When we talk about pragmatism in business and in the context of corporate leadership it may sound like the usual eulogising of a master by his slaves. Almost all companies in their corporate profile decorate their owners as pragmatic, visionary leader, etc. However, when we use the term pragmatic as an attribute of a leader or outfit from the left, there can be two meanings of the word. Firstly, it may mean that literally the person or the organisation in question is pragmatic; secondly, it may mean that the individual or the organisation has actually subscribed to the revisionist-opportunist political line and hence the attribution is supposed to act as a concealer and add the perfect unblemished look to the subject in question.

Following the upsurge of Dalit and Tribal rights movement in India a large section of official communists and a significant section from the self-styled radical left has started advocating that the communist movement of the country has to adopt a pragmatic approach regarding the question of Dalit and Tribal rights and look beyond the class angle to be, what they call, pragmatic.

When we raise the question regarding what should the communist forces do to exhibit their "pragmatism"? The answer given by the neo-left is -: adopt a pro-Dalit policy, uncritically follow B.R. Ambedkar and his teachings scripted in the "Annihilation of Caste", and unconditionally abide by the political line of the man. It seems that for the neo-Ambedkarite left, which is keen to substitute class war with caste war, the Annihilation of Caste is a new Bible or a new Indian Communist Manifesto. Their blue salute is now blended with the red salute; their blue flag is given prominence like the crimson banner of the international working class.

Now if we try to understand the caste question and the caste oppression that is prevailing on the Dalits of the country, do we really have to see it through the prism of Ambedkar and his model of Bahujan Samaj? Is it true that Marxism-Leninism does not have any solution for this 2000-year-old problem? Is Brahminical fascism an independent enemy that has evolved all by itself and has no relationship with the socio-economic conditions of the country?

Was the classical approach of treating the problem of caste oppression as an inalienable part of class oppression wrong? If so then how was it wrong?

The neo-left Ambedkarite forces claim that by blending Marxism with the political doctrine of Ambedkar they can annihilate caste problem of the country. The neo-left advocates disguised in radical robes argues that Brahminical fascism, promoted by the state machinery, is the principal enemy of the Indian poor and in order to form an egalitarian society according to the theoretical guidelines laid down by Ambedkar the Brahminical fascism must be smashed.

It is all good words and good determinations, even Jesuit priests may share similar values alike these neo-radical lefts swearing allegiance to Ambedkar. Still, from a Marxist outlook, we cannot restrain but can only harshly criticise and oppose their vile agenda, whose shell may look enticing, however, the core is quite grotesque to scare us badly.

Understanding the peculiar caste and class conditions of India

Let us dissect the peculiar problem of caste oppression and apartheid that makes the Indian situation uniquely positioned in the world working class movement.

The castes came into existence with the Aryan migration and Indo-Iranian migration to the Indian subcontinent after the end of the Harappa civilisation. The fair skin Brahminical race occupied the land of the ancient Tribal and aboriginal people of the Indian subcontinent, destroyed their communal lives and took them as slaves wherever the Aryans could lay their hands on the aboriginal people. They created the Dasa class, a slave class in the Slave-Owner society with mostly captives that they took. Though the slave owner men were particular about marital relations within the same clan, especially their women were married off within their clan that transformed later into caste and sub-caste (gotra), the men never felt shy to sexually exploit the Dasa women to bear an offspring whom they have largely disowned. These offspring was later placed below the hierarchical level of the men to whom their lineage belonged to. Love was forbidden since then, but rape was sanctified.

The slave-owner society was built on the Varna Shrama system that divided the people on the basis of their occupation and acted as the embryo that matured into the caste system in next few centuries. 

Soon with the advent of the feudal production system that destroyed the slavery-based society, new class alignments took form largely based on the loosely linked Manusmriti, the theoretical foundation of the modern caste system. Within 500 CE the Indian society was divided on the basis of division of labour, based on the Manu doctrine, the elite Brahmins enjoyed the top hierarchy due to their aristocratic priestly position, land ownership, etc. The other upper castes like Kshatriyas enjoyed the exclusive right to the monarchical positions and remained in a strong mutually beneficial alliance with the Brahmins protecting their hegemony in the Indian society. The labouring and wealth-producing classes were casted at the bottom of the hierarchy and were oppressed in the most inhuman way by the higher stratum of the feudal social order. The ostracism of several oppressed castes began at this period, which still exists as untouchability in the Indian society. The Dalits were the outcastes; the Dalits were out of these four main castes - Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras, and they were considered untouchable, unapproachable, unseeable. The Brahminical hegemonic system made each stratum of the caste system to oppress the strata that were below their own. The feudal land ownership pattern that allowed the greater role of the priestly class and the warriors made the Brahmins and the Kshatriyas maintain supremacy in the society along with the trader Vaishyas, who formed the basis of a comprador section of Indian society.

