Hello and welcome friends to this second lecture
on Rammanohar Lohia. Today, we are going to
discuss his views on caste and class, and
also, his views on socialism. In the previous
lecture, we have discussed Ram Manohar Lohia,
his personal, political life and also, the
philosophical basis of his thought and his
ideas on caste, on socialism or on language,
or a lot of social hierarchy. And how to rebuild
or reconstruct Indian society, according to,
the principal of socialism, and what should
be the basis of that socialism, and how that
is different from the European models of socialism,
or many scholars arguing about democratic
socialism in India also.
So, today we are going to focus, basically,
his thoughts on caste and class, and also
on gender. And in that, we will discuss how
his approach differed from many social scientists
or scholars who were talking about these social
categories. But they differed very substantially
from Lohia’s kind of approach to understand
all these categories and see them together,
to understand the stratification or the social
hierarchy that we have in India. And then,
how to remove that hierarchy or build a new
society.
So, that we will see through Ram Manohar Lohia,
and then we will also, discuss his views on
socialism. And in the next lecture, we are
going to discuss his views on language, and
how his understanding of language differs
very much from the many caricature that we
now come to associate with Lohia, when it
comes to understand or when it comes to recognise
or engage with his views on language.
So, as I was discussing in my previous lectures,
there is a kind of tendency, when it comes
to engage with Lohia. Among the followers,
there is uncritical submission to Lohia and
his thought. And those who are critic, they
have a kind of caricature of Lohia even without
engaging with his tricks for, and not to say,
about not engaging critically with his thoughts,
and ideas which is very relevant certainly
in our contemporary times.
So, today, when we will discuss his views
on caste and class, we will realise that approach
he is talking about which is becoming more
and more relevant in social science discourse,
whether it comes to moving away from Eurocentrism
or excessive reliance on the concepts or methods
produced in western European societies, and
then applied in India to explain or to interpret
Indian society or Indian reality or the intersectionality.
That is now coming together or taking into
account different aspects or different layers
or different levels or different categories
which produce social hierarchy, social exploitation,
and take them together to understand how these
hierarchy, be it caste, class gender, language
comes together to form or produce hierarchy
or exploitation in everyday lives.
So, Lohia is becoming more and more relevant
even in contemporary times and yet there is
a kind of conspicuous silence about engaging
with his thought critically even among the
many scholars. And so, that is not to say,
there is no resurgence. So, certainly last
5 or 10 years, there is a kind of re-emergence
of interests in Lohia and his writings, but
certainly for a very long time after death
of Lohia, there has been a conspicuous silence,
and what were the reasons for such silence,
we have discussed in the previous lecture.
Because of his politics or because of his
critics, certainly, to Nehru, to English and
to the upper caste domination in public and
political life of India. There are some of
the reasons which actually, led to the kind
of silence that we have seen for a very long
time, when it comes to engaging with Lohia
and his thoughts.
So, to understand his thought on caste and
class or to understand the social stratification
in India, so many social scientists or scholars
and political leaders or thinkers have tried
to explain the root cause of caste and how
to see caste in relationship with other categories,
be it gender or language or religion. And
we have discussed through certainly, with
B R Ambedkar, his theorisation of caste and
how to eradicate the caste.
You will find Ram Manohar Lohia having a very
different approach or more holistic approach
to understand this problem also the intersectionality.
So, he is not reducing the social cleavages
or hierarchies to any one particular category,
be it class or caste or gender. So, he is
taking a broader and holistic approach to
understand social hierarchy.
So, while dealing with this question of social
stratification, the social scientists have
referred to many categories. So, caste, class,
gender, language and ethnicity and religion
and many such like categories to understand
social reality or to understand the hierarchy
or stratification of Indian society. However,
there approach to this question can be broadly
divided into two broad categories. First is
among those which deals with a singular category.
So, you will find many texts, many speeches,
many writings taking into account any one
category, be it caste or be it language, be
it gender to understand or explain the social
reality or the hierarchies in Indian society.
However, on the other hand, you will find
the individuals taking into account multiplicity
of these factors. So, may be two or more and
all of them together to understand the Indian
society in a more holistic way. So, multiplicity
of these factors which together reproduce
hierarchies and inequalities in Indian society
so, they when explain Indian society and Indian
reality do not rely or do not give primacy
to one category over the others. So, there
is no kind of prioritization of category or
a kind of particular kind of discrimination
or the social cleavages. So, there is a kind
of intersectional approach to understand how
all these categories come together to create
a power hierarchy or a power relationship.
And then, the approach to re-address these
hierarchies or oppressions requires multifaceted
approach, and Lohia was arguing about such
things. So, Ram Manohar Lohia's approach was
an intersectionalist. I will explain this
word, intersectionalist as I saying taking
into account the multiplicities of categories
which comes together to reproduce a matrix
of power relationship, which divide the society
and create a kind of power hierarchy between
and among the members of that society.
