The anti-Brahminical movements in India, especially in Maharashtra, are
important because the specific characteristics of Indian caste feudalism
and the way it was transformed and yet essentially maintained by
British colonial rule, defined the specific anti-feudal tasks of the
Indian revolution. The most basic anti-feudal task the land question
took on, was the extremely complex features as a result of Indian caste
feudalism. Because of the way in which hierarchical relations were
maintained within the village and among the exploited classes
themselves, and because of the way in which productive work for the land
was institutionalized through the jajmani/palotedarisystem, it
was insufficient to look at the land question simply in terms of
landlordism. Similarly, the slogan of ‘land to the tiller’ was abstract
and insufficient in the Indian context without understanding the overall
Brahminical domination. For the fact was that much of the land had two
tillers– the cultivating middle caste peasant, whether tenant or ryot, and the Dalit field servant, whose connection to the land was equally long-standing.
The very inequality among the exploited, institutionalized through the
feudal caste hierarchy, meant that the need for creating unity in the
context of resolving land question was crucial. It is hard to see how
this could be done without a specific programme of action constituting
poor peasants including Dalits, as well as caste Hindu toilers who would
have the responsibility of seizing and distributing the village lands
and instituting necessary programmes of co-operative and collective
agriculture.
Though attempts were begun by the Dalit castes from the late 19th
century to organize themselves, the various sections of Dalit
liberation movement really began to take off from the 1920s in the
context of the strong social reform and anti-caste movements, which were
beginning to develop a genuine mass base. The non-Brahmin movements in
Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu especially provided an important support. It
is not accidental that Jyotirao Phule, the mali (gardener caste) who lived in the middle of the 19th
century, made the initial ideological advances and formulated a theory
of Brahminism and ‘Irani Aryabhat’ conquest turning the Aryan theory
upside down to identify with the original ‘non-Aryan’ Shudra and anti-Shudra inhabitants of the country.
Dalits, to some extent, were organizing the 19th century
also. An early attempt in Maharashtra was the movement of Gopal Babu
Wangankar. Much organizing focused on the effort to regain their rights
to serve in the British Indian Army, which they had helped till the
1870s, but which was then withdrawn from them. It was in the 1920s,
however, that the Dalits began to organize strongly and independently
throughout many regions of India. The most important of the early Dalit
movements were the Adi-Dharma movement in Punjab (organized in 1926);
the movement under Ambedkar in Maharashtra, mainly based among Maharas,
which had its organizational beginnings in 1924; the Nama-Shudra
movement in Bengal; the Adi-Dravida movement in Tamil Nadu; the
Adi-Karnataka movement; the Adi-Hindu movement mainly centered around
Kanpur in UP; and the organising of the Pulayas and Cherumans in Kerala.
(For details see Mark Juergensmeier, “Adi Dharm: Origins of a
Revolutionary Religion” University of California Press; Eleanor Zelliot,
“Learning the Use of Political Means: The Mahars of Maharashtra”. In:
Rajni Kothari, ed, "Caste in Indian Politics", Orient Longman, 1970.
J.H. Broom-field, "Elite Conflict in a Plural Society: Twentieth Century
Bengal" (University of California Press, 1968).
In most of the cases the Montagu - Chelmsford Reforms provided a spark
for this organization of Dalits, but the crucial background was the
massive economic and political upheavals of the post-war period. The
movements had a linguistic-national organizational base and varied
according to the specific social characteristics in different areas, but
there was considerable all-India exchange of ideas and by the 1930s
this began to take the shape of all India conferences with Ambedkar
emerging as the clear national leader of the movement. The founding of
the Scheduled Castes Federation in 1942, and its later conversion into
the Republican Party, gave Dalits a genuine all-India political
organization, though this remained weak, except in certain specific
localities, and did not by any means constitute the entire Dalit
movement (Bharat Patenkar, Gail Omvedt: The Dalit Liberation Movement in
Colonial Period). Writing about the Non-Brahmin movement in Maharashtra
led by Jyotiba Phule, Com. Anuradha says, "The movement began with the
founding of the Satyasashodak Samaj in Pune. The rise of Satyasashodak
Samaj (SS) took place in the context of a rise of Brahminical Hindu
revivalism in western India in the 1870s, with its base in Pune, which
put the upper caste reformers on the defensive. After working as a
social reformer for almost 20 years, Jyotiba Phule founded the SS in
1873 in Pune. The main task of the SS was to make the non-Brahmins
conscious of their exploitation by the Brahmins. Phule himself belonged
to the malicaste, a caste involved in the cultivation of
vegetables, and their trade in the vicinity of Pune. His family was
middle class and he was educated in a mission school. The SS did not
restrict its activities to any particular caste and worked among the
various non-Brahmin (NB) castes in the rural areas of Thane, Pune and
later in other districts in Bombay Province and Berar. They also worked
among the workers in the textile mills of Bombay. The songs, booklets
and plays written by Phule used a popular hard-hitting style and
language to expose the various ways in which the Brahmins duped the
people, especially the peasants. The SS interpreted the racial theory of
the origin of caste in the context of popular tradition - the Aryan
invaders had enslaved the local peasantry, the rule of Baliraja, the
peasant king was defeated - showing the links of the SS with the
democratic sentiments of the peasantry.
