Raktim Ghosh
The issue of Identity versus class politics, has taken on quite a seriousness in the third camp of the ‘small but not insignificant’ clans of Bengal. The advent of neoliberal economics has thrown up some unresolved questions before everyone. And one of those questions is that of identity. However, neoliberal economics is not the origin of identity politics. But yes, the question of identity versus class politics has become very relevant, as never before. It is neo liberalism that has pitted one against the other. The aim, of course, is to reject class struggle.
I would say that to pit one against the other has been a part of what is commonly called left-wing politics since long back. I am not going to dwell on that history for the time being, but there was already a tendency to view and limit the class struggle from a narrow and mechanical point of view. This trend has been intensified by the blessings of neo-liberalism. In fact, we seem to have been caught in their trap. Perhaps we can opt for a dialectical relation between the two rather than pit one against the other.
Many Marxist and even revolutionaries negate the dalit question as it represents identity and is supposed opposed to the pure class question. Whether one likes it or not the inhumanity of the so called untouchables exists in India. Some say this is nothing but a class questions of landlord vs agricultural labourers. The specificity of caste oppression is ignored. This is particularly to be seen in the northern belt which has not seen social reform movements like those of Phule, Periyar and Ambedkar, not to mention the powerful bhakti movements against caste.
In the particular circumstances of the history of the subcontinent, class, identity and the state structure have emerged in an inter-related manner. Particular attention must be paid to their roots. At the same time, we can try to understand their development and their appearance as they exist today. Then, perhaps, on the one hand, it will be easier to understand the relationship between class and identity and on the other, it will be easier to understand what to do.
At the moment, it is not possible to go into this in-depth. A few things will be discussed briefly here. One, Aryavarta is the original source of identity politics in the subcontinent. Second, brahmanism and imperialism are the two enemies of the Indian people. And three, is it the duty of today’s class politics to acknowledge identity or oppose it?
ANCIENT IDENTITY POLITICS OF THE SUBCONTINENT
The area which the Brahmins considered to be their territory, they called it Aryavarta. Aryavarta means the land of the Brahmins. The word Arya does not mean ‘race’ here. But yes, it is an idea of a prominent person or a gentleman.
Aryans are basically a language group. From the Steppe region, these people spread out to different regions. But it wasn’t just one group of people. There were different groups. And from the point of view of linguistics, it will be seen that the social customs and behaviour of all these groups were not the same. Grierson calls some of these groups the ‘Inner Group’. The groups he is identifying as the ‘Inner Group’, are quite conservative. They are called conservative because they do not go for any marriage outside their own community. They marry only within their own community. They strictly follow this. Such groups were quite rigid on the question of establishing social relations and about their language. Since they did not marry outside, there was no mixing between them and the local population. Therefore, genetic experiments showed that the mixing of their genes with the local population did not happen. But this is not the case for those whom Grierson calls the “Outer Group”, because they were much less adamant about getting married outside their community.
This difference in conservatism among the Aryan groups has been imprinted in their genes. At the same time, conservatism regarding language is also seen in the people of the ‘Inner Group’. Outer group people are much more liberal on the question of language. And the differences in language and genetic conservatism can also be found in ancient literature. This conservatism is seen in the case of Aryavarta and Mleccha Desh.
Mahabhashya is one of the most famous books of Sanskrit grammar. The author of the book is Patanjali. The book was written around 150 BC. In this book, Patanjali writes, “Which is the country of the Aryans? Wherever Saraswati disappears, the country of the Aryans is its eastern region. It is located in the western part of the Kalaka forest. It is situated in the south of the Himalayas and in the north of the Pariyatra Mountains.” That is, Saraswati is in the West Punjab region. And the Kalaka forest has always been considered to be situated at the junction of the Ganges-Jamuna. So in the east is the Ganges-Jamuna doab area. In the north, there are the Himalayan Mountains. To the south of it are the Vindhya Mountains. The area in the middle is the land of the Aryans. More precisely, those who are conservative among the Aryan language groups have their own designated territory. We know this area as Aryavarta.