Now, this kind of approach in sociology or
in political science to understand different
forms of exploitation or domination is becoming
more and more relevant, but in the very beginning
of India’s post-independent journey. Lohia
took a very intersectionalist approach to
understand the dynamics of caste and class
in Indian condition. So, Ram Manohar Lohia's
approach was intersectionalist one which dealt
with dynamics and the interrelations between
or of caste, class, gender and language in
reproducing and perpetuating inequalities,
exploitation and exclusions in India.
So, to understand these exploitations, exclusions
or operations in India and how it get reproduced
in everyday lives, Lohia had a very broader,
holistic or intersectionalist approach to
understand how these categories, be it caste…
and we as we proceed in this lecture we come
to know how caste produce the hierarchy and
it oscillates between class and caste, and
caste with gender, and how all these together
come and relate with the issue of language.
Whether ruling class in India is speaking
English and that is the critic of Lohia and
his struggle for Indian languages against
the Angrezi.
So, his Angrezi hatao or remove or abolish
English was not against a language per se.
It was against a kind of status that is provided
by those provided to them who speak this language.
So, the hierarchy that it constructs, Lohia
had problem with that hierarchy. So, in this
way, Lohia's approach was a kind of holistic
intersectionalist to understand the dynamics
and the interrelationships of all these categories
together. And how, they come together and
construct a power matrix is something which
Lohia was engaged to understand and or to
explain and then to fight against.
So, according to, Sociology professor, Anand
Kumar, he writes that, ‘Lohia's approach
presented a multidimensional differentiated
and graded view of the structure of inequalities
and exploitations in India’. So, then, he
went taking into account these categories
did not essentialize anyone. So, of course,
Lohia was for social equality or social justice,
but the social inequality that is produced
in India is so multi-layered and it has so
much of graded hierarchy or inequality that
it requires more complex or more region specific.
So, within India, how caste operates in one
part of the country and same caste operate
in a different fashion in different parts
of the country. Lohia was sensitive enough
to understand the specificities of the same
categories working in different parts of the
country.
And also, how different categories caste,
class, gender, language, comes together to
produce a kind of hierarchy or a matrix of
power which differentiate between the ruling
class or ruling elites and the masses. So,
as Anand Kumar has rightly said, that he presented
a multidimensional approach not essentializing
any category. But to see it in connection
or in inter relationship with other such categories
which reproduce hierarchy which reproduce
domination and differentiation.
So, he presented a multidimensional, differentiated
and graded view. Therefore, to the structure
of inequality and exploitations in India.
Therefore, Lohia is more relevant even for
contemporary politics or contemporary realities
in society and perhaps, more relevant today
then he was writing about his views on caste
or class.
Now, his major work for today’s class, The
Caste System and also, Marx, Gandhi and Socialism
which he wrote in 1963 is very relevant for
today’s lecture. But his other texts like
Fragments of a World Mind or The Wheel of
History, partly we have discussed it from
these in our previous lecture, and also, India,
China and Northern Frontiers. So, he has the
passion or he shared it with other modern
Indian political thinkers about role of India
in the larger humanity. And he argued, for
a world government or world parliament and
considered himself as a world citizen. So
that side of Lohia is also very much present,
when he is talking about India specificities
or conceptualizing the distinct socialism
that should be applicable to India or critiquing
Eurocentrism or reliance on Eurocentric concepts
and methods.
Yet he is also, arguing for a kind of world
government or the world parliament. So, besides
the stakes, Lohia also published some weekly
magazines like Chaukhambha and Jan, which
is a monthly journal or Chaukhambha which
was a weekly, Hindi magazine. And also, he
published one as the name suggest and I was
saying the Mankind, this was an English monthly
which he published through with writings.
And therefore, as I was saying in this course
again and again, all the thinkers were deeply
embedded in the politics of their time. And
so, was Lohia. Lohia is more distinct because
of his rebel nature or a rebel socialist or
a visionary thinker, working many times against
the government policies, against then prime
minister Nehru and many of his policies in
the post-independent India.
And while being embedded in the politics,
he had a very futuristic vision for reconstructing
Indian society and in that futuristic vision,
he did not essentialize any category or any
particular section of Indian society. So,
he had a vision for reconstructing India or
Indian society in a new way, based on his
philosophy or his understanding of socialism.
And this visionary thinking in Lohia was embedded
in his practices.
So, be it his writings, his pamphlets, his
active involvement in the organisational politics
or Socialist party, or Samyukta Socialist
party forming alliances against the congress,
in all this activities, he actually represented
a kind of thinker, deeply embedded in the
politics of his time. And yet, reflective
enough or visionary enough to think about
the holistic approach to the social problems
or the political or the global challenges
that humanity as a whole was facing. And he
provided the solution of which was in many
ways very innovative and original in comparison
to the many scholars or scientists having
a kind of derivative approach to many of the
challenges that India was facing.
So, through these writings, Lohia continued
to present his views on many issues, social
political specific to India or non-western
societies and also, the global challenges
that was happening. So, the capitalism, the
divide it produces or the communalism, the
problem or the dead end in which it interrupts
itself, and how it cannot be applicable to
non-western society especially, like India,
Lohia had the far sighted vision or thinking
about many of such challenges.