In Phule's time, the SS campaigned for social reform - they rejected
their own feudal-style marriages and adopted the SS marriages, which
were based on principles of equality, mutual respect and loyalty between
husband and wife. The SS reform campaign in Phule's time led to a
strike by barbers who decided not to tonsure widows leading to tensions
in the village. Phule ran a paper called Din Bandhu. His main
supporters were Telugu contractors and workers in the textile mills. The
first reformist organization among the textile workers of Bombay, the
Mill Hands Association, was formed in 1890 by N.M. Lokhande under
Phule's guidance. This association represented the grievances of the
mill workers till it was pushed aside by the militant trade unions that
emerged among the workers in the aftermath of the First World War. Phule
promoted modern agriculture among the peasantry and personally bought
land to experiment and set an example before them. He was influenced by
the democratic American writings of Tom Paine and the principles of
liberty and equality. He wrongly believed that British rule had
destroyed the role of Brahmins and brought modern education to all
castes, and hence was a supporter of the colonial rule in the country.
After Phule's death, the activists of the SS continued to work. The fact
that units of the SS were formed in villages not only in the districts
like Ahmednagar, Satara, Kolhapur, but also in the Berar region in
Amravati, shows that the growing peasant consciousness was being
mobilized through the SS in the beginning of the 20thcentury.
Their propaganda struck a chord among the peasantry. Campaigns against
social problems like drinking and against untouchability were taken up.
The SS also took up the problems of the peasants, promoting
co-operatives among them. The contradictions in the rural areas were
expressed by the SS as a conflict between the Shetji/Bhatji and the
Bahujan Samaj (money lender/priest and the masses).
The SS functioned systematically, holding annual conferences after 1910, and bringing out a magazine. SS tamashas
(the dramas) have toured the villages, singing songs and putting up
performers to spread their message. The basic content of the activities
was anti-feudal. The propaganda of an SS tamasha led to a
spontaneous revolt of the peasants against Brahmin landlords in 1919 in
Satara. The peasants were demanding a reduction in the rent. They broke
idols and abused the gods and the wives of the Brahmins. This revolt was
not supported by the landlord sections of the NBs in the rural areas.
Nonetheless, SS activity continued and SS activists were involved in
peasant agitations in other districts in the 1920s. The SS attacked the
feudal authority in rural areas and aroused the democratic consciousness
of the peasants. The SS campaigns led to the exodus of Brahmin
landlords from the villages in western Maharashtra. It laid the ground
for the militant anti-imperialist struggles led by the peasantry in the
region in the 1940s, like the Patri Sarkar movement in Satara, when a
parallel authority was set up against the British.
The SS Movement was the main movement in the early part of the 20th century
in Maharashtra through which the anti-feudal, anti-caste sentiments of
the peasant masses of the middle castes were expressed. It dealt a blow
to Brahminical hegemony and feudal relations in the countryside. But
since the leadership of the movement restricted their attack to caste
ideology and failed to put forward a programme to break the foundations
of the caste system, in the concentration of land, the main means of
production, they could reform the caste system and feudalism and not
break it. Hence, they were unable to fulfil the interests of the lower
caste (Anuradha Ghandy: “Caste Question in India”).
