Marx on Religion and Caste

Past few months have demonstrated that the people can have delusional happiness by not only consuming narcotics but also consuming news about it[1]. For many of us, it also reminded Karl Marx’s metaphorical use of it. In the present situation, it’s rather intriguing how this narcotic is so closely interlinked with a religious right-wing government and with all its shenanigans literally and figuratively.

When you see some of the Hindu sects/groups consuming opium as part of the religious traditions, one could almost make a comment that it’s a literal demonstration of Marx’s irreligious observation. It’s as if some people have understood all they need is the stimulation of neurotransmitters to experience god. This psychedelic expression is observed in other religions too. 

Sufi Islam’s obsession with wine and women as manifestations of god experience, the trance that is found in many religions, are probably some of the other examples. These are extreme cases of religions but in general every ritualization serves the same purpose. In some parts of India, rituals have been infantilized with activities like keeping the dolls or enacting child’s games with the deity. Some religious people would explain it as the literal expression of the philosophical understanding that the world is a theatre and humans are dolls in a puppet show. Overlooking the fact that gods are part of the puppets(or the only puppets, it’s as if tit for tat puppet show), we may find that (which is true for any explanation of god or ritual) the philosophical understanding itself is limited by the knowledge of man-made institutions. While we can dismiss religious people’s unmethodical explanations, one would wonder whether Marx was thorough in his observation or not.

It probably ambitious of me to criticize Marx without fully understanding his structural-functionality approach to Socialism, but I believe, I can point out the variables he might have overlooked before making the observations on religion.

Before venturing into religion, I should comment on the other area where I feel his observation failed completely, the caste system. According to Marx[2]:

“the caste system of India was based on the hereditary division of labour, which was inseparably linked with the unchanging technological base and subsistence economy of the Indian village community.”

It’s true that many castes are occupation based. However, it’s strictly not division of labour in Adam Smith’s terms. Here the division of labour is intra-caste than inter-caste. Also, the division of the occupation is hierarchical than isolationist. Privileged castes could take up other occupations without the loss of their caste. The unchanging technological base and subsistence economy were the results of the caste system than the foundations. However, the biggest drawback was that, Marx didn’t understand that the foundation was purity and pollution rules as correctly observed by many Indian sociologists. Even Gandhi, with all his casteist biases understood this fact and tried things like cleaning the toilets. I consider Marx’s theory on the caste system is flawed mainly because the dogmatic Marxists of India failed miserably when it comes to the caste system. The class system is part of the caste system, however, in India, the class struggle has no meaning without the caste struggle. I would even say, the class struggle is irrelevant in Indian society. Marx correctly observed how the caste system degenerated the Indian society. However, it should have been up to the Indian Marxists to come out with a proper explanation on the foundation of the caste system based on their direct experience than building upon the Marx’s flawed theory. I believe this lack of direct experience or feeling about the caste system in Marx’s theory can also be observed in his views on religion.

The main variable that Marx missed about religion was ‘identity’. He only talked about ritualization, but failed to notice how religious identity also plays a big part as it is the only basis for pride or self-worth for many people. Marx missed this point as religious identity didn’t play any part in his life. 

Marx’s father converted to Catholicism from Judaism to overcome the oppressive limitations enforced by the Christian government. As an oppressed community, many Jews would have strongly clung to the religious identity as an act of defiance. But for Marx’s family, a religious identity by itself was irrelevant. It should be noted that Marx’s father too was a revolutionary for a liberal society. His pragmatism was based on enlightened view about the religious identity than the opportunist turn. With this background, it’s no wonder that Marx didn’t see religious identity as a matter of pride or shame. Religion not only provides illusory happiness but also illusory pride. This aspect is missed completely in his observation about religions.

[1] https://scroll.in/article/972593/rhea-chakraborty-arrest-shows-how-india-sees-drug-addiction-as-moral-failing-not-the-illness-it-is

[2] https://www.cpim.org/marxist/200203_marxist_caste&class_jbando.htm

Creating Diversionary Gods

In one place, Hindutva is trying to create a god out of Ambedkar by continuously shouting that the Congress committed blasphemy against him and on the other hand, it’s jailing Dalit scholars who embody Ambedkar’s intellectual outlook in the public life. This zeal to make Ambedkar a hallowed figure who should have been respected more is a diversionary tactic. Most of our gods serve the same purpose.

Ambedkar was a scholar who once observed drily that both Gandhi and Jinnah had been made demigods by Hindus and Muslims respectively. For him, that kind of personality cult was detrimental to society in general. Now, of course, the question is, can there be any good in this? Gandhi as a representative of a pacifist god who fought against colonial slavery or, Jinnah as a secular god (since that was what he wished for Pakistan after dividing the country in the name of religion), could have made any difference?

We do know that neither of them turned into such gods. Basically, the personality cult is created by the followers and it’s their idea how a person needs to be worshipped that creates the legacy (unlike the godmen/women who create their own personality cults). Many rationalists and social scientists have opined that creating gods has been beneficial for the dominant classes as they could control the common people with a system called religion. However, in many cases, the gods or spirits come from the lower strata of society. How does that fit here?

