The revolution is a tea party for the Indian left



Sitaram Yechury's concerns have been consistently strange: do the communists in India really stand for the working classes? Who do they stand for, which class do they represent exactly?

On Aadhaar, Yechury said recently: "Goalposts constantly shifted on making Aadhaar mandatory. From passing it as a money bill to violating SC's orders, this is a dangerous game."

Whose liberty is he talking about? That has to be understood clearly to understand Yechury and other communists. It reminds you more of the libertarian's idea of liberty.

Nidhin connecting thread

It also reminds you of a similar question that Babasaheb had asked long ago (in 'States and Minorities'), which challenged the libertarian understanding of liberty:

Constitutional Lawyers assume that the enactment of Fundamental Rights is enough to safeguard their liberty and that nothing more is called for. They argue that where the State refrains from intervention in private affairs—economic and social—the residue is liberty. What is necessary is to make the residue as large as possible and State intervention as small as possible. It is true that where the State refrains from intervention what remains is liberty. But this does not dispose of the matter. One more question remains to be answered. To whom and for whom is this liberty? Obviously this liberty is liberty to the landlords to increase rents, for capitalists to increase hours of work and reduce rate of wages. This must be so. It cannot be otherwise. [italics mine]

Liberty doesn't mean the same thing to property owners and to the working classes, or to the Brahmin-savarnas and the bahujans. Does it seem like Yechury is talking about the liberty of the property owners or of the working classes here? Linking Aadhaar to PAN cards seems to have evoked this emotional outburst from Yechury.

Who uses PAN cards?

PAN cards are used by those who pay direct taxes -- there are only 30 million people (out of nearly 1300 millions) who file returns in the country and only a section of them actually pay any tax. Broadly, they belong to three groups of the Indian working population: industrialists, employees in the organized sector, self-employed professionals and businessmen. They're almost 90% Brahmin-savarna. A major section of them, specially those in the government and public sector, are not subjected to any expropriation of their surplus labour. And they along with their landlord kin (or their landlord doubles) in the countryside own the biggest chunk of all property in India. Yechury seems to be standing up for these property owners.

The bahujans, or working classes broadly, faced severe problems during demonetization. But their problems were of a fundamentally different nature from those of the Brahmin-savarnas. Before or after demonetization, the bahujan's concerns were about livelihoods and survival, while the Brahmins, upper castes talk about freedoms and nationalism. Whose 'liberty' was Yechury concerned about back then, a few months ago?

What Yechury said after demonetization makes his interests even more clear. Protesting against demonetisation, he had expressed outrage: 'This is an attack on the people's right to property'. And you thought communism was all about the abolition of private property. It would seem like it is Modi who is the communist and Yechury is a right wing libertarian.

It is good to refer to the communist manifesto at this point. It says: The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property.

Were the Singur and Nandigram farmers holding bourgeois property?

Isn't it strange that the killers of Nandigram and Singur should talk about the right to property? But farmers in Nandigram and Singur were not title-holders, the killers had said, they had only the right to till and feed their families, like serfs under any good feudal lord. In return, they expressed their loyalty to the party for over three decades, just like serfs under any good feudal lord. So what right to property was Yechury talking about?

Even without the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Second Amendment) Bill, the Indian state had never cared two hoots for the 'property rights' of the adivasis and other bahujans over the last seventy years.

It is necessary here to ask a basic question: do Indians have a right to property? Well, they had a fundamental right to property but it was later, in the 70s, changed into a mere constitutional right. The projected intention was to check those who held excess land. But what it did in practice was to protect the upper caste land owners. But still many libertarians say there is no right to property in India.

This ambiguity which surrounds the right to property in India has worked wonderfully for the Brahmin-savarnas. Though they probably control over 80-85% of land in the country, they're never displaced from their homes, farms, neighbourhoods and workspaces for the noble cause of 'development' or 'larger good'. As for the bahujans, the less said the better – which dam, factory, township, industrial park, highway, railway track, mine, tourist project, real estate scam etc etc didn't push them out of their homes? Where is the need for a clearly spelled out right to property when Manu's law still functions so well?

As Babasaheb observed: In politics we will be recognising the principle of one man one vote and one vote one value. In our social and economic life, we shall, by reason of our social and economic structure, continue to deny the principle of one man one value. How long shall we continue to live this life of contradictions? [His speech to the Constituent assembly on November 25, 1949]

So it is still custom and tradition which govern Indian life - social, economic and political, despite the constitution. It is still status, or caste, which determines your access to privileges and rights, not modern laws. Unlike what Harold Laski, Marxist thinker, had observed, about how in the 'period between the Reformation and the French Revolution' a new social class (the bourgeoisie) that broke down the barriers which had made 'privilege a function of status' had emerged [The Rise of European Liberalism]. But that was Europe, 3-4 centuries ago, India has still remained chaste and unreformed. 

Yes, some would call the Brahmin-savarnas India's bourgeoisie perhaps (the 'revolutionary' sections within them would not agree with it, though). But that would hide the most crucial factor behind their status as mostly exploiters – their caste. Also, it would be inaccurate to call them India's bourgeoisie for the simple reason that the bourgeoisie in Europe were a revolutionary class, according to Marx, who overthrew the feudal aristocracy: that would be impossible for the Brahmin-savarnas because they were/are the aristocracy and clergy here. And now also the proletariat, thanks to Yechury and his forefathers in the communist leadership.