The anti-Brahmnical movement was an important milestone in colonial and
post-colonial India to challenge the Brahminical hegemony and struggle
for democratization in Tamil Nadu. E.V. Periyar Ramaswamy Naicker
“Periyar” played a stellar role in this. Apart from this, there were
social reform movements like the Madras Hindu Social Reform Association
formed in 1892 for promoting education of women, reform of marriage,
abolition of untouchability, etc. However, the Self-Respect Movement led
by Periyar was much more radical and mass-based, though Periyar also
used the platform of Justice Party, which has a more landlord upper
caste base. Writing about Periyar’s Self-Respect Movement and the
Justice Party, Com. Anuradha says, "The Justice Party was led by and
clearly represented the interests of big landlords and merchants from
among the upper castes among the non-Brahmins only. Periyar's movement
was based on wider support of the rising working class, the middle class
and the traders, especially in urban centers like Erode, Madurai,
Coimbatore, Salem, Tiruchirapalli, Tuticorin and other towns. At its
peak, the Self-Respect Movement took up the activities of propagating
against money lenders’ exploitation and the problems of the peasantry.
While the Justice Party took a strong pro-British stand, anti-colonial
intellectuals among the non -Brahmins, many of whom were active within
the Congress, for instance, Kesava Pillai, EVR, and Dr. Varadharajulu,
formed the Madras Presidency Association in 1917 to press for full
communal representation for the non-Brahmins.
E.V. Ramaswamy "Periyar" formed the Self-Respect Movement
"Suyamariyathai Lyakkam" after he walked out of Congress in 1925 for
their unwillingness to support separate representation for the
non-Brahmins. The conservative, pro-feudal, pro-Varna positions of the
Congress leadership had led to tensions within Congress - between
Brahmins and non-Brahmins. Periyar’s movement was concentrated in Tamil
areas of the Presidency. It was oriented towards the oppressed castes,
including the untouchables, and he took active steps to involve women
and the youth. They ran a magazine called “Kudi Arasu”. Militant
attacks, with an atheistic approach, were launched by the Self-Respect
Movement, not only on Brahmins, but also on the religion itself, on
superstition, caste dimensions and caste privileges. Periyar wanted to
arouse self-respect and feeling of equality among the lower castes. They
upheld the pride in Tamil language and opposed the use of Sanskrit.
They propagated a ban on the use of Brahmin priests for marriages and
popularized self-respect marriages; they opposed the use of the Thali,
called for the abolition of caste names, and ridiculed the epics like
the Ramayana. Periyar’s style was direct, propagandist and very popular.
By struggling for the equality of all castes and breaking the hold of
religion, the movement paved the way for a materialist analysis.
In the 1930s, the Self-Respect Movement, under the influence of
communists in Tamil Nadu, and the influence of Periyar’s trip to the
USSR, supported socialism. Communists like Singaravellu propagated
materialist philosophy and socialism through the magazine. During that
period, two trends were active within the Self-Respect Movement, one
which wanted to take up anti-capitalist propaganda and activity. The
Self-Respect socialists began organizing on problems of the peasantry
along with their regular conferences. Under the influence of the CPI
leaders, the Self-Respect socialists (Samadharma group) merged with the Congress Socialist Party in November 1936 (Anuradha Ghandy: “Caste Question in India”).
The Revolutionary left alternative complementarity of anti-capitalist and anti-caste movements -
the move away from traditional Marxist theory was initiated from the
1970s when serious efforts were made both theoretically and politically
to build bridges between Communist and Dalit Movements. The Dalit
Panthers made serious efforts in this direction in the early 1970s. This
was followed by two important interventions by Marxist scholar
activists in the 1980s.
Dalit Panther Manifesto written in 1973, defined Dalits as not only the
SC and Buddhist converts, but also laboring class, agricultural
laborers, landlords and poor farmers, nomadic tribes and Adivasis. This
way of definition is different from conventional categorization and it
reflected very strong class factors. Similarly, the manifesto spelled
out landlords, capitalists, money lenders, imperialists and bureaucrats
as enemies. The political parties, depending on religious sentiment and
casteism, and the government patronizing them, were also blamed as
Panther’s enemies. The ideologue of the group Namdeo Dhasal, emphasized
that not only caste system but also class system, should be eradicated.
