If Bhagat Singh Were Alive Today: How Might He Respond to India’s Social, Economic, Political, Religious and Communal Scenario?

 

If Bhagat Singh Were Alive Today: How Might He Respond to India’s Social, Economic, Political, Religious and Communal Scenario?

SR Darapuri National President, All India Peoples Front

(A special feature on the birth anniversary of Shaheed-e-Azam Bhagat Singh today)

“Bhagat Singh would likely respond as a consistent rationalist socialist and internationalist: fiercely critical of inequality, communal polarization, and the mixing of religion with politics, while demanding systemic transformation toward a classless society rather than mere political independence or majoritarian nationalism.”

His actual writings and organizational practice provide the grounding. By the late 1920s he had moved from romantic nationalism and anarchism toward Marxism (influenced by Marx, Lenin, and others). In ‘To Young Political Workers’ (1931) he defined revolution as “the complete overthrow of the existing social order and its replacement with the socialist order,” with the state as a weapon of the ruling class to be seized for reconstruction on a Marxist basis. He was an explicit atheist (‘Why I Am an Atheist’), viewed organized religion as a “mountain” obstructing progress and unity, and insisted religion remain a private matter kept out of politics. Through the Naujawan Bharat Sabha and HSRA he prioritized secularism, class consciousness, opposition to communal bodies, and struggle against untouchability and exploitation.

 Political

He would treat formal democracy and independence as incomplete. Political power still largely serving capital, landlords, or elite interests would be seen as continuity of the old order under new managers—echoing his critique that independence alone would not end exploitation by “British capitalists or mixed British and Indian, or even purely Indian.” He would support mass organization of workers and peasants, free speech, and critical thinking, while rejecting personality cults, blind faith in leaders, or authoritarian suppression of dissent. Narrow, slogan-driven nationalism that elevates religious or cultural majoritarianism over class and human equality would clash with his insistence that people first see themselves as human beings and then as Indians, not primarily as Hindus, Muslims, or Sikhs.

 Economic

Inequality, unemployment, agrarian distress, and concentration of wealth would be central targets. His program included abolition of landlordism, nationalization of land and key industries, collective farming, security of housing, and ending peasant indebtedness. Rising private monopolies, privatization that intensifies exploitation, or growth that leaves large sections in precarity would be condemned as the “exploitation of man by man” he sought to end. He would urge class-based organizing of workers and peasants rather than reliance on charity, reformist palliatives, or identity politics.

 Social

Caste discrimination and untouchability drew sharp criticism in essays such as “Achoot ka Sawaal.” He rejected the idea that birth or occupation justified hierarchy, called for upper castes to treat Dalits as equals (including sharing food and water without conversion rituals), and saw the oppressed as a potential revolutionary force. Persistent caste violence, exclusion, and hierarchical attitudes would be denounced as incompatible with any genuine freedom. He would also push scientific temper, education free of superstition, and rational inquiry against fatalism or inherited privilege.

 Religious and Communal

This is where his response would be most uncompromising. Religion as a public or political force was, for him, a barrier: it fosters fatalism, divides the oppressed, and is exploited by elites. In “Religion and Our Freedom Struggle” and pieces on communal riots he argued that class consciousness is the real antidote—poor workers and peasants of every faith share the same enemies (capitalists and exploiters) and the same interest in unity. He praised the Ghadar martyrs for separating religion from politics and hoped youth would reject mutual hatred in the name of faith.

Contemporary religious polarization, majoritarian mobilization, communal riots or lynchings, and the instrumental use of faith by politicians would be met with the same diagnosis he offered in the 1920s: these are tools that keep the masses divided and distracted from economic exploitation. He would reject both Hindu majoritarianism and competing communalisms equally, insist on strict separation of religion from state and politics, and promote rationalism and atheism (or at least private belief) as liberating. Appropriation of his image by religious nationalists would be rejected as a distortion of his explicit atheism and anti-communal practice.

 Overall Stance and Limitations of the Hypothetical

Bhagat Singh was not a parliamentary gradualist; he believed in revolutionary transformation. In today’s parliamentary democracy he might still prioritize building independent working-class and peasant organization, using agitation, education, and struggle rather than electoral opportunism alone. He would celebrate genuine advances in literacy, science, or reduced formal colonial rule, yet judge the system by whether exploitation, caste hierarchy, and communal division had been uprooted.

Any claim that he would simply endorse one contemporary party or ideology is anachronistic projection. His record is clear on the axes that still matter: socialism over capitalism, reason and class unity over faith and communal identity, and thorough social reconstruction over symbolic or majoritarian nationalism. Reading his prison writings and ‘Kirti’ articles remains the best guide; the questions he posed about power, inequality, and the role of religion have not become obsolete.

Can Buddhism be the substitute of Communism?-Johannes Beltz

Can Buddhism be the substitute of Communism?

B.R. Ambedkar's (1891-1956) project of reconstructing Indian society

Johannes Beltz

This article explores one of the many interactions between Marxism and Buddhism, which occurred in the nineteenth and twentieth century. While a general impression is that these interactions are largely determined by political oppression and violence the present article attempts a closer and more differentiated look focusing on the positive inspiration Marxism gave to Ambedkar.

In order to gain a better understanding of Ambedkar's conversion move and his appreciation of Marxism, it is necessary to place him in his historical context. This does not mean that I have to describe in detail the situation in India at the end of the nineteenth and at the beginning of the twentieth century. I rather focus on his path of becoming Buddhist.a

Reform or abandon Hinduism?

Bhimrao Ramji Ambavadekar was born on 14 April 1891 into a Mahar family in a military camp in Central Indiab. His father, Ramji Sakpal, worked as a teacher in a British military school. As a result, young Bhim grew up in a comfortable social environment. He completed his school education in a school in Satara where a teacher by the name of Ambedkar, who was fond of his pupil, gave him his name. The young student continued his studies at the Elphinstone High School and the Elphinstone College in Bombay, a rare and unusual case in an untouchable's life. The Maharaja of Baroda was impressed by Ambedkar's intellectual prowess and he was thus the Maharaja's obvious choice to benefit from a scholarship to study abroad. In 1913, Ambedkar became a graduate and entered into the Baroda State Service. The same Maharaja offered him a scholarship to study in the USA. In this way, Ambedkar left India in 1913 and submitted his doctoral thesis to the Columbia State University, New York in 1916. In England and in the USA, he obtained western scientific training marked by

a For further details see my book Beltz 2005.

b Ambedkar was born in Mhow, a place that is today situated in the Indore district in Madhya Pradesh. It was originally a British military camp, as indicates the name MHOW–Military Headquarters of War.

2

philosophers like John Dewey or Edward Seligman. On returning to India, Ambedkar became a professor of Law, advocate and president of a textile union in Bombay. His struggle for the emancipation of the Untouchables thus began in a decisive manner. In 1927, the Governor of Bombay nominated him to the Bombay Legislative Council.

