Marxism was propagated in India by the Brahmins who are, as a class, most unsuitable for the purpose. The Brahmins form the governing class of India. And marxism was the doctrine that provided the philosophical vertebrate for the scientific method to effect a social political transformation. This transformation aimed at the establishment of dictatorship of proletariat (free labourers or peasants who were expropriated from the land) or the sudras. The object of marxism was to bring Brahmins (the ruling class) down from the helm and put the sudras and Untouchables on the seat of the governing class in a classless society. The dictatorship of proletariat can be “attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions,” through a proletarian movement. “The proletarian movement is the self conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of immense majority. The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society can- not stir, cannot raise itself up, with out the whole superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air.”(1)
RULERS OF INDIA
The Brahmins were neither the proletariat (free-labour, i.e. peasants expropriated from land) nor formed the lowest stratum of Indian society. They are not either “immense majority” (Dalit-Bahujan) or the suffering exploited masses. The Brahmins are the minority and the privileged governing class. It is they who form the official society.
The doctrine of Marx encouraged the self-conscious, independent proletariat movement to protect the interest of that class and forcibly over-throw or blow up the official (main stream) minority society in the air.
Therefore, Brahmins stand at the opposite end of the target and policy. “The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property.” (2)
Therefore, Brahmins had nothing to gain out of marxist movement, they were only to lose their caste privilege. Where as, according to marxism the proletariats have nothing to lose but their chains but they had the whole world to win.
M.N.ROY BIAS
Such a revolutionary, anti-establishment and anti-brahmanical doctrine was propagated by the highly self-conscious, caste-biased and orthodox class, Brahmins. M.N.Roy (Narendranath Bhatta chariya) of Bengal established the Communist Party of India on Oct 17, 1920 in Task and (3) with the following as the Executive members:
- M.N Roy -Gen, Secretary
- Mrs. Elvina Roy -Member
3.Abani Mukherjee -Member
4.Mrs. Rosa F. Mukherjee -Member
5.Boyankar N. Prativadi Acharya –President
6.Mod. Ali Ahmed Hussain -Member
7.Mod. Shafic Siddiqi -Member
Here, the Roy and the Mukherjee couples and Acharya were all Brahmins. S.A. Dange, another Brahmin of Maharashtra, wrote a biography of Lenin in 1920 and published it with the help of a millionair Latwal and joined M.N.Roy. E.M.S. Nambudripad hailed the red-flag of Communist Party high, in the deep south of Kerala. Presence of two Muslim members is very interesting, it shows the progressive aspect of Islam.
WHY VAIDIKS BECAME COMMUNISTS?
Marxian doctrine was not a doctrine for suicide or self destruction. It did not launch a struggle to liquidate self-privileges. It was a theory of constant revolutionary process for gaining back the lost rights, a battle by the have nots for having or capturing the temple of power. The motive behind the struggle for existence, according to biology, is to gain more privileged position not to lose it. Why the Brahmins then adopted a doctrine that aimed at their liquidation? Why they became champions for the cause of the proletariat, their class enemy?
In India, the Dalits (Untouchables and Sudras) form the proletariat or servile class. They are the immense majority (Bahujan), the lowest stratum of the society. They are the free labourer or “divine-slaves” (slaves created by god) in the Brahminical Social Order. They are the free producers who were expropriated from their land holdings during the conquest of India by the Aryan Brahmins sometimes in the 1500 В.С. and were reduced as the natural- slaves, the sudras. (4) The sudras and Untouchables, the two-footed animals, (5) were reduced to the property of the foreign Aryan victors, the Bhudevatas. Therefore, the Sudras and Untouchables being themselves property had no property right. (V.T.Rajshekar: How Marx Failed in Hindu India, Dalit Sahitya Akademy, 1988)
The Manuwad/Brahmins became marxists only to hijack marxism and hinduise the doctrine, through sanskritisation.