He further argued "casteists, capitalists, and religious leaders are all
controlled by the Hindu feudal system. Therefore, issue of
untouchability has not remained to be only psychological or mental
slavery".
This perspective of Indian social system reminds us of a slightly
different version of historical materialism than advocated by the
traditional Marxist. This attempt at bringing together the twin agenda
of anti-capitalist and anti-caste struggle rested on asserting the
materiality of caste exploitation. It firmly rejected the relegation of
caste to superstructure and untouchability to the realm of mental or
cultural subjugation. In the early 1980s, an important intervention was
made to explain the continued relevance of pre-capitalist relations in
the “modern time” (Kumar Sanjay Singh: Foreword to Annihilation of Caste
by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. Published by Students for Resistance; Delhi,
2012). Writing about the Dalit Movement in Maharashtra after Ambedkar,
Com. Anuradha says, "Discontent with the existing political and economic
situation among the youth of the newly converted Dalits burst forth in
1973 in Bombay, in the form of the Dalit Panther Movement.” The general
political and economic situation among the youth of the newly converted
Dalits burst forth in 1973 in Bombay, in the form of Dalit Panther
Movement. The general political and economic crisis in the country, the
revolutionary upsurge of students and youth around the world, the
frustration of the newly educated Dalit Youth who found their desire for
equality smothered, confronted by discrimination and unemployment, led
to the emergence of the Dalit Panther Movement. The Movement challenged
not only Congress rule, but also the corruption ridden RPI leadership.
On 15 August 1973, Raja Dhale wrote an article in “Sadhana” exposing the
hoax of Indian Independence. Dhale abused the Indian flag since it had
given the scheduled castes neither equality nor freedom from oppression.
The issue of “Sadhna”was banned by the Maharashtra government. This was
the spark that gave birth to the Dalit Panthers. A literature of protest
burst forth, attacking all forms of discrimination, mocking at those
"immersed in plastering withering leaves" expressing the anguish of the
injuries ploughed into their banks, calling upon countless suns aflame
with blood to advance setting afire town after town. Namdev Dhasal,
Yeshwant Manohar, Daya Pawar, Keshav Mesharam and many others achieved
overnight fame. The literature of revolt vowed to take revenge for the
centuries of oppression; it sprang up on notice boards, in slums, in
small magazines and posters. Taking inspiration from Black Panthers,
this movement gave itself a name - Dalit Panthers. Meetings were held,
the Bhagwat Gita burnt; campaigns to break the practice of
untouchablitiy in various forms were organized. In a short span of six
months, militant organizational units sprang up in innumerable slums of
Bombay and Pune. The state, taken aback by the spontaneous growth and
the intensity of this movement, launched attacks on the Dalit Panthers,
not directly, but through Shiv Sena. Minor reasons were utilized in
order to arrest activists of Dalit Panthers, and to beat them up in
order to prevent them from spreading. (Anuradha Ghandy: “Caste Question
in India”).
Ambedkar
The anti-caste or anti-Brahmincal movement in India cannot be understood
without discussing the phenomenal contribution of Dr. Ambedkar. He not
only led the Dalits, but also had written extensively on the caste
system and Dalit liberation strategies. His annihilation of caste is an
extremely important tract for any serious anti-caste struggle. Writing
about the "Annihilation of Caste”, Dr. Anand Teltumbde says, "What the
communist manifesto is to the capitalist world, Annihilation of castes
may be to the caste India!”Unlike Marx and Engels, who consciously wrote
the Communist Manifesto as the clarion call for proletariat to revolt,
Babasaheb Ambedkar did not have any idea that the presidential speech he
was drafting to be delivered in the annual conference of Jat-Pat-Todak
Mandal of Lahore in May 1936 would turn out to be the manifesto against
the Hindu Caste System. Because of its hard-hitting attack on the Hindu
religion, which in his analysis came out to be the source of caste
system, the organizers of the Hindu Reformist Mandal had cancelled the
conference and the undelivered speech, therefore, was published in the
book form. The period in which this text was written is the momentous
period in Ambedkar’s life. As is well known, Ambedkar has started off
with the civil rights movement of the untouchables, which he thought
would sensitize Hindus to undertake due reforms within the society to
remove untouchability and other inhuman practices vis-a-vis the then
untouchables. But the bitter experience in the very first struggle of
this kind at Mahad, where the Dalits were brutally attacked for having
dared to pollute the Chardar Tank, impelled him to rethink this
approach. Although he tried to persist with it by calling a satyagraha
after eight months at the very same Chavdar Tank, which was again
thwarted by the caste Hindus, this time with an injunction from the
court, and also supported some of the temple entry movements thereafter
undertaken by his followers, he turned his focus towards the political
arena. In the Round Table conferences he had successfully won separate
electorates for the untouchables decimating the spirited opposition of
Mahatma Gandhi. However, when Gandhi declared his fast unto death
against this Communal Award, provoking in turn the entire caste Hindu
hostility against Dalits, he had to compromise by accepting the
increased number of reserved seats for Dalits but through joint
electorates (Dr. Anand Teltumbde: Forward to Annihilation of Castes
Students for Resistance Delhi).
