Sociology-II

Project work
on
“Marxist Approach to study the Indian
Society”

Submitted To: Submitted By:

 Acknowledgement

I am deeply indebted to Dr. XXX for his excellent support, constant supervision and
constructive criticism during my research. Without his ungrudging cooperation, guidance and
encouragement, this project would have been impossible. I am also thankful to the Library
Administration for providing me with the reference books needed for the completion of this
project. Last but certainly not the least, I would like to extend my gratitude to my friends,
family and seniors for their endless and undying support.
 Table of Contents

Statement of Problem 4

Review of Literature 5

Objectives of Study 6

Hypothesis 7

Methodology 8

Introduction 9

Marxist Class Theory 10

• A
siatic mode of Production

11
• A
ncient mode of Production

11
• F
eudal Mode of Production

12
• C
apitalistic mode of production

12

Application of Marxist Theory in India 16

• S
ocial classes in Rural India

16
• S
ocial classes in Urban India

19
Placing Caste within Marxism. 22

Different dimensions of Caste and Class 25

Conclusion 27

Bibliography 28
Statement of Problem
Is the Marxist Class theory applicable in the Indian Society and can caste be placed within
Marxism?
Review of Literature
A.R. Desai’s “Social Background of Indian Nationalism” is a historically significant text that
has been referred to for over sixty years as an indispensable body of knowledge for the
understanding of the dynamics of Indian nationalism. Employing the method of historical
materialism to an analysis of Indian history of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the
author has been able to single out and assess various forces that have contributed to the
massiveness of nationalistic influence. This is virtually the only book that provides such a
comprehensive and systematic account of the genesis of Indian nationalism and national
consciousness. It has justly earned itself a valuable place in sociological literature.
Objectives of Study
The class theory propounded by Karl Marx is a rather complex concept which, according to
him, governs the life of every individual. In this project work, we will try to understand:
1. Whether the Marxist Class Theory is applicable in India or not.
2. Whether caste comes in the purview of Marxism or not.
Hypothesis
This project work has been conducted on the basis of the following hypotheses:

1. The Marxist Class theory is applicable in the Indian Society.

2. Caste comes in the purview of Marxism.

Methodology
The research methodology used in this paper is doctrinal. Data from various books, journals,
websites etc has been collected and compiled in a logical manner in the paper and established
theories by early sociologists have been discussed.
Introduction
Karl Marx is a well known name in Sociology. It cannot be denied that he was one of the
greatest sociological thinkers and is in fact, one of the founding fathers of the discipline. He
believed that “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”1
meaning that throughout history, there has been an oppressor (Bourgeoisie) and an oppressed
(Proletariat) and these two classes are in constant opposition to each other. He claims that the
only way to overcome this oppression is by overthrowing the bourgeoisie. In such a scenario,
it becomes imperative to study the application of this theory in the Indian Society.

Further, with the presence of so many classes in two different social realities in India and
caste being such an important part of the society, it is necessary to understand the differences
and similarities between the two so as to apply the Marxist theory in India.

Thus, in this project, the researcher would like to study the Marxist class theory and it’s
applicability in the Indian Society as analysed by A.R. Desai in his work, ‘Social
Background of Indian Nationalism.’ Apart from that, the researcher would also look into the
Indian caste system and whether it comes under the purview of Marxism or not.

1 Marx, Karl, and Frederick Engels. N.d. "Communist manifesto (chapter 1)." Retrieved
December 6, 2016 (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-
manifesto/ch01.html)
Marxist Class Theory2
Marx's class theory rests on the premise that "the history of all hitherto existing society is the
history of class struggles." His general ideas about society are known as his theory of
historical materialism. Materialism is the basis of his sociological thought because, for Marx,
material conditions or economic factors affect the structure and development of society. His
theory is that material conditions essentially comprise technological means of production and
human society is formed by the forces and relations of production. It is historical because
Marx has traced the evolution of human societies from one stage to another. It is called
Materialistic because Marx has interpreted the evolution of societies in terms of their material
or economic bases. Materialism simply means that it is matter or material reality, which is the
basis for any change. He believed that as far back as human culture rose up out of its
primitive and generally undifferentiated state, it has remained, in a general sense, isolated
between classes who conflict in the quest for class interests. People of the same class share
common economic interests, are conscious of those interests, and engage in collective action
which advances those interests.3
According to Marx, the super structure of society is based on economic infrastructure -
relationships between men are shaped by their relative positions in regard to the means of
production, that is, by their differential access to scarce resources and scarce power. Means of
production refers to factories and other facilities, machines, and raw materials. 4 It also
includes labour and the organization of the labour force. 5 He notes that unequal access need
not at all times and under all conditions lead to active class struggle. But he considered it
unquestionable that the potential for class conflict is inherent in every differentiated society.
He distinguishes one class from another on the basis of ownership of the means of production
and control on the labour power of others.
Marx has tried to suggest that all society passes through unilinear evolution, every society
progresses stage by stage and every society has marched ahead in the following manner:

