Communist Views of Hinduism
Marxist theories simply fall apart when applied to Hindu and indigenous cultures
Communism and Capitalism both emerged in the western world to solve the same problem: that of huge inequalities of every type in the 19th century western world. Capitalism aimed at providing equality of opportunity, whereas Communism aimed at providing equality of outcome. Communism was a movement that sought to overthrow the increasing power of the “bourgeoisie” or capitalists, who were taking forward the industrial revolution. Communism sought to overthrow the current world order, and plant “proletariats” in place of the bourgeois, giving political power in the hands of a State ruled by proletariats.
The principles of Communism were already floating around since the 17th century, in different forms of Socialism, but were properly organized and given a revolutionary character for the first time by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. The Communist revolutions of the 20th century relied heavily on Marxist ideology, though they refashioned it as per their own beliefs and convenience.
Communist Framework of Reasoning
One of the biggest premises of the Marxist Communist view is the following: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” - The Communist Manifesto
This premise posits that society in every country is divided up into the bourgeois or lords or masters versus slaves, workers and serfs. It suggests that the two “classes” are in opposition to each other, always have been, and implicitly assumes that this is the only or the most significant way of functioning of all societies. Footnotes in the Communist Manifesto suggest that Marx, at the time of writing, was not aware of the structure of organization of societies the world over, and acknowledges that societies did exist as communities before 1847. But it also assumes that this ceased to be the case at the time of commentary (without any basis):
“That is, all written history. In 1847, the pre-history of society, the social organisation existing previous to recorded history, all but unknown. Since then, August von Haxthausen (1792-1866) discovered common ownership of land in Russia, Georg Ludwig von Maurer proved it to be the social foundation from which all Teutonic races started in history, and, by and by, village communities were found to be, or to have been, the primitive form of society everywhere from India to Ireland. The inner organisation of this primitive communistic society was laid bare, in its typical form, by Lewis Henry Morgan's (1818-1861) crowning discovery of the true nature of the gens and its relation to the tribe. With the dissolution of the primeval communities, society begins to be differentiated into separate and finally antagonistic classes.* I have attempted to retrace this dissolution in The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, second edition, Stuttgart, 1886. [Engels, 1888 English Edition and 1890 German Edition (with the last sentence omitted)]” — Footnotes to The Communist Manifesto, pg 1
*Engels posits that the “primeval communities” dissolved at some point (he does not mention when he suggests this happened) and therefore, all the world is divided into two antagonistic classes.
As per Marx, Industrialization forced people to move from rural areas into cities, and led to the transfer of “private property” into the hands of the bourgeoise alone.
“It has agglomerated population, centralized means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands.”
Communist view sees labour as exploitative, with one class exploiting another, where labour becomes “an appendage of the machine.”
In the bourgeoise society, as per Marx: “The bourgeoise has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.”
This is descriptive of the socioeconomic framework used by communists to assess any social system, any civilization and country. But does this framework fit every country and every civilization? Not exactly, as we shall see.
The concept of:
antagonistic classes (that too, only two classes)
centralized means of production
ownership of property in a few hands (bourgeoise)
conversion of human beings into nothing more than a commodity as labour
expansion of commerce and communication via colonization
reduction of families to a mere money-based institution, meant for producing more labour
are some of the key foundational principles of the communist framework of analysis of any text on a civilization. These are, in a sense, some key assumptions in Marx’s worldview, which are assumed as given for every civilization around the world. The interpreters of Marx’s works apply these assumptions blindly everywhere. Not only do these assumptions no longer hold today, they never had any basis as a sweeping assumption even at the time of writing of the text.
Below is an analysis of these assumptions, taking into account the Hindu view and society. Since most of the Marxist critiques focus on the Hindu society, rather than the entire Indian society at large, that is what is discussed in this write up:
Classes and the Hindu Society
When it comes to Hindu texts, these underlying assumptions about a society are entirely flawed. “Classes” did not exist in the Hindu society in the same form as the European society. The Hindu Varna vyavastha, falsely equated with “caste system” in Hindu civilization, worked symbiotically, not as “antagonist” as made out to be. Cherry picking of incidents to paint this narrative of antagonism between “castes” has been the most common argument used by communist historians. The fact remains, that there is sparse evidence to suggest a persistent antagonism between different sections of the society, leave alone between different castes.