Since October 1920 the Brahmin leaders have been using marxism to meet two ends so that their interests were well guarded. Firstly, they threatened the British authority with the prospect of a proletarian revolution to bargain for early “Transfer of Power.” Secondly, they endeavoured to divert and damage the rapidly growing revolutionary movement of the servile classes of India under the able leadership of Dr. Ambedkar and Periyar E.V.R. etc. The ruling classes of India became successful in this matter. Marx had written:
“Arabs, Turks, Tartars, Moguls who had successively overrun India, soon became Hinduised, the barbarian conquerors being by an eternal law of history, conquered themselves by the superior civilization of their subject”
(6) Soon the manuwadi leaders hijacked and completely hinduised marxism also.
KRISHNA ARYANISED
Hinduism, a religion of hatred and exploitation, survived throughout the ages by hijacking and aryanising its powerful opponents. This process is fondly called assimilation process. It aryanised Krishna, the indigenous Dravidian hero who was killed by Indra when he was engaged in the battle against the Aryan invasion. It assimilated Budha as the 9th Avatar of Vishnu.
Brahminism even tried to hijack Prophet Muhammad and Islam (Allo-Upanisad, Bhavishya Puran). The Sudra Sivaji was hinduised. Efforts are on to Hinduise Dr. Ambedkar and make him “A true Aryan” (7) and the 10th Avatar of Vishnu.
- AMBEDKAR’S SURRENDER TO GANDHI
Dr. Ambedkar became the champion fighter for the Indian proletariat, the divine slaves of this country. He fought to liberater the bonded, free-labourers of his country from the scriptural and political tyranny of brahmanism. Dr. Ambedkar is called the “Moses of India”. Moses had freed his people from slavery under the Pharaohs of Egypt and led them to their “promised land” across the Arabian sea. The cavalry of Pharaoh failed to hold them back. Unlike Moses, Dr. Ambedkar, however, failed to cross the dangerous seas of threatening massacre out of Mahatma’s epic- fast-unto death. He surrendered to sign the “Poona Pact”. “Dr. Ambedkar was a votary of marxism. He opined:
“Marx propounded the doctrine of the Economic interpretation of History. A great controversy has raged over its validity. If the doctrine of economic interpretation of history is not wholly true it is because the labouring class as a whole has failed to give economic facts the imperative force they have in determining the terms of associated life. The labouring classes have failed to acquaint itself with literature dealing with government of mankind. Everyone from the Labouring classes should be acquainted with Rousseau’s Social Contract, Marx’s Communist Manifesto, Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical on the conditions of Labour and John Stuart Mill on Liberty, to mention only four of the basic programmatic documents of social and governmental organisation of modern times. (8) [W&S of Dr. Ambedkar, Vol-10, p.110].
He further amplified:
“It has been claimed that the Communist Dictatorship in Russia has wonderful achievements to its credit. There can be no denial of it. That is why I say that a Russian Dictatorship would be good for all backward countries. But this is no argument for permanent Dictatorship. Humanity does not only want eco- nomic values, it also wants spiritual values.” (9)
BABASAHEB HATED COMMUNISM
Despite his full confidence on the validity of the doctrine and his opinion: “Dictatorship for a short period may be good and as welcome thing even for making Democracy safe. Did not Asoka set an example?” (10), Dr. Ambedkar remained mil- lion miles away from the “Hindu communists” and their movement. He was so much scared and aware of them that the ceaseless efforts of some low caste socialist leaders could not convince him to join the socialist camp, even to strengthen his movement for the liberty of the helpless Untouchables. Indian servile classes were denied of their human personality even.
Dr. Ambedkar reclaimed “human personality” for the Untouchables and the sudras in his “Mahad-Talab” movement in 1927. (11) Human being only can struggle to capture “Temple of power”, the Parliament.
WHY DR. AMBEDKAR REJECTED MARXISM
In this struggle why an uncompromising revolutionary leader like Dr. Ambedkar, well versed in the Marxian literature, did not adopt marxism as a theoretical means for this struggle? This question has no single answer. There were various reasons. One reason was the doctrinal incompatibility of marxism in a caste society. The other was the absurdity in its applicability in a caste society.
Principles of marxism proved to be a square peg in a round hole, in so far as Indian caste society. was concerned.
From its objectivity angle, the brahminical marxists were absolutely unreliable and a puzzle to him.