If we look at specifically about this issue
of caste and class in Lohia, Lohia recognised
caste as the primary form of inequality. So,
for Lohia, the question of inequality, especially
the economic inequality is the root cause
of all kinds of social exploitation or oppression
in the society. So, that is the root, but
he did not actually give primacy and therefore,
he was actually fighting for social equality
and social justice and his whole politics
was oriented towards creating a society with
less and less equality. And that less and
less equality is not just between economics
on the economic sense, but also, in the social
or cultural sense also.
So, how to understand the inequality or the
economic inequality in India. He argued that
to understand economic inequality, you cannot
just rely on the category of class as a category
to understand the economic inequality. You
have to include into it, the question of caste
as well as gender and also, the language to
understand how inequality is produced and
the social status attached to a particular
group or particular category operates in India
or within India in different parts of India.
So, he was having a more nuanced, more objective
or a kind of multiplicities of approach or
a kind of understanding about all these categories,
individually and then, how it they come together
to reproduce the exploitations or inequalities
in India.
So, Lohia recognizes the caste, although,
is the primary reason or root cause of inequality
in Indian society which reflected in it is
culture in it is economy, in its polity, or
in its society. So, he considered the caste
as the primary forming quality, and shares
with many radical social reformers who wanted
caste to be eradicated and not to be reformed.
So, unlike many scholars like Gandhi and many
others thinkers arguing about reforming the
caste, Lohia shared with Periyar, Ambedkar
and many other social reformers they need
to eradicate or destroy the caste system.
So, caste system for him is the root cause
of social inequality in India, but he did
not essentialize it and the understanding
of the caste is not without reducing all forms
of inequality just to the caste. So, he had
a kind of intersectionalist approach, as I
was arguing, to see how caste operates in
India and how it affects other sphere of Indian
lives. But also, how the caste operates the
same caste operates in different parts of
India, and how to understand the domination
and subordination, and the layers of graded
inequality that it reproduces in everyday
lives of Indian people.
So, his understanding of caste as a primary
root of all social or economic inequality.
However, he did not essentialize the concept
of caste. So, Lohia's approach to caste and
class question was very different from many
Marxists, contemporary Marxist approach which
solely focused on the dynamics of class and
reduced other category such as caste or gender
as the secondary importance. So, in many Marxist
explanations or interpretations of Indian
society, the primacy is attached to the question
of class.
And caste and other forms of social hierarchy
or social discrimination is given the same
kind of secondary status or in priority, it
comes second to the question or category of
class. Lohia differs very substantially, completely
from this kind of prioritising one form of
inequality over the other. And the problem
with that kind of a project misses the oscillations
between caste and class, especially, in Indian
society. So, his approach was distinct from
the approaches of say, Periyar or Ambedkar.
So, he agreed with Periyar on the necessity
of eliminating the caste. Because mere reforms
will not help in reconstructing constructing
the society based on social equality or social
justice.
However, he differed from Periyar on many
issues such as, the violent anti-Brahminism.
So, Lohia, himself, Gandhian and Gandhi method
of politics of non-violence or satyagraha
had deep influenced on Lohia, so much so that
when Socialist party government under the
socialist party government, there was firing
on the people, he actually, asked the Socialist
party to resign from the government.
So, the non-violent method as the possible
or as the most appropriate form of politics
to reform or reconstruct the society led Lohia,
even when he agreed with the overall objective
of the caste politics and to eradicate it,
he differed with Periyar on the question of
the violent anti-Brahminism and also, his
campaigns against Gandhi or Indian constitution
and also, Hindi in the name of attacking caste
system. So, he differed with Periyar, also
when he was in agreement with the question
of eradicating the caste system, where not
just being satisfied with the reform in the
caste system.
So, his approach is also one can find very
distinct from Ambedkar, where Lohia paid relatively,
more or greater attention to the aspect of
gender, or how women among the backward classes
suffered double oppressions. And therefore,
in the rise of feminist movement, once again,
we find Lohia far more ahead of his times.
We will come to discuss that when we talk
about his views on gender.
But Indian feminism or Indian feminist movement,
we see in our contemporary terms, hardly take
into account the views or writings of Lohia
on the question of gender. But when he was
articulating his response to the caste system,
he differed from Periyar as I have just discussed,
but also, with Ambedkar, too. Because he focused
or gave more attention to the question of
gender based oppression along with the caste.
And in this regard, we find Lohia's approach
to the caste system is closer to Mahatma Phule
or Jyotiba Phule.
So, here on this question of caste and class
as a category also, you find Lohia used these
terms in their generic sense. Generic is a
more general and not specific to a society.
So, these, we are not used in their specific
connotations in Indian or western context.
So, suppose, we say, caste is only India’s
specific, or class is only result or consequences
of the industrial development or capitalism
or European or western origin.