The first major protests during which Ambedkar emerged as a leader of the Untouchables were organised in order to obtain free access to water resources as well as temples. The most famous example is undoubtedly that of the Mahad Satyagraha. It is here not the occasion to discuss this important event in detail. We could resume that by the end of the campaign Ambedkar understood that the problem of untouchability could not be resolved by the willingness of the Hindu higher castes. This idea determined his political engagement. In 1928, he asked the Simon Commission for specific political representation for the Depressed Classes, in other words he demanded a separate electorate for the lower castes. On 4 October 1930, Ambedkar left Bombay to participate in the third round of the Round Table Conference in London, where he repeated his demands for a separate political representation for the Depressed Classes.

From this time onwards, Gandhi and Ambedkar became political adversaries. Gandhi considered the four varnas as the ideal social order and was against the idea of political representation independent of the Hindu community. On 17 August 1932, the British Prime Minister suggested the creation of separate electorates for Muslims, Sikhs, Europeans, Christians and the Depressed Classes in the state assemblies. His Communal Award provoked a grave political crisis in India. Gandhi, who was then a prisoner at Yerawada, began a fast in protest. On several occasions, he had already criticised untouchability as a “malign growth”, “a crime against humanity” and as “a sin” from which Hinduism had to purify itself at the earliest. But separate representation for the untouchable castes would have totally compromised his program to reform Hinduism. Finally, Ambedkar and Gandhi accepted separate seats for the Untouchables within a common Hindu electorate. The Poona Pact was signed on 24 September 1932.

After this forced compromise, Ambedkar no longer believed that the Hindu reformers could improve the condition of the Untouchables. He accused Gandhi of promoting the discriminatory varna system. Ambedkar did not want to reform the caste system but instead destroy it including its entire ideology. In his book Annihilation of Caste he explained that Hinduism was not a "real" religion, in the spiritual and universal ways, in which it was practiced in countries throughout the world over the centuries. Ambedkar concluded that Hinduism ought to give itself a new doctrine based on liberty, equality and fraternity and that morality was to be the central idea of the new religion. This reform would question all the traditional Hindu customs and values. Ambedkar laid down a 5-point program:

Firstly, a new holy book - normative for all Hindus- should replace the old shastras. Secondly, the priests should pass State exams and obtain a degree. Thirdly, no priest can conduct a ritual without a license. Fourthly, the priest should be a government servant. Fifthly, the number of priests should be

3

fixed and they should follow specific moral rules (Ambedkar 1979: 76-77). Hinduism in its present form should be abolished: "But a new life cannot enter a body that is dead. New life can only enter in a new body. The old body must die before a new body can come into existence and a new life can enter into it. [...] This is what I meant when I said you must discard the authority of the Shastras and destroy the religion of the Shastras" (Ambedkar 1979: 78).

This is where we see the emergence of a program for the fundamental and revolutionary reconstruction of Indian society. According to him the ancient tradition was not to be observed at any cost. On the contrary, the useful part of tradition that abandons the spirit of caste and promotes social progress should be transmitted. Is it surprising that Ambedkar considered the British as his political allies and the Congress party as being "of no use" for the cause of the Untouchables? It is rather consequent that after his experience with Gandhi, Ambedkar doubted all efforts made by the Hindu nationalist reformers and that he finally gave up Hinduism.

Conversion to Sikhism, Christianity, Islam or to Buddhism?

On the 13 October 1935 Ambedkar announced that he would not die a Hindu. This speech is generally considered as his decision to convert. Instead of conversion one can speak of apostasy, a kind of anathema against Hinduism. It is not difficult to imagine the great scandal his declaration must have provoked. How can one renounce the religion of one's ancestors? Some Hindu nationalists criticized Ambedkar and accused him of betraying his country. On 17 May 1936 in Bombay, during the Mahar Conference, Ambedkar explained once again why he wanted to give up Hinduism. The following is a passage from his speech published later under the meaningful title Mukti kona patha? (“Which is the path to liberation?”): "According to me, this conversion of religion will bring happiness to the Untouchables as well as the Hindus. So long as you remain Hindu, you will have to struggle for social intercourse, for food and water, and for inter-caste marriages. [...] By conversion, the roots of all the quarrels will vanish. [...]. [T]his path of conversion is the only right path of freedom which ultimately leads to equality" (Ambedkar 1993a: 9-10). Ambedkar affirmed that social equality could not be attained if the Untouchables remained Hindus. They would never be emancipated as Hinduism was opposed to all kinds of change. The Untouchables would be strengthened by conversion and would thus be able to gain equality, liberty and a happier existence.

After this declaration Ambedkar received proposals to convert to Sikhism, Islam and Christianity. One should remember that during the 19th and 20th centuries several Untouchables had converted to Christianity in South India and to Sikhism in Punjab. Did Ambedkar think of converting to Christianity? Which was the religion most favourable to the liberation of the Untouchables? Having seen that the collective conversions to Christianity had not completely modified the social status of the Untouchables and that there was still a separation of castes with the churches in South India, Ambedkar (1989a: 426-476) gave up this idea. Added to this was the fact that conversion to

4

Christianity would have led to a "denationalisation" of the oppressed classes, thus widening the gap between the Indian and "foreign" populations. Did Ambedkar have intentions of joining the Sikh fold? In 1936, he took part in a Sikh meet at Amritsar, but insisted that he had not yet decided on which religion to convert into. Ambedkar considered Sikhism, an offshoot of Hinduism as a better alternative compared to Islam or Christianity. However, even if Sikhism was an egalitarian religion, it was too restricted to the state of Punjab. What about converting to Islam? Ambedkar saw Islam as an extremely fanatical, conservative and separatist religion. Muslims observed untouchability and practiced polygamy. He doubted their capacity to be loyal Indian citizens, as their religion did not make for allegiance to a secular State (Ambedkar 1990a: 232-233). Ambedkar thus went on to favour the creation of Pakistan and defended the Two Nation Theory. Later, he even called the untouchable castes to come over to India and to stop believing in the Muslim League. He warned the Untouchables who converted to Islam that they would not attain salvation through this religion. It is not surprising that this point of view won him favourable reactions from the Hindu Nationalists. After all, hadn't Ambedkar reacted as a good Indian “patriot”? The Hindu nationalist perspective saw Ambedkar as an enemy of Muslims. But it must be brought to notice that he opposed the creation of a Hindu India and condemned the exploitative, discriminatory and superstitious character of Brahman orthodoxy. For him, Buddhism alone was rationalist, egalitarian and progressive in nature, thus laying the foundation for a civil society. Ambedkar nevertheless hesitated to convert immediately. He was waiting. Was Ambedkar still not sure about converting? Such a hypothesis is hardly plausible as Ambedkar was fundamentally against Hinduism. It is more probable that he believed that it was not yet time for him to convert.