In my region, we propitiate many spirits whose origins were from lower castes or women who suffered. According to Marxist historians (or at least a Marxist historian from Kerala), it’s a way for the underprivileged castes to create a safe space for themselves from the oppressing privileged castes. We have Kordabbu, a Dalit who suffered because of the casteism becoming a ‘daiva’(spirit) or Siri, a woman who suffered because of the patriarchal (even though the region was matrilineal) oppression becoming a ‘daiva’. Did Dalits and women get their safe space in old times because they had these spirits guarding them? A laughable conjecture. In fact, the privileged caste males had easily assimilated those worship within their religious sphere and actually oversaw them. The worship is not about the suffering but about the miracles or materialist betterment or about the basic fears of infertility and diseases. None of these has anything to do with societal drawbacks that led to the sufferings of those people and which continued to oppress the majority of the population.

Could Kordabbu have been a more effective spirit? What if the power of the spirit was in protecting people who suffered caste oppression or in punishing people for the caste oppression? Would that have put doubts in the privileged caste men? Would that have brought down the caste system?
In the story of Siri, she was conned and made to fend for herself by the menfolk. She was attacked too. However, while she suffered the material loss, she didn’t get raped. She performed a miracle and escaped from the situation (or punished the men). I suppose a tragedy figure because of physical and material suffering was acceptable to become a spirit but getting raped would have made her impure and she would never have been treated as a spirit. I wonder if we have any spirits who were raped. Could they have been effective spirits against the sexual attacks against women? Could Siri have been more effective as a daiva against abusive men?

Neither Kordabbu nor Siri as spirits could change the system that made them suffer in the first place. As I discussed previously, in the folk story of Mangale, she renounced the privileged life to be with her love. However, Brahmanical narrative has turned her into a materialist goddess(who in the earlier days was worshipped as a spirit) for the aspirational class. Whatever might be the origin of these spirits, the later narratives were created by privileged men. Whatever might be the identity and background of those spirits, now they speak the privileged tongue. The privileged men could never understand or identify with the caste or women oppression as they themselves were oppressors and more importantly hugely benefited from it. And for generations they knew that they got away with it, so it’s inconceivable for them that any spirit would punish them for those atrocities. Their fear and desire were related to wealth, health and security which they had, unlike the underprivileged ones.

The Marxist theory that religion for privileged men is a way to control society and for underprivileged people is a way to create a safe space for them is only half-truth. In reality, religious space has always been controlled by privileged men. They allow a token identity for the underprivileged in their sphere to give them an illusion of dignity.

This is the same game plan being played by Hindutvites. Ambedkar’s natural heirs are the intellectuals and scholars of the Dalits. Ambedkar’s true spirit lives in them. However, Hindutva wants to suppress them but wants to create a god out of Ambedkar for the aspirational class Dalits to give them a token identity. I wonder if they will succeed or not.

Tragedy of Mangale

As with most of the Hindu festivals, the celebration of Navaratri and Vijayadashami varies from place to place. While this is not a surprising feature as each region had their own unique traditions and ethos which were subsumed in the caste system, the interesting part is how the stories/myths are interpreted at later time. Today is supposedly Mangala Devi’s day (the city of Mangaluru was named after this goddess).

The legend of Mangale (or Pingale) that I know is as follows. Mangale was a queen of some Malayali kingdom in Malabar(northern Kerala). The kingdom was described as ‘Pramila Rajya’ (ruled exclusively by women). She fell in love with a disciple of Machchendranatha, exponent of the Natha cult. As these were ascetics, she renounced her kingdom, followed them to Tulu region as a common woman. In due time, she gave birth to two children. One day, when Machchendranatha was doing penance, he was disturbed by the loud noise of the children playing. He asked his disciple to calm them down so he could concentrate. The disciple felt that the children were a nuisance to his guru and so he murdered them by smashing their heads against a boulder. Mangale, when she came to know the death of her children, was broken-hearted and died. She was deified by the local people.

The story of Mangale was basically a tragedy. By present day standards, one could fault her for falling for a patriarchal man even though she was from a matrilineal/matriarchal group. But it all depends on between sacrifice for love or sacrifice for identity, which, one views as a nobler cause. The deification of such tragedy figures was generally a defining feature of underprivileged castes who recognized tragedy more than they could recognize triumph. Generally, the popularity of such local divine figures ensured their entry into the caste Hinduism. But as usual even this also got reinterpreted according to Brahmanical ethos.

You can read the Brahmanical version here. Apart from the mandatory Parashurama entry, one can observe that there is hardly anything about the deity itself. Then there is a patriarchal bit about finding 'good husbands'. When I read about the description of this goddess in a forwarded message recently, I felt the write up was commissioned by Jewelry shop owners.  It describes how resplendent she is with all the decorations, wearing a crown, full jewelry and a pink sari in those ten days of the festival. Mangale, in the above legend where she did have a back story, had renounced everything to be with her love.

The Natha cult, I suppose, wasn't part of the Vedic tradition. So the story I heard would be most likely the version they created. The bare bones story could be an unknown woman losing her children violently and dying in sorrow. Such tragic figures are deified in the local traditions. I wonder whether the purity of their pain makes them special. But this is not the story the descendants of those local people of bygone era would like to know.

I suppose Max Weber, pioneer in Sociology, observed that the descendants of the privileged people view the past with nostalgia whereas descendants of the oppressed people look to the future with sehnsucht. But when I read the forwards sent by the underprivileged castes, brainwashed by Hindutva, I don’t see sehnsucht but the nostalgia of the privileged castes. The tragedy of Mangale continues.

Development of World Religions - 1st Draft