The hybrid Brahmin-savarna social class, aristocracy-clergy-bourgeoisie-proletariat, takes many political forms, from CPM to the Congress and BJP, and espouses many ideologies, from communism to social democracy to libertarianism, but the only interests they all stand for are the Brahmin-savarna interests. What Yechury says now about Aadhaar, Modi said exactly the same a couple of years ago:

modi tweet

Brahmin-savarna parties and political personalities may present radically different public postures on most issues, but there is little difference in their commitment to their shared class interests: they always manage to get results, one way or the other. So their protests over violation of privacy by Aadhaar might also prove successful and win over the Brahmin-savarna judges in the Supreme Court, like it did many times earlier. But for the Bahujans, it provides a moment of clarity: to understand that Brahmin-savarna interests can never converge with Bahujan interests.


Illustration by Nidhin Shobhana


Other Related Articles

The revolution is a tea party for the Indian left
Friday, 05 May 2017
  Kuffir Sitaram Yechury's concerns have been consistently strange: do the communists in India really stand for the working classes? Who do they stand for, which class do they represent exactly?... Read More...
वे अपनी आंखों में समानता स्वतंत्रता का नीला सपना लिए चले थे
Friday, 05 May 2017
  अनिता भारती (Anita Bharti) ओम प्रकाश वाल्मीकि जी को याद करते हुए हमने अपनी समूची... Read More...
'अनारकली ऑफ आरा': हाशिये के समाज की हौसले से लबरेज बगावत...!
Tuesday, 02 May 2017
  अरविंद शेष (Arvind Shesh) दुख से पैदा हुआ जीवट जब दुख को पैदा करने वालों के सामने... Read More...
The Homicidal Republic - India i.e. भारत
Thursday, 27 April 2017
  Anshul Kumar  Victor Hugo once said, "There is in every village, a torch-the teacher, an extinguisher-the priest." Village becomes homicidal if teachers are priests in disguise and vice... Read More...
Hindu nationalism and Muslim nationalism co-produce each other: Khalid Anis Ansari
Monday, 24 April 2017
  Round Table India In this episode of the Ambedkar Age series, Round Table India talks to Prof. Khalid Anis Ansari, Director, Dr. Ambedkar Centre for Exclusion Studies & Transformative... Read More...

Recent Popular Articles

Wherever Caste exists in the World, Ambedkar and Marx will remain Irreconcilable
Wednesday, 30 November 2016
  Dr Manisha Bangar NVP BAMCEF In India, and wherever in the world Caste exists, Ambedkar and Marx will remain Irreconcilable. Starting from the happenings in Hyderabad Central University in... Read More...
The cashlessness of the Bahujan
Thursday, 15 December 2016
  Kuffir How are you going to break up Caste, if people are not free to consider whether it accords with morality? ~ Babasaheb Ambedkar The saddest joke is Modi's promotion of a cash-less... Read More...
From Breast Tax to Brahminical Stripping in Comics: Orijit Sen and Brahmin Sadomasochism
Thursday, 02 March 2017
  Pinak Banik "Only dead dalits make excellent dalits.Only dead dalits become excellent sites where revolutionary fantasies blossom!" ~ Anoop Kumar The context for this article centers around... Read More...
Interview with Prof Vivek Kumar on the Bahujan Movement
Monday, 13 March 2017
  Round Table India In this episode of the Ambedkar Age series, Round Table India talks to Prof Vivek Kumar, Professor, Centre for the Study of Social Systems, School of Social Sciences,... Read More...
Brahmin Feminism sans Brahmin Patriarch
Monday, 06 February 2017
  Kanika S It has almost become common sense that feminism has been shaped exclusively by a class of women that came from Brahmin-Savarna castes in India, to the extent that even trashy... Read More...

Recent Articles in Hindi

पेरियार से हम क्या सीखें?

पेरियार से हम क्या सीखें?

  संजय जोठे  इस देश में भेदभाव और शोषण से भरी परम्पराओं का विरोध करने वाले अनेक विचारक और क्रांतिकारी हुए हैं जिनके बारे में हमें बार-बार पढ़ना और समझना चाहिए. दुर्भाग्य से इस देश के शोषक वर्गों के षड्यंत्र के कारण इन क्रांतिकारियों का जीवन परिचय और समग्र कर्तृत्व छुपाकर रखा जाता है. हमारी अनेकों पीढियां इसी षड्यंत्र में जीती आयीं हैं. किसी देश के उद्भट विचारकों और क्रान्तिकारियों को इस...

Read more

कृष्ण: भारतीय मर्द का एक आम चेहरा...!

कृष्ण: भारतीय मर्द का एक आम चेहरा...!

(कृष्ण की लोक लुभावन छवि का पुनर्पाठ!)मानुषी आखिर ये मिथकीय कहानियां किस तरह की परवरिश और शिक्षा देती हैं, जहां पुरुषों को सारे अधिकार हैं, चाहे वह स्त्री को अपमानित करे या दंडित, उसे स्त्री पलट कर कुछ नहीं कहती। फिर आज हम रोना रोते हैं कि हमारे बच्चे इतने हिंसक और कुंठित क्यों हो रहे हैं। सारा दोष हम इंटरनेट और टेलीविजन को देकर मुक्त होना चाहते हैं। जबकि स्त्री...

Read more

राष्ट्रवाद और देशभक्ति

राष्ट्रवाद और देशभक्ति

संजय जोठे धर्म जो काम शास्त्र लिखकर करता है वही काम राष्ट्र अब फ़िल्में और विडिओ गेम्स बनाकर बनाकर करते हैं. इसी के साथ सुविधाभोगी पीढ़ी को मौत से बचाने के लिए टेक्नालाजी पर भयानक खर्च भी करना पड़ता है ताकि दूर बैठकर ही देशों का सफाया किया जा सके, और यही असल में उस तथाकथित “स्पेस रिसर्च” और “अक्षय ऊर्जा की खोज” की मूल प्रेरणा है, यूं तो सबको...

Read more