When did Ambedkar start showing an interest in Buddhism? According to several modern biographies, which have hagiographic traits, his admiration of Buddhism dates back to his childhood. Whatever be the case, Ambedkar was attracted to Buddhism at least ever since the thirties. Here is a summary of the major events that illustrate his growing interest in Buddhism. In 1934, he named his house in Dadar Rajagriha. In 1946, he chose the name of Siddharth College for the first college founded by the People's Education Society. In 1943, he met Mahastahvir Chandramani; thirteen years later, this monk initiated Ambedkar into Buddhism.c

c The venerable Chandramani (1876-1972) receives supreme Buddhist ordainment (upasampada) in 1903 in Burma. In India he was associated with the activities of Dharmapala and of the MBSI and was mainly involved in the reinstatement of the Kushinagar shrine as a Buddhist holy place.

5

In 1947 he was appointed as the Minister of Law and became the President of the Drafting Committee, a committee responsible for the drafting of the Constitution. In 1950, Ambedkar asked his supporters to celebrate the Buddha's birth anniversary and went to Sri Lanka to attend the conference of the Young Men's Buddhist Association, where he presented his ideas on the fall and rise of Buddhism in India. His article, The Buddha and the Future of His Religion, was published in the same year. He proposed to write and distribute a "Buddhist Bible", to modify the organization, the objectives and the role of the Sangha and to create a World Buddhist Mission in order to effectively spread Buddhism as a religion of morality, liberty, equality and fraternity. In 1954 he participated in the Third Conference of the World Fellowship of Buddhists at Rangoon. In 1955, he founded the Buddhist Society of India (BSI). In 1956, Ambedkar published and distributed the first version of his "Buddhist Bible" under the title The Buddha and his Gospel. Then, on May 12, under the auspices of the BSI, he gave an interview to the BBC, explaining that the Buddha would have been the answer to the Marxist and Communist challenge (Ambedkar 1997: 113). During the Buddha's Birth anniversary celebrations at the end of the month, he announced his conversion to be held on the October 14. The actual conversion ceremony took place in Nagpur on 14 October, where he and his wife received the formal initiation by Bhante Chandramani, one of the oldest Buddhist monks of his time.d Though he was already very unwell, Ambedkar participated in the World Fellowship of Buddhists at Kathmandu in November 1956. Very ill he died on 6 December 1956 in Delhi.

Re-actualising the dhamma

Ambedkar created a modern and new Buddhism. But what was the framework of his approach? It is first necessary to say that Ambedkar did not hide the fact that he was practicing a revolutionary and selective reading of Sanskrit and Pali texts, which he knew only in their translated versions. In the introduction to The Buddha and His Dhamma, he explained that he wanted to re-actualise the dhamma. Ambedkar thus questioned the normative tradition and distanced himself from it. At the same time, he did not give up the idea that there was an original message from the Buddha, which he wanted to rediscover. This was indeed his second objective: He wanted to reconstruct the real

d Bhante Chandramani made Ambedkar and his wife repeat the Three Refuges followed by the Five Precepts thrice. They threw rice on the Statue of the Buddha and made offerings of white lotus flowers. Then Ambedkar converted the crowd to Buddhism. Several thousands of Mahars, dressed in white robes had come to Nagpur by various means: by car, by train, walked, to participate in the ceremony. Ambedkar made them recite the Three Refuges followed by the Five Precepts thrice. Then he administered the Twenty-Two Vows (bavisha pratijna), a kind of "declaration of faith" for the new converts. In this text, he explains to the converts, which Hindu doctrines and practices need to be given up: worship of Hindu gods, the idea that the Buddha is the only God, the ancestral rites (shraddha paksha) during which rice balls (pinda) are offered and finally all ritual carried out by a Brahmin. The new Buddhist faith above all propagates equality, based however on the "classical" Buddhist principles such as the Five Precepts, the Noble Eightfold Path and Ten Virtues (Beltz 2005: 55-58).

6

Buddhism, that is the Buddhism that the Buddha preached. How does one link these seemingly scientific and rational presumptions of his?

Ambedkar first remarked that the Buddha's teachings were constantly modified over the centuries. How does one distinguish between the true teachings of the Buddha and those that were added later? Ambedkar (1992: 350-351) laid down three criteria in order to verify if the teaching was originally preached by the Buddha: 1) All that the Buddha said should be logical and rational 2) The Buddha never entered in to a discussion unless it was for human welfare. All that goes against human welfare cannot thus be an idea that came from the Buddha. 3) The Buddha distinguished the opinions he was sure of from the hypothesis he was not sure of. He affirmed ideas of which he was convinced and hesitated to pronounce him on those he was unsure of. These are the three principle arguments, which enabled Ambedkar to identify the authentic traditional elements. It is through this framework of study that he rejected all that did not correspond with his idea of a Buddhism that was social, egalitarian and reformatory in its character.

How did Ambedkar perceive the Buddha? For him, he was not comparable to a God or to a prophet. The Buddha never claimed divine status. He never said to have divine or supernatural powers. For Ambedkar the Buddha was a historical character, who was concerned with showing mankind the path to salvation. More importantly, he gave his disciples the liberty to question and to modify his teachings. In fact Ambedkar reconstructed his life of the Buddha from the Suttapitaka, the Buddhacharita and the works of Paul Carus, of Lakshmi Narasu and of Edward Thomas. In his The Buddha and His Dhamma he presented the Buddha as a very good-looking man with a gentle voice and a perfect character, who was admired by one and all (Ambedkar 1992: 567-570). It is necessary to keep in mind that despite the strong rational position adopted by Ambedkar; the description of the Buddha is in the same religious and devotional language as the English versions of the ancient Sanskrit and Pali texts. But the content has changed: The Buddha represents the ideal, humanist, knowledgeable, tolerant and compassionate leader, who is committed to the cause of the ill and the marginalized. He detested all forms of inequality and poverty (Ambedkar 1992: 573-584).

In his program of a radical re-actualisation of Buddhism, Ambedkar modified certain details of Buddha's life. The most striking example is of his renouncement. According to tradition the Buddha left his family and his house to go in search of liberation after the painful experience of coming across an old man, a sick man and a dead man. However, according to Ambedkar, the given reason for renouncing the world is absurd. He proposed another solution that seems more plausible. When the prince Siddhartha was twenty-eight years old, there was a conflict that broke out between the Shakyas, his clan and that of the Koliyas, their neighbours and relatives. They had continuous disagreements on

7

who should use the water of the river Rohini that separated the two kingdoms.e The conflict turned violent and claimed many victims. This is why the Shakyas declared war on the Koliyas. Ambedkar situates the Buddha's decision to renounce the world at this very moment, as he was opposed to the declaration of war, which was not a solution in his view. Only love could solve the problem but the Shakyas refused to listen to his proposal and the Buddha refused to move his armies. When he was threatened of being punished by his own clan, the Buddha decided to renounce the world (Ambedkar 1992: 24-32).