For Lohia, he actually, de-indianized the
caste or decolonized the caste. But also,
he de- europeanize the class as well. So,
as professor Anand Kumar is arguing that there
in Lohia, the interpretation or the connotation
of caste and class is done in a more innovative
way, to make it applicable to understand the
social realities in different countries in
different contexts and not specific to a particular
society, be it Indian or Western or European.
So, in many societies in this more generic
sense, where caste is a kind of immobile class,
or class is a mobile caste that happens in
all the societies in most of the societies
historically. So, he argued, and make it a
kind of maxim or a principal to understand
the social hierarchy or inequalities in India,
where there is a kind of oscillation between
caste and class, and there is a dynamic interrelationship
between the two in terms of producing and
perpetuating social inequalities and hierarchy.
So, if you look at his views on the caste
system, we can perhaps, begin with his analysis
of the consequences of the caste system on
the nation as a whole or a society as a whole.
So, he writes, caste as I was saying the immobile
class. So, ‘caste restricts opportunity.
Restricted opportunity constricts ability.
Constricted ability further restricts opportunity.
So, where caste prevails, opportunity and
ability are restricted to ever narrowing circle
of the people, and that is the major reason
for fragmentation in Indian society or social
cleavages or the caste oppressions or the
privilege that is associated to particular
caste or particular individual depending upon
their education or their use of language,
wealth or the caste status’.
So, we will discuss about this divide between
ruling class and the masses in India also.
But caste is a problem caste is the biggest
problem or impediment in creating a society
which is based on social justice or social
equality, because it restricts opportunities.
So, there is a kind of reduction or in kind
of restriction in the opportunity that is
available to different caste or different
groups. So, caste restricts opportunity, so
some opportunity or most of the opportunities
are open to only a particular limited caste.
That restriction of opportunity also, constrict
the ability. And this constricted ability
further restricts the opportunity, where caste
prevail opportunity and ability are restricted
to ever narrowing circles of the people.
So, there is a gradual concentration of power
among the fewer and fewer people in the hierarchy.
And that he saw as a problem for not just
creating a new society or constructing, or
transforming the existing hierarchy or social
exploitations. But also, to democratise the
all spheres of society, including the power
relationship or power that flows from top
to bottom or bottom to top.
So, on this question of inequalities to which
Lohia argued, again and again, and considered
it as the root cause of all the problems,
all the challenges that India or a humanity
as a whole was facing, and he considered twentieth
century in many ways is a revolution against
all kinds of oppressions and exploitations,
be it caste, be it class, be it ideology based
political domination of one country over the
other, all there is a kind of or gender specific
exploitation. So, there is a kind of multifaceted
approach or fight or evolution against all
these forms should and that is something,
which he considered unique in the twentieth
century history.
So, the case in that approach prevent the
opening up of opportunity and allowing the
abilities to realise its potential because
of this restriction based on caste. And that
creates a problem which leads to ever narrowing
circle of the people which enjoy enormous
power and have great status attached to that
power. So, he regarded, caste as both a discriminating
social structure, and a disabling cultural
phenomenon. And that is intertwined in his…
so it is not just about a particular status
of individual in the society, but also, there
is a whole cultural, political and material
benefits associated with once caste and entity.
And that is the major problem which he thought.
So, caste with its inherent inequality, stratification
and cruelty have resulted in de-humanization
of both the oppressed and the oppressive castes,
and is responsible for the fragmentation of
Indian society. So, caste, which is inherently
based on inequality or stratification or de-humanization
of one caste over the other or how a superior
caste see it is inferior with condemn. That
is the major problem which leads to de-humanization
of both the oppressed and oppressive, and
there we see a kind of similar approach to
Ambedkar’s approach to this whole question
of caste, which prevent a kind of public opinion,
or a morality which transcend the caste based
limited sense of ethics, loyalty or morality
tool in Indian society.
So, Lohia, also believed that because of this
inherent inequality stratification and cruelty
in the caste system, it led to de-humanization
of both the oppressed and the oppressive and
is responsible for the fragmentation of Indian
society. And he considered the presumed superiority
of mental work over manual work, that is the
basis or the notion of pure or pollution,
and relation of pure with the mental work
or the intellectual work, and pollution with
the manual work, that is involved. He was
very critical of this notion of superiority
or inferiority on the basis of the work, be
it mental or the manual. He considered that
unnatural and he regarded that there is nothing
like a pure mental or manual work. And the
value of this was and here is a kind of Gandhian
approach to a regard all forms of level with
same respect or with dignity, also in Lohia.
So, Lohia thought that the destruction of
this inhuman system was not easy because of
its layered and graded nature of inequality,
it required a multi-dimensional or multifaceted
attacks on the philosophical, religious, political,
historical, economic and the social roots
of the caste system. So, there cannot be a
kind of one or uni-dimensional or a kind of
selective or limited approach to root out
this inhuman system of caste based discrimination
or inequality in India. So, he wanted to have
a kind of multifaceted approach often in alignment
with other category, such as gender or language
or class to root out this whole problem of
caste system in India.