Aryavarta is roughly the area of the Ganges-Jamuna doab. And this is supported by the Bodhayana Dharmasutra and the Vasistha Dharmasutra. According to Olivelle, these two Dharmasutras were written in the post-Patanjali era. If this assumption is true, then the area east of the Ganges-Jamuna doab remained alien to the conservative Aryans or Brahmins for some time after 150 BCE. In that case, it should be understood that eastern Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Bengal were foreign to them. Obviously during 150 BCE, even for a while. I forgot to mention that the concept of Brahman and the rise of Brahmanism can be traced back to the conservative Aryan languages of the subcontinent. Why do I think this, now I will talk about that?
According to the discussion so far, if we consider the Ganges-Jamuna Doab area as Aryavarta, then it is very much in line with the results of the research of Grierson and Southworth. According to their research, the conservative ‘Inner Linguistic’ group of the Aryan language group was located in the north-central region of the subcontinent. And the ‘Outer Linguistic’ group of the Aryan language group was located in the western, southern and eastern regions of the subcontinent. In this respect, the position of the Brahmins and the conservative Aryans coincides with that of the Aryavartas.
Thus, the rise of the Brahmins can be inferred from the conservative Aryan language community. One more important point has to be remembered in this context. As I said a little earlier, Patanjali’s period is 150 BCE. At that time, the location of the Indo-European Aryan languages was not confined to the Aryavarta. To the east of what Patanjali speaks of Aryavarta, i.e., further east of the Ganges-Jamuna doab, the Indo-European Aryan language group has spread. There is even an urbanization process had been seen during 500 BCE. What we call the period of the rise of the Mahajanapadas.
MAURYAN EMPIRE & BUDDHISM
Beyond the geographical location of the Aryavarta region, the Maurya Empire developed across the subcontinent. The period is from 322 to 180 BC. The geographical identity of this region is Magadha. Buddhism and Jainism emerged in the region between the 7th and 5th centuries BCE. The four caste divisions in society were put forward as far back as the Vedic period starting 1500 BC. But, according to Ambedkar, untouchable castes appeared in about 450 CE at the peak of the struggle between Buddhism and Brahminism.
So in this case, it can be clearly assumed that the people of this Aryan language group outside Aryavarta are the people of the ‘Outer Linguistic’ group of the Aryan language group. Just as Grierson and Southworth’s study showed. And we have already studied that the people of this Outer Language Community have intermarried with the local people. Thus, outside the Brahmanical culture and the Aryavarta region, there was a massive expansion of civilization, including urbanization, in the subcontinent.
But the Brahmins or the conservative Aryans continued to expand their Aryavarta boundaries from this period onwards. That is, they were spreading outside the previous area. The Manav Dharma Shastra or Manusmriti, written sometime before the third century, talks of the expansion of Aryavarta from sea to sea. The land between the Himalayas and the Vindhyas, stretching from the east to the west sea, is called Aryavarta by the wise men. So the biggest change in the period between the Mahabhashya and the Manusmriti is that the Brahmins were forced to accept Magadha as part of Aryavarta! Why did they accept it? I will come to that discussion in due course.
Another word has also been used in ancient times to refer to the entire subcontinent. But it’s not just about the area of Aryavarta. The term was first used in Buddhist literature. Later it also came in Brahmanical literature, but that is not the case. The word Jambudvipa, or the vast subcontinent it refers to, was not in the mind of the Brahmins themselves. It was in the minds of the people of Magadha and in Buddhist thought.
Let us see which region is referred to as Bharat in the Brahmanical literatures after the Manusmriti. Let us take the example of Vishnu Purana. According to R.C. Hazra, the Vishnu Purana was composed between 275 and 325 CE. Such, the Vishnu Purana is a slightly later or nearly contemporary work of the Manusmriti. However, according to researcher Wendy Doniger, its date of composition is 450 AD. In this case, a little later information about the Manu Samhita can be found in this work. According to the second chapter of the Vishnu Purana, there are Kiratas in the east of India and Yavanas in the west. In the middle country or in the middle there are Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras. There they perform their duties, such as sacrifice, weapons, trade, and service.
That is, the authors of the Vishnu Purana speak of a particular Brahmanical model of society. The place where such a system belongs is called India. The area outside this society is not India, according to them. That is, although the word Bharat comes in place of Aryavarta, it does not come in the sense of a subcontinent in the writings of the Brahmins. Rather, India means Madhya desha, where they have settled themselves. More specifically, there is Kuru and Panchal janapadas belongs to Madhya desha. The social system here is ideal for Brahmin writers. It is bounded on the east by Kamrup and on the west by Saurashtra and the dwellings of the Avir people. That is, although anonymous, the idea of Aryavarta still serves as a model in the thinking of the Brahmins.