The Marxist view also states that the history of society is the history of class struggles—between two classes. Marx assumed this basis the proletariat/bourgeois framework. But in Hindu society, there were four Varnas, all holding different positions in the society, and thousands of Jaatis. So, the binary principle of analysis falls apart. To force-fit the binary principles, Communists have coined the term of “Savarna” or “Upper Caste” and “Lower Caste” or “Dalits.” The terms “savarna” and “dalit” do not appear in any Hindu text. These are terms coined much later, in the twentieth century. The Varnas were different sections of the society, all distinct from each other, with different roles, rather than one collusion of “upper caste” and another “lower caste.”
Anachronism of Bourgeois
The essay of Marx was written at the time of early stages of the Industrial Revolution. Applying it backward to the Hindu civilization does not make sense, since the “bourgeois” and “proletariat” were the agents of the Industrial revolution, namely, in the mid-nineteenth century. Whereas, there was no such large scale industrialization in Indian subcontinent in the centuries preceding this period, to which this argument is often applied. It is illogical to say that the Brahmins or Vaishyas of, say, the 13th century, were equivalent of “bourgeois” and the Shudras were “proletariat,” and thus the ideals of Communism should be applied to them. In the 13th century, there was no such industrialization or capitalism or mass production of goods or wage labour. There were no machines, for humans to become “appendage to the machine.” The ignorance of Marx on the issue of organization of society before the 18th century is openly admitted by Engels. So, how can Marxist ideas possibly fit for a period & a civilization he had no knowledge of?
Decentralization of Power and Resources
In the Hindu civilization, each Varna was responsible for a different aspect of economy and governance. Knowledge was owned and taught by the Brahmins, power by Kshatriyas (who were the kings & their kinsmen), wealth was managed by the Vaishyas (the merchants). Property ownership in the Ganga Sarasvati civilization was not in the hands of the Kshatriyas, Brahmins or Vaishyas (“upper caste” as used by western scholars), but rather, in the hands of the Shudras. Thus, the supposedly “oppressed class” in the Hindu society was infact already land-owner and property owner. This setup was disturbed by the invaders and colonizers who wrested control of land and property out of the hands of the original land owners.
Thus we see that in most parts of India "the magic of property" is absent. But land is still greatly in demand, as it is the only investment of the lower classes, and its possession gives the owner a higher position among his castemen.—Economics of British India, Sir Jadunath Sarkar (1914).
As late as early 20th century, the land was owned by the “lower caste” who are described as zamindars by Jadunath Sarkar in his book. He asserts that ownership of land gave pride to the “lower class” “among their castemen”—meaning among the people of the same “caste.” Thus, there was no competition for land ownership among different castes, but rather only among the “lower caste.”
The Possibility of Elevation to Enlightenment/ Moksha
The entire focus of Hindu literature has been to elevate human beings to more than a human being, to realizing their own divinity, and realize enlightenment, Mukti, Moksha. In this sense, Hindu dharma is many steps ahead of even Abrahamic religions: it places a human being at par with “gods” and makes that status available to them. All Hindu scriptures highlight this, through the myriad sampradayas and paths. Thus, the question of reduction of humans to mere labour does not arise. Hindu shaastras give the methodology for burning your karma irrespective of your varna. Even work or actions are prescribed as a path to Moksha. Eg, in Bhagavad Gita:
बुद्धियुक्तो जहातीह उभे सुकृतदुष्कृते।
तस्माद्योगाय युज्यस्व योगः कर्मसु कौशलम् ।। 2.50।।
“The intelligent one relinquishes the effects of good and bad karma, and surrenders himself to (karma) yoga—yoga is perfection in action.”
So the work or actions are performed to give up bondages, and as a path to enlightenment.
Indians Were Colonized, Not Colonizers
Hindus in the Indian subcontinent were victims of the colonizers, impoverished and reduced to being the proletariat themselves (irrespective of “caste”). There cannot be any equivalence between capitalistic colonizers and any section of Hindu society, who were under siege for more than a century. So, even in the mid-nineteenth century, the Communist framework, which is against colonization, cannot be force-fitted into the Hindu society which in fact faced the detrimental effects of colonization.