Marx has defined his ism:
“The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would be universal reformer. They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes.” (12).
In this process of social change and development we find, “The economic structure of capitalist society has grown out of the economic structure of feudal society. The dissolution of the latter, set free the elements of the former.” (13). And further, the capitalists have been digging their own grave by creating crisis of aver production which occurs repeatedly to bring forth a socialistic structure of economy. The role of capital formation worked as the catalyst in this process of dissolution of each set of social structure.
FIVE CONDITIONS FOR REVOLUTION
Five elementary social factors such as (i) capital, (ii) free labour, (iii) ever increasing market, (iv) an un- interrupted change in the mode of production and finally (v) boundless social mobility are necessary for creating such a situation. These five factors, as described by Marx, are as follows:
that two very different kinds of commodity-possessors must come face to face and into contact; on the one hand, the owners of money, means of production, who are eager to increase the sum of values they possess by buying other people’s labour- power, on the other hand, free-labourers, the sellers of their own labour power….. The expropriation of the agricultural producer, of the peasant; from the soil, is the basis of the whole process for supplying free- labour, the proletariat. (14). (Capital Vol-1, p-668-69).
“The feudal system of industry under which industrial production was monopelised by closed guilds, no longer sufficed for the growing wants of the new markets… The markets kept growing, the demand ever increasing… “The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the Globe (15).
“The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Constant revolutionising of production, un- interrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeoisie epoch from all earlier ones.” (16).
“The transition from the feudal mode of production is two fold. The producer becomes merchant and Capitalist, in contrast to the natural agricultural economy and the guildbound handicrafts of the medieval urban Industries.” (17).
Are these elementary factors for social change or process of social development active in India? In the caste-economic-structure there was no scope of social mobility. Neither vertical nor horizontal mobility in the social strata was possible. As a consequence, application of changeable mode of production was not allowed.
In this stagnant economic structure, the servile classes (the sudras and Untouchables) never got any chance to expand the buyers’ market.
“Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form was on the contrary the first condition of existence for” (18) the Indian Caste society. Sudras and Untouchables were denied of economic rights. They had only the obligations to observe as the producers of wealth. Consequently 85% of the population (Dalit-Bahujan) had no purchasing capacity.
NO REVOLUTION POSSIBLE IN INDIA
Indian caste-economic structure, therefore, stands in total contradistinction to a capitalist economic structure. Such being the condition, though there are free labourers (ex- propriated from land ownership, since the vedic age) and though the Indian ruling classes roll in the vulgar wealth, wine and women, they never had any urge to transform their money into capital to earn more value.
PERIYAR ON MARXISM
After his visit to the USSR, E.V.R. Periyar realised it and declared
“What the philosophy of communism teaches is that there can be no scope of communism in a country where there is absence of common ownership and rights. If attempts are made to bring in communism in a country that does not have common ownership, it will only give room for those who already enjoy more rights to reap the benefits of communism. That is the lesson we have to learn from the doctrine of communism.” (19).
There are many more vital issues in the doctrine of Marx, such as: Who can be the vanguard of the proletarian or servile class movement? What are the basic requisites for the creation of such a leadership? Can a member of the governing class be trusted to be the leader or the vanguard of the movement of the producer class? On this question, Karl Marx has carefully recorded:
“That the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves; that the struggle for the emancipation of the working classes means not a struggle for class privileges and monopolies but for equal rights, land duties, and the abolition of all class rule…. That all efforts aiming that great end have hitherto failed from the want of solidarity between the manifold division of labour in each country, and from the absence of a fraternal bond of union between the working classes of different countries.” (20).
“The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority in the interests of the immense majority.” (21).
WHY M.N.ROY WAS EXPELLED
It is interesting to note that M.N. Roy was expelled from the Communist Party in 1926 because he gave a theory that the changed hearts of the haves will liberate the have-nots from exploitation.
Dr. Ambedkar had also realised the truth, and after a protracted discussion from various angles, he too observed that the fight of the oppressed cannot be fought under the leadership of the oppressors. Liberty is no gift from the master, it is earned, the hard-earned wealth.
