A materialist interpretation of Bhagawat Geeta
By V. M. Mohanraj.
2002
His qualification to write this book is not clear. In the preface the author regretted that no progressive (?) thinker attempted to explain Gita in materialistic terms. He seems to forget that not just progressives but a few CPI & CPM variety having did short or long studies on Gita in English and more so in Malayalam in the past. So he takes up the job as a progressive. Mohanraj mentions that he wrote a critique of Gita in Malayalam way back in 1953. He admits that depiction in that article of Krishna as a diehard reactionary upholder of Brahmanic values against progressive development of society. It might be the influence of the leftist Ranadive line the CPI followed at that time. He also says that after gap of four decades in 1997 he published another paper in NEW QUEST the journal of Indian Association for Cultural Freedom an outfit brought into being sometime in 50’s as a tail of the infamous Congress for Cultural Freedom an anti-communist forum created by the American CIA/FBI. Let it be so.
No harm to the NEW QUEST by printing a critique of Gita. Between the time of the two articles the author changed his thinking radically and made a complete U turn arguing for Krishna to be progressive spearhead of the emerging Aryan society, hovering between primitive communism and slavery. (I think that was the reason for NEW QUEST to print it) He comparesKrishna with Sun Yat-Sen and Kemal Ata Turk two social revolutionaries of 19th /20th centuries. This is preposterous since he comperes people of dissimilar periods and history. His admission of depicting Krishna as an arc reactionary and then a progressive has their basis. Krishna of Mahabharata could be both convincing and true. It is more so as the dispenser of Gita. There is little to prefer one against the other. From critique to devotee the author leaves his metamorphosis unexplained. He dispels having used the years to dwell more into the texts and or researching to establish the actual social context of the epic and the poem itself. In the preface itself Mohanraj confesses that his “proto history of man”….”is based solely on the book Ancient Society by Lewis H. Morgan” an American anthropologist, originally published in 1877 one and quarter century past. Ofcourse the work of Morgan was excellent and extraordinary considering that the science of anthropology was in its infancy. Engel’s Origin of Family, Private Property and State was an extension of Morgan towards Marxist ideology. But Engels seems to have had reservations as was reflected in one edition from Moscow. Further on that the works very few in number referred by Mohanraj to explain his position again are more than half a century past. Why did he not consider the phenomenal growth of anthropological, archaeological, sociological and connected literature readily available for his reference; is something very mysterious. For him Morgan is the only anthropologist to start with and to end up. Much of today’s scientific findings do not support the assumptions of Marxist materialistic readings of pre and proto historic societies. I don’t think that this belittles theoretical Marxism but enriches un-dogmatic thinking.
1. SOURSES: Facts and Fiction.
The author makes a very short summary of the main Mahabharata story and goes on arguing for the historicity of the story as well as the war being a decisive factor that finally turned against the primitive communist society into a full fledged slave society. The claim that the story of Mahbharata is part history and part myth has no meaning. Mahabharata is just fiction and citing it as an itihas has not made it a history. There must be one or another historical incident depicted but to spot and separate them is impossibility. Just like most of the others who tried to fix the present format of the epic as prior to 500 AD (thru inscriptions) Mohanraj also affirms it. He quotes every other reference than Bhagawat Gita from secondary sources. This is the biggest drawback of this book.
2. ANCESTORS: Historical Background.
In this part the author starts with generalising Morgan. Incidentally he mentions known hypothesis about Harappan era. If Harapans were on the threshold of changing from primitive communism to slavery, the same is not spelt with any evidence. Instead we are asked to believe that the Vedic people (Aryan is a wrong name) were communistic tribes that also has no valid evidence in support.
All other portions in this part are so many conjunctures and diversions from the theme of the book. None of it adduces any social value to Gita itself. Of course he did not assert that the Aryan society at the time of their coming toIndia was at the stage of primitive communism but implied as much leaning upon L. H. Morgan.
3. THE POEM: Treatise on Ethics.
Here also the author is disseminating views expressed by others without any specific or valid critique. He is trying to say that though Bhagawat Gita is a mixed dish the message is on ethics rather than on philosophy or religion. Of course for a Hindu none of the three are separate or different.
In this part some of the reference is made about a “revolutionary change” from primitive communism to slave society but not elaborated. We are left wondering about where and when exactly the communes existed among the incoming Vedic Aryans. According to some the Aryan immigration was not a one time event. Large scale migrations took place at more time intervals between 2000 and 1000 BCE. They were pastoralists wandering place to place yet to settle as full agriculturalists. Still there is no evidence of communes as alluded and imagined by the author or some others of his persuasion. The Harappan was more advanced from agri settlements to urban cities. Mohanjo Daro, Harappa and all other cities were not some villages as the author seems to think. (Page 12)
4. PRSONEA: Mythical and Historical.
The Author Mohanraj meticulously elaborated the main story of Krishna fromconflicting sources to come to the conclusion that there was one Krishna deified earlier to 500 BCE quoting Panini. Since according to the author the Mahabharata was real and therefore the heroes of that war namely Krishnaand Arjuna were historical personnel. In all this, he just echoes others who studied the epic and Gita. There is nothing new that the author found and contributed. He started with saying that he is presenting his work because other progressives did not attempt a materialistic interpretation of B Gita. If that was the intention one is surprised to note that the author wasted half of his treatise on irrelevant recapitulation of the epics and puranas. The time gap between the age of Rigveda and purannas is more than a thousand years. The author should have collected and mastered evidence from all sources like anthropology, archaeology and sociology along with literary such as Rigveda in order to portray the society that existed in the then Indian continent. He should have followed the descriptions of changes occurring whether evolutionary or revolutionary in the society described in the epic at the time of the historic war and tell whether it was a true reflection or imagination. Instead of pursuing any such effort the author perused the story as known to all of us for long. We are not enlightened.
5. COUNSEL: A New Ethic.
This part should have been kept as introduction to the book and the earlier 4 parts comprising 60 pages out of 109 pages in all could have been dispensed with.
The part 5 goes up to page 74 thus the core of the book just comprises in parts 6 and 7 that spreads to 35 printed pages. The announcement about this publication said that it was a materialistic interpretation of Bhagawat Gita. It attracted me and may be many others as well with the hope that the work might be something new based on years of reading by lifelong librarian. But unfortunately the writer Mohanraj did not show any progress further than L. H. Morgan and yes, Com.Dange. Oh No. He claimed that he is far ahead of Dange on the same track. L. H. Morgan was original as anthropologist of his time. It was Engels who found Morgan’s work supports and amplifies the ideas of Marxist historical materialism. As stated earlier the author remained in the same place that he was occupying half a century past. Whatever might have happened to him between the times, his original depiction of Gita being the assertion of Brahmanical chauvinism remains true thru the present work despite the author’s protestations to the contrary. The author’s latest Krishnaalso vehemently upheld the values of Brahmin superiority all through B Gita. Not all these were mentioned and satisfactorily repudiated by the author. Instead the author find a great rational in the Dange’s interpretation of social progress (?) that is said to have been followed from the end of primitive communism to slave society.
6. BRAHMA: An Objective Reality.
This part consisting of 20 pages in the book is a rehash (charvita charvanam) of Dange followed by L.H.Morgan, Marx, Engels and a soviet author in support. The author who was quoting D.D.Kosambi earlier in appreciation suddenly feels shy of and magnifies Com. Dange the then CPI leader. Of course Dange had a firm grip on Vedic and other Sanskrit literature as well as in Marxist classics. But those were not sufficient to discuss the ancient Indian history in its historical perspective. However, in the fifties many of us unaware of the true facts of history intrinsically accepted the version propounded by Com.Dange.
