Nitheesh Narayanan
Dear Teltumbde,
These are difficult times. For all of us who side with and defend democracy, and strongly believe that questions are of significant importance. It is becoming tougher for those who dare to choose paths not dictated by power positions. Thinking is no longer a productive activity, but a potential crime. Indeed, these are not only difficult times, but dangerous too — for all of us and for democracy as well.
How are you keeping yourself busy in prison? I hope you will not be denied books inside prison, for this had happened when few of us were put in Tihar Jail seven years ago. I am sure you would be reading many books as you have always done. A few days later, after overcoming the initial hardship of being inside the four walls, I hope you actually find your days in prison as an opportunity to read and reread all the books you were planning to sit with uninterruptedly in the past — a moment you might not have found amidst your tightly packed schedule, as you travelled from one group of listeners to another to share your ideas about democracy, justice, and equality. I can imagine you reading one book after another inside the jail, as Bhagat Singh did. I also hope you will write some wonderful books — as a strong man of thoughts, not of power.
Comrades of the Students’ Federation of India (SFI) in Delhi recently had an online discussion on your long Introduction to B R Ambedkar’s unfinished work, ‘India and Communism’, published by the LeftWord two years ago. In fact, the Introduction has been a subject of discussions on the relationship between caste and class since then.
You have had a very unbiased approach towards writing. You highlight the importance of both anti-caste and class struggles, as well as the historical necessity to link both. You approach the legacy of both scholarships with a critical lens and often expose the lacuna created by the divergent directions chosen by both. What you’ve offered is a dialectical approach — exploring the possibilities of a vigorous engagement and upholding genuine commitment towards a society free of exploitation.
Your sincerity and conviction make you one of the most diligent writers of the issues that plague our society. That is why, whenever I come across any document, writing, reports or news from any archival source about the engagement of communists on the caste problem, I often think of you. Of course, I’ve wanted to share all of that with you to know your response. I’ve also wanted to see whether such an engagement with those materials would make you revisit and change some of your perceptions, or further heighten the criticisms you raise against the early communists. I have not had that opportunity as yet.
Early Indian Communists and Caste
I hope young communists, enthusiastic about the legacy of their vibrant past, will one day sit with you and show you documents which you might not have come across as yet. Those documents might tell you a different story. Perhaps, you will gladly rectify your own convictions that early Indian communists expressed unremitting criticism against Ambedkar. Certainly, there was criticism from both sides, but that cannot be reduced into two impervious categories separated from each other. In fact, they should not be. Younger generations must be told that the history of the encounters between Ambedkar and the communists were not always of relentless criticism and of mutual ignorance.
I have had the opportunity to read a wonderful essay, titled Six Crore Untouchables: Their Place in Freedom’s Battle, by BT Ranadive (19 December 1904 – 6 April 1990), a stalwart of the Indian Communist movement, in 1944. BT Ranadive, known as ‘BTR’, was undoubtedly the most influential national-level communist leader during the 1940s. His writings were indeed climatic in shaping the ideological and political basis of the Party. We have read BTR’s works on caste and class written in post independent India, but this particular piece, published on Party-run People’s War, has not been discussed much. I came across this around three years back when my professor, Yagati Chinnarao, was editing a collection of writings on caste, along with the late historian, Sabhyasachi Bhattacharya. He showed me the essay, saying that this particular write up was likely to be lesser known even in Left circles since it was not re-published in the last seven decades. Prof. Chinnarao has included it in his book, which is now available to the public to read.
You may have missed to read it, because otherwise, I am sure it would have reflected on your introduction to ‘India and Communism’. For if so, the entire introductory piece would have had a different dimension and we would have received a diverse impression about it. It is time for all of us to go back and dig out whatever we have missed out, ignored and put down in history. Probably a critical juncture to gain a slightly different insight.
Let us go back to BTR’s essay. I feel it should be widely read, especially by social scientists and scholars of caste, precisely for two reasons: First, this is an account of how the dialectical method, much spoken of by the Marxists, was practised by them while moulding their approach to social issues. Second, to understand the important but often downplayed role played by communists in coupling struggles against imperialism, landlordism, and caste oppression.
