Caste and Class

Class Struggle in the Guise of Caste–II
Ranganayakamma

According to Marxist un derstanding, the entire social structure, its labour relations, its division of labour, its politics, its education, arts and everthing else will be in accordance with the production relations which constitute the foundation of the society. Though each aspect of the society has its own influence, their influences are not equal. The influence of the foundation (production relations) overshadows the influences of all other aspects of society. According to this understanding, every problem must be examined in connection with the foundation. Therefore, it is enough if we refer to any country as a 'class society'. It implies that all other problems are included in it.

Let us assume that there are five important problems in a class society. Every problem in a class society involves contradiction between two aspects. What we find between classes is a contradiction. What we find between an upper caste and a lower caste is a contradiction. There is a contradiction between men and women. There is a contradiction between two nationalities. Whatever be the number of contradictions in any given society, will all of them be equal or will there be any one contradiction which stands out as the principal contradiction? If there is a principal contradiction, we have to look at the problems from that angle. Communists consider hostile/antagonistic classes as the principal contradiction. But those who do not agree with this outlook at the contradictions in isolation and think that they could and should resolve those contradictions. That is why their slogans must be distinct.

Owing to the differences in understanding, the issue of the land problem of Lakshimpeta is leading to debates to some extent.

In the journal Tirugubatu, P Prasad's essay is in the form of a dialogue between the organizers of two different perspectives. In that essay, the Communist organizer puts forward his arguments in response to the Dalit organizer's arguments. The debate ends in such a way that the Dalit organizer appears to be rethinking and is almost convinced by the arguments of the Communist organizer and says, "Discussion from this perspective must take place even in our Dalit organisations". It means, the discussion ended as if the Dalit organizer agreed with what the communist organizer said. If a Dalit organizer writes on the same issue and depicts the discussion in the same manner as the Communist organizer did, how would he end it? He would end the discussion as if the Communist organizer had accepted the arguments of the Dalit organizer and said, "Discussion ought to take place in our Communist organizations also from this perspective". The writer depicts as if the other person has accepted his perspective. Therefore in a discussion related to social issues, that form of writing itself is wrong.

Such a form would be undoubtedly suitable while teaching/learning some proven aspect of natural sciences. For instance, this form of writing is suitable to depict a teacher of Botany, Zoology or Astronomy answering the questions of his students properly. When a discussion takes place between a teacher and his students, it does not mean that the teacher has won and the students have lost in the debate. But the same teacher, if he writes on the arguments and counter arguments related to a social issue, would write as if he succeeded in his arguments while the opposite side has failed. That will be a wrong thing.

Every writer ought to express his views on social issues. There is nothing wrong if he explains the incorrectness of others' arguments. But if he would like to show it as a debate between different perspectives, he must stop at simply depicting those perspectives. He should not go to the extent of concluding that the other side has accepted his arguments. If he does so, it amounts to attaching value to one's own ideas. If the other person does the same thing and concludes that his argument is correct, would the first person accept it? If we think about this issue, it will be clear that it is not proper to show as if the other side has accepted our argument. In Mr Prasad's [dialogue-oriented] essay, though the communist organizer stated that he too would think about the perspective of the Dalit organization, the conclusion has turned into a wrong conclusion. There is another mistake in Mr Prasad's writing. It is the mistake of lack of clarity. One of the demands of the poor Dalits of Lakshimpeta is that the 250 acres of land must be given to Dalits only. On this issue, the argument of Mr Prasad is that the land should not only be distributed to Dalits but also other poor families living in that area. Generally speaking, there is nothing wrong if one says that we should unite all the poor people irrespective of the caste distinctions in the matter of land distribution. But, there are mistakes in this argument.

The Dalit organizer first says as follows: "250 acres of land must be distributed to Dalits. But the demand of your party CPI-ML (New Democracy) is different. Your party says that the land should be distributed to landless BCs along with the Dalits. Is it not insulting the Dalits who were killed?"

