The Indian Politics and the left dilemma.
Posted by Labels: Marxist practice, Politics, ফ্যাসিবাদ, শ্রমিক আন্দোলন
Arup Baisy
 |
| (C)Image |
While delineating the
specificity of Indian society, the caste is categorized either as something sui
generis or anathema to class struggle. The class-caste dualism which is
in-built within such thought process obscures the changing dynamics of
space-time both due to change in capitalist globalization and the caste-class
struggle. Anand Teltumbe rightly asserted in his book ‘Republic of caste’,
“while caste movements, largely co-opted by the ruling class, do not admit to
the need for introspection, the class (left) movements finds itself isolated
and threatened with decimation.” (Republic of caste : Anand Teltumbde : 2018 :
91-92)
The motion of capital as a whole
is represented in the process of determination of socially necessary labour
time in various space-time continuums. The relation between time and space
delineates the social relations syntagmatic to both production and labour
process. For this reason, the category of time is at the heart of (Marx’s)
critique of the political economy. But the different approaches to time coexist
within Marx’s reasoning. “The mechanical time of production, the chemical time
of circulation and the organic time of reproduction are thus coiled and slotted
inside one another, like circles within circles, determining the enigmatic
patterns of historical time, which is the time of politics.” (Marx, Capital And
The Madness of Economic Reason : David
Harvey : 2019 : 142).
As the capitalist social
relation is emerged from within the pre-capitalist or feudal relation of production,
the flow of time in feudal relations can be categorized in a particular manner.
It is not a complete black-hole, but the flow of time in feudal relation of
production is confined by spatial dimension and in that sense, the forms of
spatiotemporally is not dynamic as capitalism. It represents a certain form of
concrete labour with a use-value which is in constant pressure for
transformation to capitalist exchange value and to abstract labour with the
annihilation of its space with time. In that sense, the labour process in a
pre-capitalist social relation of production is a closed system as the value
flows from one form of use-value to another. The commodity production
fetishizes the human relation with exchange value and it sets in the dynamics
of the flow of value beyond the confinement of space and as such, globalization
is inherent in capitalism. Furthermore, the flow of value annihilates the space
of pre-capitalist relation to establish its hegemony over the space with time.
When B.R, Ambedkar says, “a
caste is an enclosed class”, caste can be interpreted as feudal class. The
class is identified not as an isolated category but as a group of people
engaged in a social relation both in the production and labour process. Feudal
class is determined both as juridical and social category and as such it
appears to be static. The Indian caste, in that sense, is a form of class. But
Indian left identified the caste system as a super-structural problem and they
thought the class mobilisation could by itself adequately address the caste
cleavages. On the other hand, the leaders of the caste-based mobilisation
considered it as an unchanging category for spatial mobilization to challenge
the system and for political power. The caste system has been the source of
both identities and hostilities, both horizontal alliances and vertical
exploitation and oppression. The caste hierarchy on the basis of social status
is the source of oppression and the assertion of caste identity can also become
the basis for the struggle against that very oppression. Rajni Kothari defined
it as “both traditionaliser and moderniser and as purveyor of collective
identity and annihilator of the same hierarchical order from which the
collective identity is drawn. The point is that caste does resurface as a
result of the democratic process but in its resurfacing it gets transformed”.
(Rajni Kothari : Rise of the Dalits and the Renewed Debate on Caste : EPW Vol.
29. No. 26)
This political dimension of assertion and transformation has not been
viewed from the time dimension of labour. The change of democratic character of
the state has been considered in a spatial fix of alignment and realignment of
caste identities. The political formations on the basis of such caste assertion
and horizontal alignment thereon could successfully thwart the aggressive
social and ideological Hindutwa assertion in 1993. The politics of religious
polarization received a setback due to the political challenge raised from the
caste mobilisation and movements. The failure of the left movement to challenge
the Hindutwa politics created a delusion in political understanding that the
caste assertion and identity assertion within the framework of diversity alone
can adequately challenge the Hindutwa politics. Ashis Nandy, in his analysis of
the interaction of Hinduism and Hindutva, wrote perceptively in 1990 that,
‘Hinduism and Hindutva now stand face to face, not yet ready to confront each other,
but aware that the confrontation will have to come someday’. (RSS, A view to
the Inside : Penguin, Viking 2018 : 247). But at this moment after the
resounding victory of political Hindutva, it seems, Hinduism gave way to
Hindutva and conceded defeat without any confrontation or fight.
The Indian left from their set
back suddenly realised that it was a tactical mistake not to participate in the
caste struggle. But they stopped short of visualizing the caste-class question
within the movement of the space-time of Indian social spectrum; rather the
formulaic version of Marxism relegated their newly found realisation into a
class-caste binary and a tactical question. The consequence of such mechanical
interpretation of the here and now finally decimated the left in front of the
meteoric rise of the fascist Hindutwa movement with a new vigour. But this
time, the particularism of caste and identity movement which carried the
success story of 1993 with it has also turned out to be ineffective and redundant
in front of the jingoist nationalism. What has changed drastically to Indian
society that enables the Sangh Parivar to transcend the caste-community barrier
to uphold the pan-Indian muscular ultra-nationalist project? One easy answer to
the success story of popular acceptance of RSS project is that the RSS has
established a pattern of accommodating regional religious and cultural
traditions by claiming them as elements of larger Bharatiya culture. But this
interpretation is loaded with too much of subjectivity.The fundamental reason
of the rise of fascist movement lies with the change of social forces of
production with concomitant change of relations of production from above. It is
a sort of passive revolution of bourgeois order where the democracy is denied
in the bourgeois sense of the term.
