Keeladi is the Key to Indian History | Part 2

Upholding Keeladi is not about rejecting North India; it is not about destroying Vedic tradition; nor is it about creating a new chauvinistic ethnic pride.

Continued: Keeladi is the Key to Indian History

(An article originally published on the Makkal Athikaram portal)

Part 6: Keeladi — Literacy, Labor, and Urban Life

Keeladi should neither be exaggerated nor understated.

Keeladi is not the world’s first city. Nor is it India’s earliest civilization. However, it was no ordinary settlement either.

The Tamizhi (Tamil-Brahmi) script inscriptions found on potsherds are deeply significant. Writing is not merely a tool for literature; it functions to identify goods, record information, and facilitate socio-economic transactions and ownership.

Terracotta artifacts, beads, traces of textile manufacturing, architectural technology, and water management infrastructure demonstrate that the people who lived here did not merely accept nature passively—they actively transformed it to meet their material needs.

Among the artifacts unearthed at Keeladi so far, no massive temple structures or distinct religious institutions have been found. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that Keeladi was secular in character.

What archaeology does not show must not be claimed; equally, what was not found must not be invented. This is the foundational discipline of scientific history.

The concrete significance of Keeladi lies in:

• Evidence of widespread literacy;

• Evidence of technological advancement;

• Evidence of craft and industrial production;

• Evidence of urban planning;

• Evidence that compels us to re-evaluate the socio-economic history of Sangam-era Tamilakam.

Part 7: Romila Thapar — How to Read History?

It is natural for Romila Thapar’s name to arise in discussions about Keeladi. However, her approach should not be reduced to a political slogan; rather, it must be understood as a vital methodological caution in historiography.

Archaeology provides one set of evidence; literature provides another; linguistics another; and genetics yet another.

Each source has its own inherent limitations. Thapar’s contribution to historical methodology emphasizes that history must be written by synthesizing these diverse sources while carefully accounting for their internal contradictions and gaps.

The principle is straightforward: if a new archaeological discovery challenges an old historical premise, that shift must be embraced. Yet, at the same time, unproven assertions must not be declared as historical truths based solely on preliminary findings.

This must remain our scientific approach toward Keeladi.

Part 8: From Indus Valley to Keeladi — Continuity or Connection?

Scholarly hypotheses suggest that connections may have existed between the Indus Valley Civilization and the ancient cultures of South India. Ongoing research also explores the linguistic relationship between the Dravidian language family and the Indus script.

However, current archaeological evidence is not yet sufficient to conclusively state that "the Indus Valley people migrated directly to settle in Keeladi."

Acknowledging this clearly is not a sign of weakness—it is the very strength of science. Scientific integrity requires keeping an open research question as a question.

Yet, one fundamental truth remains unchanged: the Indus Valley existed. Subsequently, diverse regional urban developments emerged across different parts of the Indian subcontinent. South India witnessed its own distinct urban trajectory. Keeladi stands as paramount evidence of that southern urbanization.

Therefore, Indian civilization cannot be explained through a single Vedic lens.

Part 9: Materialist Perspectives of Tamil and Indian Scholars

The perspectives of pioneering scholars who examined the origins of Indian civilization, cultural evolution, and historical materialism provide the theoretical framework for understanding Keeladi.

A) Materialist Philosophical and Historical Scholars

• D. D. Kosambi: Strengthened the materialist perspective by viewing Indian history not as a mere chronicle of kings and wars, but as a history of transformations in production, technology, land usage, trade, and social relations.

• Irfan Habib: Contributed immensely to materialist historiography by placing production, land systems, technology, labor, and social relations at the center of historical analysis.

• Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya: Investigated the history of Indian materialist thought (Lokayata, Science and Society in Ancient India), demonstrating that ancient Indian society must be understood through labor, production, and economic life rather than purely spiritual frameworks. In this context, Keeladi's terracotta artifacts, industrial traces, pottery production, and water management gain profound significance.

