The
Marxist
Volume: 18, No. 03-04
July-December 2002
CLASS
STRUGGLE
AND
CASTE
OPPRESSION
:
INTEGRAL
STRATEGY
OF
THE
LEFT
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.
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
17th
Party
Congress
of
the
CPI
(M)
at
Hyderabad
in
2002.
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
by
chaturvarnya.
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
Manusmriti
declared
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
Manusmriti
makes
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.
The
Bhagavadgita
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
the
dharmasastras
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.
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
in
adivasi
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
adivasis
remained
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
varnas
have
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
chaturvarnya
of
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.
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.
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.14
If
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
his
Problems
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.