Understanding the Indian Revolution through the Lens of Gramsci

There is a long-standing question being debated within Indian Marxist movements: In India, should it be class revolution first? Or annihilation of caste first?

There is no simple answer to this question. This is because Indian society, unlike European capitalist societies, is not structured merely on a class basis. Here, class and caste are historical realities deeply intertwined with one another. To understand this complexity, the ideas of the Italian Marxist thinker Antonio Gramsci—especially his concepts of "Cultural Hegemony" and "War of Position"—prove to be immensely useful.

Antonio Gramsci

Economic Base and Cultural Hegemony

According to the fundamental explanation of Marxism, the economic base of a society determines its superstructure, which includes politics, religion, law, and culture. However, Gramsci raised a crucial question: Despite the existence of economic exploitation, why did the people not spontaneously engage in revolution?

His answer to this was the concept of "Cultural Hegemony." The ruling class establishes its dominance not merely through the violent apparatuses of the state, but within the very minds of the people. Institutions like schools, religious organizations, family, media, art, and literature function as tools that reproduce this dominance. Therefore, Gramsci emphasized that a struggle for political power alone is insufficient; an ideological and cultural struggle to transform the consciousness of the people is absolutely essential.

Another concept of Gramsci is equally important here—the "War of Position." Before launching the final assault to capture power, a prolonged ideological struggle must be waged within the educational, cultural, and social institutions of society. His warning was clear: any power captured without this preparation—even if victorious—cannot sustain or stabilize the social transformation. 

This is profoundly relevant to a complex society like India.

The Uniqueness of the Indian Context

Gramsci did not write directly about the Indian caste system. However, we can utilize his framework to comprehend Indian society. In India, caste is not a mere problem of the superstructure; it is deeply embedded within economic life.

Questions like: Who owns the land? Who remains landless laborers? Who attains education? Who penetrates the structures of power?—yield answers that are heavily caste-dependent in most places.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar perceived this from another angle. In his seminal work Annihilation of Caste, he pointed out that it is not merely economic interests that sustain caste, but ideological forces—such as religion and scriptures (shastras)—that protect it from within. This perspective shares a deep resonance with Gramsci's concept of cultural hegemony. Both thinkers arrived at the same conclusion through different trajectories: economic change alone is inadequate; an ideological transformation must happen concurrently.

Thus, in India, caste is simultaneously an economic relation, a social relation, and a cultural relation.

The Argument for "Caste Annihilation First"

Thinkers aligned with Ambedkar and Periyar argue that without shattering caste identities, class solidarity cannot be forged. 

There is an inherent truth in this argument. A worker or a peasant is not only exploited economically but is also alienated from fellow working-class people through caste consciousness. In this sense, the anti-caste struggle becomes an indispensable component of revolutionary politics.

However, one cannot extrapolate from this that "caste annihilation must be completely achieved first, and only then should class struggle begin." This is because caste itself is continuously reproduced by the structures of economic and social dominance. Just as the class struggle cannot be complete without severing the ideological roots of caste, the annihilation of caste cannot be absolute without dismantling the economic system that nourishes those roots.

The Limitations of the "Class Revolution First" Argument

On the other hand, some believe that "once political power is captured, caste will automatically vanish." This approach, too, fails to explain the Indian reality comprehensively. 

Caste is not merely an economic relationship; it has permeated the daily lifeworld, religious beliefs, matrimonial relations, social customs, and psychological frameworks of individuals.

What transpired in post-independence India reminds us of what Gramsci termed a "Passive Revolution" (a revolution that appears to happen, but fundamentally does not). Under elite leadership, laws were amended and institutions were created; yet, the cultural hegemony of caste continued largely unaddressed. This proves that political power alone is insufficient.

The Indian Revolution in a Gramscian Perspective

This is precisely where Gramsci’s true contribution lies. He did not say, "Cultural revolution first, then political revolution." Nor did he say, "Think about culture only after capturing political power." In his view, the political struggle and the cultural struggle are two dimensions of the same historical struggle.

In the Indian context, this means: we must fight against class exploitation; we must fight against caste oppression; we must strive for economic equality; and we must shatter cultural hegemony. These are not alternatives to one another; they are complementary.

It is also vital to articulate the methodology of this struggle. Implementing and expanding caste-based reservations minimizes the friction and competition between castes, which in turn clarifies the class contradictions within each caste. Subsequently, structural changes like public/common housing will break spatial segregation, eroding the boundaries of endogamous marriages. This methodology serves as a strategy to confront both the caste structure and the capitalist class structure simultaneously.

The Necessity of a Cultural Front

For this reason, a revolutionary movement cannot function merely as a political organization. It necessitates a broad cultural front consisting of writers, poets, artists, teachers, and social critics. Gramsci referred to them as "Organic Intellectuals"—those who emerge from within the working class to forge ideological weapons for its liberation. This cultural front must undertake the task of purging the ideas of the ruling class from the minds of the people and cultivating a new consciousness of equality.

Conclusion

In India, the annihilation of caste and class liberation are not antithetical to each other. Without opposing caste, class solidarity cannot emerge. Without opposing class exploitation, the annihilation of caste cannot be absolute.

Therefore, the path of the Indian revolution is not a path of choosing between "caste first" or "class first." Rather, it must be a path that integrates the annihilation of caste and class liberation, political struggle and cultural struggle, economic transformation and social transformation. That is the paramount lesson we derive from Gramsci's philosophy for our Indian reality.

Ooran / Pon. Sekar