In his own words:
“Starting with the Brahmins who form a strong and powerful element in the governing class in India, it is no exaggeration to say that they have been the most inveterate enemies of the servile class, the Sudras and the Untouchables who together constitute about 80 or 90 per- cent of the total Hindu population of India. (22).
“It would be too much to expect them (Brahmins) to resign all their privileges as the Samurais of Japan did… we are the most downtrodden class in the country… This means that we ourselves must fight our battles relying on ourselves.” (23).
He, therefore, finally concluded:
“Only those who belong to the servile class can be trusted to protect the interests of that class. This consideration is so important that the principle of efficiency cannot be allowed to altogether override it.” (24).
MARXISM HELPED BRAHMINS
By taking up Marxism and in the name of Marx, the elite-class Marxists have protected their own class or caste interest. The governing class, indeed, has snatched away the weapon, which the servile classes could use to earn their liberty. The communist parties of India have assumed political power in States like West Bengal, Kerala, Tripura, etc. The condition of the proletariat in those States tells the tale of the woes of servile classes. Have the Brahminical Marxist leaders made room for the proletariat in the instrumentalities of the States where they have captured power? Have the Dalit-Bahujan, the “immense majority” and the lowest stratum of the unofficial society (people not belonging to the mainstream society) got their share in the economic activities of their country? Are not the Dalit-Bahujan of other States, in a better position insofar as the issue of capturing power is concerned? Did not the elite class communists think to protect their own interests? Did they not deceive the Dalit-Bahujan?
TRIPURA EXAMPLE
The sufferings and the miseries of the tribal people, low caste sudras, and Muslims in the State of Tripura know no bounds. As per the census report of 1961, Tripura was a Muslim Tribal-majority State. In the communist regime, they have lost their footholds and gone into oblivion.
In W.Bengal, the demography shows around 26% Muslims, 24% Scheduled Castes, and 4% Tribal. However, during the last two decades of Marxist rule, the economic, social, educational, and political status of Dalit people has become deplorable. The same is the position in Kerala.
The monopoly of the brahminical people is sound and stronger in these. These States have not allowed any member of the servile class to grow into a national level leadership like Bangarappa (Karnataka), Chand Ram (Haryana), Karpuri Thakur, Ramvilas Pasvan, Babu Jajivan Ram (Bihar), Miss Mayawati, (UP) Sardar Buta Singh, Kanshi Ram (Punjab), Dr.Ambedkar (Maharashtra), E.V.R.Periyar (Tamil Nadu), Mrs. K.R.Gowri (Kerala) etc.
CASE OF KERALA & WEST BENGAL
Not even a State-level leader has come up from the lowest strata of society and from amongst the Dalit-Bahujan community in the States under Marxist influence. Side by side, we see that in U.P., Bihar, the Punjab, and Andhra Pradesh, the Dalit-Bahujan have attained a much Important role to play in the instrumentalities of the States.
They have at least initiated the process of capturing the temple of power in U.P. and Bihar. Whereas, in the States under the rule of Manuwadi communists, the Dalit-Bahujans lag behind millions of miles, they remain terrorised, loyal and subservient and perish, unseen and unwept. For the Dalit-Bahujans, the Manuwadi communists have proved more injurious than the Manuwadis.
Since out of the five essential factors, there is only one, namely “free-labour” freely available in Indian society, and the other four vital factors i.e. unbound scope of mobility: ever expanding market; ceaseless change in the production mode; and desire to invest money are extremely feeble, the marxist doctrine was not adaptable in India. Besides, the leadership of the Marxist movement was hijacked by that very class who were most class-biased, extremely caste conscious, orthodox, super arrogant, and contemptuous of other people; it was hijacked by the people against whom the struggle was supposed to work.
INDIAN COMMUNISTS ARE MANUWADIS
The working or producer classes are not the leaders in the communist parties, so failure was obvious.
The Indian communists are Manuwadis. They are not ready to say or do anything against the Indian social-economic structure, the caste system.
Following the idea of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru (Discovery of India), Indian Marxists describe the caste system as a mere superstructure and hold the view that this superstructure will automatically wither away with the breakdown of the structure (basic) or the class stratification.