• George Thomson: A Marxist anthropologist (Studies in Ancient Greek Society) who emphasized the intrinsic link between labor, language, and social relations in early human societies. His insight—that humanity transforms itself through labor that transforms nature—helps us understand the artisan community of Keeladi.

B) Tamil Social and Cultural Revisionists

• Mayilai Seeni. Venkatasamy: A pioneer who studied Tamil history and culture using rigorous literary and archaeological evidence. His works (Buddhism and Tamil, Notes on Sangam Tamil History) highlight that ancient Tamil social evolution cannot be comprehended through the Vaidika (Vedic) tradition alone. Keeladi’s evidence confirms pre-Vaidika Tamil literacy, craft production, and urban life.

• Po. Velsamy: A critical scholar (Beyond Falsehood, History and Fiction) who challenged Vaidika myths and historical fabrications in Tamil history. He asserts that history is not built solely by royal achievements, but rests upon the labor of artisans, farmers, potters, and weavers. Personal names inscribed on Keeladi potsherds indicate that literacy was actively used by working people.

C) Modern Archaeological, Genetic, and Historiographical Scholars

• Romila Thapar: Advocates for comparing multiple lines of evidence rather than reducing history to a single continuous tradition, framing it instead as an intersection of diverse societies, regions, economic systems, and cultures.

• Tony Joseph: Integrated genetics, archaeology, and linguistics to trace the formation of the Indian population (Early Indians). His work dismantles the simplistic notion that Indian civilization was created by a single group of people at a single point in time.

Synthesizing the views of these scholars offers a unified lesson: History cannot be written solely from the top down; the labor, production, technology, and social life of working people must be placed at the very core of historical inquiry.

Part 10: Why Keeladi Holds Political Significance Today

When does an archaeological site become political?

It becomes political when it goes beyond discussing the past and begins addressing fundamental questions:

• "Who is an Indian?"

• "What constitutes Indian culture?"

• "Where does Indian history begin?"

As attempts persist to portray India as the ancient homeland of a single religion, language, or ethnicity, Keeladi stands as a vital historical counter-evidence.

However, our defense of Keeladi must remain strictly scientific.

Replacing one falsehood with another is not historical reclamation. Creating a Tamil myth to counter a Vedic myth is not history. Ethnic chauvinism and historical materialism are fundamentally opposed.

Reclaiming history means re-evaluating it based on empirical evidence.

Conclusion

Keeladi is the Key to Indian History!

Let us return to our initial question.

Why is Keeladi the key to Indian History?

Because it gives us more than just the physical ruins of an ancient city—it forces us to question how Indian history ought to be written.

History is not a ledger of kings, a chronicle of battles, or a compilation of myths.

Human history is the record of humanity struggling against nature to shape its existence.

From that labor emerged tools, technology, agriculture, surplus production, division of labor, trade, cities, writing, and evolving social structures. Property rights, classes, and the state emerged at specific historical conjunctures.

This is the foundational lesson historical materialism teaches us.

Who baked the bricks of Keeladi? Who crafted the pottery? Who directed the water flow? Who sowed the seeds? Who wove the textiles? Who shaped the beads? Who carved the script?

It was the working human who built this civilization.

Thus, the true hero of Indian history is not the monarch seated in a palace, but the working person who built the palace, the city, the field, and the workshop.

Here, a clear conclusion can be drawn: Indian civilization cannot be equated solely with Vedic civilization.

While some may view the Vedic tradition as one historical segment of India, Indian history is far broader and richer than that:

• The Indus Valley has its place.

• The ancient societies of South India have their place.

• Keeladi has its place.

• Buddhists and Jains have their place.

• Indigenous tribal communities have their place.

• Farmers, artisans, women, and working people have their place.

That is the true diversity of Indian history.