This hypothesis seems plausible due to its rational and simple nature. Buddha's refusal to enter into a war that was unjust and inappropriate corresponds perfectly to the idea of a Buddhism committed to social welfare as envisaged by Ambedkar. The figure of the young prince Siddhartha Gautama who takes an active part in the political affairs of his time is more interesting than that of a prince who renounces the world on his first encounter with human suffering. But from a totally scientific point of view Ambedkar's idea is not convincing. This is not surprising. Ambedkar's biography of the Buddha is not a result of serious philological or historical studies that is “neutral” studies, but is instead an unorthodox interpretation. In my article I intend to show how Ambedkar constructed the figure of an ideal social reformer, of a new Buddha, who could eventually substitute Karl Marx!

The new focus: Morality, Equality and Justice

Above all Ambedkar appreciated Buddhism for its morality: “In fact, it might be stated that the Buddha was the first teacher in the world who made morality the essence and foundation of religion” (Ambedkar 1995: 32). As a consequence he refused even to speak of Buddhism as a religion and preferred the word dhamma, which he defined exclusively in terms of a principle of morality and social justice: "What is the place of morality in Dhamma? The simple answer is Morality is Dhamma and Dhamma is Morality. In other words, in Dhamma morality takes the place of God although there is no God in Dhamma. In Dhamma there is no place for prayers, pilgrimages, rituals, ceremonies or sacrifices. Morality is the essence of Dhamma. Without it there is no Dhamma" (Ambedkar 1992: 322-323).

According to Ambedkar the Buddha's dhamma is a kind of social contract regulating the relations between humans in their private as well as public lives: "Religion, it is said, is personal and one must keep it to oneself. One must not let it play its part in public life. Contrary to this, Dhamma is

e Ambedkar refers to Dharmananda Kosambi who had already spoken of this conflict in the thirties and the forties.

8

social. It is fundamentally and essentially so. Dhamma is righteousness, which means right relations between man and man in all spheres of life. From this it is evident that one man if he is alone does not need Dhamma. But when there are two men living in relation to each other they must find a place for Dhamma whether they like it or not. Neither can escape it. In other words, Society cannot do without Dhamma" (Ambedkar 1992: 316).

At this point Ambedkar argued that no society can survive without religion. Ambedkar recognised the necessity of morality without giving up the notion of religion: The Buddha preached social, intellectual, economic and political liberty, as well as equality amongst human beings and the two sexes. The three fundamental principles of his philosophy are liberty, equality and fraternity. In an interview that he gave on 3 October 1954 to the All India Radio, he explained: "My social philosophy may be said to be enshrined in three words liberty, equality and fraternity. Let no one however say that I have borrowed my philosophy from the French revolution. I have not.f My philosophy has roots in religion and not in political science. I have derived them from the teachings of my master, the Buddha" (Ambedkar 1997: 101).

Would it be going too far in attributing revolutionary and egalitarian intentions to the Buddha just as Ambedkar does? To summarise, it is certain that Ambedkar’s arguments are not those of a Buddhist scholar but of a social reformer, who re-actualises this age-old tradition in a radical manner. However, he is not the only one to do so: Before him Dharmapala and Narasu had already promoted this same interpretation. More importantly, the egalitarian and anti-caste values form a central part of the modern and contemporary Buddhist discourse.

Ambedkar's identification in terms of a modernistic Buddhist is not as evident as it may seem at first. Firstly, Ambedkar re-interpreted Buddhism in a non-Buddhist context. He knew Buddhism only through books. Of course he was in contact with other Buddhists and participated in international Buddhist conferences. But he still had a selective approach. In fact he adapted Buddhism with a great deal of liberty: He chose what interested him and left out what he considered inappropriate. This liberty of choice makes for an important difference between him and the Buddhist reformers like Dharmapala who was rooted in a Buddhist milieu. At the same time Ambedkar shares some common aspects with the modernist Buddhists. His writings are largely based on texts of the Theravada tradition, translated into English by westerners though he began towards the end of his life to learn Pali and prepared a Pali dictionary. But the use of Buddhist texts in their original language has remained rare. The western influence, which characterises modernist Buddhists, is clearly evident in

f The Buddha and not the French revolution were to be his ultimate authority. In my opinion, this statement is rhetorical. While affirming the Indian origins of his ideas, Ambedkar can present Buddhism as an Indian social philosophy that aims at establishing justice for all mankind.

9

Ambedkar's borrowing of ideas from rationalism and universal and egalitarian ideology of the Lumières and from Marxism. He had read some western philosophers' works and was greatly inspired by them. He himself admits owing a lot to John Dewey, the pragmatic American philosopher of his time (Ambedkar 1979: 79).

As a Buddhist, Ambedkar asked for independence and more autonomy in relation to all Buddhist traditions. On the 14th of October 1956 he gave the Twenty Vows to his "disciples" and initiated them into Buddhism, thus acting as an authority comparable to that of the Bhikkhu Chandramani, the Buddhist monk who had initiated Ambedkar. Despite his "inferior" status, Ambedkar claimed the same legitimacy as an ordained monk. Was this not an exceptional case in Buddhism? Ambedkar received fierce criticism, accusing him of having falsified the religion, and of having preached a “personal” Buddhism without respecting the tradition.

Buddhism and Marxism

Ambedkar considered Buddhism as a possible substitute for Communism. "I claim that Buddhism is a complete answer to Marx and his Communism" (Ambedkar 1997: 113). In a situation of competing ideologies, he saw his new Buddhism, containing certain Marxist elements, in the end the better alternative. In order to get a deeper understanding of this interesting mix of ideas and influences we need above all to look into two texts, where Ambedkar discusses this question in great detail. The first is Buddhism and Communism (Ambedkar 1993b), a presentation he made at the Fourth Conference of the World Fellowship of Buddhists at Kathmandu in November 1956.g The second one is the article Buddha or Karl Marx?, which was written in December 1956 and is the reworked version of the Kathmandu presentation (Ambedkar 1987).

Before we systematically present the issues, which could be analysed in the framework of Marxist ideology, it is to be repeated here that he got firstly exposed to Socialist ideas during his studies of anthropology, law and economy in the US and UK. At the same time he certainly witnessed the Stalinist terror in the Soviet Union and closely observed how Communism influenced at some point the fate of Europe. His stands towards Marxism might have changed over the years but he permanently addressed socio economic issues as equality, poverty, industrialisation and unemployment. He also demanded that key industries should be owned by the State "whenever it may become necessary in the interest of the people" (Ambedkar 2003: 416-417). However, Ambedkar remained a democrat by conviction, he never declared himself a Marxist, not even Socialist. Nor did

g Ambedkar had first chosen non-violence in Buddhism as the topic for his presentation. But the organizers requested him to speak on Communism, a theme that seemed more current to them

10

he join any leftist party but rather founded his own political parties such as the Independent Labour Party in 1936 or the Republican Party in 1955.

Ambedkar wanted India to be flexible and not following blindly a given ideology. This critical distance to his Marxist comrades is the most obvious in his opposition to declare India a Socialist country. As president of the Drafting Committee of the Indian Constitution, he rejected this amendment on 15 November 1948: "It is perfectly possible today, for the majority of the people to hold that the Socialist organisation of society is better than the Capitalist organisation of society. But it would be perfectly possible for thinking people to devise some other form of social organisation of today or tomorrow (...) I do not see therefore why the Constitution should tie down the people to live in a particular form and not leave it to the people themselves to decide it for themselves" (Ambedkar 1994: 326). He further argued that the Constitution had already established principles of social equality and justice: "Therefore my submission is that these socialist principles are already embodied in our Constitution and it is not necessary to accept this amendment" (Ambedkar 1994: 327). Ambedkar's critical distance durated almost 20 years and was removed by Indira Gandhi, introduced in an amendment to the Constitution that classifies India as Socialist Republic.h

a) Caste and class

Ambedkar's major concern consisted in eradicating untouchability and uplifting the downtrodden population. Justice meant above all social equality.i For Ambedkar it was the Buddha, who considered equality as base of his teachings: “The Buddha was the strongest opponent of caste and the earliest and staunchest upholder of equality. There is no argument in favour of caste and inequality which he did not refute” (Ambedkar 1992:302).

To repeat it once more, Ambedkar reached out for the establishment of social equality within a parliamentary democracy. To achieve it he used Marxist terminology but he never subscribed to Marxist ideology as a whole. Perhaps the most important concept that he might have borrowed from Marxism is the idea that "society is always composed of classes" (Ambedkar 1989a: 15). However, the terminology of social classes was widely used in the twentieth and thirties by Indian and British administration, the term of Depressed Classes designating the former Untouchables. Even though

h Today's Constitution reads in the preamble "We, the People of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic…"; http://lawmin.nic.in/coi/coiason29july08.pdf.

i In order to illustrate his argumentation in favour of equality, he cites the Assalayanasutta, (Majjh.-Nik.II 147-157), the Vasetthasutta (Snip. 112-120) and the Esukarisutta (Majjh.-Nik.II ,177-184) of the Pali canon. In these texts, on the one hand, the Buddha declares that all human beings are equal by birth, and on the other hand, he says that karma is the cause of all differences between humans. However, there is no biological or moral criterion that differentiates a Kshatriya, a Brahmana, a Vaishya, a Shudra or a Chandala.

11

Ambedkar underlinded that "definite classes in a society" are "a fact" (Ambedkar 1989a: 15). Interestingly he interpreted the caste system within the framework of class ideology: "This is a universal fact and early Hindu society could not have been an exception to this rule (…) a Caste is an Enclosed Class" (Ambedkar 1989a: 15). Ambedkar understood caste not merely in terms of ritual purity, common genealogy, profession, marriage practices but in the context of political power and class struggle.

b) Revolutions as engines of social development

According to Ambedkar revolutions and counter-revolutions shaped Indian history. This idea is prominently visible in his theory on the origin of untouchability, which he linked to the disappearance of Buddhism in India. According to him, the Untouchables were earlier the broken men, that is, sections of defeated tribes. They were victims of war, who were in flight and their community structure was weakened or even destroyed. These people went in search of a new refuge and approached sedentary tribes. These broken men became “strangers” in their eyes and did not have the right to live within the village. They protected the villagers and were in return sustained by them. This mutual relationship was at the root of the fifty-two traditional rights of the Mahars (Ambedkar 1990: 274-277). How did these broken men become Untouchables? It is here that Ambedkar introduces the conflict between Brahmanism and Buddhism. In his opinion the Brahmins lost their superior position due to the competition from the Buddhists. In order to gain dominant status, the Brahmins decided to become vegetarian, to prohibit beef-eating and to reject the Buddhists (Ambedkar 1990: 346). As a result the Buddhist broken men who ate beef like the rest of the world, were stigmatised as “impure”. This is how untouchability came into being towards 400 AD (Ambedkar 1990: 379). Ambedkar analyses the rivalry between Buddhism and Brahmanism in terms of a revolution and counter-revolution, as a conflict of progressive and regressive forces. Converting to Buddhism would thus be a mark of social regression, a re-conversion to the original religion of the Untouchables. In other words, Ambedkar finds a coherent and original explanation to untouchability within the framework of his historical quest.

c) Economic concerns: The question of private property

Ambedkar claimed that the Buddhist concept of dukkha could sometimes be translated as poverty and concluded that the Buddh'a fight to erase dukkha means the eradication of poverty (Ambedkar 1993b: 67-68). Therefore, no need exists to borrow this idea from Marx. From a Buddhist perspective poverty was linked to private property, the latter being the reason for any kind of exploitation. As a consequence Ambedkar demanded that key industries and agriculture in India are to be nationalized. In 1947 he published a memorandum on the safeguards for the Scheduled Castes and submitted it to

12

the Constituent Assembly. He had formulated it on behalf of the All India Scheduled Castes Federation proposing measures of how to secure their rights in the Constitution. There he said: "That industries which are key industries or which may be declared to be key industries shall be owned and run by the State. That industries which are not key industries but which are basis industries shall be owned by the Stare and shall be run by the State or Corporations established by the State. That Insurance shall be a monopoly of the state and that the State shall compel every adult citizen to take out life insurance policy commensurate with his wages as may be prescribed by the Legislature. That agriculture shall be State Industry" (Ambedkar 1990: 10). In this proposal he took a stand, that could be easily labeled Socialist. He also said: "The main purpose behind the provision is to put an obligation on the State to plan the economic life of the people on lines which would lead to highest point of productivity without closing every avenue to private enterprise, and also provide for the equitable distribution of wealth. The plan set out in the plan proposes State ownership in agriculture with a collectivized method of cultivation and a modified form of State Socialism in the field of industry" (Ambedkar 1990: 12). He further declared that State Socialism would be essential for the rapid industrialization of India. He finally said: "Private enterprise cannot do it and if it did it would produce those inequalities of wealth which private capitalism has produced in Europe and which should be a warning to Indians" (Ambedkar 1990: 12).

However, Ambedkar talked here as a strategic and pragmatic politician having in mind the industrialization of India. He did not consider the systematic elimination or nationalization of private property as the ultimate solution to all problems (Ambedkar 1994: 1210). Nor was the socialization of private property his main priority. He stressed on the fact that India's economic policy should ameliorate the fate of the people without sticking to any ideological programs. In fact, he blamed Communists and Socialists for being reductionist focusing exclusively on economic issues. He was convinced that Buddhism offers here something more: "Humanity does not only want economic values, it also wants spiritual values to be retained (…) Equality will be of no value without fraternity or liberty. It seems that the three can coexist only if one follows the way of the Buddha. Communism can give one but not all" (Ambedkar 1987: 461-462).

d) Secularism

Another major difference to the Communist/Socialist agenda was Ambedkar's use of religion, which leads us back to his conversion to Buddhism. Ambedkar kept distant from militant atheism and developed another idea of a civic society, which is based on the dhamma as a social and sacred principle. In fact he criticised the Communists for hating religion, ignoring the difference between Christianity and Buddhism (Ambedkar 1987: 460). As we have seen Ambedkar's dhamma was totally different from the Christian religion. It was rationalist, a truly civil religion and fundament for a free society (Ambedkar 1987: 442).