Karl Marx, however, taught them a contrary theory: “… the hereditary division of labour, upon which rest the Indian castes, those decisive impediments to Indian progress and Indian power.” (25) That caste was not a superstructure; it is the basic frame of the entire socio-economic and religious structure.
The brahminical Marxists are completely apathetic to social transformation or change; nay! They oppose any move for social change. But Marx, in no uncertain terms, concluded that without social change, rather than transformation, nothing can be achieved. Revolution in the Indian social structure was a precondition for class struggle:
“England, it is true, in causing a social revolution in Hindustan, was actuated only by the vilest interests, and was stupid in her manner of enforcing them. But that is not the question. The question is, can mankind fulfill its destiny without a fundamental revolution in the social state of Asia? If not whatever may have been crimes of England, she was the unconscious tool of history in bringing about that revolution.” (26).
Indian governing class-Marxists did not agree with Marx’s theory of the mandatory social transformation or even social reform. They did not follow him even in the question of the role of religion.
The Manuwadi communists are staunch defenders of their faith, Hinduism. Hinduism is their culture, and therefore, is the basis of both temporal and celestial life, and they are not ready to drift an inch from their religious dogma and rituals.
Whereas Marx condemned Hinduism with utmost intellectual fury:
“Yet, in a social point of view, Hindustan is a world of voluptuousness and a world of woes, as anticipated in the ancient traditions of the religion of Hindustan. That religion is at once a religion of sensualist exuberance, a religion of self-torturing asceticism, a religion of Lingam and of the Juggernaut, the religion of the Monk, and of the Bayadere (Devadasi)…. go still more back to antiquity, take the mythological chronology of the Brahmin himself, who places the commencement of Indian misery in an epoch even more remote than the Christian creation of the world.”…….
“We must not forget that this undignified, stagnatory, and vegetative life that this passive sort of existence evoked on the other part, in contradistinction, wild, aimless, unbounded forces of destruction and rendered murder itself a religious rite in Hindustan. We must not forget that these little communities were contaminated by distinctions of caste and by slavery, that they subjugated man to external circumstance instead of elevating man to be the sovereign of circumstances, that they transformed a self-devel- oping social state into never changing natural destiny, and thus brought about brutalising worship of nature, exhibiting its degradation in the fact that man, the sovereign of nature, fell down on his knees in adoration of Hanuman, the monkey, a Sabala, the cow.” (27).
Dr. Ambedkar reached closest to Marxism when he annihilated his caste status by embracing Buddhism. Annihilation of Caste was to annihilate Hinduism, and conversion to any other religion was to annihilate caste. Thereby, Gandhi opined:
“I can find no reason for their (castes) abolition. To abolish caste is to demolish Hinduism.” (28).
Marx was also a proselyte Christian. He renounced his ancestral orthodox religion, Judaism, as it was bereft of social mobility.
To be in consonance with Marxism or to make Indian society mature to have the applicability of Marxism, one is, therefore, required to be closer to the path of Dr. Ambedkar and adopt Ambedkarism. The caste society is to be transformed into a class society and then to accelerate class-struggle, class-war.
CONVERSION PROMOTES CLASS STRUGGLE
Caste is an economic structure (hierarchy) or a Class which is bereft of mobility. Class is an economic structure which is having mobility. That caste becomes a class when mobility is applied to it. And this can be achieved through proselytisation only. (29) Dr. Ambedkar not only propounded this theory but also made the mission of conversion practical in his life.
Dr.Ambedkar fought an uncompromising battle to annihilate caste, to bring forth social transformation. Because “The object of varna (caste) is to prevent competition and class struggle and class-war.” (30). The doctrine of Marx Ambedkar was to accelerate the process of class struggle and class war in which the proletariat was bound to win. Annihilation of caste was, thus, a primary point to start with class-struggle. Co-existence of caste and class struggle is a utopian phenomenon.
RELIGIOUS CONVERSION IS A MUST
As a result of doctrinal proxies of Marxism, the theory of proselytisation as preached by Dr. Ambedkar comes to be an inevitability for Indian society. This is the only way to come out of the steel frame of a caste-economic structure. The brahminical crooked brain used the law of contradiction (Mao-Tse Tung’s ?) to thwart the social transformation movement through conversion.
