but it is...

Tweet

Whatsapp

• • In 1930, the work plan of the communist party was to annihilate the caste system.
  • Party’s senior leader Virendranath Chattopadhyaya said that brahmins do not hold any caste-related feelings.
  • Marx pointed out in his book ‘Das Kapital’ that ‘Manu Shashtra’ was imposed in the brains of Sudras.

Part 4: Churchill Highly Condemned The Threat of Brahmin India!

MCPI(U) Marxist party has given a controversial statement that Marxists in Tamil Nadu did not perceive Periyarism properly. Following this, the party has announced its policies, and it cites that “the party has felt the complete need of Periyar and Ambedkar significantly in the present where caste and religious divisions are strengthening.” This symposium was organized based on this. The discourse of Kolathur Mani is as follows:

There were communists who thought that Brahminism was just like fascism. To understand this, comrade Mani is citing two people, Abdul Rap and Virendranath Chattopadhyaya. Abdul Rap went to witness the third international comintern, and he did not go as a representative.

He sent a report stating that “Indian labours were assessed as nine crores (before the partition of Pakistan) they can be grouped under a class, based on the nature of work they do but in India, they are grouped under numerous caste and religious system. Labourers are under the hold of the caste system, just like Vaishnavaite Brahmins. These workers class possess only caste feelings, but they do not possess any class sentiment. On the other hand, workers class were embedded with profound ignorance and huge superstitions. These workers class does not wish for socialistic revolution rather they wish for a revolution which can make them capitalists”.

He further wrote “workers class do not really possess any class feeling. To state it clearly, it is not a class beforehand. In fact, these workers class would be the first to crush somebody who comes to propagate socialist thoughts. India’s true proletarians were 5.3 crore untouchable people who are homeless, doesn’t belong to any religion or caste and does not have any history or tradition. These people were the manure of socialist soil. 

If a group of people associated to a class develop an attachment for that class, then they would become a powerful weapon against evils of the society and other varna systems.” so, he announced that we should take a step against casteism and the varna system which binds them.

The other person was Virendranath Chattopadhyaya. He wrote, “all class of people in the society was traditionally divided under four important varnas viz., Brahmins, Vaishyas, Kshatriyas and Sudras. A poor brahmin is believed that there exists common welfare between him and a rich brahmin, but he does not see any common welfare between him and a person like him belonging to some other caste. And that is how worker’s class see, and that is how they are garnered.”

The Draft Platform of the Action of the Communist Party given by the Third International Comintern for India in 1930. Under the guidelines of this draft platform of the action, the Indian communist party planned its work plan in 1930.

The document stated to mercilessly annihilate the caste system and reformed Gandhian casteism as per the instruction given by the third international communist conference. Only the agricultural revolution and renouncing the rule of the British can bring a change in the lives of workers and slave men. This alone can lead to cultural and economic independence. So, people were being advised to strive for the annihilation of the caste system that, too, to annihilate the Gandhian approach to the caste system predominantly.

But that didn’t happen here. Marx wrote about Manushashtra before 150 years living somewhere in the world. Marx, in his book, ‘Das Capital’ Volume II wrote that “chapter 10, hymn 62 of Manushashtra states that Sudras think that they can even sacrifice their lives in order to protect Brahmins and cows and they think that it is the way for salvation”. It’s a question that why people in India didn’t understand this while Marx can, that too being somewhere distant.

The second issue is, we cannot apply this as such in India. That’s why Periyar told time and again that communist people in India are trying to plant coniferous trees in Ramanathapuram as like in Polar forests. Coniferous forests were in polar regions. How is it possible to plant it in Ramanathapuram?

There is another example, a note written by Lenin’s wife, Krupskaya. In the 1960s, Marxist books were translated into the Russian language. But it was not written as per the Russian situation. That cannot be matched with the current situation of Russia. But Lenin satisfied this problem by writing a book called ‘The Development of Capitalism in Russia”. Same way, we have to go with Periyar to bring changes in India.

Periyar organised agricultural trade union in Sivadhapuram in Salem. In that union, he spoke that, “Marx and Lenin belonged to a country where there is no casteism, and there is no oppression of labours for thousands of years. So, there is no need for them to give a solution, whereas here in India, the scenario is different. Marx and Lenin did not come across any conspiracy of caste in their country. So, how is this possible when there is a presence of discrimination not only between workers and capitalists but also inequality among capitalists due to caste. Lenin and Marx would sound irrelevant in this scenario if we follow them as such. Periyar questioned that, won’t it be favourable for conspirators of caste?”

Periyar said that this would end up benefiting Brahmins only because they would live in peace unless it affects them. Some expectations might end up wrong for this change.

Engels, as per the scenario of his country, told that “revolution of labour class can be attained at once in all developed capitalist countries”. And Trotsky also said the same.

But this conception was changed later. Lenin changed his conception and told that socialist revolution could be achieved in a country or in few countries where there is a capitalist monopoly. Trotsky, who opposed this conception, parted his way and spoke about the Permanent revolution. But Lenin said that revolution could be achieved even solitarily.

But Mavo seemed to differ from all these people. One of his speech to the Nepal educational group is as follows. He said that “there is nothing more amazing than the knowledge we acquire from common people”, Mavo argued with the team of communist educators from Nepal.

“Of course, we have learnt a little about Marxism and Leninism, but Marxism and Leninism alone won’t do. I made a tenet to study closely about the truth and real characteristics of China.

Though I have learnt, I understood that the revolution must start from China’s perspective. Upraising was started by studying the people and not by following Marxism and Leninism as such.” He explained this to the philosophical thinkers of Nepal’s struggle team.

He also advises them that “if u want to follow this in your country, make some changes accordingly as per your country”.

(to be continued)

- Kolathur Mani, the leader of Dravidar Viduthalai Kazhagam

Translated by Maruvarthini P.

 You can send your articles to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Tweet

Whatsapp