The monotheistic Islam, which claims to be the first religion that promoted international fraternity, succumbed to the Indian condition and gave way to caste system to riddle its system. The converts from the upper caste Hindus were awarded higher social (if not religious) hierarchy than the lower caste Muslim converts who were still forced to do the same economic activity, which was forced upon them by the feudal society according to the Hindu caste hierarchy. On a large scale, the Dalits were left untouched from the Islamic conversion agenda, due to their “unclean” professions. Most of the lower caste Muslims will comprise of the weavers, washer-men, fishermen, folk musicians, etc. Similarly, Sikhism and Christianity failed to overturn the casteist apartheid and replicated their own model of casteism. 

The British colonial rule strengthened the feudal production relations in order to consolidate its colonial occupation of India and to thwart any growth of free capitalism in India. The comprador capitalists, who started as the mercantile capitalist class acting as suppliers for the British colonial rulers, were devoid of any revolutionary characteristics found in the free bourgeoisie in the Western countries. The reason of their collaborative nature was due to their origin from the womb of British imperialism to serve its interest and due to their inherent bond with the feudal production system for the sustenance of their business ventures. The comprador nature of the Indian bourgeoisie helped the British imperialism to use this class as a pawn to farther their colonial agenda in the future.

The British handed down power to the comprador bourgeoisie in 1947 and went to the backstage, transforming India from a colonial and semi-feudal country to a semi-colonial and semi-feudal country. The lack of a revolutionary transformation of the base and the superstructure of the Indian state made democracy a utopia in the country. As Ambedkar said - "Democracy in India is only a top-dressing on an Indian soil, which is essentially undemocratic."

The ruling classes of modern India consists of the same crony comprador capitalists and feudal landlords, who are determined to preserve the semi-feudal production relations, with active buttressing from foreign monopoly and finance capital. Though due to the compulsions imposed by the business interests of the foreign corporations the ruling classes carries out some reforms of the semi-feudal production system, however, such reforms are quite superficial and void of any revolutionary substance, as the sole aim of such reform measures is to protect the semi-feudal economic system rather than smashing it. Thus, rather than getting wiped out, the caste system was strengthened over the years through a host of measures from the ruling classes.

Modern caste apartheid and communal fascism owe its existence due to the prevalent semi-feudal production relations in the agricultural sector, which happens to be the largest employment provider in the country. The villages of the country consist more than 75 percentage of the Indian landscape and hence the large population of the country that lives in the countryside falls under the direct command of the feudal patriarchal caste hegemonic Brahminical fascist system. The thoughts and actions of the individuals are shaped according to the environment they live in, their class and caste origin, their socio-economic status and other such factors.

Unless the base, i.e. the economic foundation of semi-feudal production relations is smashed and the land ownership pattern undergoes a subsequent revolutionary change, the curses like caste apartheid and communal fascism will not wither away. This is a fact that every Marxist should acknowledge if they have understood an ounce of Marxism ever. However, the case with our neo-Marxists is completely different when they blend Ambedkarite theory with Marxism to gain political mileage in the electoral politics.

What is wrong with the Ambedkarite pragmatism of the neo-left?

The neo-left subscribes uncritically to the Ambedkarite theory of caste annihilation. They talk about annihilating the caste system and caste apartheid promoted by the Brahminical fascist system, without talking about the need for a democratic revolution to overthrow the existing semi-feudal production relations. This way they advocate an opportunist polity shrouded in revolutionary costume to hoodwink the people of the country.

Dr B.R. Ambedkar was a Dalit face of the British imperialism, who served the purpose of the British imperialism wholeheartedly like his bête noire Gandhi. During the entire British direct colonial rule, Ambedkar never took a revolutionary standpoint against the imperialist plunder and loot, never supported the attempt to build up a nationwide armed revolutionary war against British imperialism, he never supported the communist forces, in whom he saw a spectre that kept haunting his masters. Rather he threatened to break worker's strikes in Maharashtra on caste lines, took up positions offered by the colonial government, whenever it suited him, and much alike Mayawati of the present era, depicted his lap dancing for the colonial masters as a sign of Dalit empowerment, while in reality, it was a deceitful act to dupe the people of the oppressed castes and to instil a false hope regarding emancipation from caste oppression within the semi-feudal production system. 

Dr Ambedkar rejected the path of anti-colonial and anti-feudal democratic revolution that aimed at overthrowing the ruling classes with force to bring forth a drastic and radical change in the society. He rather advocated and pushed the Dalits towards constitutionalism, tried to turn them servile to the bureaucratic machinery and opposed any attempt to bring the Dalits into the revolutionary fold. He rejected the Marxist-Leninist concept of democratic revolution and said “… My definition of democracy is — a form and a method of government whereby revolutionary changes in the social life are brought about without bloodshed. That is the real test. It is perhaps the severest test. But when you are judging the quality of the material you must put it to the severest test. Democracy is not merely a form of government. It is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated experience. It is essentially an attitude of respect and reverence towards our fellow men…” This was his classic example of peddling the wine of Gandhism in a blue bottle to hoodwink the Dalits on behalf of the upper caste Hindus, who were to lead the state whose guideline he drafted. This is the reason that he never supported the Great Revolt of 1857 so that it can be portrayed as an upper caste Hindu and Muslim mutiny against the British who were generous for the Dalits. 

