Marxist ideology became a fashionable import into India in the early 1920's and a number of Communist parties continue to move in and out of provincial government today, particularly in southern states such as Kerela and Tamil Nadu. This insurgence of Communism is related directly to the success of the Russian Bolsheviks, an event which many of India's radical intellectuals believed to be indicative of the future of global politics. They expected a similar revolution to take place, given time and pressure, in their own country, ending British rule and bringing state controlled communism to the nation.
Innumerable activists appear to have gained a new dedication from the ideology, a readiness to work with fervour and self-sacrifice among the exploited masses of workers and peasants, a dedication to militant and disciplined organisation. 33
It might appear that an enthusiasm for Marxism would be the ideal tonic for a society organised around caste and status values. However, consideration must be given, first, to the fact that the words 'class' and 'caste' are not interchangeable, either in use or meaning, and, second, to the failure of Indian Communist organisations to develop communism in a way that challenges the context of inequality in India.
Three major differences between the concepts of class and caste demonstrate why the two should not be confused. First, an individual may have a certain class status, bound by social and economic position, or by ownership of the means of production. However, within the caste system, it is the group which bears the caste status, and not any individual in isolation. The implications of this can be seen in the Indian concept of good and bad works (dharma) which reflect on the shame and pride of the family and community. A far worse sin than to bring shame on yourself as an individual is to make the good name of your group suffer by your actions. Caste status is supported by vocation and locality, the identity of the caste member is bound up with the group and the function that the group performs within society. Consequently caste is only meaningful in the Indian situation, and thus oses its meaning for Indian expatriots. Second, while each subcaste tends to be an exclusive, endogamous unit within society, class is less rigind where marriage on the same lebel but different ethnicity is comprehesible. Third, while class is conceptual, objective, and a useful tool in social analysis, caste is a concrete phenomenon within a cultural framework, and has members who belong within definite and named groups. Oliver Cox, in his exhaustive study of social dynamics puts it thus:
A crucial difference between a social class and a caste is that, with reference to the social order, the caste is a status-bearing entity, while the social class is a conceptual stratum of status bearing entities. 34
However, like class, caste is defined in terms of the relationship of perceived groups, for there is no such thing as caste, except in reference to its relationship to the social frame of the caste system. It follows, from these three differences, that the communalist character of a given caste will not encourage the competitive individualism that is evident in producer-led, class-based, Western society. Moreover, while multiple occupations often exist under the same class category, a caste is often recognised by one communal, civic responsibility.
Marxist ideology was received in India as a closed system, needing no alteration or expansion to fit the Indian situation. Early movements, such as the All-India Kisan Sabha (1936), and the All-Indian Trade Union Congress, were indifferent to the plight of the outcastes and untouchables. This was due directly to their enthusiastic faith in class analysis and dialectical materialism as the means of creating a liberated and independent India. Much has been made, both then and now, of the bias within Indian communist organisations parties towards the high caste labourers. Ambedkar referred to Indian communists as a 'bunch of Brahman boys', 35 and reacted strongly against Marxism which he saw as actibely opposed to the caste struggle, since its caste members froze the outcaste labourers out of the leadership of Communist organisations. 36 While the Marxists believed that it was only class polarisation that had a material base, Ambedkar asserted the causal importance of religious factors. In other words, Ambedkar felt that the destruction of the caste system must precede any further attempt at revolution. However, sicne it was clear to Ambedkar that the caste leadership of both the Congress party and the various Marxist movements did not priorities the caste struggle, it would have to be the outcastes themselves who would take up, and become preoccupied with, the struggle against casteism. It seems likely that this is why the issues being pressed forward by many untouchables have been almost entirely neglected. The subalterns have rarely received representation within Indian Communist organisations, despite their great numbers, particularly among the vethbegar (corvee labour force), and no separate organisations or branches of organisations for outcaste communities materialised to address properly the issues of caste and its relationship with communism.
Marxist analysis, when developed and adapted, has been used with great impact in bringing social and political revoluiton in many parts of the world, such as Russia, China, Cuba, North Korea. Furthermore, Marxism methodology has been implemented by many modern liberation theologians, to varying degrees, as a valid means of contextual analysis. There is, however, no situation in which the implementation of Marxist economics has led to the implementation of an egalitarian society, or the genuine ownership of the means of production by the masses. The unique situation in India, where the oppressed and landless are further stigmatised by casteism and untouchability, cannot be transformed by an unaltered Marxist critique. If dialectical materialism is to play a role in the caste struggle then it must by seen in the context of India, where the subalterns have lost social status, the ownership of their identity, and the right to religious expression. In many rural situations the ownereship of the means of production includes ownership of the subaltern himself, who should not expect to be paid for working on the landowner's property but is forced to beg and accept whatever his or her landlord sees fit to give.
Communism, as it has presented itself in India, cannot lead to the liberation of the outcaste communities from casteism. This is because it does not acknowledge the importance of the caste struggle in the struggle for an egalitarian society. Indian communist movements are urging for the ownership of the means of production by those caste communities who are labourers. This would secure equality for the socially privileged only, and therefore not real equality at all.