However, Lohia is very sensitive as I was
arguing about these plurality or multiplicities
of caste experiences in different parts of
country. So, just being anti-Brahminical does
not necessarily, lead to the eradication of
caste or fighting the whole system as such.
So, although, the caste existed in almost
all of India, caste in its form and oppression
differs across the regions. And therefore,
he has stressed on the necessity of region
specific approach to eliminate caste system.
So, there is no kind of simplistic, one size
fit all kinds of approach or a kind of universal
approach to solve the caste problem. So, he,
having a kind of objective and as I was discussing
in my previous lecture, the focus on the present
and the present act and every act should justify
its action or the consequences of its action,
the ethical or the moral basis.
So, the politics in Lohia, in that sense is
a more a kind of aesthetic act. A moral act
to reform the society and not about power
or not about holding the office, but to helping
in the transformation of the society to create
or to make it more just or more equal. So,
in doing that, Lohia did not carry the colonial
baggage or the kind of easy formula of using
caste or it is category as classified by the
administration or the colonialization. He
saw it in different parts of the country and
he saw its operation and its functioning differ
from region to region. So, one group may be
subordinated in some part. But in other part,
they may be a dominant or the hegemonic group.
Lohia was arguing about to have a kind of
region specific approach to the caste problem
and to eliminate it also. So, in his book,
The Caste System, Lohia writes that 90 percent
of the Indian population constitute backward
sections or what he calls the backward class.
So, remember, the first Backward Class Commission
by Kaka Kalelkar Commission submitted the
report. But it was not approved or accepted
because of the problem in identifying or there
were many contestations in identification
of a group as a backward caste or as a backward
class.
So, in the backdrop of such discourse, Lohia
was arguing about that 90 percent of Indian
people, including among those who are poor
among the… or the so called upper caste
and also, certainly backward castes like SC’s
STs also the women or the minorities in the
Christian or the religious minorities communities,
that constitute his overall understanding
of backward classes in India which he argued
is about 90 percent of the population. And
that 90 percent of government jobs and industry
is controlled by the rest 10 percent of the
population. And that is his stand, political
critique against the hegemony of upper caste
and that leads to some kind of you know as
I was arguing about a silencing about Lohia
and his works certainly, after his death.
But as long as he lived till 1967, he prepared
the ideological and the organisational basis
for this rise of upper caste movement as we
see and we have argued that Christopher Jaffrelot
talking about the silent revolution in India.
So, Lohia, should be credited to providing
the base for a such kind of politics or political
leadership to emerge, and he was in many ways,
the propagator of such kind of politics.
So, he is now… and then there is a problem
also then with the OBC movement, it is just
the Lohia who is attributed, not just Lohia
about his politics or 
his organizational work or ideological positions
are attributed for the emergence of Mandal
kind of politics or the reservation for the
OBCs.
But the overall or the holistic approach in
Lohia is somewhat, which is missing. And we
need to re-engage with such kind of politics
in Lohia when we argue about his stand for
reservation, and why he is demanding that
reservation, and overall objective for such
a preferential treatment is to construct a
society, which is more just and equal. So,
this concentration of power in the hands of
upper caste men, according to Lohia, had paralyzed
this country. Therefore, he pushed for the
entry of the depressed sections of society
or backward classes of society into public
life and administration through preferential
treatment and demanded, therefore, 60 percent
of reservation for the backward classes of
society barring some specialized services
like surgery which requires specific expertise.
So, he preferred this reservation not as a
tool of individual selfish development. But
as the means of social equality and advancement
of national prosperity. So, that is the overall
objective which he wanted to achieve. And
in that sense, we see a kind of democratic
or democratic imaginaries in Lohia and his
thought, where he wanted power to be diffused
or decentralization of power and maximum participation
of different sections, especially, from the
backward classes which is underrepresented
or the over domination of a section of society
on the administration, on the public and the
political.
Lohia was arguing against such kind of domination
or concentration of power or exercise of power
by that minority section over the large or
the majority of the masses. So, his argument
is more can or should be seen more towards
a kind of democratization of politics administration
through representation or through adequate
representation of different sections. And
not just a kind of selfish individualistic
and kind of things.
So, to remove the cast barrier, Lohia also
argued for inter-caste marriages or inter-cast
marriage as the basis for the creation of
such society based on equality and justice.
So, he wanted the government to take necessary
measures to promote inter-dining or inter-caste
marriages which is very similar to Ambedkar’s
kind of approach as we have discussed.
And since, there were practical limitation
on the part of a state to make inter caste
marriage obligatory, he wanted the state to
provide preferential treatment to the parties
involved in inter-caste marriages for a specific
period. So, to eradicate the caste system
or the inhuman inequalities produced and reproduced
by the caste system, he also championed cause
of inter-dining are inter-marriages. And he
sorted the role of state in providing or facilitating
such marriages.