2 N.d. "Karl Marx - class theory." Retrieved December 9, 2016

(http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi/undergraduate/introsoc/marx6.html).
3 Andrew, Edward. 1983. "Class in itself and class against capital: Karl Marx and his
classifiers." Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique
16(3):577–584. Retrieved December 10, 2016 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/3227396?
seq=1.html).
4 LLC, SparkNotes. 2016. "Karl Marx (1818–1883)." Retrieved December 9, 2016
(http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/marx/themes.html).
5 Ibid
Asiatic mode of production (Primitive Communism) → Ancient mode of production →
Feudalism→ Capitalism →Socialism →Communism.6

• Asiatic mode of Production7:

The concept of Asiatic mode of production refers to a specific original mode of production,
which is distinct from the ancient slave or the feudal modes of production. It is characterized
by primitive communities in which ownership of land is communal. These communities are
still partly organized on the basis of kinship relations. State power which expresses the real or
imaginary unity of these communities controls the use of essential economic resources and
directly appropriates part of the labour and production of the community.
This mode of production constitutes one of the possible forms of transition from classless to
class societies. It contains the contradiction of this transition, i.e. the combination of
communal relations of production with emerging forms of the exploiting classes and of the
state.
The concept of Asiatic mode of production is inadequate because there was no class; no
concept of private property. The entire property is owned by the society. So that no individual
has access to it—so no clashes of classes. Resources were low and there was low population.
Gradually, towards the end of primitive communism, there were certain groups of people
who were physically strong, so the concept of private property came into being. Thus
primitive communism could not survive and there emerged a different type of society.

• Ancient mode of Production8:

According to Marx, every part of history has its end point. So primitive communism was to
go and slavery came into being. People who had physical, political and material strength had
authority over others. So two classes were found and this is where the concept of private
property emerged. There were two classes—the owning class, they are the masters, and non-
owning class, they were the slaves.
Marx has tried to suggest that in course of time, different people grabbed certain plots of land
as a result of which a large number of people were left wretched. So they had to depend on

6 YourArticleLibrary. 2014. "Marx’s theory of historical materialism."

YourArticleLibrary.com: The Next Generation Library. Retrieved December 11, 2016
(http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/sociology/marxs-theory-of-historical-
materialism/43766/).
7 Ibid
8 Ibid
these owners in order to make a living and it went on rising and when they would not pay
their debts, they were sold and engaged under the so called masters.
Slaves were mere chattels. They had no right and were used like commodities and they could
be bought and sold. So individuals were slaves and it went on resulting in a family of slaves
and masters were masters. Slaves were made to work under stringent physical conditions.
They were engaged in agricultural, menial and physical labour.
If the society has experienced a heinous system at any point of time, it is slavery. So it was to
go and another stage was to come. Towards its end, a sort of internal struggle was found so
that the slaves, peasants started a revolution against the masters so as to release certain slaves
from the clutches of the masters. Slavery is called the stage of initial agriculture.
So agricultural capitalism was to come. Agricultural innovations would take place.
Technology was applied to agriculture. People started to understand the dignity of labour and
the stage came, i.e. Feudalism or Agricultural capitalism.

• Feudal Mode of Production9:

At this stage, as Marx said throughout the pages of history, we find two classes. They were
feudal lords and serfs. Lords owned the land in their favour and their job was to lease the land
and employ agricultural labour in their lands. The owners had to pay certain taxes and the
labourers were given wages.
This was an even more heinous system and the lords exploited the labour by not paying its
due. So Marx said that this stage was also exploitative in character. Heavy taxes were
imposed on serfs. This stage could not grow much as industries were growing and people
sought their job in industries and in cities. So the serfs fought against the lords. With the
spreading of industries, urbanization grew, so emphasis was on industries and hence the next
stage, Industrial capitalism.

• Capitalistic mode of production10:

Marx was very much bothered about this stage because this was the most heinous, and
migration was found from rural to urban areas. Those who worked in agricultural lands
shifted to industries. There were two classes— the proletariats (the exploited) and the
bourgeoisie (the exploiter).

9 Ibid
10 Ibid
Marx wanted to champion the cause of proletariat and wanted that the exploitative character
must go and equality be established. He was futuristic. Socialism is the stage where the
society is classless and it is based on the principle of equality.
Communism is the ultimate final stage where there is prevalence of equality among all.
Everybody works according to his capacity and gets according to his due, when capitalism
goes and communism comes into being, there are some elements found in some form or other
of capitalism in socialism.
As per Marx, socialism is the initial communism and communism is the later socialism
because everybody is equal and can stand in the same queue; communist society is
thoroughly equal and no concept of private property ownership is there.

In socialism, there are two ownership structures:

1. State ownership
2. Ownership by co-operatives.

But under communism there is single ownership, i.e. State /Community ownership.
Everybody gets as per his due and works as per his capacity. This stage was difficult to find.
So with spread of Marx’s ideas, we find communism in Russia and China. But socialism is
the gap that still remains.

Although Marx has managed to define various forms of class struggle on the basis of modes
of production, yet class interests in Marxian sociology are not given ab initio. They develop
through the exposure of people occupying particular social positions to particular social
circumstances. Thus, in early industrial enterprises, competition divides the personal interests
of "a crowd of people who are unknown to each other; but the maintenance of their wages,
this common interest which they have against their employer, brings them together." "The
separate individuals form a class only in so far as they have to carry on a common battle
against another class; otherwise they are on hostile terms with each other as competitors."
Class interests are fundamentally different from and cannot be derived from the individual
interests imputed by the utilitarian school and classical British political economy. Potential
common interests of members of a particular stratum derive from the location of that stratum
within particular social structures and productive relations. But potentiality is transformed
into actuality, Klasse en sich (class in itself) into Klasse fuer sich (class for itself), only when
individuals occupying similar positions become involved in common struggles; a network of
communication develops, and they thereby become conscious of their common fate. It is then
that individuals become part of a cohesive class that consciously articulates their common
interests. As Carlyle once put it, "Great is the combined voice of men." Although an
aggregate of people may occupy similar positions in the process of production, and their lives
may have objectively similar determinants, they become a class as a self-conscious and
history- making body only if they become aware of the similarities of their interests through
their conflicts with opposing classes.
To Marx, the basis upon which stratification systems rest is the relation of aggregates of men
to the means of production. The major modern classes are "the owners merely of labour-
power, owners of capital, and landowners, whose respective sources of income are wages,
profit and ground-rent." Classes are aggregates of persons who perform the same function in
the organization of production. Yet self-conscious classes, as distinct from aggregates of
people sharing a common fate, need for their emergence, a number of conditions among
which are a network of communication, the concentration of masses of people, a common
enemy, and some form of organization. Self-conscious classes arise only if and when there
exists a convergence of what Max Weber later called "ideal" and "material" interests, that is,
the combination of economic and political demands with moral and ideological quests.
The same mode of reasoning that led Marx to assert that the working class was bound to
develop class consciousness once the appropriate conditions were present also led him to
contend that the bourgeoisie, because of the inherent competitive relations between capitalist
producers, was incapable of developing an overall consciousness of its collective interests.
The classical economists picture the economic system of a market economy as one in which
each man, working in his own interest and solely concerned with the maximization of his
own gains, nevertheless contributes to the interests and the harmony of the whole. Differing
sharply, Marx contended, as Raymond Aron has put it, that "each man, working in his own
interest, contributes both to the necessary functioning and to the final destruction of the
regime."
Marx sees individual self-interest among capitalists as destructive of their class interest in
general, and as leading to the ultimate self-destruction of capitalism. The very fact that each
capitalist acts rationally in his own self-interest leads to ever-deepening economic crises and
hence to the destruction of the interests common to all.
The conditions of work and the roles of workers dispose them to solidarity and to overcoming
their initial competitiveness in favour of combined action for their collective class interests.
Capitalists, however, being constrained by competition on the market, are in structural
positions that do not allow them to arrive at a consistent assertion of common interests. The
market and the competitive mode of production that is characteristic of capitalism tend to
separate individual producers. Marx granted that capitalists also found it possible to transcend
their immediate self-interests, but he thought this possible primarily in the political and
ideological spheres rather than in the economic. Capitalists, divided by the economic
competition among them, evolved a justifying ideology and a political system of domination
that served their collective interests. "The State is the form in which the individuals of a
ruling class assert their common interests." "The ideas of the ruling class are the ruling
ideas." Political power and ideology thus seem to serve the same functions for capitalists that
class consciousness serves for the working class. But the symmetry is only apparent. To
Marx, the economic sphere was always the finally decisive realm within which the
bourgeoisie was always the victim of the competitiveness inherent in its mode of economic
existence. It can evolve a consciousness, but it is always a "false consciousness," that is, a
consciousness that does not transcend its being rooted in an economically competitive mode
of production. Hence, neither the bourgeoisie as a class, nor the bourgeois state, nor the
bourgeois ideology can serve truly to transcend the self-interest enjoined by the bourgeoisie.
The bourgeois reign is doomed when economic conditions are ripe and when a working class
united by solidarity, aware of its common interests and energized by an appropriate system of
ideas, confronts its disunited antagonists. Once workers became aware that they are alienated
from the process of production, the dusk of the capitalist era has set in.
Application of Marxist Theory in India11
A.R. Desai, a well known Indian sociologist, in his book called ‘Social Background of Indian
Nationalism’ has talked about the application of the Marxist theory in Indian Society.
According to him, Marxist theory cannot be applicable in India majorly because Marxist class
theory divides the society into two classes only i.e. The Bourgeoisie and The Proletariat.
However, in India, there are more than two classes. In fact, there are two different social
realities in India i.e. Rural and Urban. Further, ‘caste’ is a major reality in India which is
absent in American and European societies and thus, is not talked about by Marx.
Let us look into the various social classes present in India.

• Social classes in Rural India12

T.K. Oommen lists the following categories.
1. Landlords, who own but do not cultivate land, either employing intermediaries or leasing
out land.
2. Rich farmers, who look upon agriculture as a business proposition, produce for the
market and for profit, employ wage labour, and supervise rather than cultivate.
3. Middle peasants, who cultivate their own land and hire labourers only for certain
operations or at certain points of time.

11 Desai, A R. 1986. Social background of Indian nationalism. London: South Asia Books.
12 N.d. 2013. "Understanding Indian society: Social classes in India." Retrieved December
11, 2016 (http://kanikapanwar.blogspot.in/2014/09/understanding-indian-society-
social.html).
4. Poor peasants, who own small and uneconomic holdings and often have to work as parts
labourers or as sharecroppers or tenant.
5. Landless agricultural workers who sell their labour and fully depend on the first three
categories for their livelihood.

The Indian Communist parties give a five-fold classification.

1. Landlords (feudal and capitalist), who do not take part in manual labour;
6. Rich peasants, who participate in manual work, but mainly employ wage labour;
7. Middle peasants, who own or lease land which is operated predominantly by their family
and also by wage labour;
8. Poor peasants, whose main income is derived from land leased or owned, but who
employ no wage labour.
9. Agricultural labourers, who earn their livelihood mainly through selling their labour in
agriculture or allied occupations.

Hamsa Alavi adopted the three-fold classification of peasants under the heading of rich,
middle and poor peasants.

To sum it up, we can say that in rural areas, classes consist principally of (i) landlords, (ii)
tenants, (iii) peasant proprietors, (iv) agricultural labourers, and (v) artisans. Now let us
examine each of them one by one.

LANDLORDS
Broadly, there were two types of landlords: (i) the zamindars/taluqdars (old landlords) and
(ii) moneylenders, merchants and others. Those who held such ownership of tenure rights (in
zamindari areas) were often referred to as intermediaries. These intermediaries were of
various categories known by different names and found in various regions of U.P., Bengal,
Bihar and Orissa. Taluqdars were inferior intermediaries whom the large zamindars created
out of their own zamindari rights. Jotedars found in some parts of Bengal were substantial
landholders who held land direct from the zamindars. They got land cultivated by sub-letting
to the tenants on a 50: 50 share. Similarly, Pattidars held permanent leases at fixed dues under
the zamindars. Ijardars, on the other hand, were those to whom the revenue of an area was
hired out on a contract basis.
PEASANT PROPRIETORS
The British made a settlement known as the Ryotwari Settlement. This was introduced in
Madras and Bombay Presidencies in the nineteenth century. Under this settlement, ownership
of land was vested in the peasants. The actual cultivators were subjected to the payment of
revenue. However, this settlement was not a permanent settlement and was revised
periodically after 20-30 years. It did not bring into existence a system of peasant ownership.
The peasant proprietors, in the past as well as in the present, hardly constitute a homogeneous
category. They may be broadly divided into three categories, namely,
(i) the rich,
(ii) the middle, and
(iii) the poor peasants.

(i) Rich Peasants: They are proprietors with considerable holdings. They perform no
fieldwork but supervise cultivation and take personal interest in land management and
improvement. They are emerging into a strong capitalist farmer group.

(ii) Middle Peasants: They are landowners of medium sized holdings. They are generally
self-sufficient. They cultivate land with family labour.

(iii) Poor Peasants: They are landowners with holdings that are not sufficient to maintain a
family. They are forced to rent in other's land or supplement income by working as labourers.
They constitute a large segment of the agricultural population.

TENANTS
The creation of zamindari settlement transformed the owner cultivators of pre-British India
into a class of tenants. The zamindars resorted to the practice of extracting an exorbitant rent
from the tenants. Those who failed to pay were evicted from land and were replaced by those
ready to pay higher rents. Similar practice prevailed in estates, which were leased out by the
zamindars. Broadly, there were two categories of tenants in zamindari areas - tenants under
zamindars and tenants under lease (tenure) holders during the British period. Tenants under
tenure holders were thus, subtenants. The lowest in the hierarchy were sharecroppers.

AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS
Non-cultivating landlords, peasant proprietors and tenants are not the only social groups
connected with agriculture. Along with the swelling of rent-paying tenants, there was also a
progressive rise in the number of agricultural labourers. The growing indebtedness among
peasant population, followed by land alienation and displacement of village artisans was
largely responsible for this. The agricultural labourers were and still are broadly of three
types. Some owned or held a small plot of land in addition to drawing their livelihood from
sale of their labour. Others were landless and lived exclusively on hiring out of their labour.
In return for their labour, the agricultural labourers were paid wages, which were very low.
Their condition of living was far from satisfactory. Wages were generally paid in kind i.e.
food grains like paddy, wheat and pulses. Sometimes cash was paid in lieu of wages in kind.
A certain standard measure was employed to give these wages. In fact, payment in kind
continued alongside money payments.

There was another type of labour prevailing in many parts of the country in the pre-
independence era. Their status was almost that of bondage or semi-bondage. Dublas and
Halis in Gujarat, Padials in Tamil Nadu are a few examples of such bonded labour existing in
India. Such labour force exists in some parts even today despite various laws against it.

ARTISANS
In rural areas, the class of artisans form an integral part of the village community. They have
existed since the ancient periods contributing to the general self-sufficient image of an Indian
village. Some of these are like the carpenter (Badhai), the ironsmith (Lohar), the potter
(Kumhar)\ and so on. Not all villages had families of these artisans but under the Jajmani
system, sometimes a family of these occupational castes served more than one village.

• Social classes in Urban India13

In the urban areas, social classes comprise principally (i) capitalists (commercial and
industrial), (ii) corporate sector, (iii) professional classes, (iv) petty traders and shopkeepers,
and (v) working classes.

13 N.d. 2013. "Understanding Indian society: Social classes in India." Retrieved December
11, 2016 (http://kanikapanwar.blogspot.in/2014/09/understanding-indian-society-
social.html).
CAPITALISTS
Under the British rule, production in India became production for market. As a result of this,
internal market expanded and the class of traders engaged in internal trading grew.
Simultaneously, India was also linked up with the world market. This led to the growth of a
class of merchants engaged in export-import business. Thus, there came into being a
commercial middleclass in the country. With the establishment of railways, the accumulation
of savings on the part of this rich commercial middle class took the form of capital to be
invested in other large-scale manufactured goods and modern industries. Like the British,
who pioneered the industrial establishment in India, the Indians, too made investment initially
in plantations, cotton, jute mining and so on. Indian society thus included in its composition
such new groups as mill owners, mine owners, etc. Subsequently, they also diversified the
sphere of their industrial activity. Economically and socially, this class turned out to be the
strongest class in India.

THE CORPORATE SECTOR

Any organisation that is under government ownership and control is called as public sector
unit and any organisation, which does not belong to public sector, can be taken to be a part of
private sector. The firms and organisations which are owned, controlled and managed
exclusively by private individuals and entities are included in private sector. All private
sector firms can be classified into two categories, individually owned and collectively owned.
Collectively owned firms are further classified into (i) partnership firms, (ii) joint Hindu
family, (iii) joint-stock companies, and (iv) co-operatives. The most important of these is the
joint-stock organization, which is otherwise popularly known as corporate sector. Joint-stock
companies which do not belong to public sector are collectively known as private corporate
sector.

PROFESSIONAL CLASSES
The new economic and state systems brought about by the British rule required cadres of
educated Indians trained in modern law, technology, medicine, economics, administrative,
science and other subjects. In fact, it was mainly because of the pressing need of the new
commercial and industrial enterprises and the administrative systems that the British
government was forced to introduce modern education in India. They established modern
educational institutions on an increasing scale. Schools and colleges giving legal, commercial
and general education were started to meet the needs of the state and the economy. Thus,
there came into being an expanding professional class. Such social categories were linked up
with modern industry, agriculture, commerce, finance, administration, press and other fields
of social life. The professional classes comprise modern lawyers, doctors, teachers, managers
and others working in the modern commercial and other enterprises, officials functioning in
state administrative machinery, engineers, technologists; agriculture scientists, journalists
and so on.

PETTY TRADERS, SHOPKEEPERS AND UNORGANISED WORKERS

In addition to the new classes discussed above, there has also been in existence in urban
areas, a class of petty traders and shopkeepers. These classes have developed with the growth
of modern cities and towns. They constitute the link between the producers of goods and
commodities and the mass of consumers. That is, they buy goods from the producers or
wholesalers and sell it among the consumers. Thus, they make their living on the profit
margin of the prices on which they buy and sell their goods and commodities. Like all other
classes, this class also has grown in scale in post-independent India.

WORKING CLASSES
Origin of the working class could be traced back to the British rule. This was the modern
working class which was the direct result of modern industries, railways, and plantations
established in India during the British period. This class grew in proportion as plantations,
factories, mining, industry, transport, railways and other industrial sectors developed and
expanded in India. The Indian working class was formed predominantly out of the pauperised
peasants and ruined artisans. Level of living and working conditions characterized their
existence. A large proportion of them generally remained indebted because of their inability
to maintain themselves and their families.
Placing Caste within Marxism14
Caste in modern India is not only a social phenomenon, but also an inseparable part of the
political process. Caste which is considered central to the basic understanding of social
situation in India is increasingly becoming a powerful tool of electoral mobilisation in the
organised domain of politics. Therefore, in order to understand India’s socio-political system,
any political ideology has to go beyond the enduring forms of universal social organisations
such as class, ethnicity and religion and provide valid theoretical perspectives about the
peculiarities and complexities involved in the societal operation of the caste forces, their
actual and potential political implications and their interaction with other modes of identity.
This has presented the established theories and ideologies with the challenge to make
adjustments and modifications in their theoretical framework while maintaining the core of
the theoretical structure intact. However, such modification becomes difficult if the alien
question of caste encroaches upon the core assumptions of the theory, rendering incremental
and peripheral theoretical adjustments insufficient. Marxism faces this dilemma in the Indian
14 N.d. Retrieved December 11, 2016 (http://www.ijhssi.org/papers/v3(4)/Version-
2/D0342038041.pdf).
social context when class, its basic unit of social analysis and the fulcrum of its ideological
edifice encounters difficulty in discovering its boundaries and creating an autonomous sphere
of existence amidst ocean of castes and sub-castes. Indian Marxists are therefore faced with
the challenge of defining the relationship between the caste and class in the Indian social
system and answer some very crucial questions which have been summed up nicely by
Sudipta Kaviraj in the following words- “One of the main problems of historical sociology is
the relation between caste and class. How is the logic of one system different from another?
And are they so different that that there could not be any mixtures or grafting of one onto the
other? Secondly, is this transition linear? Would caste system eventually disappear?”15

In the orthodox Marxist theory, it is the base or the economy that determines political and
social phenomenon which constitute the superstructure, not the other way round. Therefore, if
we see from the Marxist perspective we shall come to the conclusion that class being an
economic category is the primary building block of the base or larger economic structure
while caste is a primarily social formation, a part of the superstructure that is sustained by the
logic of economic structure of the society. But the tricky problem is to determine whether the
caste superstructure has attained some sort of autonomy from the deterministic economic
structure to independently spark off events and phenomena. Communists linked communal
outlook and caste prejudices with relations of production prevailing in colonial India. They
particularly stress the occupational division of labour associated with the caste system and
consider it to be the single most important aspect of the caste system. Such a division of
labour in their analysis led to the subordination of the entire working class .i.e. the Shudras
and untouchables to the Brahmins and the Kshatriyas who constitute the ruling class. 16 This
simply means that caste hierarchy is nothing but class division in disguise. Therefore, in the
Indian society, caste can’t be thought of in isolation from class because they are overlapping.
Dwelling upon the caste based occupational division of labour, the Marxists further argue that
such a division of labour was the key to the functioning of the feudal economic structure and
land relations prevailing in India. The entire purpose of such a system was to generate huge
surplus value for the ruling class. In their analysis, caste and communalism in India are
sustained by feudal relations of production which can only be overthrown through Marxian

15 Kaviraj, Sudipta. 2006. “Caste and Class” in Sudipta Kaviraj (ed), Politics in India. New
Delhi: Oxford University Press, p 72
16 See Bandyopadhyaya, Jayantanuja. 2002. “Class Struggle and Caste Oppression: Integral
Strategy of the Left”, The Marxist, 18(3-4) for detailed analysis.
form of class struggle. "The abolition of caste hierarchy could not be separated from the
Marxian form of class struggle.”17

In the rural Indian setting, the form that the class struggle should take is the agrarian
revolution according to the Indian Marxist thinkers like Ranadive.18 “Struggle against
untouchability and other social evils and the class struggle against economic exploitation are
inseparably interlinked. Most of the dalit organisations lack in such understanding and, as
such, their approach is invariably skewed. They never bother about such issues as land and
wage and other issues affecting the dalit’s day-to-day lives.” 19 Arguing on similar lines,
Ranadive had also pointed out the necessity of integrating class struggle with struggle against
caste. Though the creation of a large and powerful bourgeois class seemed to be a natural
outcome of the advent of the British rule in India, such a class was not produced simply
because the rise of such a class infused with the ideas of liberty, equality and democracy
would invariably go against the interest of the British rule in India. Therefore, the
consequence of colonialism was the “superimposition of minimum modern capitalist
relations on the old feudal land relations which sustained caste system.”20 “The effect of this
was the emergence of a nation plagued with the divisive forces of casteism and
communalism. The democratic movement of the Congress was not built on anti- feudalism; in
fact, it was grafted on the compromise with feudalism and feudal institutions. This resulted in
the surrender of the modern intelligentsia before the indigenous feudal land relations.” 21 As
a result of the sustenance of such a feudal social order with primitive capitalist production
relations, post-independent India emerged with a dwarfed semi-capitalist economic system.
“The Indian bourgeoisie and its leadership, Indian monopoly capital due to the compulsions
of its narrow social base had to align with the landlord sections in order to maintain its class
rule in independent India. The inability to eliminate the vestiges of feudalism meant at the
level of superstructure, the existence and perpetuation of the social consciousness associated

17 Bandyopadhyaya, Jayantanuja. 2002. “Class Struggle and Caste Oppression: Integral

Strategy of the Left”, The Marxist, 18(3-4)
18 See Ranadive, B.T.1991. “Caste, Class and Property Relations”. Calcutta: National Book
Agency for detailed analysis
19 Sampath, P. 2002. “CPI (M)‟s Intervention Against Caste Oppression in Tamil Nadu”,
The Marxist, 18(1)
20 Ranadive, B.T.1991. “Caste, Class and Property Relations”. Calcutta: National Book
Agency, p 2
21 Hasan, Zoya. 1991. “Communalism and Communal Violence in India” in Asghar Ali
Engineer (ed.) “Communal Riots in Post - Independence India”. New Delhi: Sangam Books,
p 72
with feudalism. The feelings of communalism and casteism continued to dominate the social
order.”22

Different dimensions of Caste and Class23

Now I shall dwell on the most fundamental issue which is routinely overlooked due to
political reasons. Caste and class are entirely different types of social stratification. It is a fact
that in Indian social scenario caste and class are sometimes, if not always, overlapping. This
partial empirical reality is frequently used to achieve legitimacy for the political necessity of
conflating caste with class. The so called Other Backward Class category is not an
aggregation of economically backward individuals but a conglomeration of numerous castes
22 Yechury, Sitaram. 1992, “Communalism, Religion and Marxism”, The Marxist, 10(4)
23 N.d. Retrieved December 11, 2016 (http://www.ijhssi.org/papers/v3(4)/Version-
2/D0342038041.pdf).
whose all members are supposed to be backward. There is a deep influence of the leftist
position on the general tendency to blur the boundaries which separate caste and class. The
leftist influence on Mandal Commission became clearly evident when it linked relations of
production to the formation of caste structure and called for liberation of casteism through
agrarian struggle and land reforms. The Commission reported “Under the existing scheme
of production relations, Backward Classes, comprising mainly small landholders, tenants,
agricultural labour, village artisans, etc. are heavily dependent on the rich peasantry for
their sustenance. In view of this, OBCs continue to remain in mental and material bondage of
the dominant castes and classes. Unless these production relations are radically altered
through structural changes and progressive land reforms implemented vigorously all over
the country, OBCs will never become truly independent. In view of this, highest priority
should be given to radical land reforms by all the states.” 24 Therefore, it is quite obvious that
the Mandal Commission conflated caste with class and set in motion the tendency of finding
and constructing identical basis of two structurally different social organizations, namely
caste and class through the force of arguments chosen from the intellectual armory of leftist
philosophy. However, the fact remains that the principles on the basic of which these two
social organizations are formed are dissimilar both at the sociological and epistemological
level. A particular caste consists of individuals belonging to different social classes. It can
never be treated as a homogenous social category in terms of economic capacities and status.
Most importantly there is no possibility of mobility within the caste structure. Higher income
and wealth does not allow a person to move upward within the caste hierarchy resulting in
change in his caste identity. Conversely, in a class divided society, changed economic status
leads to change in class status. We find the acknowledgement of the different theoretical
underpinnings of both the concepts even among the Marxist scholars. Jayantanuja
Bandyopadhyaya, a distinguished Marxist scholar writes, "There is a caste structure within
each class, and a class structure within each caste. They generate different forms of socio-
political belonging, loyalties, and consciousness. Both on the epistemological and the
empirical planes, caste consciousness proves to be antithetical to class consciousness, and
stymies the growth of proletarian class solidarity. The poor “upper‟ caste peasant or worker
does not consider his poor “lower‟ caste co-worker or neighbour as his equal, tends to look

24 Report of the Backward Classes Commission (Mandal Commission), Government of

India, New Delhi, 1980, Part I, vol. 1, p 64
down upon him, and generally refuses to build or accept any socio-cultural linkages with
him."25

25 Bandyopadhyaya, Jayantanuja. 2002. “Class Struggle and Caste Oppression: Integral

Strategy of the Left”, The Marxist, 18(3-4)
Conclusion
Thus, we may conclude that Marxist class theory is in fact not applicable in India due to the
complexity of the Indian Society and the existence of two strikingly different social realities
with defined set of economic classes. Further, we have also observed that although caste and
class seem to be overlapping most times due to the economic and political nature that caste
has acquired, they are still two structurally different social organizations that must not be
confused.
Bibliography
• Marx, Karl, and Frederick Engels. N.d. "Communist manifesto (chapter 1)." Retrieved
December 6, 2016 (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-
manifesto/ch01.html)
• N.d. "Karl Marx - class theory." Retrieved December 9, 2016
(http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi/undergraduate/introsoc/marx6.html).
• Andrew, Edward. 1983. "Class in itself and class against capital: Karl Marx and his
classifiers."Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique
16(3):577–584. Retrieved December 10, 2016 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/3227396?
seq=1.html).
• Bandyopadhyaya, Jayantanuja. 2002. “Class Struggle and Caste Oppression: Integral
Strategy of the Left”
• Yechury, Sitaram. 1992, “Communalism, Religion and Marxism”
• Report of the Backward Classes Commission (Mandal Commission), Government of India,
New Delhi, 1980, Part I, vol. 1.
• Hasan, Zoya. 1991. “Communalism and Communal Violence in India” in Asghar Ali
Engineer (ed.) “Communal Riots in Post-Independence India”. New Delhi: Sangam Books.
• Kaviraj, Sudipta. 2006. “Caste and Class” in Sudipta Kaviraj (ed), Politics in India. New
Delhi: Oxford University Press.
• Desai, A R. 1986. Social background of Indian nationalism. London: South Asia Books.
• YourArticleLibrary. 2014. "Marx’s theory of historical materialism."
YourArticleLibrary.com: The Next Generation Library. Retrieved December 11, 2016
(http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/sociology/marxs-theory-of-historical-
materialism/43766/).
• LLC, SparkNotes. 2016. "Karl Marx (1818–1883)." Retrieved December 9, 2016
(http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/marx/themes.html).