.
  83. ^ India's caste system discriminates.
  84. ^ Shaivam.org.
  85. a b An Untouchable Subject?
  86. ^ Final Declaration of the Global Conference Against Racism and Caste-based Discrimination.
  87. ^ Gopal Guru, with Shiraz Sidhva. India's "hidden apartheid".
  88. ^ Rajeev Dhavan. India's apartheid.
  89. ^ The Constitution of India by P.M. Bakshi, Universal Law Publishing Co, ISBN 81-7534-500-4.
  90. ^ Mendelsohn, Oliver & Vicziany, Maria, "The Untouchables, Subordination, Poverty and the State in Modern India", Cambridge University Press, 1998.[page needed]
  91. a b William A. Haviland, Anthropology: The Human Challenge, 13th edition, Thomson Wadsworth, 2010, ISBN 978-0495810841, p. 536 (see note 9).
  92. ^ Kevin Reilly, Stephen Kaufman, Angela Bodino, Racism: A Global Reader P21, M.E. Sharpe, 2003 ISBN 0-7656-1060-4.
  93. ^ Excerpts from The Constitution of India.
  94. ^ India – A Country Study, USA Library of Congress, 1995, Chapter 5.
  95. ^ Hanstad (2005). "Improving land access to India's rural poor". The World Bank.
  96. ^ Haque (2006). "IMPROVING THE RURAL POORS' ACCESS TO LAND IN INDIA". DARPG, Government of India.
  97. ^ Swaminathan S. Anklesaria Aiyar (July 2011). "The Elephant That Became a Tiger, 20 Years of Economic Reform in India".
  98. ^ Matt Cherry, "Humanism In India", Free Inquiry magazine, Vol 16 Num 4.
  99. ^ "Supreme Court stays OBC quota in IITs, IIMs"rediff.com(Rediff.com India Limited). 2007-03-29. Retrieved 2007-04-01.
  100. ^ [1]
  101. ^ Ambedkar, The Annihilation of Caste. p. 49 of his Writings and Speeches, vol.1, Education Dpt., Government of Maharashtra 1979.
  102. ^ Race and caste by Andre Beteille.
  103. ^ A. Jalal, Democracy and Authoritarianism in South Asia: A Comparative and Historical Perspective (Contemporary South Asia), Cambridge University Press (May 26, 1995), ISBN 0-521-47862-6.
  104. ^ Kivisild, T.; S. Rootsi, M. Metspalu, S. Mastana, K. Kaldma, J. Parik, E. Metspalu, M. Adojaan, H.-V. Tolk, V. Stepanov, M. Gölge, E. Usanga, S. S. Papiha, C. Cinnioglu, R. King, L. Cavalli-Sforza, P. A. Underhill, and R. Villems (February 2003). "The Genetic Heritage of the Earliest Settlers Persists Both in Indian Tribal and Caste Populations"American Journal of Human Genetics 72 (2): 313–332. doi:10.1086/346068PMC 379225PMID 12536373. Retrieved 2007-09-09.
  105. a b http://www.pnas.org/content/103/4/843.full.pdf
  106. ^ Basu, Analabha; Namita Mukherjee, Sangita Roy, Sanghamitra Sengupta, Sanat Banerjee, Madan Chakraborty, Badal Dey, Monami Roy, Bidyut Roy, Nitai P. Bhattacharyya, Susanta Roychoudhury and Partha P. Majumder (2003). "Ethnic India: A Genomic View, With Special Reference to Peopling and Structure"Genome Research 13 (10): 2277–2290.doi:10.1101/gr.1413403PMC 403703PMID 14525929. Retrieved 2007-09-09.