13

However he neither applied a uniform terminology, nor gave he a pertinent definition. What seems to be the central aspect is the fact that he based himself primarily on western writers quoting abundantly from authors like Robertson Smith, C.P. Tiele and Max Muller, all researchers who spread more or less evolutionist ideals according to which each stage of human civilisation is characterised by a specific religion. Ambedkar borrowed the idea from them in defining religion as a social force that is the ideal form of the organization of a civil society. Referring to Marx he declared that the function of religion is not to explain the origin of the world, but to reconstruct the world and to make mankind happy.j The ideal religion is one that transforms the human society into a moral, ideal and democratic order, such as Buddhism (Ambedkar 1987: 442; Ambedkar 1992: 322).

Ambedkar constructs Buddhism in the form of a parallel entity that is the antithesis what he calls of monotheistic religion, without giving up the idea that religion always represents the moral fabric of a society. As he is aware of this conceptual rift, he avoids the term religion wherever he can. The alternative term of dhamma corresponds better with his idea of a secularised and anti-traditionalist religion. His Buddhism may be tested, questioned, improved, reformed, even abandoned. Buddhism is not a "revealed religion", but an object of quest and investigation (Ambedkar 1989a: 191; Ambedkar 1992: 221-222). Buddhism is a “a-religious religion”, a universal human morale which negates the existence of all religions.

e) Non violence and democracy

As an apologetic Ambedkar declared again and again how Buddhism is preferable to Marxism and Communism. Within this discourse, the issue of non-violence (ahimsa) functioned as major argument in favour of Buddhism. Ambedkar explains: "The Buddha was against violence. But he was also in favour of justice and where justice required he permitted the use of force" (Ambedkar 1987: 459). Therefore force is acceptable as a tool of maintaining authority and power, law and order in the state. There is no doubt that an offender must be punished and that the government which inflicts the punishment is only carrying out the law. The use of force is not in conflict with the Buddhist principle of ahimsa because one "must never surrender to evil powers. War there may be. But it must not be for selfish ends...." (Ambedkar 1987: 451). In other words, Buddhism love can provoke the use of violence, if it is preventive in nature. For Ambedkar, Buddhism is the middle path between Jainism,

j Marx said that philosophers intreprated the world, but the world needs to be transformed: " Die Philosophen haben die Welt nur verschieden interpretiert; es kommt aber darauf an, sie zu verändern ", (Karl Marx, Thesen über Feuerbach, Marx-Engels-Werkausgabe, Band 3, 1846-März 1848, Berlin, 1959, p.7.

14

Hinduism, and Communism, between non-violence and violence. Buddhism is not a religion made of laws but a religion based on righteous principles (Ambedkar 1992: 347).

To say it again, the Buddha never used violence to implement his ideas. It is out of love and persuasion that he convinced others to adopt his teachings. "The Buddha’s way was not to force people to do what they did not like to do although it was good for them. His way was to alter the disposition of men so that they would do voluntarily what they would not otherwise do" (Ambedkar 1987: 461). Ambedkar was an idealist visionary and a democrat. Dictatorship is not a good form of government as it negates values such as equality, liberty and fraternity. Ambedkar thought that the co-existence of these three principles can be realised only by following the Buddha's path. Communism would destroy these values.

In particular the dictatorship of the proletariat was not acceptable for Ambedkar because it nullified all democratic rights of the people.k He criticized: "The Russians are proud of their Communism. But they forget that the wonder of all wonders is that the Buddha established Communism so far as the Sangh was concerned without dictatorship. It may be that it was communism on a very small scale but it was communism without dictatorship a miracle which Lenin failed to do" (Ambedkar 1987: 461). In fact Ambedkar rejected the idea of dictatorship of the proletariat and advocated the ideal of parliamentary democracy.

Conclusion

Ambedkar himself resumed the importance of Marx into four major points: "What remains of the Karl Marx is a residue of fire, small but still very important. The residue in my view consists of four items: (i) The function of philosophy is to reconstruct the world and not to waste its time in explaining the origin of the world. (ii) That there is a conflict of interest between class and class.(iii) That private ownership of property brings power to one class and sorrow to another through exploitation. (iv) That it is necessary for the good of society that the sorrow be removed by the abolition of private property"

k Even so, Ambedkar recognized dictatorship as a tool to achieve equality when it is not institutionalized as a permanent form of government but as a time limited form of rule, an intermediate form of political rule: "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" (Ambedkar 1987: 461).

15

(Ambedkar 1987: 443). According to him these four points survived Marx and are until today relevant issues. The other ideas like the necessity of implementing proletarian dictatorship, the inevitable arrival of Socialism, the exclusively economic interpretation of history or the ongoing pauperization of the proletariat have been demolished by logic and experience. Throughout this paper it became clear that Ambedkar accorded great importance to these Marxian ideas in his project of reconstructing the world. But here we need to add that he discovered all these points mentioned above (and a lot more) preached by the Buddha already. He therefore declared Buddhism a possible universal alternative to Marxism. However, the analysis of Buddhist influences and Marxist inclinations should not hide Ambedkar's significance as a man, who was guided by the vision of a better, modern, reformed India, a society that is more just and egalitarian.

References

Ambedkar, Bhimrao Ramji (1979 [1936]), Annihilation of Caste with a reply to Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, edited by V. Moon, Bombay: Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, vol. 1.

____ (1987 [1956]), Buddha or Karl Marx, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, edited by V. Moon, Bombay: Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, vol. 3.

____ (1989a [1916]) Castes in India, their Mechanism, Genesis and Development, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, edited by V. Moon, Bombay: Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, vol. 1.

____ (1989b), Untouchables or the Children of India's Ghetto and other essays, on Untouchables and Untouchability, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, edited by V. Moon, Bombay: Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, vol. 5.

____ (1990a) Pakistan or the Partition of India, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, edited by V. Moon, Bombay: Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, vol. 8.

____ (1990b [1947]) State Socialism, Jalandhar: Bheem Patrika Publications.

____ (1992 [1957]), The Buddha and His Dhamma, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, edited by V. Moon, Bombay: Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, vol. 11.

____ (1993a [1936]), 'Why Conversion?', in Grover, Verinder (ed.), B. R. Ambedkar, Delhi: Deep & Deep Publications, pp. 3-13.

____ (1993b [1956]), 'Buddhism and Communism', in Grover, Verinder (ed.), B. R. Ambedkar, Delhi: Deep & Deep Publications, pp. 65-73.

____ (1994) Dr. Ambedkar. The Principal Architect of the Constitution of India, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, edited by V. Moon, Bombay: Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, vol. 13.