When this was published, Ambedkar and Gandhi were still alive, and India was in the midst of its struggle for independence. BTR reiterates a significant question raised by Ambedkar and anti-caste crusaders: What is the place of India’s 60-70 million untouchables in the battle for freedom? Although not yet achieved, he addresses the concerns of these oppressed sections, about the social order, of an independent India. How to eradicate the fear of upper caste-Hindu oppression in such a society? How to mobilise large sections of the oppressed in a common struggle for independence? What is the guarantee that they are in quest of the national movement? BTR was attempting to answer these questions.
Ambedkar was extremely critical of the position of the Indian National Congress in fighting the caste system. Communists too were critical of the Congress for their utter ignorance regarding caste and the ways in which they approached it. However, the communists slightly differed from Ambedkar here. They opted for a more nuanced understanding while engaging with Congress and Gandhi – for them, criticism rested in active engagement, and not in outright negation.
BTR highlights the important contribution of Gandhi in bringing up the question of untouchability to the forefront of national politics. He also notices that the national movement championed the cause of the ‘untouchables’ long before it had learnt to champion the cause of the industrial worker and of the rack-rented tenant against the landlord. Removal of untouchability was one of the main planks of the Swaraj platform during the Non-Cooperation Movement of 1920. He applauds Gandhi for combining the fight for Swaraj with the fight against untouchability. The series of interventions on the problem of untouchability resulted in the passing of a charter by the Congress in Karachi session in which equal rights to all citizens are lauded.
By recognising all these significant factors and appreciating the historical importance of the national movement under Gandhi’s leadership, BTR points out the reasons for Congress’s failure in convincing ‘untouchables’ to join the struggle for freedom. He calls the approach of Congress and Gandhi towards the caste problem “non-political” and “incorrect”. He criticises Congress for adopting a mere “humanitarian reformist work”, considering untouchability as an internal problem of the Hindu society. The initiatives of the Harijan Seva Sangh, such as opening of few schools and giving scholarships to untouchables were not adequate to address the graveness of the problem. Moreover, the real scenario found no place in political struggles and the charted programmes of Congress. The grievances and special demands of the socially oppressed were not even given an iota of significance in the fight against the British government.
The Harijan Seva Sangh and Gandhian congressmen were actively promoting the temple entry movement and advocating for the eradication of caste restrictions. Like all other communists of the time, along with EMS Namboodirippad and Krishna Pillai in Kerala, BTR too emphasises the fundamental problem inherent in Congress’s approach towards temple entry.
“The mistake lay in the failure to realise that the problem of Untouchables transcended the mere assertion of the right to temple-entry or access to public places. It was not a question of merely doing away with religious inequality. On the other hand, it was one of fighting the age-long suppression of an entire class of economic serfs whom the old society had deprived of all means of livelihood so that they could exist only as slaves, who were forced to live in ghettoes outside the villages and whose status debarred them from engaging in any pursuits other than that of village serfs”.
Similar positions were also taken by early communists in Kerala — a discussion we can keep for another day. What is crucial in this assessment, I think, is the way communists linked the problem of cultural deprivation with class oppression, denial of land, education and occupational mobility of the untouchables. Those who disagree, simply because it was written by a communist, should read a small essay written by Ambedkar himself, titled ‘Caste and Class’, where he underlines how occupational mobility helps to weaken the caste hold.
As he moves further, BTR underlines that the nationalist movement could unite with the sixty million people and gain their confidence, only if they come up with a charter ensuring independent means of livelihood – essential for them to secure equal status with others. Instead of framing such a charter, Congress chose something contrary to it. BTR explains how any idea posed by the ‘untouchables’ for special treatment was looked upon by the Congress party as reactionary and undermining the idea of national unity. He cites Gandhi’s stringent opposition to the demand of Dalits for separate electorates as a paramount example of this. He adds that the failure of the Congress ministries to enforce the rights of the ‘untouchables’ further elevated their resentment. It is in this background that BTR places the emergence of the Scheduled Caste Federation.