  107. ^ Mountain, Joanna L.; J M Hebert, S Bhattacharyya, P A Underhill, C Ottolenghi, M Gadgil, and L L Cavalli-Sforza (April 1995)."Demographic history of India and mtDNA-sequence diversity".American Journal of Human Genetics 56 (4): 979–992. ISSN 0002-9297PMC 1801212PMID 7717409. Retrieved 2007-09-09.
  108. ^ Thanseem, Ismail; Kumarasamy Thangaraj, Gyaneshwer Chaubey, Vijay Kumar Singh, Lakkakula VKS Bhaskar, B Mohan Reddy, Alla G Reddy, and Lalji Singh (August 2006). "Genetic affinities among the lower castes and tribal groups of India: inference from Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA" (PDF).BMC Genetics 7: 42. doi:10.1186/1471-2156-7-42.PMC 1569435PMID 16893451. Retrieved 2007-09-09.
  109. ^ G.S. Mudur (2007-01-01). "Caste in the genes". The Telegraph, Calcutta. Retrieved 2007-08-31.
  110. ^ Genetic Evidence on the Origins of Indian Caste Populations -- Bamshad et al. 11 (6): 994Genome Research.
  111. ^ Scientists Connect Indian Castes and European Heritage.Scientific American. May 15, 2001.
  112. ^ Trivedi, Bijal P (2001-05-14). "Genetic evidence suggests European migrants may have influenced the origins of India's caste system"Genome News Network (J. Craig Venter Institute). Retrieved 2005-01-27.
  113. ^ http://www.imtech.res.in/raghava/reprints/IGVdb.pdf
  114. ^http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7263/abs/nature08365.html
  115. ^ http://www.ias.ac.in/jgenet/Vol87No1/temp/jgen08-00038.pdf
  116. ^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842210/#SD2
  117. ^ "A Chettiyar Problem"The Times of India. 30 July 2006. Retrieved 7 July 2011.
  118. ^ "The God of Small Things Background".
  119. ^ http://www.rediff.com/news/aug/07arun.htm Obscenity case slammed against Arundhati Roy
  120. ^ Ulric Neisser (1986). The School Achievement of Minority Children: New Perspectives. p. 4-14. ISBN 978-0898596854.
  121. ^ "From Back of the Bus, Israeli Women Fight Segregation". The Wall Street Journal. 5 January 2012.
  122. ^ Williams, Donnie; Wayne Greenhaw (2005). The Thunder of Angels: The Montgomery Bus Boycott and the People who Broke the Back of Jim Crow. Chicago Review Press. p. 48. ISBN 1-55652-590-7.
  123. a b c Gerald D. Berreman (1972). "Race, Caste, and Other Invidious Distinctions in Social Stratification". University of California, Berkeley. doi:10.1177/030639687201300401.
  124. ^ Alfred RosenbergThe Myth of the Twentieth Century, 1930; andHans F.K. GüntherThe racial elements of European History, 1927
  125. ^ J.U. Ogbu (1978). Minority education and caste: The American system in cross-cultural perspective. Academic Press. ISBN 978-0125242509.

