The heated debate on the nature of contemporary society, in particular, the issue of caste and class, ‘remains io be settled. This issue lay at the root of the Those opposing conflicting assertions put forward by the mutually opposed groups when reservations for the BCs were sought to be implemented by the V.P. Singh Govt. the Mandal Commission recommendations have various arguments in support of their stand. But certainly, the strangest of these various arguments was that by substituting “caste” as a basis for reservation for “class,” V.P. Singh was, in fact, seeking to divide the working class on the basis of caste differences, and thereby, destroy all possibilities of a proletarian revolution to overthrow the present capitalist order. What was precisely curious, indeed baffling, about the assertion, was that it was in fact the feudal, cattiest and capitalist elements themselves who were making such declarations. This was certainly a brilliant illustration of sophistry, of Marx being employed in the service of Manu. (Dilemma of Class & Caste, V.T. Rajshekar, Dalit Sahitya Academy, 1984.)
At this juncture it would be worth considering what Iravati Karve had to say about the caste-class character of Indian society. Karve deals with the issue of why it is that the upper caste/Hindus seek to play down the issue of caste in public, while actually not engaging in any concrete action to break-down the caste system. Karve says:
Almost every Indian of note (i.e. upper caste/class) talks of abolishing caste distinctions and the opposition to it comes from the great masses of agricultural (i.e. low) castes. Though this might seem paradoxical on the face of it, it is completely logical, for the majority of posts in higher paid government services are held by the Brahmans, Kayasths, and a few other castes. Political power is also wielded by them. They are the most literate and have established a tradition for higher collegiate education which has given them a virtual monopoly of such professions as teachers, lawyers, doctors etc. The ‘abolition of caste’ today would mean competition {on unequal terms) for all these above items between the already well entrenched and highly educated castes on the one hand, and the poorer, illiterate majority of the agricultural and other castes on the other”.
Poverty byproduct of deprivation: What Karve is suggesting here is that the already entrenched upper castes now seek to reduce the awareness of the “lower caste” masses of their social deprivation by denying that the exploitative caste system still exists. This suits their purpose since it effectively prevents the lower castes from realizing that it is precisely because of their “lower Caste” status that they are socially and economically oppressed. Thus, the “lower castes” are made to forget about the true cause of their exploitation (that is the caste system) and this being the case, they cannot then do away with their exploitation! 29 Dalit Voice in addition, it ought to be remembered that in a socially backward society like India’s, primordial ties of family, clan, tribe, caste and kinship are the strongest ties that bind an individual to his social group. These ties can best be used for mobilization of the masses, especially if, as in the caste-system of India, certain castes or ethnic groups are synonymous with certain economic classes. But the upper castes, by denying that caste exists, seek to prevent “lower castes” from using these strong primordial ties for mobilizing themselves against the upper caste/class hegemony.
Cunning strategy: Further, if the upper castes were still io openly glorify the brahminical caste system (though they still adhere to it in practice) the political system of one-man – one-voice would cause the awakened “lower caste” masses to stiffly oppose the upper caste hegemony. Thus, the upper castes prefer – not to openly praise the caste system, rather, they denounce it in public (to mislead the lower casts) yet practice it in private. Keeping all this in mind, one can understand why the “upper castes” have adopted this strategy.
Karve, therefore, suggests that, “The only way to break the monopoly of the higher castes is for the lower castes to unite as castes, and fight for preferential treatment. The handicapped castes must first be brought on a par with the advanced castes as regards education and economic opportunities before one can – talk of breaking the caste system.” (quoted in Venugopala Rao, “Caste War in the Open”, Mainstream, 29/9/90, p.4).
Class-based reservations are demanded using the argument that because capitalism is characterized by classes as the main social categories, Indian capitalism must also be characterized as such. But what is conviniently forgotten is that capitalism, or any other economic system does not operate in a sociological vacuum, but actually in a given specific social context. Given the fact that pre-capitalist Indian society and economy were Caste-based, capitalist development naturally followed the contours established by the given caste-based social formation, with the “upper castes” turning into upper classes and the lower castes being proletarianized. This has led to the broad synonymity of caste and class in contemporary India.
False Income certificates: As for reservations for the “poor” (irrespective of caste), the ease with which false income certificates can be procured by these who hail from affluent families is too well known to need any elaboration. The fate of reservations on the basis of economic criteria can only be imagined!
It is also suggested that since the practice of untouchability “has died out,” the caste system itself n has disintegrated, and that, therefore, caste-based
reservations are irrelevant. Now, it ought to be noted that caste and untouchability are two very different, though related, issues, and that the decline of untouchability in no way automatically leads to the disintegration of the caste system. Further, it is well worth noting that those who proclaim that “untouchability is dead” do not themselves belong to the untouchable castes who still face social discrimination and are still the victims of untouchability. Those who make such claims are largely from the westernized educated elite. (For them, untouchability may have died out but it would be more correct to state that they still do practice untouchability, although in a more sophisticated, subtle and therefore more dangerously deceptive from). It certainly is impudent on their part to assert that just because the traditional form of untouchability is not practiced by them, it has died out, and is not practiced at all. What this class imagines, therefore, is that it alone represents the nation, its values and practices, it implicitly asserts, are or must be, true for the entire society.
Religion necessary: As regards the altitude that social revolutionaries ought to adopt towards religion, while it certainly is true that religion is “false consciousness”, a distinction ought to be made between the reactionary religious movements of the upper castes/classes and the emancipatory religion movements among the socially oppressed (e.g. the Buddhists and other conversion movements among the Dalits). In a society characterized by a virtual stranglehold of religion on the minds of the masses, especially the “lower castes”, to expect them to discard religion at once would be sheer utopianism. Instead, the Buddhist conversions, for example, should be seen as a gradual, yet very positive, process of the “de-religionization.” of the masses so that the contradictions present in contemporary Indian religion and society become clear to them in a language and idiom with which they are familiar. One should note that most leaders of successful mass movements in India expressed their -secular ideologies in familiar religious terms – e.g. Dr. Ambedkar, Phule, Birsa Munda, etc.
Further, with the traditional Marxist understanding of religion as the “opium of the masses” and as a mere superstructural fringe entity, Indian Marxists have totally ignored attacking religious-based exploitation. Instead, they have been of the naive opinion that religion would disappear with the escalation of the class struggle. This has failed to happen. As Gunar Myrdal notes: –
“A remarkable situation has gradually come about in South Asia. Practically no one is attacking religion. Even the communists do not take a stand against religion in any of the South Asia countries.” (G. Myrdal, Asian Drama, 1968, p. 103).
The debate over the caste/class nature of Indian society now seems to overwhelm the discourse of politics in contemporary India. Only time can tell what the resolution of this contentious issue will be.