Upholding Keeladi is not about rejecting North India; it is not about destroying Vedic tradition; nor is it about creating a new chauvinistic ethnic pride. It is about restoring Indian history in all its comprehensive diversity.

History must not be dictated by religion. Politics must not command history. Chauvinism must not distort historical facts. Nor should archaeological evidence be bent to suit any ideology.

History must be written by evidence alone.

In searching for that evidence, a single potsherd, a baked brick, a ring well, or a carved inscription buried beneath the soil can open a brand new door to our past.

And one of the primary keys that opens that door is Keeladi.

Keeladi is the key to Indian History!

— Tamilmani

Bibliography

1. Friedrich Engels — The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State

2. George Thomson — Studies in Ancient Greek Society: The Prehistoric Aegean

3. D. D. Kosambi — An Introduction to the Study of Indian History

4. Irfan Habib — People’s History of India (Vol. 1 & 2)

5. Tony Joseph — Early Indians: The Story of Our Ancestors and Where We Came From

6. Romila Thapar — Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300 (and related essays on ancient Indian history)

7. D. P. Chattopadhyaya — Lokayata: A Study in Ancient Indian Materialism

8. D. P. Chattopadhyaya — Science and Society in Ancient India

9. Mayilai Seeni. Venkatasamy — Buddhism and Tamil (பௌத்தமும் தமிழும்)

10. Mayilai Seeni. Venkatasamy — Notes on Sangam Tamil History (சங்ககாலத் தமிழக வரலாற்றில் சில செய்திகள்)

11. Po. Velsamy — Beyond Falsehood (பொய்மைக்கு அப்பால்)

12. Po. Velsamy — History and Fiction (வரலாறும் புனைவும்)

13. Kausigan — Great Civilizations of the World (உலக மகா நாகரிகங்கள்)

14. Department of Archaeology, Government of Tamil Nadu — Keeladi Excavation Reports and Publications

Keeladi is the Key to Indian History! Part-1

Abstract / Overview

The architectural remains, bricks, water management structures, beads, potsherds, industrial artifacts, and Tamizhi script inscriptions found at Keeladi reveal various facets of ancient urban life. This multi-part analysis reads Keeladi through the lens of historical materialism—focusing on labor, productive forces, and empirical evidence rather than royal lineages or mythologies.

How do we come to know Indian history?

Is it truly the comprehensive history of the Indian subcontinent? Or has the history of a few specific communities been generalized under the name "Indian History"?

This question is not merely about the past. Who writes a society's past, and whose voices are included in that history, are directly linked to the political and cultural understandings of today’s society.

For a long time, there was a strong tendency to understand ancient Indian history through kings, empires, wars, Sanskrit literature, and mythologies. However, developments in modern archaeology, anthropology, linguistics, and genetics have expanded that perspective.

The bricks, potsherds, wells, beads, tools, and written inscriptions buried under the soil have now become historical documents.

Keeladi stands as one of the major windows of this new historical perspective.

Exalting Keeladi is not meant to reject North India, nor is it meant to destroy the Vedic tradition. Instead, it serves as a reminder that Indian history is a pluralistic history created by diverse peoples, languages, modes of production, and cultures.

This article is an effort to understand Keeladi from that standpoint.

This is not an archaeological report on Keeladi. Nor is it an attempt to create a new "Tamil myth."

It is an effort to understand history based on evidence and to read Keeladi through the tools of historical materialism.

Part – 1: Why Should Indian History Be Re-read?

History is not a finished, closed book.

When new archaeological evidence emerges, old ideas are re-evaluated. When new genetic studies come to light, our understanding of human history evolves. New linguistic studies test past assumptions regarding the spread of languages.

Therefore, history is not a final, permanent judgment passed on the past; it is a scientific endeavor that continuously re-evaluates the past based on available evidence.

This is where the significance of Keeladi begins.

At one time, Indian history was largely written as the history of kings. Which king ruled when, who conquered whom, and the territorial extent of each empire formed the core of history.

However, historical materialism poses different questions:

• What did the people produce?

• How did they produce it?

• What tools did they use?

• How did they transform nature?

• How did they establish settlements?

• How did technology evolve?

• How did property rights emerge?

• How did social relations transform?

When viewed through these questions, it is not the king, but man who stands at the center of history.

When writing the history of a city, it is not enough to merely ask where its palace was located. Who built that city? Who manufactured the bricks? Who crafted the pottery? Who engaged in weaving? How did they manage water? Who forged the tools?

The true foundation of a civilization lies in the hands of the working people who built it.

From this viewpoint, Keeladi serves as a crucial historical window.

Part – 2: How Did Man Make History?

Human history does not need to begin with kings, wars, or temples.

It must begin with how human beings produced the material means necessary for their existence.

Humans were part of nature. To survive, they had to struggle against nature. Gathering food, hunting, fashioning tools, using fire, practicing agriculture, and building settlements—every step of progress was tied to human labor.

That labor was not individual labor alone. Humans acted collectively. They hunted collectively, faced dangers collectively, and produced collectively.

Marxist anthropologist George Thomson emphasizes the reciprocal connection between labor, language, and social relations in the early development of human society. The insight that human beings transformed themselves through the very labor by which they transformed nature is central to his research.

The implication of this is paramount: humans first created life, and only then began to reflect upon that life.

Therefore, if we begin human history solely from stories of gods, we risk missing the actual productive life of human beings.

The potsherds, terracotta objects, beads, architectural remains, and industrial traces found in Keeladi reveal to us the everyday life of a society.

According to the dating by the Tamil Nadu Archaeology Department, certain samples from Keeladi date back to the 6th century BCE; the dating of the Tamizhi script also aligns with this timeframe.

Here, the protagonist of history becomes clear: the working human.

Part – 3: From Cave to City: The Development of Productive Forces

In the struggle against nature, humans first created tools.

They sharpened stones, learned to use fire, and transitioned from hunting to pastoralism, and later to agriculture.

Agriculture marked a monumental turning point in human history.

Settled communities emerged. A surplus in food production was created. With surplus production came an expanding division of labor. Artisans emerged, exchange developed, settlements grew larger, and eventually, cities were born.

Historical materialism understands this process on the basis of the development of productive forces.

In his work The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, Friedrich Engels links production, family structure, property rights, social stratification, and the formation of the state to historical progression.

A city is not merely a collection of buildings. Behind it lies food production, water management, handicrafts, storage, trade, division of labor, and communication.

Thus, a city is the social expression of productive forces developed to a specific degree.

The architectural remains, bricks, water management structures, beads, potsherds, industrial artifacts, and Tamizhi script inscriptions at Keeladi manifest these varied elements of urban life.

The critical historical inference here is that the history of urbanization in the Indian subcontinent does not end with North India; South India possesses its own distinct history of urbanization.

Part – 4: Indus Valley: Civilization of Kings or Working People?

The Indus Valley Civilization is one of the most vital chapters in ancient Indian history.

Cities like Harappa, Mohenjo-Daro, and Dholavira featured planned streets, brick buildings, water management, artisanal production, and trade.

One of their most remarkable features is the absence of grand royal palaces or portraits of monarchs.

Although there is no evidence of a monarchy or a despotic state, the size of houses, granaries, and urban planning indicate the existence of a division of labor and social stratification. Nevertheless, that society cannot be explained centered around a king.

Here, the contribution of D.D. Kosambi is pivotal. In An Introduction to the Study of Indian History, he approaches the Indus Valley, the Aryans, rural economy, trade, property rights, and caste by connecting them with socio-economic transformations.

From this, we gain an important historical lesson: it cannot be assumed that all societies that subsequently inhabited the same geography shared the same socio-economic system.

The urban civilization of the Indus Valley is not identical to the society reflected in Vedic literature. Their timelines and socio-economic contexts are distinct.

Therefore, history does not accept the equation: Indus Valley Civilization = Vedic Civilization.

Part – 5: Vedas, Aryans, and the City: Distinguishing Historical Contexts

The simplistic equation "India means the Vedas" obscures the inherent diversity of history.

In the Indian subcontinent, different communities—foragers, farmers, pastoralists, artisans, traders, and urban dwellers—coexisted across different eras. Their languages and cultures were distinct.

Thus, reducing Indian history to the history of a single religious tradition is scientifically unsustainable.

Tony Joseph’s book Early Indians integrates research from genetics, archaeology, and linguistics to understand the formation of the Indian population.

The central insight highlighted by his research is that the formation of the Indian people did not occur at a single time, in a single place, or by a single group. Migrations, intermixing, and cultural contacts across various eras contributed to the formation of Indian society.

The term "Aryan" must also be used with care. It is incorrect to consider it a pure "race" in the modern sense. Language, culture, population movements, and genetics are not synonymous concepts.

At the same time, the view that "Indian civilization began only with the arrival of the Aryans" does not align with historical evidence. Indus Valley cities predated them. Distinct socio-economic developments took place in South India as well. Keeladi serves as vital archaeological evidence for one such development.

Therefore, while the Vedic tradition may be regarded by some as one part of Indian history, it is not the defining name for the whole of Indian civilization.

(To be continued…)

Tamilmani

Let Us Uphold Keeladi! Let Us Drive Away Vedic Civilization!

Greetings Friends and Comrades!

"Not everything that happens on its own is history... The labor and struggles of human beings—who utilize the environment provided by nature to further enrich their lives for the benefit of human society—are what truly become history!"

This is the course of world history. Some of these magnificent efforts born out of human labor have been recorded in history, while others have faded away into oblivion.

In today’s modern era, all events are instantly recorded in written form, audio-video formats, and various other mediums. However, in earlier times without technological amenities, people's scripts, everyday artifacts, archaeological evidence, and literature were the sole means of recording past history.

Imaginary Fiction or Historical Evidence?

On the other hand, an extremely dangerous trend persists here—writing history based purely on imaginary fictions without any archaeological evidence. One such fraudulent attempt is the so-called 'Vedic Civilization', constructed on the imaginary foundation of the 'Saraswati River Civilization'!

There is no literary evidence, archaeological proof, or epigraphic record whatsoever to support this. Relying merely on the general understanding that human civilizations originated and flourished along river basins, attempts are being made to construct a Vedic civilization around the historically unknown 'Saraswati' river.

It is in this context that the Keeladi excavations, conducted on the banks of the Vaigai River in Tamil Nadu, have thoroughly shattered these Aryan-Vedic mythological fabrications! Keeladi has proclaimed to the world that even 2,600 years ago, Tamils lived in a highly developed urban civilization free of caste, religion, and spiritual traces, with widespread literacy. It has scientifically established that "Keeladi is the most crucial turning point in Indian history!"

The Union Government's Attempt to Suppress Keeladi

To cover up this historical truth, the Union Modi government shelved the Keeladi excavation report and vindictively transferred archaeologist Amarnath Ramakrishna.

On one hand, they impose Sanatana Fascism under the guise of 'One Nation, One Language, One Culture' and sow the venom of caste by dividing humans based on birth. On the other hand, they drive working people into continuous distress through corporate exploitation and Sanatana oppression.

The antidote to this is the egalitarian culture propounded by Keeladi: "All human beings are equal by birth" (Pirappokkum Ella Uyirkkum).

Thanjavur 'Tamil People's Music Festival' — A Cultural War!

The People's Art and Literary Association (PALA -மகஇக) has taken up this momentous cultural struggle to eradicate Vedic fabrications and deeply engrave the egalitarian ethos of Keeladi in the hearts of Tamils!

As part of this struggle, a grand "Tamil People's Music Festival" (தமிழ் மக்கள் இசை விழா)  will be held on August 22nd on the soil of Thanjavur. Special events showcasing the political and historical significance of the Keeladi excavations have been organized for this festival. Archaeologist Amarnath Ramakrishna, who unveiled the truths of Keeladi to the world, will also be sharing his first-hand experiences in person.

Having journeyed with the People's Art and Literary Association (PALA-மகஇக) for over 45 years, I am actively contributing to this endeavor. You are well aware that PALA is an organization defined by long-term political vision and an uncompromising, fearless fighting spirit.

Friends and Comrades, extend your generous support through physical labor and financial contributions!

This Tamil People's Music Festival is a monumental event that demands immense physical effort and significant financial expenditure. Therefore, to make this event a resounding success:

• Comrades and friends capable of stepping onto the field to contribute direct labor must come forward enthusiastically!

• I warmly request friends, comrades, and anti-Sanatana thinkers who have generously offered financial support in the past to contribute on a large scale this time as well.

"Every single rupee you contribute is a strike against Sanatana Fascism! A pillar of cultural strength upholding Keeladi!"

In Comradeship,

Pon.Sekar @ Tamilmani

Ex. BHEL

Note:

Since circumstances make it difficult to meet everyone in person, I kindly request you to send your financial contributions via Google Pay (GPay) to the following Number / QR code.

Gpay No: 94868 80758

QR Code:

From Revisionism to Cinema Politics: Traditional Communist Parties and the Support for Vijay

In Tamil Nadu, various political parties have been extending their support and welcome to actor Vijay's political entry for different reasons. However, the question of why the traditional Communist parties—who proclaim themselves as the true heirs of Marxist politics—are maintaining a soft stance and tending to support Vijay's political endeavors emerges as a highly critical point today.

Is this merely the result of temporary, opportunistic electoral coalition politics? Or is there a deep-rooted historical and ideological weakness hidden behind it?

CPM leader Shanmugam, CPI leader Veerapandian

The Marxist Debate on Revisionism

In the mid-20th century, the greatest ideological rift in the global communist movement centered around the policy transformations initiated by Nikita Khrushchev in the Soviet Union.

Mao Zedong and the Communist Party of China fiercely criticized Khrushchev's newly formulated concepts of the "State of the whole people" and the "Party of the whole people." Mao argued that abandoning the theoretical foundation of the dictatorship of the proletariat and projecting the socialist state as a classless state was an act that demolished the very bedrock of Marxism.

From China's perspective, this was not just an academic or textual debate on theory; rather, it was a perilous "Revisionism" that threw open the gates for the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union.

The Stance of Indian Communist Parties

The major factions of the traditional communist movement in India—the Communist Party of India (CPI) and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)]—generally aligned themselves with the Soviet camp.

Refusing to accept the sharp theoretical critiques raised by Mao, these parties took a defensive stance, maintaining that the Soviet Union was still traveling on the socialist path. At the same time, they vehemently opposed the Naxalbari movements that erupted in India, inspired by Mao's revolutionary principles, branding them as 'Left-wing Adventurism'.

What Did History Say Later?

In 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed completely, disintegrating into dust. State assets were swept away by liberalization and privatization. Capitalism reclaimed the throne openly and without any pretense.

Was Mao's pre-emptive warning—that revisionism would ultimately lead to the restoration of capitalism—correct? Or was the theoretical evaluation of the traditional Indian Left, which blindly supported the Soviet path, flawed? This remains an unshakeable lesson that history has taught us.

China and the Deng Path

Following the demise of Mao, China began moving along the path of economic reform under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping, under the banner of "Socialism with Chinese characteristics." Market economy features expanded; private capital was permitted to grow, and foreign investments were welcomed with a red carpet.

The debate over whether socialism still endures in China or whether capitalism has left its footprint there in another form continues among global leftists to this day.