Ambedkar held most reactionary views regarding the Tribal people of India, whom he never felt ashamed to call "savage" while discussing their issue in his most hyped - Annihilation of Caste. Ambedkar's position on the Tribal people was the exact copy of Gandhi's reactionary position on the Dalits, whom he never wanted to have voting rights. Ambedkar called for taking away the voting rights from the tribal masses and also placed emphasis on "civilising" the tribal people, a job the Indian state is doing since a long time with paramilitary troops, drones, helicopter gunships, and of course the various prototypes of the Salwa Judum. 

Instead of inspiring the Dalits of the country to join the revolutionary ranks for a broad class war against feudal landlords and British imperialism, Ambedkar, while acting as a true agent of the British imperialism, formulated a sectarian reformist political line for the oppressed castes and asked them to seek liberation from Brahminical repression by changing the Hindu religion and its practices only. Dr Ambedkar, while imitating an anti-Brahmin stir, secretly adhered to the diktats of Savarkar and other fascist leaders of the right wing Hindu fascist organisations, who ordered him to not adopt any Abrahamic monotheistic religion. This made him chose Buddhism, which the Hindutva brigade considered a part of the Hindu religion. (Keer, Dhananjay; Dr Ambedkar: Life and Mission; Popular Prakashan, Mumbai, 1954)

Ambedkar never criticised the semi-feudal system, never considered feudalism as a source of caste apartheid and divorced the caste system out of its economic origin, and treated it as an independent entity. This forms the core of his metaphysical ideology, which is subscribed equally by the right-wing forces like the BSP, Republican Party, and the neo-left parties that tend to serve Ambedkar's metaphysical theory of caste annihilation in a crimson glass. The Ambedkarite forces kept on blaming the Marxists during the entire period of their political activism of subscribing to “dogma” and mechanically implementing Marxist policies of the foreign countries in India, and blamed communist movement of the country to be devoid of pragmatism.

The neo-left opportunists who blame the Marxist-Leninist approach to resolving the caste issue through the praxis of class struggle, calls their own hotchpotch theory the most 'pragmatic' one in the Indian context. They do this deliberately to dilute the anti-feudal and anti-imperialist revolutionary struggle of the Indian people that aims to establish a people's democratic state in place of the existing semi-colonial and semi-feudal state ruled by the amalgamated forces of feudalism, comprador capitalism and imperialism. Their tall talk of pragmatism and eulogies offered to Ambedkar are efforts to magnify the negligible contributions of the British-trained social reformer in order to drive a wedge between the people of different castes, between the tribal people and Dalits, so that the anti-feudal democratic revolutionary forces are weakened.

These pseudo-lefts, who swear allegiance to the Ambedkarite theory of caste annihilation and remains mum on the anti-feudal democratic revolutionary struggle, are equally dangerous like the Hindutva fascists, Islamic fundamentalists, and other communal forces. The working people of the country in general and the Dalits, in particular, should be vigilant against these superimposed friends as they will try hard to divert the oppressed castes and communities from the path of revolutionary struggle against semi-feudal production relations, and force them to live under the juggernaut of semi-colonial, semi-feudal exploitation and oppression.

The unity of the poor, the oppressed, the toiled masses is a very urgent need of the moment. The Ambedkarite, Hindutva, Islamic, and other sectarian forces are determined to sabotage the revolutionary struggle of the poor by using sectarian rhetoric to incite one part of the people against another. This had been the general trend of the Indian ruling classes since the late 1970s to destabilise the revolutionary struggle for democracy and freedom, the aspiration of 1200 million Indian people. The rise of the parliamentary Dalit movement was significant after the wave of militant peasant rebellions that rocked the country since Naxalbari in 1967 to Andhra Pradesh and Bihar during the 1980s and 1990s, where the fighting peasants mostly belonged to the Dalits and Tribals, and they took on feudal landlords of upper castes with full might. 

The neo-Dalit politics began in the 1970s to usurp the gains of the militant revolutionary movement against feudal landlords by Dalit peasants in order to divert the struggle to a reformist blind alley. Since the neo-Dalit and right-wing Bahujan Samaj movement started gaining prominence in Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra, it started stabbing the growth of the Dalit peasant’s struggle for land and political rights.

Experience has proved that only the revolutionary struggle of the poor masses of workers and peasants against the existing semi-colonial and semi-feudal system can smash the spine of the caste apartheid system nurtured by the Brahminical feudal lords. Only with the overthrow of the semi-feudal production relations, the Dalits can win for themselves the true liberation from the yoke of Brahminical tyranny. Any swindling from the revolutionary struggle against the feudal landlords, comprador capitalists and their foreign masters will only strengthen these enemies of the people. 

There cannot be ideally any scope for a peaceful and constitutional resolution of the caste problem, neither can the constitutional promises end caste oppression, nor can they wither away the caste apartheid so meticulously planned and implemented by the Brahminical ruling classes since centuries.  Until the time the base of the economic might of the Brahminical forces will exist, the Dalits and the tribal people will face severe repression. 

Hence, it is the right time for the revolutionary forces of the country to purge the filth of Ambedkarite opportunism along with other ideologies that weaken the workers and peasants in the battle against the class enemies.