Communists ignored his struggles as "Superstructural" and hence
unimportant. This conduct of the communes led him away from them.
Lamenting the increasing divergence and hostility between these two
camps of proletariats today, viz., left and Dalits, one is tempted to
imagine the revolutionary possibilities if the communists had duly
empathized with and cohered with Ambedkar’s vision.
Evaluating Ambedkar's important role in Anti-Caste and Dalit Liberation
Movement, Com. Anuradha writes, "Following the tradition of the earlier
Non-Brahmin Movement Ambedkar did not participate in the nationalist
movement though Ambedkar was aware of the exploitation of the British
and Depressed classes realized that they needed Swaraj to develop the
movement, he felt that it could not take on two enemies (i.e., the upper
castes and the British) at the same time. So they targeted their attack
on the caste system. Throughout his political career, Ambedkar was a
firm opponent of Gandhi and he exposed the hypocrisy of the Congress
leadership on the issue of eradicating untouchability.
Ambedkar played a very important role in mobilizing the lowest castes in
Maharashtra to struggle against caste oppression and to demand
equality. He gave the people, suppressed for centuries, a self-identity
in which they developed a pride in being from the Mahar Community, and
he gave them the self-confidence that, given equal opportunities, they
were no less than members of the higher castes. The almost total
conversion of the entire Mahar Community to Buddhism in 1956 served to
encourage this sense of identity and pride. The pubic rejection of
Hinduism which sanctifies inequality and caste discrimination and public
conversion to a religion based on egalitarian principles, is another
symbol of desire for equality. It includes also a rejection of the old
feudal ideology of Brahminical ritualism.” (Anuradha Ghandy: Caste
Question in India”) Underlying the necessity of Marxists having a
correct understanding of Ambedkar’s role in revolutionary struggles, she
writes, "There has always been a controversy on the evaluation of
Ambedkar among communist issues like his attitude to communists, his
attitude to violence or his role in trade union movement have been
presented to judge Ambedkar. But what is significant in such an
evaluation, form a Marxist point of view, is his objective role, in the
process of democratic transformation of society.
The democratic transformation of India required a revolutionary struggle
against the backwardness and semi-feudal agrarian relations in rural
India. The Caste System had been part of the pre-capitalist feudal
economy. Caste ideology was part of the traditional feudal culture and
ideology. Therefore, to smash the caste system and actively fight
caste-based oppression were an integral part of the democratic
transformation of our society. Ambedkar and the Dalit movement led by
him were an important part of this democratic current against caste
feudalism. By asserting the identity of the Dalits, by demanding
equality, by attacking the feudal ideology of Hinduism, Ambedkar fought
for democracy in social life. But Ambedkar did not connect the caste
system with wider agrarian relations in a comprehensive manner. He did
not conceptualize the role played by the British in perpetuating and
defending this backward exploitative agrarian economy. Hence, his
movement remained one part of anti-feudal current. And this led Ambedkar
to place hope in constitutional means for gaining political equality.
Ambedkar was a leading liberal reformer of his time. He is a source of
inspiration for the Dalits not only in Maharasthra, but in other states
as well. For Dalits, who have acquired education but face caste
discrimination, who demand equality but are denied it in various ways,
subtle and crude, he is a symbol of their identity and desire to gain
equality (“Caste Question in India”).
