Dear Friends,
Mr
Anoop Norbert sent me an email which was circulated amongst a group of
intellectuals, by Mr Asit Das under title THE REAL WORLD OF CASTE IN INDIA.
I took the liberty to intervene and wrote an article titled 'Recasting Caste –
Utopian and Scientific', which is on the blog MarxDarshan, and circulated among the group. I got an email from Mr
Asit Das with his comments and an attachment which was an item wise comment on
my article by Mr Hira Singh. I received a separate email from Mr Hira Singh
also. Since the emails were sent to me without any copy to any one so, I am not
including their content here. But I am including complete string of Mr Singh’s
comments and my response, because I think it will be of interest and value for
the younger people on the group.
Extracts
taken by Mr Hira Singh from my initial intervention are in italics, Mr Hira
Singh’s comments in Arial and then my response in Times New Roman.
You
are welcome to give your comments.
Regards
Suresh Srivastava
24 July, 2014
*************
Recasting Caste – Utopian and
Scientific by Mr. Suresh Srivastava raises some
issues relating to myRecasting Caste: From the Sacred to the Profane (Sage 2014) that need be addressed. The text in
italics refers to Mr. Srivastava’s comments, followed by my response.
￭ Mr. Srivastava writes:
I normally do not involve myself in
any discussion on the proposition of convergence of class and caste, and am
apprehensive whether any fruitful result can be achieved by identifying caste
as class, because the discussants are normally petty bourgeois pseudo left
intellectuals, who are not trained to think dialectically, hence there are
arguments only and no discussions.
Had Marx
decided not to intervene in the German philosophy, because it was discussed by
idealists, English classical political economy, because it was discussed by
bourgeois economists, and French socialism, because it was discussed by utopian
socialists, we would have lost the three component parts of Marxism [cf. Lenin
1975]. The decision to intervene in the discussion on a particular subject,
here caste and class should be determined by one’s understanding of the
importance of the subject concerned. If caste is an important subject for Indian
society and history and for the people of India, it is not a matter of
discretion but an obligation for a Marxist to intervene, particularly if it is
being discussed mainly or exclusively by petty bourgeois, pseudo left
intellectuals. Mr. Srivastava’s reluctance to join the discussion on caste and
class in India thus far was abdication of intellectual and moral responsibility.
No
doubt caste is important in the present stage of development of Indian
democracy wherein production is still predominantly in feudal mode and
capitalist mode is sporadic. But intervention by a Marxist does not mean he
should wish away the laws of nature and identify caste with class. Yes caste
has to be understood correctly and thoroughly, but understanding correctly does
not mean proposing convergence of class and caste.
￭ It is after readingthe article written by Mr
Asit Das, titled THE REAL WORLD OF CASTE IN INDIA, as a
prefatory to Hira Singh’s RECASTING CASTE and circulated
on a group of socially conscious young intellectuals, I
could not restrain myself from intervening... because of the need of the time… to provide socially conscious young
intellectuals every opportunity to help them develop a dialectical reasoning
and scientific outlook so that some of them could play the historical role of
torch bearer for emancipation of the human society. That is the context of Recasting Caste – Utopian and
Scientific
…nothing could be more effective than
to juxtapose dialectical and metaphysical interpretations about any phenomena
exposing inherent contradiction in the metaphysical analysis.
Had Mr.
Srivastava bothered to read my book, he would have found out that that is
exactly what I have done, i.e. juxtaposing mainstream sociological analysis with
my analysis of caste. I do not label all mainstream sociology of caste as
‘metaphysical’. As the Sandinistas were reported of saying that labeling may be
good for selling drugs, but not for serious debate on issues of political
economy. In my book, I have argued for a Marxist approach against mainstream
sociology of caste. Admittedly, I am not trained in dialectical thinking by an
able master like Mr. Srivastava, possibly my approach is not dialectical to
pass his scrutiny. However, he has to read what I have written before passing judgment.