So, we can also, find then his approach to
the caste system who was not anti-Brahmin
or anti-Brahminical . So, often in the caste
based politics or movement you see a kind
of overall focus to root out or to attack
the Brahminical or the Brahminical forces
or the Brahminical traditions or the intellectual
works. Lohia is not someone who is arguing
for fighting for anti-caste as a kind of anti-Brahmincal
stand.
So, reflecting on the limitation of anti-Brahmin
approach as the medium of eliminating caste
system, Lohia writes and this he writes about
the south Indian anti-Brahminical movement.
So, I never been anti-Brahmin and I have almost
always been anti-caste. So, being anti-caste
is not equal to being anti-Brahmin. But I
made a slight mistake in imagining that the
anti-Brahminism of the south could be transformed
into anti-caste in the rest part of the country.
So, the ruling elements among the Reddy's,
Mudaliar's and Nair’s have in the past 50
years been anti-Brahmin only to come abreast
of the Brahmins, and now, that they have done
so, at least, politically they appear to be
sated, they are satisfied with that thing.
And they have given up their ideology of reservations
and are now, as much against the so called
communal governments order as were once Brahmins.
He saw the limitation in this kind of anti-Brahminical
stand or movement where one group replaces
the other, but the whole objective of such
replacement is forgotten or betrayed, once
the other group acquire that power. And that
does not help in destroying the caste system
to begin with. And that was the major objective
which Lohia was arguing about.
So, Lohia, for him, the eradication of caste
in conclusion one can say requires the multifaceted
approach. And there is a kind of inter relationship
between other categories. We now, discuss
his view on caste and gender. So, Lohia is
one among the few anti-caste thinker who was
able to draw the interrelationship between
caste and gender oppressions. His articulation
of backward classes, he included women of
all castes as backwards. And his emphasis
on women question, one can infer from the
point that on the equality between men and
women was the first and foremost principle
of Sapt Kranti that he advocated, and we will
discuss this notion of Sapt Kranti later.
So, as I was saying that the intersectionalist
approach in him to understand different forms
of oppressions or exploitations and the interrelationship
between them, allow him to see the question
of gender as problem as perhaps, is the caste.
So, the women he considered as the part of
backward class, no matter what is their caste
background. So, women from all caste backgrounds
are part of backward class. Because of there
are discriminations or exploitations on the
basis of gender in all the caste groups in
society. So, he argued that Indian women,
especially, depressed castes are doubly subjugated
by these two factors of caste and also, gender.
He considered these double oppressions responsible
for the decline of spirit of India or the
public spirit or the collectivities, where
there is an adequate representation of different
caste, but also, the half of the population
that is gender. So, he regarded gender discrimination
and oppression as the biggest impediment in
the realization of an egalitarian society.
And that is why, he argued for men and women
equality as the first and far most principle
of his idea of Sapt Kranti or 7 revolutions.
So, in order to root out this double oppressions,
Lohia focused on the four key areas. And these
are slavery of the kitchen and the field of
sanitation, also, the re-examination of institution
of marriage and the hypocrisy that is involved
in decision about marriage. Equality in education
and property rights, and also, preferential
treatment in politics and employment for the
women.
So, Lohia arguing about all these four areas
to remove the gender inequalities or gender
oppressions in Indian society and this he
is doing in 1960's or 1950's that is something
which is far ahead of his time. So, the tragedy
is or the unfortunate part of it is, when
we see the discourse or political scholarly
debates and discussion on feminism or feminist
movement in India, there is very less engagement
with his thoughts and ideals of women question.
And he was also, arguing for Indian tradition
or there have been different movements in
Indian tradition for eradication of caste
and for the higher status of women or equally
status of women in the public life. And he
cited the examples of many women thinkers
or legendary figures from the Indian past.
So, Drupadi or Maitri or many Bharti and many
other examples, he cites.
And so, with the cast oppressions and the
cast question, he thought that Indian tradition
and Indian culture has the potentiality to
fight against such oppressions or discriminations.
So now, if you look at his views on India’s
ruling class. So, while defining the ruling
class in India, Lohia adopted an inclusive
approach composite of socio-cultural, political
and economic factors. So, in his views, the
ruling class in India can be defined or identified
by three distinct characteristics. First high
caste. Second is English education and third
is wealth. Now, he considers that any individual
which has any of the two criteria out of three
he is part of the ruling class. So, presence
of any two of these can provide individual,
the entry to the ruling class. So, either
upper caste or English education or English
education or wealth or in any formula the
any of the two characteristics will allow
the individual entry into the ruling class
in India.
Here he did not include women of any caste
as I was arguing. So, women from all castes
are part of backward classes according to
Lohia's formulation of power relationship
in society. So, he thought that women of all
classes are exploited to certain extent that
restrict their entry to the realm of ruling
classes. So, throughout his life, through
his politics and writings, Lohia, tried to
bridge this gap or divide between the ruling
classes or elite and the masses of Indian
society.