[edit]References

  • Aggarwal, Patrap. Caste and Social Stratification Among Muslims in India. Manohar. 1978.
  • Ambedkar, Bhimrao. Pakistan or the Partition of India. Thackers Publishers.
  • Ansari, Ghaus. Muslim Caste in Uttar Pradesh: A Study of Culture Contact. Lucknow, 1960.
  • Bayly, Susan. Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age. Cambridge University Press. 1999. DOI:10.2277/0521264340. ISBN 978-0-521-26434-1.
  • Michaels, Axel, Hinduism: Past and Present 188-97 (Princeton 2004) ISBN 0-691-08953-1.
  • Srinivas, M. N. Religion and Society among the Coorgs of South India. Oxford, 1952.

[edit]Further reading

  • Swami Sahajanand Saraswati Rachnawali (Selected works of Swami Sahajanand Saraswati), Prakashan Sansthan, Delhi, 2003.
  • Baldev Upadhyaya, Kashi Ki Panditya Parampara, Sharda Sansthan, Varanasi, 1985.
  • M.A. Sherring, Hindu Tribes and Castes as Reproduced in Benaras, Asian Educational Services, New Delhi, First edition 1872, new edition 2008.
  • Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya, Hindu Castes and Sects, Munshiram Manoharlal, Delhi, first edition 1896, new edition 1995.
  • E.A.H.Blunt, The Caste System of North India, first edition in 1931 by Oxford University Press, new edition by S.Chand Publishers, 1969.
  • Christopher Alan Bayly, Rulers, Townsmen, and Bazaars: North Indian Society in the Age of British Expansion, 1770–1870, Cambridge University Press, 1983.
  • Anand A. Yang, Bazaar India: Markets, Society, and the Colonial State in Bihar, University of California Press, 1999.
  • Acharya Hazari Prasad Dwivedi Rachnawali, Rajkamal Prakashan, Delhi.
  • Bibha Jha's Ph.D thesis Bhumihar Brahmins: A Sociological Study submitted to the Patna University.
  • Arvind Narayan Das, Agrarian movements in India : studies on 20th century Bihar (Library of Peasant Studies), Routledge, London, 1982.
  • M. N. Srinivas, Social Change in Modern India, Orient LongmanDelhi, 1995.
  • Mahavir Prasad Dwivedi essays.
  • Ambedkar, B.R. (1946). The Untouchables: Who Were They and Why They Became Untouchables? as reprinted in Volume 7 of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, published by Government of Maharashtra 1990; Complete Writings.
  • Ambedkar, B.R. (1946) Who were the Shudras (Read online).
  • Atal, Yogesh (1968) "The Changing Frontiers of Caste" Delhi, National Publishing House.
  • Atal, Yogesh (2006) "Changing Indian Society" Chapter on Varna and Jati. Jaipur, Rawat Publications.
  • Baines, Jervoise Athelstane (1893). General report on the Census of India, 1891, London, Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
  • Blunt, E.A.H. (1931). The Caste System of Northern India, republished 1964, S. Chand, Delhi.
  • Crooke, William (1896). Tribes and Castes of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh, 4 vols.
  • Duiker/Spielvogel. The Essential World History Vol I: to 1800. 2nd Edition 2005.
  • Dumont, LouisHomo Hierarchicus: The Caste System and Its Implications. Complete English edition, revised. 540 p. 1970, 1980 Series: (Nature of Human Society).
  • Forrester, Duncan B., 'Indian Christians' Attitudes to Caste in the Nineteenth Century,' in Indian Church History Review 8, no. 2 (1974): 131-147.
  • Forrester, Duncan B., 'Christian Theology in a Hindu Context,' in South Asian Review 8, no. 4 (1975): 343-358.
  • Forrester, Duncan B., 'Indian Christians' Attitudes to Caste in the Twentieth Century,' in Indian Church History Review 9, no. 1 (1975): 3-22.
  • Forrester, Duncan B.Caste and Christianity: Attitudes and Policies on Caste of Anglo-Saxon Protestant Missions in India (London and Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Curzon Press and Humanities Press, 1980).
  • Ghurye, G. S. (1961). Caste, Class and Occupation. Popular Book Depot, Bombay.
  • Ghurye, G. S. (1969). Caste and Race in India, Popular Prakashan, Mumbai 1969 (1932).
  • Jaffrelot, Christophe (2003). India's Silent Revolution: The Rise of the Lower Castes, C. Hurst & Co.
  • Kane, Pandurang VamanHistory of Dharmasastra: (ancient and mediaeval, religious and civil law) — Poona : Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 1962–1975.
  • Lal, K. S. Growth of Scheduled Tribes and Castes in Medieval India (1995).
  • Murray Milner, Jr. (1994). Status and Sacredness: A General Theory of Status Relations and an Analysis of Indian Culture, New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Raj, Papia & Aditya Raj (2004) "Caste Variation in Reproductive Health of Women in Eastern Region of India: A Study Based on NFHS Data" Sociological Bulletin 53 (3): 326–346.
  • Ranganayakamma (2001). For the solution of the "Caste" question, Buddha is not enough, Ambedkar is not enough either, Marx is a must, Hyderabad : Sweet Home Publications.
  • Russell, R.V. and R.B. Hira Lal (1916). The Tribes and Castes of the Central Provinces of India, 4 vols., London.
  • Liz Stuart , in the Guatdian Weekly , January 10, 2002

[edit]External links

View page ratings
Rate this page
Trustworthy
Objective
Complete
Well-written

No comments: