Comrade, Why Can’t You Say We Had Ambedkar…?
By T Venkateshwarlu
04 January, 2015
Countercurrents.org
In four day (27-30 December 2015) Communist Party of India (Marxist) – CPI (M) plenum in Kolkata recognized ‘Social oppression’ is the key area to organize the people and identified two main problems of people that ‘Economic exploitation’ and ‘Social oppression’. It is a good change to recognize social oppression is a key problem of people. For decades communist parties and revolutionary groups are reluctant recognize the problem of social oppression and initiate various struggles against caste oppression. These parties simply postponed caste problem by saying that, largely caste problem belongs to super structure and caste evolved and determined by the base which is mode of production. If base can be changed the caste problem will be eradicated. This is a mechanical understanding about caste problem. This understanding is not suffices to explain caste problem. Any way these parties’ leaders are forced to recognize the caste as a reality and gradually they are changing their understanding on caste problem. Yet these parties’ leaders are unable to come out completely from their dogmatic and mechanical understanding on caste problem. CPIM General Secretary recent statement in plenum on caste problem once again proved this conclusion about understanding on caste question.
In the plenum, CPM General Secretary Sitaram Yechury said that ‘Caste discrimination in the final analysis can be overcome only when economic empowerment is guaranteed. You had Jyothiba Phule, Dr. Ambedkar and Periyar – people who could commend influence among crores of Dalits. Why is the status of Dalits and Tribals the same despite this?’ On one-side the plenum rightly recognized caste is key issue of people and designed possible programs to combat caste and on the other-side the plenum tried to limit the caste problem to economic aspect.
If CPM Secretary has sincerity in understanding caste problem, he has to recognize social revolutionaries’ role in society and their contribution in both theoretical and practical fronts. He has to say that, ‘in social front we had Phule, Ambedkar and periayar and in system front we had Marx and others. But we did not achieve desirable change in social front because of over emphasis on economic aspect and disowning the social revolutionaries. If CPIM Secretary has humble, he has to recognize the influence of social revolutionaries role in social changes particularly in reducing caste based inequalities and caste oppressive practices instead of saying ‘ Give them land ownership, as we did in West Bengal’. This statement shows the slightly arrogance and reluctance in understanding the social revolutionaries’ role and their achievements in the society.
Social revolutionaries waged continuous struggles against caste oppression. They tried to analysis and understand the roots of caste inequalities and caste based oppressive practices. They courageously said the lies and injustices of Hindu religion and Hindu Gods. They explained the real nature and wasted interest of Brahmans behind caste system. At that time, caste system was very strong and majority of the people were full influenced by the religion because of lake literacy and progressive movements. Ambedkar burnt Manusmruti assumed as sacred book of Hindus which justifies and promote caste based inequalities. He waged continuous struggles against caste based practices. Majority upper caste and backward class people opposed Ambedkar including so called ‘Mahatma Gandhi’. Even communist party did not support to Ambedkar. Almost he remained alone but he never stopped his struggles against caste problem.
Communist party did not own Ambedkar struggles against caste system. Ambedkar tried to explain that, how caste problem can harm the class struggle. He said that caste system is not only division of labourers it is also division of labour. It stood as barrier in their class struggles. Communist leaders misunderstood Ambedkar struggles for decades. Some-times the party leaders completely stood against Ambedkar and also blamed him as agent of British government. Now they declared that ‘Caste oppression’ and ‘Economic exploitation’ are key issues of the problem. Actually this strategy was taken by Mahatma Jyothiba Phule in 1870s and he waged two forms struggles against caste oppression and economical exploitation. Communist leaders did not learn from the social revolutionaries.
Communist parties and revolutionary groups leaders are hesitate to accept the complexity of caste problem and their insufficient understanding on caste. ‘Final analysis caste can solve by economic empowerment’ and base and super structure analysis can not suffice to understand complexity and existence of caste identity for thousands years witnessing different mode of productions in the history. Caste did not disappear after system change. It is able sustain with new base or mode of production. Even in ‘so called’ modern and democratic system capitalist caste exists with some changes. Economic empowerment did not bring the people from inhuman caste oppressions. This is the reality. Because of social revolutionaries efforts and social movement communists are forced to recognize caste reality largely to retain dalits in their fold.
The main problem with the communists is that they are not ready to recognize their failure in understanding caste problem and they put aside old thoughts and framework which can not suffice to understand caste problem. It is fundamental thing in the process of new understanding. Second they did not try to understand post Marxists and social revolutionaries’ theories about society. Most of the post Marxists did not consider authorized Marxists by the communist parties across the world. Still communists and others did not have comprehensive understanding about caste. If any party or group assumed that they have complete understanding on caste. That is not true. Communists have to say without any hesitations that we did not have complete theory on caste and dare to accept new things from social revolutionaries and post Marxists. They have to make this journey without pre-assumptions and conclusions. First they have come out from the fear of facing blame ‘Revisionists’ or their journey destination.
T Venkateshwarlu, New Socialist Initiative (NSI), Telangana