16

____ (1995 [1950]), 'Buddha and the Future of His Religion', in Ahir, Diwan Chand, (ed.), A Panorama of Indian Buddhism, Selections from the Maha Bodhi Journal (1892-1992), Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications, pp. 29-43.

____ (1997 [1954]), 'Why Buddhism Preferred', in D.C. Ahir (ed.), Selected Speeches of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar (1927-1956), Delhi: Blumoon Books, pp. 113-114.

____ (2003) Dr. Ambedkar and his Egalitarian Revolution, Socio-political, Religious Activities, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, edited by V. Moon, Bombay: Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, vol. 17, part 2.

Beltz, Johannes, 2005, Mahar, Buddhist and Dalit, Religious Conversion and Socio-Political Emancipation, New Delhi: Manohar Publishers.

Beltz, Johannes and Surendra Jondhale (eds.) (2004), Reconstructing the World, B.R. Ambedkar and Buddhism in India, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

17

ILLUSTRATIONS

1. Bharata Ratna Babasaheb Dr. Ambedkar, the "Father" of the Indian Constitution flying over the Parliament in New Delhi. Contemporary calendar painting by an unknown artist, acquired in India in the 1990s.

18

2. The Buddha inspiring Dr. Ambedkar, who is dressed in a typical lawyer's suit, holding the Constitution (The Indian Law) in his left hands, standing in front of the Parliament building in New Delhi, unknown artist, contemporary calendar painting, acquired in India in the 1990s.

Copyright: Religionskundliche Sammlung, Phillipps Universität Marburg, Donation Johannes Beltz, photograph by Rainer Wolfberger, Museum Rietberg Zürich

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE UNITY BETWEEN COMMUNISTS AND AMBEDKARITES SANKAR

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE UNITY BETWEEN

COMMUNISTS AND AMBEDKARITES

SANKAR

A FEW days back, in a seminar organized by a section of radical students of Kolkata, one of our friends of dalit movement from Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) argued that the unity between the lefts and the Ambedkarites is impossible. He put his logic bluntly: “The savarna left and the savarna right are united against the dalits. Therefore, a unity between the savarna lefts and the Ambedkarites is not possible.”

Now let us have a discussion on the subject without any kind of biasness for understanding the reality in one hand and in the course to facilitate the development of a real mass struggle against the communal fascist forces in India. In the above-mentioned seminar, organized by Hallabol, a magazine published by some radical students, there was no scope to put forward any kind of counter-argument or different observations. We just learnt, some JNU students were coming to address the seminar, who have been constantly expressing a different voice within JNU movement against the communal caste-Hindu ideology and administration. Interestingly the subject of the seminar was — “Is the Elite Left Trying to Appropriate Dalit, Adivasi and Minority Voices?” From the subject chosen by the organizers it was clear to us that somewhere it was accepted by the organizers themselves that the communist movement in India is essentially a movement by the savarna forces, which practically came in line with the statements and arguments of most of the speakers.

In this essay, it is not intended to address the particular problems of the student movement in JNU or the debates among various student organizations of dalit, conventional left or radical left, rather the point of focus is the misconception on the relation between the dalit movement and the communist movement in India. Let us start the discussion with a brief evaluation of the limitations which the communist movement has displayed in this regard.

THE LIMITATION OF COMMUNIST MOVEMENT

IT was a common phenomenon in all ages that when a revolutionary doctrine was placed before the society, even the most advanced sections of the population faced difficulties to grasp the doctrine properly. It happens because of the domination of the conservative mode of thinking in the heads of even the advanced elements in a particular society. Therefore, an attempt to understand the revolutionary doctrine within the framework of dominating mode of thinking is developed, which consequently develops a reductionist, mechanical or distorted theo-retical premise. This happened to Marxism also. This problem is not restricted in India only; rather it is a global problem. We find the same problem to be occurred in Russia also, and it was Lenin’s one of the important contributions, that he made Marxism free from the fetter of Plekhanovite Marxism.

The Indian Communist Movement (ICM) has been suffering from this disease since very beginning of its inception. The division of the party twice, in 1964 and in 1969, could not eradicate this fundamental and extremely important problem as it was not at all in the agenda. The party was divided due to the political differences without much exploration of the philosophical backgrounds. The ICM was initiated under very close supervision of the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB). However, the RPD-Bradley model was not enough to help the communist movement to find its root on the Indian soil which has the history of class-caste-cultural-philosophical conflicts of more than three thousand years.

A long debate is not required to prove this fact, only it will be enough to note that the party never took any comprehensive attempt to study the Indian history and take positions on different issues related to the concrete reality of Indian situation. Some leading comrades tried to do this as his or her individual capacity and will. However, the party as a leading organization of Indian revolution never realized this as a pertinent task to understand the Indian revolution. Therefore, the task of laid down the strategies and tactics of the revolution always has been based on arbitrary speculation. In this process the importance of caste struggle and religious conflict in India were undermined, and the ‘class struggle’ became the only area to work. This is one of the most important limitations of ICM till today.Now let me try to elaborate this point succinctly.

THE HISTORICAL BLUNDER

THANKS to the Russian Narodniks, the question of peculiarities of Russian condition was raised to Marx and Engels in the second half of nineteenth century. Marx-Engels laid down the general outline of historical development of human societies. However, it was the task of the communists of a particular country to study the particular developments of the country and to formulate the strategy and tactics of the revolution based on both the general guideline and the peculiarities of the particular situation. After the publication of Capital, Vol I, the Russian Narodniks took great initiative to translate it in Russian and simultaneously they raised the question of Russian peculiarities to Marx and Engels.

It should be noted that instead of rejecting any type of so-called Russian Path, Marx-Engels gave great importance to the question. However, by this time a big controversy started to take place in Russia on the course of societal development in Russia under the general guideline put forward by Marx-Engels. The economic doctrine of the Narodniks heavily based on anti-capitalist and pro-Obshchina formulation. Obshchina was a particular type of communal system based on common ownership of land in Russia. Therefore, they put forward the question to Marx-Engels that whether it was possible for Russia to go for a communist society bypassing the capitalist stage.

On the other hand the pro-capitalist and populist intellectuals like Nikolai Mikhailovsky tried to use Marx’s writings in favor of his position. Marx and Engels gave great importance to the question and went for a profound research. However, at the beginning itself, Marx made it clear that his theory was not at all a “philosophico-historical” one. In a letter to OTECHESTVENNYE ZAPISKIin 1877 Marx rejected the standpoint of Mikhailovosky who in an effort to defend Marx by ascribing to him a unilinear theory of human history. Marx clearly said that what he said about the societal development in general and primitive accumulation in particular that was based on actual development took place in Western Europe. Then he wrote in his protest letter,

“Now what application to Russia can my critic make of this historical sketch? Only this: If Russia is tending to become a capitalist nation after the example of the Western European countries, and during the last years she has been taking a lot of trouble in this direction – she will not succeed without having first transformed a good part of her peasants into proletarians; and after that, once taken to the bosom of the capitalist regime, she will experience its pitiless laws like other profane peoples. That is all. But that is not enough for my critic. He feels himself obliged to metamorphose my historical sketch of the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe into an historico-philosophic theory of the marchegenerale   [general path] imposed by fate upon every people, whatever the historic circumstances in which it finds itself, in order that it may ultimately arrive at the form of economy which will ensure, together with the greatest expansion of the productive powers of social labour, the most complete development of man. But I beg his pardon. (He is both honouring and shaming me too much.)”