In another context, the Dalit organizer also questions, "To distribute some land to BCs as well means giving strength to the gang of murders, isn't it?" Yet in another context, he would question, "How can we say that the land be distributed to the murderers as well?"

When the Dalit organizer first asked the question, what should the communist organizer say immediately? "Alas! I am not suggesting that the land be distributed to murderers. However poor the assailants may be, they must be in prison if they had participated in the murderous attack. They must receive suitable punishments. We don't say that lands be distributed to such murderers who may be poor. Aren't there other poor people who opposed such an attack and the murders? It is to such poor people to whom the lands should be distributed. This is what either our party or I say" - this is how the communist organizer has to make his stand clear. But Prasad's answer is not like this. When the Dalit organizer says, "How can we say that the land be distributed to the murderers", Prasad's answer is: "There are no straight lines in politics. There will be manipulations in accordance with the context. For those who stand on a straight path and perceive things, manipulations appear to be crooked. But reaching the destination is the most important thing. You don't seem to relish the zig zag path....your question, 'how can we distribute the land to the killers' is justified, but there is no solution offered in your question. There is morality in your question but not pragmatic morality. Think once again deeply and objectively."

What does this explanation indicate? They say that the land should be distributed even to the killers, if the latter don't have land! Should the killers be put in prison or should the land be distributed to them? Had the communist organizer said clearly, "It is not for the murderers that we should distribute the land", then this discussion would not have arisen. The entire focus in Prasad's essay is concerned with the land distribution in Lakshimpeta. Prasad also said, "There will not be straight lines in politics". It appears that in Prasad's view politics of all classes will be of the same kind and character. But when classes differ in their character, their politics will also differ. And they should differ. Not following a straight line on any issue is something related to the exploiting class. It is not the characteristic of the working class which is expected to fight against that exploitation. The working class cannot achieve any good results by following zig zag roads and zig zag tactics.

Even though the Dalit people always emphasize on caste and even though they are accustomed to seeing their problem from the caste perspective, they (the Dalits) are the working class people. Even if they lack clear-cut class consciousness, their practices and their struggles must be carried out honestly in the form of resistance to their sufferings. We should not attribute the same definition to politics of all kinds of classes by saying, "there will be no straight lines in politics". We should not believe that we can reach our goal by following wrong tactics which lack straightforward practices. What is the goal that we have to reach? Unity among the poor belonging to different castes. It is not unity if we unite with the killers among the poor. It is appropriate in that context not to unite with the killers. It is a matter of self-respect of the victims.

Criticism of any writing is inevitable if there are mistakes in it. This is what has happened in the case of Mr Prasad's essay. An essay by Mr Duddu Prabhakar with the title "By killing truth, you cannot build an 'ism' on its grave!" has appeared in Tirugubatu (dated 2012 December). Well, what is that 'truth'? Who is the killer of the truth? What is that 'ism'? We need to examine some of the views of Mr Prabhakar on these questions. The truth which he was referring to is: 'attacks on Dalits are due to caste but not due to other reasons". Without realizing this truth, some communists like Prasad are killing it; and they are trying to build an 'ism' (communism) by following the wrong path.

But, if communism is a good 'ism', none can build it by following a wrong path. Though Prasad wrote in an incorrect manner, the communist organizer in that article shows a positive attitude: "We have to discuss things in a friendly manner." He further expresses his friendly attitude as follows: "We should not forget that we are basically friends"; "We will work as friends"; "You need not change your attitude just because I have argued"; "There may be certain things which we have to learn from your arguments"; "our mutual understanding enhances only if we discuss things together"; "You have raised a good question" and so on.
The first point in Mr Prabhakar's criticism is that Prasad has shown that the Dalit organizer was shown as if he had changed his perspective in accordance with the understanding of the communist organizer. This is a point which Prasad has to admit as a mistake.