The communist leader argues that ‘untouchables’ gave birth to an intelligentsia of their own by heroically fighting their way through access to education, and formed their own leadership. With such a warm introduction, Ranadive moves on to explain the demands and political articulation of the Scheduled Caste Federation, and it’s leader, Ambedkar. However, our ‘eloquent’ history disregards almost everything that BTR has expressed hereafter.
BTR talks about the urge that Ambedkar conveyed about the will of the Scheduled Caste community to become a governing community. This cannot be treated neither as unjust nor as anti-national by anyone.
Elementary principles of democracy demand that a community of 60 millions should be assured an equal share in the governance of the country with the rest of the people. Free India will not be a democratic India, unless these 60 millions have their due share in running the government.
Look at the way he articulates the importance of the demands raised by the Scheduled Caste Federation, through a resolution passed in the Nagpur session held in 1942 and a subsequent meeting held in Madras. These demands included the consent of the ‘untouchables’ in the process of framing the Constitution, the recognition of ‘untouchables’ in the Constitution as a separate and distinct factor of the national life of India, representation of the ‘untouchables’ in both legislature and executive in accordance with their population and needs, adequate allocation of fund in the budget for advanced education among the ‘untouchables’, separate settlement and a separate electorate. In this particular essay, BTR does not respond to all these demands. However, he makes it clear that the demands cannot be ignored by just labelling them ‘anti-national’ or ‘anti-democracy’.
Picking up on one of the demands raised by the ‘untouchables’ that they should be recognised as a separate element and that the constitution of the country must be framed with their consent, he explains the context of the formation of such an argument. He points out that it arose from the fact that the national movement ignored their demands and failed to convince them that a free India will really mean freedom for all. The ‘untouchables’ feared the unabashed dominance of caste-Hindus that would be imposed upon them if the British retreated without any assurance. BTR understood that these demands were directed against claims about the ability of the Hindu society to politically represent the ‘untouchables’ and also to challenge the claims of Congress to speak on their behalf. He sharply points out that the utter negligence of both Congress and the Hindu society on the question of the social liberation of ‘untouchables’ led them to take such a position which is, however, valid and legitimate for historical and socio-economic reasons.
Congressmen were afraid of the distinct space occupied by ‘untouchables’, which became an obstruction on the path they paved for ‘freedom’. They thought the ‘untouchables’ constituted the reserve force of British imperialism. The fear that emanated inside Congress is exposed by BTR in the next section of the essay. He categorically makes it clear that without making every ‘untouchable’ feel that a free India will be free from untouchability, and without guaranteeing them that they are recognised ‘distinct’, the march against imperialism will not be successful. For him, this was part of the freedom struggle and a fundamental element in achieving meaningful democracy. Therefore, he demanded that a Constitution for free India should be approved by the country’s workers, peasants and Dalits, by securing their interests.
I have not come across any writings from the early 1940s which promote and defend the demands raised by the Scheduled Caste Federation and Ambedkar, as lucidly as Ranadive does in this essay. He identifies the revolutionary role of special facilities in jobs and education in the fight against untouchability. Thereafter he forms an interesting argument about this demand. He makes a comparison between the demands raised by the national movement for more administrative posts and higher education facilities for Indians, and the same demands raised by ‘untouchables’. He writes that both are meant to collapse the wall of inequality and therefore the demands of ‘untouchables’ have the same social meaning as the demands raised by the national movement.
Then he comes to the claim for separate settlements. In two paragraphs, BTR explains the social and economic rationalities that generated such a demand. This might look ‘separatist’ through the prism of a shallow logic though, but the separatist element in this is not from national unity, but from the economic roots of the age-old oppressive structures. As BTR points out, the vast majority of the ‘untouchables’ are landless labourers who entirely depend on the upper caste-Hindu majority in villages.
If the Untouchables are granted government land and settled on it as independent communities apart from the caste-Hindu villages, their present bondage will vanish and they will be able to develop out of themselves a class of independent traders, shopkeepers, etc. Thus, for the first time they will find themselves on the highroad of unobstructed economic progress. This will, as nothing else can, cut at the very roots of untouchability.