In those days I myself sold copies of Dange’s book during weekly squad in Matunga area. Since I had Sanskrit educational background, I really appreciated Dange’s interpretation of Vedic terms and rituals. Later when the party started questioning the left deviation of B. T. Ranadive period self and many others realised how Marxism is as dogmatic as Vedic rituals. It was some point at that time CPI book-stalls started displaying non-party Marxist literature such as that of Dr. D. D. Kosambi’s. That was a revelation. Kosambi himself was an un-repented devotee of Lenin and Stalin. Developments since the end of world war II proved that most of what is propagated as official Marxism was a bunch of impractical clichés and confounded dogmas. Socialist construction in the Soviet Union turned to be monstrous, building war machines. The anti-imperialist liberation struggle all over the world degenerated into worst dictatorships except in case of India. Also many of the anti-imperialist movements proclaimed their affinity to some kind of Marxism influenced by Soviets.
The author did not mention the name of Malayalam weekly that is termed progressive. To my knowledge there was one CPI organ ie. Janayugam weekly and the other was Koumudi a weekly leaning towards RSP version of Marxism. I don’t remember having come across this article in those journals, which I was reading regularly on those days.
This part is entirely about commune and community production a theoretical exposition mainly based on L. H. Morgan followed by Engels. But the sole authority is Com. Dange as far as the ancient Indian society was concerned. One might have thought that the author has new evidences to buttress Dange’s through archaeological, anthropological or sociological research that has bloomed during the half of 20th century in order to explain the meanings of words BRAHMA and YAJNA in their materialistic terms. But no such evidence is brought into this book. He could have done better if he re-issued Dange’s book with his own introduction and editorial comments. There was no need to prop up B Gita for the purpose. Mohanraj thought otherwise and so be it.
It is ridiculous for Mohanraj to claim that all those sages scholars who defined Brahma by Neti, Neti and Yajna as several types of ritual sacrifices including the Vedic composers themselves were completely ignorant of their meanings and Com. Dange found them. May be a revelation? Several meanings adduced to Sayana (14th century) even by imputation could not be construed to mean as Dange did. The author could have probed Nirukta, Panini, Katyayana and Patanjali who were nearer to Vedic times and language. But Mohanraj did not undertake this minimum effort. Instead he stuck to Dange’s revelation.We have Sri Arabindo who claimed to have found new Vedic texts and Swaroopananda who captured Vedic Mathematics out of thin air. Dange’s Marxism did not allow him to claim so. We remember Dange’s son in-law Bani Deshpande discovering Marxism in Vedanta. Of course some post leftists have gone still further in their journey to the right. Cosmic Matrix by R. K. Mishra onetime editor of Link Weekly and Patriot Daily (both defunct) exhibits the same mindset.
According to the author the Aryan migration into India took place sometime between 2000 and 1000 or so BCE and the society was already past Primitive Communism stage and evolving to be a slave society. He failed to enlighten us as to whether the characteristics of Primitive Communist as per Marxism were to be found in the pre-Vedic Aryan society where and when. Was there a Primitive Communist stage to the Harrapan society? If so where and when? Mohanraj could have used so many published studies on the indo-Aryan problem and tried to spot the stage of development of society. Without any effort at this score Mohanraj wishes to inherit the Marxist dogmas propounded by Dange. What is most perplexing is that Dange himself failed to look into the eminent study titles ARYAN by Gordon Childe the famous Marxist, archaeologist and historian of vantage. Even today non-Marxists refer Childe with respect. In his scholarly treatise Childe went deep into unravelling the numerous tribes of Central Asia and Europe who could possibly or potentially the fore fathers of indo-Aryans who migrated to India. Nowhere G. Childe mentioned any of the potential indo-Aryans forming or living in a Primitive Communist society. But our author doesn’t’ see or care. Strange are the ways of dogmatists.
Among the latest publications one might refer to Vedic People by Rajesh Kochar a scientist, History of Early India by Romilla Thapar and a revised Ancient India by D. N. Jhah and none of them talk about a primitive communism or slave stage of Aryan society’s. N. Jhah is a pronounced Marxist and he lists Dange’s book in general bibliography but neither it is quoted in the text nor it is listed as reading material for specific chapters. So that is Dange’s contribution in writing Indian history.