Prabhakar said that all the communists do not hold the same views as those of Prasad and similarly all the Dalit leaders do not argue from caste-perspective. The same Prabhakar, having said so, also concluded: "The people of the oppressed castes, mainly Dalits, are of the opinion that the communists in this country have neglected the caste question and have sunk in the upper caste Brahminical ideology neck-deep".

To say that the communists have neglected the caste question amounts to saying that all communists are alike. To say that the Dalits have such an opinion of the communists amounts to saying that all Dalits are alike. This amounts to counterposing the communists and the Dalits as two different factions.

It is meaningless to say that the communists neglect the caste question. Communists too have caste-related problems. Their families also face those problems. They too feel that castes should be eliminated. Communists try to show the path which would remove domination in any relation and thereby achieve equality. They may make mistakes while expressing it. They may deviate from the path. Gradually they are bound to rectify their mistakes.

While searching the causes for social problems, the communists look at the contradictory conditions that emanate from the labour relations. They look at material causes such as: distinctions in possessing means of production; exploitation of labour by means of which properties are accumulated without performing any labour; the extreme distinctions such as clean vs unclean labour performed by laboring people. The communists view solutions in terms of changing these conditions. Whether it is 'classes', 'castes', 'male domination' or any other problem, they did not emerge either in the primitive times or naturally on their own. Faulty relations emerged and continue to exist due to faulty social conditions. Even if we don't find clear-cut causes for some problems, we can think of solutions based on the nature of the problems.

Caste system is surely in existence. We find castes which are considered as 'superior' and 'inferior'. There are countless humiliations and atrocities which the 'inferior' castes face. It is not untrue that every caste receives a lot of respect or disrespect merely due to its 'name'. In the two-glass system [a discriminatory practice at small hotels in some rural areas where tea is poured in separate glasses for the Dalits], caste alone appears as the cause. No cause other than the caste is found there. If children of one caste are made to sit at a distance from the children of another caste in a school, one can see no reason other than the caste. But we don't get to the actual reason if we look at it only superficially.

If one considers the issue of men and women, the established naked truth is that 'women are inferior and men are superior'. Man-woman distinction itself appears as the real cause. It is the cause that appears outwardly. But the actual cause lies in labour relations and property (in means of production). There has been a division of labour established thousands of years ago in terms of house work for women and work outside for men. It creates conditions that enable men to control properties and make women depend on men. This aspect, which had established itself ages ago, does not appear outwardly clear. What appears outwardly clear is that women are inferior than men in many aspects and that they depend on men even for food.

Thus in any problem the outward cause is one and the real and internal cause is another. The outward cause and outward features wholly depend on the internal cause.

The cause for the superiority and inferiority of the castes is not their names. But people go by those names. Those who wash clothes are 'washermen'. Those who are engaged in hair cutting are 'barbers'. Why did those castes get those names? Because of those occupations. The same occupations are found in all countries. But castes did not emerge everywhere. Even in those places where castes do not exist, those who perform unclean or filthy labour won't have higher status socially.

The caste system is the meanest and treacherous problem. It is the most serious problem for some castes. People of many castes desire to eliminate it.

Dalit organizers apply the term 'upper caste chauvinism' to every context. Why did the upper castes acquire that chauvinism? Why didn't lower castes acquire that chauvinism? There would be some reason as to why some people are chauvinistic while others are not. If a person has a sword in his hand while another person does not even have a broomstick, the swordsman would always be arrogant and chauvinistic. He won't have the attitude that 'both of us are human beings and both of us are equals'. What, then, the other person should do? Instead of looking at his arrogance and saying, "He is arrogant! He is arrogant!", he should look at that fellow's sword. He should grasp the actual reason, "Oh, I see! It is because of that (sword), he is so arrogant". If we remove that sword from his hand and see that he won't get it again, his arrogance would gradually die and he would open his eyes, though he struggles for a while in the beginning. Therefore, if one does not draw his attention to the basis for the upper caste chauvinism and always concentrate on the outward reason, namely, "it is due to caste! It is due to caste", we won't find a way to take away the sword. In this context, one important point is to be noted: It is true that some upper caste persons have upper caste chauvinism; but it is truer that some upper caste persons shun such chauvinism. But the Dalit leaders do not make a distinction between the two categories of persons. They consider both the categories as the same and brand them as 'upper caste'. But this is not correct.