And that gives us to reformulate, perhaps,
the democratic imaginary in Lohia without
reducing him merely, as the spokesperson of
the OBC or any particular groups. So, and
his holistic approach and multifaceted struggles
towards the intersection of caste, class,
gender, language discriminations, were aimed
at creating a new socialist egalitarian society
guided by the principal of horizontal solidarity
in place of vertical solidarity based on caste,
wealth or education especially, English education
and twin principle of social, equality and
social justice.
That is his overall holistic approach towards
creating or reconstructing a society from
scratch which is based on this horizontal
solidarity and principle of social equality
and justice.
Now briefly, if you look at his views on socialism
which is very distinct and Lohia is more innovative
and very original in his articulation of socialism
for non-western societies, especially, for
India.
So, one of the speech becomes the basis for
such articulation and also his work like Marx,
Gandhi and Socialism. He gave this redefinition
or re-articulation of socialism in India in
his presidential speech to the Panchamarhi
convention of the Socialist party in 1952.
And he spoke, there that no greater disasters
could we fall socialism then, if the historical
peculiarities of its career in Europe were
sought to be universalized and reproduce in
the other two thirds of the world.
So now, this is a kind of move away from Eurocentrism
in Lohia. And that is why, Lohia becomes very
fascinating or important figure to engage
with to understand the specificities of different
societies to understand their politics or
to interpret their realities. So, he in this
speech, we will discuss how he tried to innovatively
reconstruct or reformulate the socialism for
India on non-western society. And he was very
critical against blind imitation of an ideology,
emerged in a peculiar condition of or the
historical peculiarities in Europe and then,
it tries to be universalised.
So, there is a kind of a belief in many progressives
so called thinkers and intellectuals, let
something that emerged in any part of the
country will gradually spread different parts
of the world, and it result in the betterment
or transformation of society in . Lohia was
very critical of such kind of arguments about
the blind imitations or following of an ideal
switch emerged in a particular historical
specificities of a part of the humanity or
the world.
So, Lohia was very critical of such kind of
blind imitation. So, in his socialism, the
social equality and social justice were the
cardinal principles of Lohia's politics and
philosophy and to achieve that, he argued
that socialism was the only way forward to
create a society to transfer a society which
is based on the principle of social justice
and social equality.
However, Lohia, believed that for too long
the doctrine of socialism is strived on borrowed
breath. Borrowed breath is that historical
experience in one society is tried to be replicated
or reproduced in other society. So, he argued
that for too long, the doctrine of socialism
is strived on the borrowed breath and lagged
behind the ideology of both communism and
capitalism. So, from communism, socialism
had taken the economic aims of planned economy
or social ownership or mass production, and
from capitalism it developed its general concerns.
Say, democracy, freedom and peace, many people
have this kind of blending in socialism and
when they talk about socialism they think
of it is a kind of clear mixture of capitalism
and communism that is blended together. Lohia,
argued, for a distinct and innovative conceptualization
of socialism independent from both communism
and capitalism.
And in this connection, his Presidential speech
at the socialist party convention in 1952
at Panchmarhi on the doctrinal foundation
of socialism, that becomes the basis of all
his philosophy or politics in post-independent
India till his death in 1967 is regarded is
one of the finest political speech in post-independent
India.
And in this speech, he criticized the prevailing
ideological confusion in Socialist party,
that oscillates between Nehruvian congress
on the one hand and communist on the other.
He charted out a new and independent vision
of socialism in India and he was very critical
of the democratic socialism and asserted that
socialism stood for a distinct idea that he
did no prefix or suffix.
So, socialism, was a kind of emerging force
or a dominant not as dominant perhaps as say
other ideological forces. But it had the promise
of providing the alternative to the domination
of the congress party or the congress rule.
And Lohia was articulating about the possible
method or the politics to achieve, or to provide
that alternative which will help in the democratisation
of state policy and society also.
Now to do that he wanted to have a kind of
doctrinal clarity about the vision of socialism
which has for long relied upon the borrowed
ideas such as communism or capitalism and
the clear mixture of that. And also, in India,
specifically, between the Nehruvian congress
which is also tilted towards the socialism
or socialist reconstruction of society, and
this is also a point, we need to recall that
Nehru and Lohia was a close collaborator during
the freedom struggle movements. Within the
congress, they were involved in the freedom
struggle and they shared a lot of ideas about
reconstruction society or socialist ideals
also.
So, this confusion, Lohia believed is the
major reason that obstruct the growth and
the prospect of socialist party which also
lead to a kind of series differences with
many other leaders like J.P or many other
socialist leaders and split in the Socialist
party. But Lohia continue to practice his
distinct understanding of socialism and socialism
as a way forward for reconstruction of Indian
society.
And he by and large, succeeded enforcing that
alignment of different forces, and he also
an friends artist, writers and literary figures
and set their ideas in many ways. And in 1967
because of his premature death, there is a
kind of betrayal also of Lohia’s ideals,
but he did provided organisational and ideological
basis for these socialist movement and the
socialist politics. And he therefore, criticized
both the democratic socialism or Nehruvian
socialism and also the communist ideas.