No Materialism in Hindu Culture
The Hindu view is not materialistic from any angle. In Abrahamic religions, the highest possible that humans can achieve is also something materialistic—the promise of heaven with ultimate luxuries and comforts—in the afterlife, and the “grace of God” is meant to facilitate this achievement during your lifetime. So this is what they strive towards. Communism carries the same utopian idea in the ideological framework, even though it criticizes the capitalistic ideas of accumulating wealth through industrialization.
But in Hindu view, the highest to be achieved is Moksha, enlightenment, after discarding all worldly attachments. The different ashramas and varnas were meant to ease the transition from one phase of life to another. The family was a place to learn and imbibe values, and carry forward the knowledge of centuries to the next generation.
Communist Historians’ Interpretation of Hindu Texts
As such, when the Communist view of evaluating any Hindu text is used, it is flawed framework to begin with. A few of the works by Communist historians have been discussed below, to illustrate how these views are force-fitted on to Hindu texts and Hindu history, using flawed analogies and reasoning.
Kosambhi’s Folly
So, works of DD Kosambhi which level baseless accusations on the Bhagavad Gita, are entirely flawed, and are written with willful misinterpretation of the text:
“The main conclusion is surely the following: Practically anything can be read into the Gita by a determined person, without denying the validity of a class system. THE GITA FURNISHED THE ONE SCRIPTURAL SOURCE WHICH COULD BE USED WITHOUT VIOLENCE TO ACCEPTED BRAHMIN METHODOLOGY, TO DRAW INSPIRATION AND JUSTIFICATION FOR SOCIAL ACTIONS IN SOME WAY DISAGREEABLE TO A BRANCH OF THE RULING CLASS upon whose mercy the brahmins depended at the moment. That the action was not mere personal opportunism is obvious in each of the cases cited above. It remains to show how the document achieved this unique position.” — D D Kosambhi
He suggests that the Bhagavad Gita includes a “class system,” when Sri Krishna has lucidly explained the 4 varnas, based on karma, rather than societal positions or birth:
चातुर्वर्ण्यं मया सृष्टं गुणकर्मविभागशः ।
तस्य कर्तारमपि मां विद्ध्यकर्तारमव्ययम् ॥ ४-१३॥
cāturvarṇyaṃ mayā sṛṣṭaṃ guṇakarmavibhāgaśaḥtasya kartāramapi māṃ viddhyakartāramavyayam
“The four varnas have been created by Me based on Gunas and Karma. Though I created these, let it be known that I am the non-doer, untouched by any karma.”
Nothing in this verse implies segregation into “classes”, nor anything implies that the Brahmanas were superior or had some sort of a license to exploit any other varna. These are interpretations of translators who had no understanding of Hindu views to begin with.
Kosambhi has also claimed that the knowledge of Bhagavad Gita was reserved for only the “leisure class.” This is proven false multiple times within the Bhagavad Gita itself. One of the verses in which Sri Krishna says that he rewards each one based on what they seek:
ये यथा मां प्रपद्यन्ते तांस्तथैव भजाम्यहम् ।
मम वर्त्मानुवर्तन्ते मनुष्याः पार्थ सर्वशः ॥ ४-११॥
ye yathā māṃ prapadyante tāṃstathaiva bhajāmyahammama vartmānuvartante manuṣyāḥ pārtha sarvaśaḥ
“All who surrender to me, I reward them as they seek Me. They follow my path in all ways, O Partha.”
There are numerous such examples, where Kosambhi has misinterpreted Hindu sacred texts using a flawed framework of reasoning which does not hold any ground.
Many historians have taken similar flawed views and presented twisted analyses of Indian history. I will analyze and critically review such works one by one in my upcoming posts. To receive my future posts, consider subscribing to my Substack.
Further Reading:
Deconstructing D D Kosambi: Numbers Don’t Lie
Very nice article. So much misinformation is out there that it overlaps the true meaning of Vedas and Agamas and those misleading translations and interpretations is perceived as new "normal". One of most dangerous attacks by anti-hindu is attacks on our knowledge system, religious practices and sacred sentiments and promoting fake upper/lower "class" concept which have not existed in the first place. They are even creating infighting between sampradayas too. This only harms Sanathana Hindu Dharma even more too.