Let us consider the following quotation. See whether we will be able to know something new about the caste system.

‘‘If the class struggles of that time appear to bear religious earmarks, if the interests, requirements and demands of the various classes hid themsefres behind a religious screen, it little changes the actual situation, and is to be explained by conditions of the time"-emphasis added.’’ (Engels, 1850. Peasant War in Germany. Progress Publishes, Moscow, page: 48 of the Telugu edition. The English translation given here is taken from the text given in www.marxists.org)

This quotation tells us that all those struggles which appear as religious struggles are in fact class struggles. Struggle between different religions or killing of people of one religion by those of another appear as 'religious conflict'. But the basis from which such religious conflicts arise is something else. Religion does not form the basis. The ideas of those who kill in the name of religion include not only religions but also economic interests. Any struggle waged to fulfil those interests is a class struggle. However, it appears as religious struggle because it takes place between people of different religions. Will this explanation be of any use to the question under debate? Absolutely. Every struggle that is waged as caste struggle is class struggle. Class lies behind the facade of the caste. Castes alone appears on the screen. We perceive them as caste struggles. Though the interests, needs and demands of the Dalits appear as emanating from castes, they are related to the working class.

In Lakshimpeta, people of the Kapu caste attacked and killed the people of Mala caste. It appears to us as if it is a caste struggle. We do not mean that both the castes do not hold ideas of caste. But, in these killings, the caste of Malas has not played any role. The people of that caste wanted some land. They are independent labourers who live on their own labour. They wanted that land for the sake of their livelihood. But the main aspect of the actions of Kapus is interest in property. It is the interest of the class of masters and exploiters who don't want Malas to become peasants but remain as landless labourers. Those attacks would not have happened: had there not been the land problem; had the Dalits remained as landless labourers as they were a decade ago; had they not touched the land and left it at the disposal of the Kapus; or had they continued to pay land lease to the Kapus. Though those attacks appear as caste struggle, it is a struggle that took place between the working class people and exploiters; between those who perform labour and those who exploit others' labour. Whether it is untouchability or other restrictions on the Dalit castes, they were imposed on the Dalits in order to oppress them and keep them as performers of lowest labour, without raising their heads. If a few human beings have to live cleanly, they need some human beings who live uncleanly (that is, who perform unclean labour). Various restrictions imposed on the Dalits are those imposed by the exploitative classes in order to oppress the Dalits. Those restrictions and regulations vary in their intensity depending on the kinds and levels of labour which the oppressed castes perform. The kind of restrictions imposed on the Dalits are not found in the case of washermen. The kind of restrictions imposed on washermen are not imposed on barbers. The class of people who do not have means of production except for their physical labour are obliged to obey the restrictions imposed by another class. However, it is possible to change some such restrictions by means of laws and reforms. But let any number of superficial changes take place, equality will not be achieved and caste system will not be eliminated unless we change the exploitative nature of labour relations and division of labour. If we look at other countries, there also equality cannot be achieved unless the nature of labour relations is changed. Prabhakar said, "The dominant exploitative forces are reinforcing caste system as their protective zone". He further says, "The caste system is meant for the sake of dominant exploiting forces". Well, then, what should happen? Whatever we do, it must be against the dominant, exploitative forces, isn't it? That is, against that cause due to which they got such strength. Don't the communists say the same thing?

