There is probably no better subject than caste if one wants to study contradictions in the Indian society. Life as a rule teems with contradictions. Caste or the caste system is no exception. It is because most scholars do not see opposites in the caste system, do not see the unity of these opposites that they manage to tie themselves into knots.
As rightly said by prof. D D. Kosambi, “Any generalised statement on caste can be contradicted by an equally true but opposite statement”. Let us look at some contradictory aspects of the caste system.
ONE DIVIDES INTO TWO:
If one was to reduce the dialects into one simple phrase, this probably is that phrase. Everything in this life can be sub-divided into two or more parts. A so-called caste (here we are not talking about varna) will split into sub-caste due to emigration, new sect formation within the caste, adoption of new reformed customs, new occupation etc. There is not a caste in India which does not have sub-castes or sub-caste which does not have sub-sub castes!
UNITY OF OPPOSITES:
Gotra or Kul exogamy stands in contradiction to caste endogamy, individuals stand in contradiction to the caste and vice versa, caste exclusiveness is in opposition to caste brotherhood. Caste system is as flexible as it is rigid. Most students of castes in the past have tended to emphasise the rigid nature of the system. This is not desirable. Caste system does allow one to work one’s (or one’s caste to) way up the social ladder. Adoption into the caste vs excommunicating from the caste, savarna Hindus vs exterior castes, Dvijas vs Shudras, patrilineal castes vs matrilineal castes (e. g. left-hand vs right-hand castes). The list is endless.
THE SPECIAL CASE OF BRAHMAN VS SHUDRA:
It is perhaps in the case of Brahmin vs Shudra that the caste contradictions stand up sharply. Some of the contradictions mentioned here may not exist on the same scale anymore. Almost every social, economic, political, religious etc. right of the traditional Brahmin stands diametrically opposite and dialectically opposite to the disability of the shudra. These two exist side by side with each other. One could not exist without the other!
QUANTITY INTO QUALITY:
It is probably not completely true to say that the shudra stands as anti-thesis to the Brahmin. The tribal stands as an anti-thesis to the Hindu society e.g. eating almost any food (except his totem) vs vegetarianism, openness about sexual matters vs puritanical attitude, remarriage of widows, hunter-gatherer way of life vs food-producing way of life. Tribal people have in the past and still in the present manage to work their way into the Hindu society. The difference between a tribe and a caste is sometimes difficult to see as so many social aspects of the tribal have a mirror image in the caste. Tribes evolve into castes. This is a fact (see Chattopadhaya’s Lokayata). This change comes in steps. The procedure for recognition is as follows: prohibition of beef-eating, meat eating, sacrifices, articles of red denoting sacrifice in puja etc, prohibition on widow remarriage, engaging in trade or agriculture, adoption of Hindu rites and customs, use of Brahmins.
All these are qualitative changes. After many years have passed the new reality is recognised when the ‘twice-born’ start accepting food from the hands of the ex-tribals and the high Brahmins agree to act for them. Usually the tribals can only progress as far as becoming a low caste but sometimes they do rise up to become Kashatriyas e.g. Bhils, Gonds. The acceptance is a qualitative change. It is in this context that some of the High Court judgments detailed by Ambedkar in Who Were The Shudras become understandable as to why a certain section of Kayasths should be Kashatriyas, another section Shudras! (That some low castes and individuals became rulers is a fact. Certain Kings in the past made rules for castes and for regulation between castes; this situation could only come about if the past regulations were not adequate to deal with a changing situation) .
UNITY OF OPPOSITES IS TEMPORARY – STRUGGLE OF OPPOSITES IS PERMANENT:
We have many examples in the history of India where the two ‘opposing’ sides merged but struggle went on. The Arya-Dasa struggle also had its Sudas who had merged with the invading Aryans. Most of the so-called Vedic rishis were not Aryans but Dravidians. The modern day Brahmins are a fusion of Vedic priests and the native priests. There was a struggle between these two as is reflected in the story of Vasista and Vishwamitra. The struggle was not racial but a power struggle about who could serve the interest of the rising Rajas or kings. This could not be done by pure Aryan Vedic priests but by the priests who had some knowledge of the native population. The Rajas themselves were an amalgamated class. So “class struggle” was fundamental, Aryan-Dravid struggle manifestation was secondary. Who was Arya and who was un-Arya, even the Vedic rishis themselves didn’t know. (see Who Were The Sudras) Later on in Puranic times the elite of foreign invaders i.e. ruling groups of the Huns, Sakas, Yuechi etc were absorbed into the Hindu Kshatriya order – the so-called “fire borns”. The ordinary masses from these tribes had to find a lower order in the Hindu hierarchy. Some modern authors (Bailley etc) have demonstrated how it can be possible for a despised caste of liquor sellers to economically rise up the scale and also in the near future win themselves a respectable place in the caste hierarchy. Of course, a typical Indian village survives because of the inter-caste cooperation and indeed this really wonderful clockwork cooperation is sometimes marvelled at by the apologists of the caste system. However, whatever may be the cooperation, the antagonism between various castes, especially between the have and have-not castes, has to be experienced to be believed. Similarly the brotherhood of the caste-fellows is only overshadowed by their jealous and competitive nature. That unity and competition exists side by side should not surprise us. This is dialectical!