I
confess that I have not read the book and my response is based on Mr Asit Das’
prefatorial. My response is related to only that part which has been highlighted
by Mr Das in his article. I am sure, as I can gather from many contexts, that
Mr Hira Singh is sincere in his approach to Marxist thought. My criticism is
never directed to individuals or to their ideology in totality, my concern is
whether a concept has been put forth after thorough dialectical scrutiny.
￭ Ever since
Marx and Engels enunciated the theory of dialectical and historical
materialism, and on the basis of that theory suggested a revolutionary praxis
for the working class, in the form of ‘Manifesto of the Communist Party’,
multipronged attack by bourgeois intellectuals was unleashed against the
theory. When bourgeois intellectuals failed in their frontal attack to contain
the spread of Marxist ideas among the working masses all over the world, they
chose to sabotage the theory from within, by obfuscating the core content of
the Marxist theory, importing numerous metaphysical concepts, in the name of
developing Marxism in line with ever developing society.
I do not have
a desire to join Mr. Srivastava in insinuating and name-calling. Instead I move
on to show that on issues of caste and class, he ends up doing exactly what he
is falsely accusing others (here me and Mr. Das) of doing, that is, as a middle
class self-identified left intellectual, he chooses to interpret caste and
class, with no logical substance or empirical-historical evidence, by citing
quotations from Marx-Engels-Lenin taken out of context, configuring an analysis in a metaphysical manner to claim [his] interpretation to be dialectical…
With
due apologies, my criticism is not directed against Mr Hira Singh or Mr Asit
Das. I do not know, but they may be correct on various other issues. Here the
criticism is in view of the proposition of convergence of class and caste. The
historical evidence is that castes are identified with the labour they do, and
what is that, if it is not division of labour. Caste as a social relationship
is based on division of labour under feudal mode of production and
un-touchability is rampant amongst the untouchables also.
￭ In the preface
to his famous pamphlet ‘Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism’, Lenin
categorically warned against this revisionist trend. He writes ‘In view of the
extreme complexity of the phenomena of social life it is always possible to
select any number of examples or separate data to prove any proposition’
I wish Mr.Srivastava
had heeded Lenin’s warning, rather than merely quoting it. Had he taken Lenin’s
warning seriously, he could have applied Marxism-Leninism to the complexity of class and caste to show the
right way. He does not. To the contrary, as I discuss below, he does just the
opposite. His presentation of caste and class is simplistic, misleading,
metaphysical, and mystifying: it is anything but Marxist.
Finding
the right way to the desired change is the task of those who have assumed that
responsibility. I am an ordinary man on the fringe, and like any other common
man wants to understand the dynamics of the society. As I have understood
Marxism, the foundation of human society is production of material life, a
natural biological instinct, and all social relations are developed during
production and distribution of material goods. Not differentiating between
material-social-relations and ideological-social-relations, as content and form,
will be non-dialectical. To me understanding Marxism means to understand
dialectical relation between form and content of any phenomenon.
￭ Those leftists
who propagate the idea that Marxist understanding of caste and Ambedkarite
understanding of caste are convergent or that the caste shall be annihilated
with class, have not been able to get themselves rid of their petty-bourgeois
consciousness.
Rather than
engaging in insinuation, had Mr. Srivastava taken the trouble to read the book
he would have discovered that I draw a sharp distinction between Ambedkar’s or
Ambedkarite (and Gandhi’s or Gandhian) understanding of caste on the one hand,
and Marxist understanding of caste on the other. A key component of my book is
to contradict the commonplace view, supported by Ambedkar and Gandhi
notwithstanding their differences on the caste question, that Hinduism is the
foundation of the caste and caste system and that caste is essential to the survival
of Hinduism. To the contrary, I argue that Hinduism did not, does not, and cannot
create and reproduce caste. Conversely, Hinduism without caste is not utopia. I
support this argument with enormous variety of ethnographic and archival
evidence collected over a period of time from three continents involving India,
South Africa, and the Caribbean.I may add that Mr. Srivastava does not present
a shred of evidence in support of his views. He quotes Marx, but does not
understand Marxism, which is rooted in empirical-historical reality.
I am entirely
in agreement with Mr. Asit Das that the idea of annihilating caste, without
annihilation of class, that is, unequal access to economic-political-cultural
power, is phantasy. I wonder how taking this position amounts to not appreciating the economic roots of caste and
class and its political significance, as alleged by Mr. Srivastava. Annihilation
of caste is not a matter of annihilating petty
bourgeois consciousness [as implied by him],without annihilating the basis
of caste [and class] division, that is, unequal access to
economic-political-cultural resources. Annihilation of caste is not a mental,
but a material phenomenon. In my book, there is no ambiguity on this question.
I
agree that I have not read the book, but whatever is being said here is good
enough to reflect the basic difference between our understandings of the caste
issue. When Mr Singh says that ‘Hinduism did not create caste’ and ‘Hinduism
without caste is not utopia’, does it not mean that the class, which has use of
religion, may not have use of caste, and in the ultimate may do away with caste
and retain religion in its class interest. And that is what capitalism does. It
has immense use of religion in keeping working class under its yoke, but finds
caste as hindrance in developing productive forces. I agree with Mr Singh on
the point that Hinduism did not and can not create caste.
I
do not agree with Mr Singh that Marxism is rooted in ‘empirical-historical
reality’. According to me, Marxism is rooted in ‘Dialectical-materialism’,
‘Historical-materialism’ is interpretation of human society on the basis of
Dialectical-materialism, and empirical-historical reality is testimony of
correctness of Marxism and Marxist interpretation of society.
Caste
means identification and discrimination on the basis of birth in a particular
community. Presuming caste to be the basis of ‘unequal access to
economic-political-cultural power’ leads to erroneous conclusions. None of the
dalit or backward caste leaders, are handicapped with ‘unequal access to
economic-political-cultural power’.
￭ What is Srivastava’s Marxist
understanding of caste, the subject of my book? He writes:
If one has understood philosophical
aspect of Marxism - which most of the leftists either do not understand or
consider unimportant – one will be clear, that caste system is an ideological
manifestation of, division of labour in the process of material production and
relations of production, and hence question of caste cannot be solved in a
predominantly feudal society but will fizzle out as division of labour fizzles
out with the growth of capitalist mode of production.
To begin with,
Mr. Srivastava does not know the difference between division of labor and its
ideological manifestation. Caste is not
ideological manifestation of division of labor. Caste is division of labor based on social relations of production –most
importantly, monopoly of the means of production, political power, and
ideological apparatus by dominant caste [and class] and dependence of
subordinate [read laboring] castes [and classes] on the former for their very
subsistence. Ideological manifestation of the caste division of labor consists
of religious and secular ideas used to legitimize, rationalize, and mystify the
unequalproduction and power relations, the foundation of the caste system.
Secondly, inequalities and exploitation of caste division of labor will not fizzle out with the development of
capitalism. Inequality and exploitation rooted in social relations of
production will continue in capitalism, albeit in a changed form. This is
precisely what Marx and Engels say in The
Communist Manifesto. Mr. Srivastava cites the Manifesto for polemics, but does not understand what it says about
inequality and exploitation in division of labor in capitalism, the core of the
Manifesto. One may be reminded that capitalism
created race [yes, race is a modern, capitalist phenomenon] to rationalize the
maximization of exploitation of labor. Like caste, race is rooted in social
relations of production – relations which are unequal and exploitative. So the
idea that caste division of labor, that is, inequality and exploitation rooted
in social relations of production, will fizzle out in capitalism is not
Marxist, but petty bourgeois phantasy.
With
due apologies to Mr Hira Singh, in his above passage so many ideas and concepts
are jumbled up, that an effort to clarify them together, will confuse the
readers. Therefore I shall deal with the core idea of ‘division of labour’ and
‘means of production’ vis-à-vis ‘relations of production’ and leave it to Mr
Hira Singh and readers to develop their own view.
Division
of labour means, different individuals do different kind of skilled labour to
produce different kinds of products. To begin with the division was only about
physical labour but subsequently it led to division between mental and physical
labour also.
‘Means
of production’ include, all that is required to transform, naturally available
material, into usable form for human consumption. These include not only
naturally available raw material, but instruments of labour by which human
labour transforms raw material and objects of labour into usable form. They
also include productive force in the form of not only harnessed forces of
nature, but human muscle power also which includes human skill and mutual
cooperation between workers. Marxism identified division of labour as a
productive force in feudal mode of production and socialization of labour as a
productive force in capitalist mode of production. I like to quote three
passages from ‘Manifesto of the Communist Party’.
“The
lower strata of the middle class ………sink gradually into the proletariat ….,
because their specialized skill is rendered worthless by new methods of
production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the
population.”
“The
various interests and conditions of life within the ranks of the proletariat
are more and more equalized, in proportion as machinery obliterates all
distinctions of labour, and nearly everywhere reduces wages to the same low
level.”
“The
other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of modern industry; the
proletariat is its special and essential product.”
I hope
Mr Singh and Mr Das will agree with me that ‘Relations of production’ includes
relations between people in the production and distribution of products, except
those relations between workmen which are part of the transformation process and
are part of the ‘Productive forces’. ‘Relations of production’ follow and drag
the development of ‘Productive forces’ and this is the dialectal relation
between the two. Mr Singh’s contention ‘Caste is division of labor based on social relations of production’ is
wrong because it is contrary to the dialectical relation between ‘division of
labour’ and ‘relations of production.’
￭ Mr. Srivastava continues: Thus caste system developed on the material
foundation of division of labour, but took the form of religion and social
stratification with un-touchability. Caste system, like religion is an integral
part of feudalism and continues even during the development of capitalism.
Mr. Srivastava
is not aware of contradiction in his own position. First, he says that caste
division of labor is feudal and will ‘fizzle out’ with the development of
capitalism. Then, he turns it around to say that as an integral part of
feudalism, like religion, caste division of labor continues even during the
development of capitalism. It is not only self-contradictory. It is an example
of obfuscation and metaphysical thinking par excellence. From hunters-gatherers
(earliest forms of social life) through slavery and feudalism to capitalism,
division of labor has existed in all social-economic formations, albeit in
different forms. The question is why division of labor changes from one social
formation to another? Not even to raise this question, let alone answer it is
an exercise in metaphysics and mystification.
I
do not use the term ‘caste division of labour’ because it does not fit into my
understanding of division of labour. I beg to disagree with Mr Singh that there
was division of labour in slavery system. Labour power of a slave did not
belong to him. Slave was owned by the master lock, stock and barrel. Division
of labour starts with skill development and production of commodities, which is
the basis of feudal mode of production. In capitalist mode of production, skill
is taken over by the machine and the worker is left with providing only his
muscle power rendering all labour equal and that finishes all division of
labour. During development of capitalist mode of production, for a long time,
feudal mode of production co-exists, and division of labour fizzles out
completely, when capitalism is fully developed. There is no contradiction in my
statement.
￭ What distinguishes the division of
labor in the caste system is one of the central questions raised by Hegel,
Marx, Weber,and Dumont, among many others. It is in answer to this question
that there is a basic difference between Marxon the one hand, and Hegel, Weber,
Dumont and the rest, on the other. For Hegel, Weber, and Dumont, the division
of labor in caste is religious; for Marx and Marxists, it is economic-political
[IrfanHabib has dealt with this question and I do not want to pursue it here].
Notwithstanding his claim to dialectical reasoning and scientific thinking,
Srivastava’s view of caste division of labor, ‘taking the form of religion and
stratification’ [whatsoever that’s supposed to mean] is in line with Hegel,
Weber, Dumont, and whole host of anti-Marxist and non-Marxist sociologists,
social anthropologists, and historians.
Answer
to the question ‘What distinguishes the division of labor in the ‘caste system’,
from that; in ‘non-caste system’ is simple. Origin of the division of labour, in
non-caste societies is, in the development of skill of choice, acquired by a
worker during his working life which was required for efficient and improved production
of goods, while in certain societies the skill and division of labour of
individual workman took the form of community based skill and division of
labour, wherein skill of an individual was decided by his birth and an individual
acquired the skill of the community in which he was born. With increased
productivity, production of goods took the form of production of commodities, and
primitive-communal socio-economic formation transformed into feudal
socio-economic formation and community based division of labour took the form
of cast.
￭ As far continuity of caste division of
labor from feudalism to capitalism, with no mention of what changes and what
continues in transition from one to the other, Srivastava has more in common
with Louis Dumont and host of mainstream sociologists and social
anthropologists who talk ad infinitum about the plasticity of caste and its
continuity from the RgVedic days to the present. This is mythology of caste. As
R. S. Sharma wrote, scholars who talk of continuity of caste from past to
present, without specifying the continuity and change, pose a real danger to
history.
This
point is already answered above.
￭ Mr. Srivastava continues:
Marx had identified that division of
labour was based on the development of individual skills and on an individual
providing specific kind of skilled labour power in the production of one
particular kind of product. But production of one particular kind of goods was
not confined to an individual or a family, in some areas like India, a whole
community was producing one kind of product which is the basis of development
of caste system in India. Even today a cast is identified by the kind of work
the community has been doing.
Was slavery in
antiquity a division of labor? Was it based on an individual providing specific kind of skilled labor? Was serfdom
in Medieval Europe a division of labor? Was it based on an individual providing
specific kind of skilled labour power in the production of one particular kind
of product? Very much like caste, slavery and serfdomwere not confined to an
individual or a family. They involved a whole community producing one kind of
product, albeit outside some areas like
India? Were not indentured Indians in the Caribbean, South Africa, and Fiji
engaged in producing one kind of product – sugar? Why then, rather than
retaining caste, it resulted in the demise of caste [a problem I discuss in my
book]. That is real history of real division of labor. Mr. Srivastava is a
philosopher of dialectics. He does not understand real division of labor [caste
or class] in real history.
Mr. Srivastava
writes that Marx did not deal with the
subject of caste because he had realized that the cause of human woes is the
private appropriation of surplus value produced by collective labour and he
focused on finding how exploitation of man by man can be annihilated.
In the first
place, it is not true that Marx did not deal with the subject of caste [for
more on this see IrfanHabib 2003]. Secondly, does caste involve the private
appropriation by the dominant caste of collective labor of laboring castes? If
so, does caste stand out of Marx’sand Marxists’ concern with the cause of human woes? Obviously not.The
issue, however, is not so much whether Marx dealt with the subject of caste or
not. Rather, it is the relevance of Marxism in dealing with the subject of caste
– question that is central to my book. Common refrain of mainstream sociology
of caste is that Marxism is not relevant to deal with the subject of caste and
caste system in India. I disagree. In my book, I argue that driven by its
ideological opposition to Marxism, mainstream sociology has ended up mystifying
caste. Marxism is the alternative to demystify it.
Marx
did not deal much with caste, as it was not very pertinent to what was the task
on his hand. That does not mean caste is not pertinent today in Indian context,
rather it is an important issue, and I fully agree with Mr Singh that Marxism
is the [only] alternative.