There is more on this subject. It is understood that the Brahmins determined the map on the basis of their position. Therefore, it may be seen from the positional point of view that Pundra, Kalinga and Magadha are said to be located in the south according to Vishnupurana itself. And there are a number of tribes that are said to be located in the west in terms of their fixed geographical location in the north or in the north-west. These tribes are Shakalbasi, Salva, Madra, Hun, Saindhava. The matter of direction is not important from the point of view of geography, but is connected with the cosmological concept of the Brahmins. But what we do know is that even at the time of the writing of the Vishnu Purana, the Brahmanas could not accept Pundra, Kalinga and Magadha as their territories. Although Manu Smriti has already declared the area of Aryavarta from sea to sea. But in the real sense, all these areas did not become Brahmins yet.
And it is not as if the Brahmins meant the whole of Indian population when they meant the Bharati community. It refers to the children of Bharata lineage. A verse in the Vayu Purana says that India is made up of nine parts, and in the past this country was enjoyed by the descendants of Bharata, who are called Bharati. The Brahmins, however, have repeatedly referred to a particular clan as Indians. It probably comes from the conservative position of the Inner Aryan language family. The question of geographical identity is also related to the concept of preserving genetic purity.
THE SUNGA EMPIRE
What is the name of the first Brahmin king of India? Pushyamitra Sunga. He killed the last Mauryan emperor and started the Sunga Empire. The time of the event is 185 BC. The history of ancient India is being discussed up to this. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar described the rise of the Sunga Empire as one of the six glorious chapters of Indian history. He did, but Kalidasa betrayed his concept. No, he wrote all this in his play Malavikagnimitram. But he had given more information there. Pushyamitra Sunga did not establish his capital at Pataliputra after he dethrones the Maurya Empire. He did found his capital more west side from there at Bidisha. This place is located inside the ancient Aryavarta area. Apparently, it’s not just a coincidence. It is natural for the Brahmanical Empire to set up its capital in its own centre of power. There is nothing to do outside the Aryavarta.
In any case, what I want to say is that the Brahmins or the Aryans of the ‘Inner’ language group gave birth to an identity called Aryavarta in the subcontinent. And of course it’s geographical. It’s also a bit ‘racial’ because the question of the purity of blood was connected with this identity. Added to this was the idea of other cultural hegemony, such as food habits, language, etc. It is not discussed in this article. But another concept is that of the ideal society and state system has been added with this. A permanent structure of inequality. The name of this structure is varnashrama. After all, that’s their theory. The name of the actual practice of the caste system.
Divide the working people and rule them. And yes, since the Brahmin identity is also related to this concept of Aryavarta, it must also be called an identity. But all Brahmins are not the same. They were not considered as equal. Among the regions and cultures of Aryavarta, those whose origins are ancient were and are considered to be the true Brahmins. So, the place of basic identity is not Brahman. Another thing is that Brahman is not equal to Brahmanism.
What do I mean by the term Brahmanism?
No, I don’t mean the caste system. The caste system is certainly a part of Brahmanism, but it is not the only identity of Brahmanism. Brahmanism is the concept of domination. Brahmanism is the philosophy of state-building and state-governance in this hegemonic environment in a certain part of the subcontinent. It’s the philosophy of purity and treating some as inferior, and later, even untouchables. Nowhere in the world has such an oppressive philosophy evolved. Is this philosophy rooted in India? In Harappa? Or did this philosophy come from outside with the conservative part of the Aryan language community? We can talk about it, but it’s not important at present. Whether its source is sub-continental or so-called foreign, if this thing is produced from different sources, the appearance of the cocktail in combination has taken place here in the soil of this sub-continent. This philosophy, along with the idea of racial supremacy, has taken root in the area known as Aryavarta. We have already discussed the geography of the area. The idea of creating a ‘model state’ in India (subcontinent) is also coming from that region. It has been so successful that till today it is this area that is the fountainhead of Brahminism that has not seen any social reform movement, like in most other parts of India.