ANTAGONISTIC AND NON-ANTAGONISTIC CONTRADICTIONS:
Again, the caste system and the Indian society at large provides numerous examples of antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradictions and how to solve contradictions among the people. Mao said that dogmatic people tend to mess up a situation which they could very well have handled brilliantly. I sometimes think that he had the Indian Left parties in mind when he wrote that! Jokes apart, caste contradictions have not been handled very well by the Left to say the least. More than 30,000 caste atrocities last year alone are a proof of this. The two different kinds of contradictions can be summarised as follows :-
Antagonistic: Dalits vs RSS, Dalits vs Ruling Class, Dalits vs Brahmin ideology, Muslims vs RSS, Naxalites vs Ruling Class.
Non-Antagonistic: Dalits vs OBC, Christians vs OBC, Muslims vs OBC, Tribals vs non-Tribals etc.
Judging by the recent Dalit-Muslim clashes, it appears that RSS as well as the Dalits are also learning well how to differentiate between the various types of contradictions existing among the people. The contradiction between the Dalits and Muslims is artificially created whereas the one between Muslims and Dalits vs RSS is a concrete political contradiction which will remain as long as one of these is not annihilated! The contradiction between Dalits, OBCs, Muslims, Christians, tribals, majority of women in the Indian society, revolutionary parties is essentially a non-antagonistic one. Hence the validity of a united front of the above forces.
PRINCIPAL ASPECT OF A CONTRADICTION, FUNDAMENTAL AND SECONDARY CONTRADICTION, HOW CONTRADICTIONS CHANGE FROM A MINOR OR A MAJOR CONTRADICTION AND VICE VERSA :
India is a semi-colonial and semi-feudal country. This much is agreed by all the revolutionary groups in India. But what is the principal contradiction in India – soviet social imperialism vs. the masses of Indian people? That is what some people will tell you. These people have no grasp of the dynamics of the development of contradiction.
When Soviet Union directly attacks India to crush the Indian revolution (and one day it may do just that – remember Afghanistan and the Indo-Russian Treaty of Peace and Friendship) then it will become the principal contradiction. But, for the time being, the major contradiction is between the masses of people and feudalism. There are other contradictions as well, between the working class and the capitalists and the comprador bourgeoises etc. But these cannot be classified as major contradictions. So what is the principal aspect of the contradiction between the masses of Indian people and the feudal society? It is the lack of unity among the people who are split along caste, State, language etc lines? As a matter of fact, I would go as far to say that the Indian people do not constitute a nation yet. Castes are by their very nature are anti-national. It is only in this context that caste is important, no other. Subjectively, conditions in India are very favourable to a revolution. Why this is not happening? Because the objective conditions are not there. Why is this? Because of lack of unity. Any future revolutionary party in India will have to purge itself of the dogmatic sins of its predecessors vis a vis caste. Once the unity among people is established the caste will then become a secondary aspect of the fundamental contradiction and we will be half way to creating favourable conditions for the demolition of the caste society. That will be a qualitive jump forward. The caste system negates the equality, fraternity and liberty of the tribal life. Socialism will negate the caste system. This will be the negation of a negation. The peoples democratic revolution and the Cultural Revolution will eat up the base and superstructure of the Caste system and we will have our synthesis. (But some people will tell you that, may be, I am being too crude). I have not come across anyone who has done a similar analysis. There may be people who have done it but I have not come across them. The question remains as to why a Brahmin intellectual or let us say why a so-called high caste progressive person has not done a similar analysis. “An egg will turn into a chicken. A stone cannot do so”. At this moment in time there is a qualitive difference between a Dalit and a non-Dalit intellectual, between dogmatic and practically – oriented thinking needed to analyse a complex yet urgent issues.
VERY SOON THIS DIFFERENCE WILL DISAPPEAR:
There will be action then. Dalits will turn into anti-Manus and anti-Kautilyas. Manu said his system would last thousands of years. This has already happened. Cunning as he was, even he could not see the external forces i.e. imperialism acting upon the Indian society and creating Ambedkar and Periyar E. V. Ramaswamys, Bhagat Singhs and Udham Singhs. Non-Dalit intellectuals are carrying the sins and burdens of the last 2,000 years or more. We must not blame them for it, we must unite with them as much as we can. These intellectuals have an indispensable role to play in future as they will be instrumental in breaking down the caste barriers between the Untouchables and the middle castes.