￭ Finally, Mr. Srivastava writes:
At social level there could be various
oppressed groups e.g. ethnic groups, religious minorities, women and children,
refugees etc., and at social level different groups may have to fight different
battles, but at economic level there are only two classes, oppressed or
oppressor, and at political level there has to be a united fight by all the
oppressed people… and hence communists may be part of all social movements but
shall not be in the forefront of social movements. Their task is to bring in
political awareness among the masses through their participation in these
social movements.
Mr. Srivastava
separates ‘economic’ from ‘social’. Class, for him, is economic. Ethnic groups,
refugees, women and children [irrespective of class, race, ethnicity, and
nationality!] are social. Correspondingly, he divides the struggle and
resistance, that is, economic struggle for class and social movement for ethnic
groups, women and children, and refugees. This is a seriously flawed notion of
class, class struggle, ethnicity, gender, and social movements. The idea that
class is economic [without political, cultural, and ideological] is mainstream
sociology – ideologically opposed to Marxism. To the contrary, class is a
social relation – social relation of production – which is simultaneously
economic, political and cultural/ideological. Class and class struggle as purely
economic is the main thrust of mainstream sociology. Max Weber in his classic
distinction between ‘class’, ‘status’, ‘party’, identifies caste as ‘status’ in
opposition to class [a problem I discuss at length in my book] and separates
class struggle as limited to economic issues from social movements as more
inclusive transcending narrow economic interests. In short, separating social
from economic and political is bourgeois sociology. So is classification of
class struggle as economic. The French and English Revolutions were class
struggles: they were economic, political, and ideological resulting in
economic, political, and ideological transformation of entire society. Ethnic
struggles in Eastern Europe, ethnic genocide in Rwanda, uprisings in the Middle
East, many of which are wrapped in the garb of ethnicity and religious
fundamentalism, have hard-core economic-political issues at their very centre.
Peasant movements in princely states of India from the 1910s-1940s (I deal with
in my book) were economic, political, social, and cultural. Peasants were fighting
for land, political representation, higher social status, and cultural
appropriation. These were social movements against material and symbolic
boundaries of caste and class. As I mention above, to separate social and
cultural from economic-political is a characteristic of petty bourgeois
sociology. In quoting phrases from Marx –Engels-Lenin, Mr. Srivastava is a pure
Marxist. In understanding concrete social issues – class, class struggle, caste,
ethnicity, gender, social movements - he is petty bourgeois.
There
can be no doubt, that economic, political and social aspects are the fabrics of
human society, and are integrated dialectically, one affecting the other.
Different people will be affected differently and will intervene differently.
As Marxist I understand that freeing of human society from all man-made woes,
is possible only through the intervention at the right point, and that right
point is the control of the state machinery. A communist party must focus at
intervening at the right point, and all other areas must be used to improve the
awareness of masses. They need to remember Marx’s teaching, ‘theory
also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses.’(Marx,
Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Introduction (1843))
￭ To end, I am thankful to both Mr Asit
Das and Mr. Suresh Srivastava for commenting on my book. My own position though
is closer to that of Mr. Das.
References
Habib,
Irfan. Essays in Indian History: Towards a Marxist Perception. London:
Anthem Press, 2003.
Lenin, V.I. ‘The
Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism’, In K. Lenin, V.I. ‘The
Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism’, In Dialectical
and Historical Materialism, K Marx, F. Engels, V.I. Lenin, Moscow: Progress
Publishers, 1975.
Sharma, R.S. Rethinking
India’s Past.
Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Weber, Max. ‘Class, Status, Party’. In From
Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, edited by Gerth, H. and C. Wright Mills.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1958.
Hira Singh
July 21, 2014
I
am thankful to Mr Das to give me an opportunity to intervene in a matter which
I normally avoid, and to Mr Singh for motivating me with his courteous and
elaborate response and open minded discussion, and I shall be glad to participate
in this kind of discussions.
Suresh Srivastava
24 July, 2014
*************
No comments:
Post a Comment