However, the first state or empire in the subcontinent did not start from here but from the Magadha region. The ideology of that empire or that state was different. In that state also there was class exploitation, class division. But the model of this Brahmanical state stood on the criterion of racial purity and is based on generation after generation permanent division of labor. The same type of division will be permanent according to this ideology. And on the basis of division of labor, the divided group or subgroup can only marry among themselves. Permanent settlement to maintain racial purity. Another feature of this state is the philosophy of patriarchy. Women are nothing other than a tool for producing children. To maintain hereditary purity, therefore, it is the rule and custom of this system to control the girls. Although it is more or less the same in all systems, but the special thing here is that in this question the division between those who have the ownership of society and the state and those who do not have anything in their hands, have the same division on the question of women. Here the main issue is, maintaining the purity of the clan in the hands of those who have power in their hands. The daughters of those who have nothing are almost always considered to be open as a consumer of the powerful. Moreover, there is a tendency to bring different regional variations under the control of one center. It’s not a trend. But it’s not just political; it’s also social and cultural. Creating a totalitarian state, a society where the powerful rule for generations and the powerless serve them.
Now the question arises, if Brahmanism is so totalitarian, how is it that there is so much diversity, language, culture, religion in the entire subcontinent exists till today? The answer is only one and that is by class struggle. Is that a good answer? Seems no. But in the end, that’s what it is. I will not give a detailed answer in this article. Let me just say that despite the totalitarian philosophy of the subcontinental state system, Brahmanism has been strongly prevented from swallowing the subcontinent, despite receiving all kinds of support and support from the ruling class. Every region, every culture, every language has resisted Brahmanism.
As an example, let us take the idea of Begumpura that emerged from the Bhakti movement. The city where there is no sadness or sorrow. Where there is no discrimination. Both economic and social. Many such ideas have emerged across the subcontinent to resist Brahminical aggression. In what language we may call this resistance? Will it be called as the utopian socialism of this subcontinent?
Recognition or opposition which will be correct approach about identity?
Aryanism is certainly a European construct, but the idea of racial purity in the subcontinent is thousands of years old. What is surprising is that in contact with imperialism, that idea will get water and fertilizer and will take the form of political Hindutva. That’s what actually happened. Modern Brahmanism, the strategic partner of imperialism, was born. The aim is to create a Hindu-Hindi-Hindustan. One nation, one language, one religion. The idea of Hindustan here is very similar to that of Aryavarta. The rule of racially pure people ensures by wiping out others, all non-Hindus and lower castes. Of course, the fun of the Brahmanical philosophy is that with the change of state power, it can introduce new enemies and at the same time legitimize the exploitation of those exploiters while diverting attention from the fact that exploitation is taking place. Therefore, British imperialism or the imperialist masters of neo-liberalism, all rely on the philosophy and practice of Brahmanism according to their time and needs.
The politics of identity cannot be denied even if it is not respected. The politics of innumerable identities in all parts of the subcontinent stands against the politics of a single identity of the Brahmins. But in many ways they are at odds with each other. Why? Because of the divide and rule policy of Brahmanism. Keep Hindi-Hindu-Hindustan intact and provoke fights between Bengalis with Biharis, Assamese with Bengalis, Hindus with Muslims, hills with plains, Meiteis with Kukis, working women with working men (not patriarchy), OBCs with Dalits; not to mention the inbuilt divisions of caste pitting one against the other and all against the Dalits.Hindu-Hindi-Hindustan is also the land of colonial exploitation and plunder. The oldest model of divide and rule.
It is your choice what to call Brahmanism. The name is not important. But against the center of exploitation there are various resistant identities. How to connect the reality of this identity with the class question, if the discussion is in that direction, wel it it not be a little easier to find a solution?
Bibliography
Ray, Niharranjan. Bangalir Itihas Adi Parva. Dey’s Publishing. Sixteenth edition. Baishakh, 1427.
Bronkhorst, Johannes. How the Brahmins Won: From Alexander to the Guptas , Brill. 2016.
Chattopadhyaya, Brajadulal. Studying Early India: Archaeology, Texts, and Historical Issues . Permanent Black. 2003.
Chattopadhyaya, Debiprasad. Religion and Society. Ma-Le Prakashana. 1987.
Chakrabarti, Kunal. Religious Process: The Puranas and the Making of a Regional Tradition . Oxford University Press. 2001.
Joseph, Tony. Early Indians: a Story of Our Ancestors and Where We Came From . Juggernaut Books. 2018.
Chattopadhyaya, B.D. The Concept of Bharatavarsha and Other Essays . Sunny Press. 2018.
Knock nock 
Leave a comment