So, to realise his dream of socialism Lohia
argued from Sapt Kranti as I was referring
to earlier. The 7 revolution is the basis
for the realisation of the socialism and the
first principle of that Krantis equality between
men and women against the political, economic
and spiritual inequality, based on colour
or race, for the destruction of castes against
foreign domination and democratic world government,
for economic equality planned production and
against private property, against interference
in private life and for democratic method,
and finally, against arms and weapons and
for satyagraha. So, there is a kind of overall
articulation about how to reconstruct a socialist
society by achieving this 7 revolution.
And that 7 revolution is for him a kind of
simultaneous struggle. Not one after the other,
but it should have a kind of holistic approach
to reconstruct or transform the society. So,
Lohia developed his idea of socialism with
a special reference to the third world countries.
And he stated that economic aims proposed
by both communism and capitalism is not applicable
in the society or countries, although differs
in the means both communism and capitalism
urges for large scale production through the
use of technology.
And it demands a huge amount of capital which
is not possible for the underdeveloped countries
and third world. And other point is there
is a less focus on the question of labour,
alienation of labour, the control of labour
over its product. And the ownership is in
capitalism with the individual the private
citizen or in the communism with the state.
But the structure of production or the mass
production use of technology something which
is very similar in both modes of production
and he therefore, realised that it was not
helpful in creating the socialist society
in the third world society.
So, therefore, these countries should develop
their own method of socialism in accordance
with the specificities of their context. And
Lohia, himself proposed an alternative model
of socialism which is decentralized in its
nature. Decentralized in terms of both in
the use of technology and power, and that
comes the next theme in Lohia which is also
called Chaukhambha Raj. This is about kind
of democratic imaginary in Lohia, where he
talks about decentralization in technology
by which he made the use of small scale machinery
and also, decentralization of power which
is represented in his idea of four pillars
of state or Chaukhambha Raj.
Chaukhambha Raj in a Lohia’s is constituted
of four layers of power or the ownership with
the village, the district, the province and
the centre. So, these four layers are the
way forward for the decentralization of power
and ensuring maximum participation at different
levels of governance. So, he was not in favour
of private property, but he also thought that
the exclusive ownership of property in the
hands of the centre is equally harmful. So,
the concentration of wealth or the resources.
And therefore, he argued that property should
be owned by all these four pillars of a state,
and not to be concentrated in the hands of
the centre.
So, there is a kind of democratization or
decentralization of power and also technology
in Lohia's understanding of Chaukhambha Raj
or that allows to think about alternative
imaginary of democracy state and society in
Lohia. So, Lohia advocated constructive action
and peaceful, non-violent resistance, even
collective disobedience against exploitation
and injustice. So, against all forms of violence,
he was very critical of and that is his Gandhian
influence. And also, in this Chaukhambha Raj
as you see the influence of Gandhi in his
idea about decentralization of power.
So, he provided the ideological and organisational
basis of the realisation of such ideals as
I was arguing. So, however, much of this ideals
remained unrealised and betrayed, even many
of his followers and the political successor,
and even there has been so long conspicuous
silence, about critically engaging with the
ideas and writings of Lohia. And now, therefore,
is the time to revisit some of his ideals
writings to understand our society the challenges
it is facing of different kinds and not having
necessary to reduce or give priority to one
form of exploitation or oppression over the
other.
So, there is a kind of holistic or inter sectionalist
approach to reconstruct the society as a whole.
And then, to see its role in the larger global
politics or its global role. So, even in contemporary
times, you find many scholars argued about
one category and through that category, they
try to interpret and explain India reality,
be it caste, class, gender, ethnicity religion.
But in Lohia, you will find a kind of inter-connection
or dynamic interrelationship as the basis
to understand the matrix of power that operates
at different level of Indian society and polity,
and then how to challenge, how to confront
such power dynamics that is there in Lohia.
And one of the strong messages that comes
out of his approach is the democratization
of all his fear of life, including, strengthening
or empowering the women or the backward classes.
So, focus on the preferential treatment of
backward class is used to reconstruct a society
as a whole, to make it more just and equal.
And that is something which we can further
develop or requires engagement with his writings.
So, that is all on this lecture on caste class
and socialism. And you can refer to some of
these works like The Caste System or Marx,
Gandhi and Socialism by Ram Manohar Lohia,
and also, ‘Understanding Lohia’s Political
Sociology: Intersectionality of Caste, Class,
Gender and Language’ by Anand Kumar, and
also, by A. Appadorai ‘Recent Socialist
Thought in India’, and some of these works
like in ‘Lohia's Contribution to Socialist
Politics in India’ by Keshav Rao and also,
Rajaram Tolpadi’s, ‘Context Discourse
and Vision of Lohia’s Socialism’ and ‘Lohia's
Socialism: An Underdog’s Prospective’
by Sachidanand Sinha. And also, ‘Lohia's
Quest for an Autonomous Socialism’ by Adi
H Doctor, which you can refer to understand
some of the themes, we have discussed in this
lecture. So, thank you for your listening.
That is all for today’s lecture.
Thank you.