Marxism has been used by the anti-Marxist Brahmanism to arrest the process of conversion of Dr. Ambedkar.
That is why we see that during the span of 75 years, Marxism is confined only to those States where conversion was fairly large already. Any further organised move, any spread of the ideology of conversion of Dr. Ambedkar, could have created havoc and total annihilation of castes or demolition of Hinduism in these States. Marxism was thus used by the manuwadis as an antidote to kill Dr. Ambedkar’s historic conversion movement.
The factors of literacy, poverty, industrialisation, or the “domino politics” could not in any way help grow the influence of Marxism. Highly industrialized States like Gujarat, Maharashtra, Punjab, UP, AP, Karnataka, etc. were not influenced by Marxism.
West Bengal, Tripura, and Kerala became Marxist states. Despite similar culture, language, industrial situation, and economic condition of the adjacent States like Bihar, Orissa, Assam, they never came under the influence of Marxism or the communist party. Punjab and Andhra Pradesh, though disconnected and dissimilar from cultural and linguistic angles, had activities of the Marxists more than many other States.
What was, then, the unique and common phenomenon for the spread of Marxism and the expansion of activities of the communist parties in the States of West Bengal, Tripura, Kerala, Punjab, and Andhra Pradesh?
MUSLIM FACTOR IN BENGAL KERALA
In all these States, we find that the process of conversion was very active. If we analyse the demographic features of these States, we find that non-Hindus form a very large segment of the population. Muslims and Christians comprise above 45% of Kerala’s population. Even after partition, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, and Sikhs comprise around 30% of the population of West Bengal. In the Punjab, around 60% are Sikhs.
In Tripura, the Tribal and Muslim formed the majority a few decades back. It is observed on the basis of this factor that the influence of Marxism and the activities of CPI are proportionately more in those States where non-Hindus are more. The reverse is also equally true.
The Influence of Marxism and the activities of communist parties are proportionately less in those States where Hindus are more; that is, conversion is least or nil.
In Orissa, the Hindu population is 98%. Almost nil is the conversion. Despite being the adjacent State of West Bengal with a similar linguistic, cultural, and economic base, there is almost no influence of Marxism in Orissa. The Hindu population in Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh is more than 90%. In Bihar, UP, and Maharashtra, the converts, i.e., the Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, and Sikhs, form around 20% of the population.
COMMUNISM SAVED HINDUISM
It is interesting to note that the influence of Marxism and the activities of their political parties fluctuate proportionately with the changing ratio of conversions that have taken place in Andhra, Maharashtra, UP, Bihar, etc.
Brahminical system and the Manuwadi elites of India, in the circumstances, seem to have used the force of Hinduised-Marxism to divert the attention of Dalit Bahujan from the Ambedkarite conversion movement to a utopian line.
Marxism, indeed, played the same role that was played by Chaitanya in the 16th century and Raja Ram Mohan Roy in the 19th century to save Hinduism, that is, casteism.
M.N.ROY ON ISLAM
When we find that with the increasing proportion of the Hindu population, the influence of Marxism declines in the same ratio, it emerges that Hinduism is the most uncongenial situation for the birth and spread of Marxism.
Marxism flourishes in the states where the Muslim population is higher.
The truth seems to have struck the minds of Marx and Engels. Having criticised Hinduism, they, however, praised the progressive role of the other major religions of the world:
“Great historical turning-points have been accompanied by religious changes only so far as the three world religions which have existed up to the present, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam are concerned.” (31)
M.N. Roy, too, had praised the revolutionary historic role of Islam in a very forceful language and logic in his book, Historical Role of Islam.
The Hindustan Times report “On your Marx,” dated 28.5.1995, reveals that Andhra revolutionaries have started re-reading Marx. Its translation into the local language is a hot seller there. It was obvious to come with the spread of Ambedkarism and the Dalit-Bahujan movement in the State.
Hinduised Marxism was the only panacea with the manuwadis to defeat Ambedkarism. Marx himself wrote, “Beware of Marxism”. The time has come to write “Beware of manuwadi Marxists.”