Prabhakar criticized that the communists "are not formulating a programme of overthrowing ladder-like system". Communists do have such a programme. Class struggle includes struggle against every problem. Class struggle is a process wherein relations of inequality are transformed into relations of equality. Those who do not agree with the class struggle should tell about their programme 'to overthrow the ladder-like caste system'. They have not suggested any solution other than reforming Hindu religious texts and conversion into Buddhism. They should talk about their programme of annihilation of caste without uttering the word 'class struggle'.

Prabhakar: "The communist class outlook and the Dalitist caste annihilation outlook are not two different things".

The communists do not treat them as one and the same and hence they don't accept the Dalitist outlook. If the Dalits consider both of them as one and the same, why are they not accepting the communist outlook?

Prabhakar: "It is futile to talk to those who pretend and make the problem revolve around the land". It means the communists are pretending! How the outlook of those who pretend and the outlook of the Dalit organizers who are honest could be the same? You said both are same, didn't you?

Prabhakar: "The Turpu Kapus, who are considered as OBCs in Srikakulam district, with upper caste chauvinism..."

OBCs are also part of those Bahujans who are opposed to the upper castes. How could such a lower caste OBCs become upper caste chauvinists? Due to which factor they become so? What is the reason for such a change? Such a change, according to the communists, has occurred because they turned into exploiters by grabbing rents, interests and profits. If what the communists say is pretention, you tell the reason for OBCs turning into upper castes. It is not proper to say, "We are in the outcast localities.. .outcast localities....".

Prabhakar: "A question to those upper caste ideologues and the evaders of caste problem who argue that attacks on the Dalits are due to lack of land and hence they should wage land struggle in order to stop attacks".

We will look into this question a little later. Do the upper caste ideologues and evaders of the caste problem argue that attacks on the Dalits must stop? Do they argue that land struggle must be waged and that the Dalits must secure lands to stop attacks? If they argue so, will they not be good people?

Prabhakar's question: "Why such massive attacks are not taking place on the people of the other castes in this country who do not have land?"

We can see reasons for things that have happened. We can't see reasons for things that have not happened. Of course, in a sense, we can imagine unknown causes based on known causes. Perhaps, attacks might not have taken place on those landless people who remained landless without asking for land. But the Dalits have asked for land, haven't they? It is evident that attacks on the Dalits have taken place by those exploiters who did not like to see Dalits becoming peasants by giving up the lives of labourers; or acquiring property in land.

Prabhakar: "They [the evaders of the caste question]must tell as to why the entire family of Bhayyalal of Khairlamji became victims of rapes and murders even though the family had land".

You tell us the reasons for such events as: why America invaded Iraq and committed thousands of murders, why it is still committing murders in Afghanistan, why Britain had occupied India, why America had killed Martin Luther King who made appeals legally and followed non-violent methods, why that guy Columbus butchered tribal people in Indies islands and so on. What castes were involved in those atrocities? Yet they happened. Even the episode of Bhayyalal of Khairlamji is also connected with the land issue. Those mean fellows had asked for his land and he rejected their demand. They thought they could occupy the land if they destroy the entire family. Why should they lose the opportunity of [using] the bodies of the female members of that family before killing them? They could kill them after raping those females. Even an exploiter cannot imagine the cruel acts of another exploiter.

If one or two families in a Dalit caste have land, it won't give them protection. They get strength only when the situation of the majority of people is changed. If the communists say, "Dalits too must possess lands", should it sound like an obscene expression even to the Dalits?

One can criticize and, in fact, must criticize if there are mistakes in what Prasad wrote. But what is it that Prasad wrote? That the Dalits as well as poor people should get land. Prabhakar depicted it as though it is a big crime on the part of the communists to say so. He says that the communists always say the same thing. If the same problem arises every time, should they not suggest the same solution? Will the solutions change when the problems do not change? [concluded]
(Thirugubatu, January 2013) [Translation from Telugu: B R Bapuji]

Frontier
Vol. 45, No. 37, Mar 24-30, 2013

Your Comment if any