In India, the rapid
disintegration of the old caste-community based society due to the coercive
pressure of imperialist capital from above and the pressure from the
human-labour uprooted from their village community life generated the passion
within the society to redefine the age-old ideological framework befitting the
constitutional form of secularism, the secularism which upholds diversity in a
nostalgic sense but accommodates itself in an imperialist center-periphery
relation of subjugation propped up with internal hierarchical order. The
tension thus generated in the conflict between the old and new values can only
be democratically remoulded by radically redefining this relation of
subjugation.
Why both the caste movement and the left
movement failed to radically redefine this relation of subjugation? The
relation of labour with capital is determined by the way capital extracts
surplus value from the labour. Capital can expropriate absolute surplus value
by extending the working hours and relative surplus value by increasing the
productivity of labour through change of technology. But another labour
practice by which capital can extract super-profit is the arm’s length
production for labour arbitrage. The whole production process rests on
subcontracting out the actual production to the low-wage areas like China’s
Shenzhen, Bangladesh’s Textile factories or rural India where micro-finance has
spread its net. This super-profit is invested in speculative finance to earn
money. It’s a money market where super-rich earn more money by investing money.
Money begets money, but does not create any value. After a prolong period of
dirigisme in post-independent India, the neo-liberal development model which
facilitated penetration of imperialist finance capital into the rural India
since the nineteen eighties has changed the caste-contour. Depending on
fertility and location of the land, the development of capitalist mode of
production appeared in agriculture for differential rent, the external factor
of rent also effects the space of uncultivated land. There exists intense
difference of opinion within the left circle on Indian agricultural mode of
production. However, the capitalist accumulation through dispossession which
has become a dominant feature of neo-liberalism has dispossessed the millions
from their land, from their old property relation and also from their status as
secured organized work-force. The middle class leadership who played a progressive
role in mobilizing the caste groups and identities for political rights and
thus challenged the Hindutwa politics of centralisation of power in 1993, find
it more beneficial to be co-opted in the reactionary politics of
ultra-nationalism than to address the growing pressure of the new needs and
desire of the proletarianised and pauperized masses within the caste group. The
new dialectics of use-value - exchange value and concrete labour – abstract
labour have influenced the changing space-time in such a way that the forces of
homogenisation prevailed over the forces of particularism in the caste-class
dynamics of Indian society. Both the caste leadership and the left leadership
once again failed to grasp the emerging struggle of the oppressed and to redefine
the concept of nationalism and secularism from a working class perspective.
The economism within the Indian
mainstream left hinders them from assessing the situation from the dynamic
movement of the space-time. The authors of “The Indian Economy in Transition”
rightly commented, “Marxian theory is class/economy focused, but not
class/economy specific. What, when, where and how we produce, distribute and
consume are not simply economic matters. They are additionally constituted by
processes related to power (authority-hierarchy), culture (meaning) and nature.
No explanation or interpretation of the economy in this frame can materialize
without referring to the effects of non-economic processes. In short, along
with being a critique of class determinism, Marxism theory is a critique of
economism as well.” (Chakraborty Anjan et el : 13). Moreover, the concept of the left movement as
a mass-movement to influence the policy of the state in favour of the toiling
masses has been abandoned by completely reversing the concept to bring
parliamentary maneuvering and institutional intervention as the determinant
factor. This paved the way for the Hindutva forces to reconstruct the concept
of nationalism and secularism in a most reactionary fashion to lead the forces
of homogenisation against an imagined enemy. The objective strength of this new
nationalism lies with the support of new class which owes its increasing wealth
from privatisation and disinvestment, income from the rent and plunder of
natural resources and commissions from the opening up of the Indian market to
foreign oligarchs. A small section of this class has already emerged as
national oligarchs intricately connected to global giants as compradors
The most reactionary
reconstruction of national pride can somewhat be combated by reducing the
migration from villages to towns and cities by revamping the agriculture
through small family farms (Maoist agricultural reconstruction in China) which
is, unlike industry, more efficient than big farms, and the food sovereignty,
increasing demand for the consumer goods that need to be produced domestically.
The electoral upsurge of BJP will accelerate the dismantling of the federal
structure of the state by transcending the regional aspirations which needs to
be combated with an alternative project for democratic reconstruction. A
radical anti-imperialist and democratic programme for mass-movement with
workers-peasants alliance at its core can rejuvenate the left politics in
India, provided they rise up to the occasion to unite shedding all forms of
left sectarianism to combat the emergent question of fascist onslaught.
References:
(1) Teltumbe
Anand (2018): Republic of Caste: Navayana
(2) David
Harvey (2019): Marx, Capital And The Madness of Economic Reason: Profile Books.
(3) Kothari
Rajni (1994): Rise of the Dalits and the
Renewed Debate on Caste: EPW Vol. 29. No. 26 (P.1589-94)
(4)
Chakraborty Anjan, Dhar Anup, Dasgupta Byasdeb (2018): RSS, A view to
the Inside: Penguin, Viking
(5) Smith
John (2016): Imperialism in the Twenty-First Century: Dev Publishers and
Distributors.
(6) Patnaik
Utsa (2007): The Agrarian Question in Marx and his Successors (Volume I):
LeftWord Books.