Taking to task the mainstream parliamentary left parties like CPI and
CPM for their mechanical and opportunistic attitude towards anti-caste
struggle, Com. Anuradha writes, "In India the traditional communists
(CPI, CPM, etc.) have generally, viewed class struggle as primarily, an
economic struggle. They have, most often viewed the caste struggle as
dividing the people. What they did not realize is that the people are
already divided on caste lines and the basis of unity must be equality
(and that higher caste prejustices must be fought in order to gain
equality). Also, class struggle is not merely an economic struggle, it
is a struggle between the oppressed and the oppressor for control over
the main means of production and the political life of society. It
includes the struggle in economic, political, social and ideological
spheres, and the key aspect of revolutionary class struggle is not
economic struggle but political struggle - the struggle for the seizure
of political power. In rural India, this struggle for political power
involves the smashing of the feudal and caste authority. In the
countryside, and also the setting up of new bodies (where the higher
castes are not allowed to automatically dominate) through which peoples
power is exercised.
The reason why the revisionist CPI and CPM have basically negated the caste question are three:
· First,
they did not view the agrarian struggle as primarily anti-feudal and so
did not see the significance of attacking caste oppression as part of
the anti-feudal struggle.
· Second,
because of their reformist politics, and their immersion in economic
struggles and electoral battles, caste oppression was not merely negated
but brushed aside, as the bulk of the organized workers are from the
higher castes and the biggest vote banks are also from the higher
castes.
· Third,
because of a mechanical linking between the base and the
superstructure, they did not feel the need to fight casteist outlook and
maintained that common economic struggles will automatically bring
together all castes and remove caste bias. Ideologically, they replaced
dialectical materialism with mechanical materialism and assumed a
one-to-one relationship between the base and superstrucuture by further
maintaining that, with the transformation into socialist society all
caste biases will automatically disappear. Influenced by the theory of
productive forces whereby, they maintained that social relations of
production will automatically change with a development of the
productive forces. (Anuradha Ghandy: The Caste Question Returns. In:
Scripting the Change - Selected Writings of Anuradha Ghandy; Daanish
Books, New Delhi).
Com. Anuradha had a sharp eye on the Mandal Kamandal debate and
anti-reservation struggles. About the opportunist and anti-Dalit
prejudices of the ruling class parties and the reactionary nature of
anti-reservation agitations, especially the anti-Mandal agitation, she
writes, “ In an attempt to check the BJP’s efforts to dislodge it, the
Janata Dal Government announced the implementation of reservations for
the OBCs. But this was widely opposed by the upper castes in the form of
anti-reservation agitations. The extent of the upper caste control over
the government bureaucracy and prestigious professions can be seen from
their violence and aggressiveness against the implementation of the
Manda Commision. The Comprador bureaucrat bouorgeoise and its media gave
wide publicity to this agitation which was restricted to elite
institutions. The techniques they used, like self-immolation to those
their opposition, also gave their agitation mere publicity. The upper
caste sections of the bureaucracy also support the agitation. The
agitating students were from ABVP and NSUI, although both the Congress
and the BJP opportunistically remained silent during the agitation.
While recognizing the implementation of reservation policy for OBCs,
will in spite of income limits, favour the landlord elite sections of
the OBC castes and in that only a few castes may gain, yet the fact is
that most of the OBCs are poor and landless peasants or those eking out
of their subsistence in their traditional occupation. Reservations will
provide only a very few small sections among them a secure middle class
existence, for the majority the agrarian order to be overturned in order
to give security and a better life. But the middle castes have hardly
been represented in the administration and they have a right to their
share in this sector.
The extent of caste prejudice and caste feelings that are nurtured and
bred among the so-called modern sections of the upper castes has been
revealed by the vehemence of the anti-reservation agitations. There is a
need to oppose the anti-reservation agitations for what they are – an
attempt by the reactionary sections of the uppermost castes to maintain
their monopoly over the states’resources and prestigious lucrative
professions with their vicious elitist castes biases. It is nothing but
an indirect attempt to perpetuate the caste system by keeping the Dalits
and the lower sections of the OBCs as menials and labourers to be
exploited at will (Anuradha Ghandy: “Caste Question in India”).
No comments:
Post a Comment