This portion of the letter clearly reflects Marx’s understanding on societal develop-ment which was absolutely multilinear in nature. However, this multinear nature cannot exclude the general sketch. As a dialectician Marx knew very well the relation between general and particular and he expounded so magnificently that matter always was the unity and struggle of the opposites. However, Plekhanov emerged as a theoretician of mechanical Marxism which was based on materialism, not dialectics. It was the limitation of Plekhanov which led him to reject any other path of societal development and finally led him to the Menshevik camp. It was Lenin who, in spite of heavy Plekhanovite influences upon him in the initial years of his revolutionary career, had drawn a clear distinction in Marxist praxis in Russia and came to the conclusion that the impending bourgeois revolution in Russia would be led by the working class, not by the bourgeoisie. This conclusion changed the course of working class movement in underdeveloped countries and made the emergence of a revolutionary Russia possible.

However, the fate of the Indian Communist Movement (ICM) was not as good as Russia, or even China. Here the communist party was formed under the heavy influence of CPGB and never could come out from the mechanical Marxism propagated by them. The colonial mindset also played a huge role behind this failure. The party never tried to understand the peculiarities of the Indian situation and Indian history. The leaders always tried to copy the activities of the communists of other countries, especially the examples of the communists who became victorious in their concerned countries. Therefore, a one sided emphasis was put on class struggle. While the party successfully and magnificently took attempt organizing the industrial working class in leading industrial centers like Calcutta, Bombay, Kanpur etc, it never understood the importance of caste struggle in vast semi-urban and rural areas where class struggle actually mingled with the caste struggle from the time immemorial in India. However, since the political situation under the colonial rule was extremely hot and a persistent revolutionary situation existed, in spite of this lacuna the peasant movements developed in some areas under the leadership of the communist party. This success ultimately proved fatal for the party as the party understood that putting a sincere effort to understand other questions might not be so useful or necessary. This phenomenon repeated again and again in the history of communist movement in India. Now, when the revolutionary wave has gone down the curve and the communist movement has faced a serious setback the above mentioned lacuna has raised its head.

ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TABLE

ON the other hand the dalit movement in India has its own history also. The stalwart leader of the dalits Baba Saheb Ambedkar founded his party in 1936 which was called Independent Labour Party. However, most of the dalit struggles in this time formed spontaneously. The ILP called itself a “working class party”. However, the relation between the Communist Party and ILP was not very smooth. Although in some struggles they joined hands, the CPI and its leaders saw Ambedkar and his party as a disruptive force hindering the unity of the working class. On the other hand Ambedkar started to base himself more and more erroneous and problematic theorizations. In his work Who were the Shudras?, Ambedkar rejected the theory of Aryan invasion. Instead, he put forward the theory that the Aryans were inhabitants of India itself. More problematic was his assertion that the caste annihilation movement was more important than the freedom struggle against the colonial rule.

While the Hindu leadership of the freedom movement was in a contradictory position with Ambedkar in case of social reforms and the CPI never paid appropriate attention to the importance of caste struggles, Ambedkar started to go further to a position to belittle the importance of freedom movement. He criticized the politically minded Hindus in the preface of the Book — Who were the Shudras? — by saying, “As to the politically-minded Hindu, he need not be taken seriously. His line of approach is generally governed by a short-term view more than by long-range considerations. He is willing to follow the line of least resistance and postpone a matter, however urgent, if it is likely to make him unpopular. It is therefore quite natural if the politically minded Hindu regards this book as nuisance.”

This is a curiously important fact in the history of socio-political struggles in India in nineteenth century that those who tried to fight the Hindu fundamentalism invariably did not hesitate to take the help of British colonialists. It was a fact in the renaissance movement in Bengal at that time and in dalit movement in the southern parts of the country, as well. On the other hand the anti-colonialists revolutionaries, mostly coming from so called upper castes Hindu families, tried to find ideological inspiration from Hindu religious ideology. It was true for famous Lal-Bal-Pal trio, who resolutely fought for full freedom of the country from the stranglehold of the colonialists, inside the Congress which was reluctant for a long time to raise the slogan of complete freedom. It was also true for many more Indian revolutionaries.

However, the situation started to change in twentieth century. Even the most firm defenders of British rule among the Indian intellectuals were becoming disillusioned. Therefore, an amalgamation of anti-Hindu fundamentalism and anti-colonialism started to take place, which actually made the emergence of Indian Communist Movement possible. The emergence of a true anti-feudal anti-colonial struggle was taking place. Although ICM had a lot of limitations which we have already noted, but after all this was the only movement which had this capacity to develop a truly democratic movement in India. This is absolutely true in today’s perspective also.

However, the most problematic part of Ambedkar was that while in twentieth century almost all the struggling intelligentsia started to take more and more anti-colonialist position and started to consider the anti-British political struggle as the primary struggle in the country at that time, Ambedkar dragged the nineteenth century notion to twentieth century as well, as he continued to consider the anti-Brahmanical struggle as the primary struggle. In this way his position became equal with that of his most resolute opponent. The ideologues of Hindu revivalism had the same opinion. They considered the struggle to revive the Advaita Vedanta as a tool to promote Hindu fundamentalism as the main concern and shun the freedom struggle. It was true from Vivekananda to Hedgewar.

The ideological problems in both the camps, the Communists and the Ambedkarites, finally led to a catastrophe which hindered the democratic revolution in India to reach its goal.

WHAT IS TO BE DONE?

THIS is undoubtedly true that the Communists have the larger responsibility to bridge the gap. It is not due to the fact that they committed any larger mistake. Both the camps have committed unpardonable mistakes. But the communists have larger responsibility only for the simple reason that they are the leader of Indian revolution as they call themselves the vanguard force of Indian people. The uniliniar mechanical ee understanding of Marxism should be rejected. The history of India and its peculiarities should be studied thoroughly and must be built proper connection with today’s strategy and tactics. In this way the connection between class struggle and other struggles can be built. More correctly we can say that if other struggles cannot be properly taken care and linked with the political struggle, the true class struggle is impossible to develop. At the same time it is also very important to criticize the erroneous tendencies inside the Ambedkarite movements. The unity between the communists and the Ambedkarites is not only important to resist the communal fascism in India, but to complete the democratic revolution as a whole.

Courtesy: RED STAR , September, 2016