Next section explains why a demand for separate electorates was raised. There too, BTR does not isolate this particular demand from the existing political reality. Though Muslims had secured separate electorates during the course of national struggle, the same which was granted to ‘untouchables’ was taken back with the Poona Pact, following the fast undertaken by Gandhi to keep them in joint electorates with the Hindus. Dalits were forced to raise the same demand again because joint electorates had only made their status worse. Upper-caste Hindus nominated anyone they wanted in the election, even if the ‘untouchables’ were against it, and they also ensured the victory of those candidates suggested by them i.e. they were in a position to decide who should represent the ‘untouchables’ in any given constituency. This deprived the most oppressed section in society with no political representation to voice their rights. Therefore, as BTR argues, the fault lay in the failure of the national movement and it’s elected leaders to offer any solution to the grievances of ‘untouchables’. He says, therefore, the demand for separate electorates emanated from a concrete social and political reality and that there is no rational ground to label ‘anti-national’ or ‘communal’.
BTR asks the leadership of the national movement to integrate the genuine concerns of the oppressed masses and assure them that independent India would not preserve caste dominance. If this was done, he argues, the national movement would be immensely strengthened and any attempt from reactionaries to exploit the diverse nature of Indian society would be defeated.
BTR also expresses his criticisms of the Scheduled Caste Federation. He identifies a fundamental weakness in their approach and suggests rectification. He notes that even though the movement of ‘untouchables’ had grown beyond its elementary stage, and had reached a point to demand adequate share in political power, their programmes hardly acknowledged the defeat of the British to be a central element in strengthening their battle for freedom and achieving their goals. Therefore, he asserts the necessity for a united attack against imperial power and the social oppression – enemies both outside and inside.
The most crucial weapons to win political freedom from the British were the unity and collective struggle of different sections of Indians. In reality, the vast majority of the population rallied behind Congress in the battle for this freedom.
That is why the ‘untouchables’ cannot afford to neglect the task of winning the support of the Congress for their demands. A purely anti-Congress and anti-Gandhi attitude will only isolate them from the rest of the people.
While urging for a united struggle for freedom, BTR also reminds that the movement of workers and peasants is closest to the movement of ‘untouchables’, for a vast mass of them belongs to these classes. In order to gain support for their special demands as a community, the communist leader suggests the Dalits to join and strengthen trade unions and Kisan Sabhas, to build solid unity for the anti-caste movements and class struggles.
Nowhere does BTR attempt to diminish the historical importance of the formation of the Scheduled Caste Federation. He applauds the rapid awakening of one of the most oppressed strata of the Indian society. Negating the just demands and democratic aspirations of this section was the biggest error committed by the national movement led by the Congress. As BTR states, the road that the ‘untouchables’ have traversed is the road to freedom. The need of the hour was to keep at bay the patronising and non-political outlook of the national movement towards the deprivation of ‘untouchables’. He was propagating a collective and committed movement, against both colonial and communal oppression. Throughout the essay, Ranadive calls for the unity of all oppressed masses.
We must read him repeatedly, loudly and jointly. He might also provide us insights to win over the period we are witnessing right now, and tell us how to unite our struggles.
Dear comrade Teltumbde, ‘Six Crore Untouchables: Their Place in Freedom’s Battle’ was written by BTR when he was 40. By then, he had been jailed by the British four times, and he had spent many years behind bars. All his arrests took place in the context of the struggles he organised against colonialism and for the rights of India’s working class. Each time he stepped out of the prison, he emerged a more convinced and stronger person who stood firmly with the cause of the people. This is the life story of many other communists of the time. You too are fighting the ‘colonisers of democracy’. I hope comrade BT Ranadive’s life and other similar lives will inspire you to stand upright. We shall overcome. Greetings and love!
Nitheesh Narayanan is the editor of Student Struggle, a Central Secretariat member of SFI, and a PhD scholar at the Jawaharlal Nehru University’s Centre for the Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy. Read his report on Cuba’s fight against the coronavirus here.
Follow us for regular updates!
Telegram
t.me/studentstrugglein
Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/studentstrugglemonthly
WhatsApp
https://chat.whatsapp.com/BvEXdIEy1sqIP0YujRhbDR