A large part of Rig Vedic hymns consist of prayers to their favourite deities; Indra, Agni, Soma, Varuna, Maruts, Rudra etc. to beget in return cattle, grain and wealth. The word Brahma might have been used in Rigveda to the meaning given to it by Sayana but to conclude it being “commune” is the product of Dange’s fertile intellect to dowtail with his own vision of Marxism. It will be the limit of stupidity to discover Marxist historical materialism in the two Sanskrit words from the scripture. Thru reviving the almost forgotten Dange’s thesis Mohanraj is doing disservice to Marxist historiography as far as India is concerned. As stated earlier, there are innumerable studies authored by reputed anthropologists, archaeologists, sociologists, historians and lab tests. There are general and specific studies including a good lot on indo-Aryans. To my knowledge they are based on material evidence and methodology fit to it. They are not Marxist but should help Marxists to understand historical societies. None of them talked about Primitive Communistic society anywhere.
The matriarchy that is supposed to have prevailed in pre-historic societies is found to be very rare and specific to certain groups. Matriarchy in Kerala was a too late phenomenon and not intrinsic. Polygamy prevailed in the past but polyandry was rare. Wives and husbands in common are simply myths, where it is found might have other explanations to it.
As per the author whatever might be the date of Mahabharata war it heralded a crisis in existing society, a society in transition from primitive communism towards slavery. The process was a long one may be a thousand years. The war culminated in favour of emerging slave society. I think, this is the essence of the materialistic interpretation of Mahabharata and B Gita advocates ethics suited to the slave society. Now a question. Who or which party amongst the combatants i.e. Kouravas and Pandavas represented the past or the present? As an afterthought one may conclude that Kouravas are from the past and Pandavas won the present. But Mohanraj finds and explain that Arjuna did uphold the values of the past and Krishna thru his Gita converted the former to the “New values” i.e. the values of Kaliyuga. The epic comes to his support that the Dvapara ended and Kali took over thereafter. What about others on Pandava’s side? How did they accept the “New values” of Kali?
If the real meaning of the epic is as stated then Krishna should not have praise for “Brahma” the commune and “Yajna” the collective mode of production. His extortions to Arjuna and thru him to all mankind to strive for and attain the state of “Brahma” and also call to conduct “Yajnas” in order to sustain “Brahma” are incongruous indeed. The materialistic interpretation needs marshalling all round evidences from all sources and not just two words. The author failed abjectly, in his proclaimed aim of uncovering the materialistic foundations of Bhagawat Gita. He almost says that believe me, I am speaking the truth. On my own I cannot appreciate his faith and the book will be forgotten as in the case of Dange’s.
Finally the arguments favoured by Mohanraj bring grist to the mill of obscurantist Hindutva forces unwittingly. Since Vedic society is portrayed at the stage of transition from primitive communism, the formation must be still older to Indus Harappan societies. Thus the pre-Vedic era to be ante dated and span to not less than 5000 years BCE. I think that the author did not take into consideration the consequence of his arguments. I recollect that on his last days of public life Com. Dange accepted felicitations from Shiva Sean a rabid communalist and anti-communist outfit in Bombay. The SS has a long record of murderous assaults on the communist trade unions and workers nurtured by Com. Dange; the heinous being the cold blooded murder of Com. Krishna Desai.
However, one wonders about the aim and motivation of the publisher Left Word Books to undertake the task. There must be some compelling reasons behind it which is not comprehensible to simple mortals. I am not advocating any anti-Marxist or anti-communist ideology in this note. I would like to see Marxist and communist intellectuals to learn and absorb all the knowledge available to them in this 21st century as Marx and Engels did in their times. When you start working on your favourite subject please look back into the works of Marx and Engels for the references cited in them. That is where one should learn one’s Marxism.
By K. N. Krishnan.