However, there is a crucial point to be noted here. The very same traditional Communist parties that once portrayed Khrushchev-era Soviet Union as the fortress of socialism began praising Deng's reformist China as a sublime model of socialism.

Critics of this approach point out: "The core policy of the traditional Left never changed; rather, it was only the international centers of power they relied upon for their survival that shifted."

Electoral Politics and the Path of Compromise

This is precisely where we must analyze the current political landscape of Tamil Nadu through an ideological lens.

Once champions of revolutionary class politics, the Communist movements, after completely binding themselves within the framework of parliamentary electoral politics, began prioritizing their 'political survival' over radical social change. This parliamentary cretinism imposed a practical politics based on temporary electoral alliances rather than principle-driven politics.

The natural consequence of this is the development of a weak mindset willing to compromise ideological identities and align with any mass-popular force entirely divorced from class principles.

Support for Vijay: An Ideological Continuation of Revisionism?

The political programs put forth by actor Vijay are not remotely related to the core tenets of Marxist politics, such as class struggle, the transformation of production relations, the abolition of capitalism, or working-class politics.

His slogans center primarily around anti-corruption, good governance, administrative reform, and a general populist welfarism blended with Periyar-Ambedkar thoughts and nationalism. Even these are viewed with skepticism by neutral observers, who question whether they represent a principled ideological stance or are merely attractive rhetoric for vote-bank politics.

Nevertheless, one can observe a distinct soft stance adopted by the traditional Communist parties in their approach toward him. These parties might cite tactical lines, such as 'anti-fascism' or 'defeating the primary enemy,' as their justification.

However, critics of this compromising approach argue that this is not merely a temporary electoral tactic. The logical continuation of an ideological lineage that compromised with 'revisionist forces' internationally—from Khrushchev then to Deng now—is precisely the practical compromise they are making locally today with mass-popular alternative forces like Vijay.

Conclusion

The true theoretical yardstick of a Communist movement lies not just in whom it supports, but within what ideological framework and why it supports them.

There is no surprise that the same political tradition that once justified Soviet revisionism and later market-economy China as socialism now supports the new stars of electoral politics for the sake of its own survival.

Is this mere tactical electoral politics? A long-standing continuation of ideological revisionism? Or a pragmatic approach to adapting to new political realities?

The precise answer to these questions will ultimately be determined by history and the future political practice of these parties.

Ooraan

Dravidian-DMK Anti-Politics: The ‘Toxic Common Sense’ Constructed by Sanatana

In Indian society, a historic struggle for self-respect and social justice against Brahminical hegemony and social injustice can be witnessed from the era of the Justice Party down to the present day of the DMK. Various movements that recognize the Dravidian ideology, including the DMK, have been actively pursuing this.

However, running parallel to this struggle, Brahminical media and Sanatana forces have sowed a dangerous, toxic seed deeply among the masses, based on the framework of what Italian thinker Antonio Gramsci terms "Cultural Hegemony." That toxic seed is: ‘The common sense of Dravidian-DMK hatred.’

This toxic common sense has been systematically drilled into the minds of the people, generation after generation, from the era of Rajaji down to the contemporary period of actor Vijay.

Sanatana and DMK-Hatred: Two Sides of the Same Coin

The very same strategy that was used for over 2,000 years to plant Sanatana, caste hierarchies, and inhuman untouchability into the minds of the people as a seemingly 'natural social order' or common sense, is being deployed today by Sanatana forces in their politics of "DMK hatred."

Corruption or dynastic politics are structural components of a property-owning society, and no electoral political party is an exception to this. The reality remains that from right-wing outfits to national and regional parties, such tendencies are rampant across all electoral political formations. Despite knowing this well, the entire Brahminical media and Sanatana structures drive a reductive, one-dimensional propaganda that "DMK alone is the corrupt party" and "DMK is an evil force." We must decode the underlying class-caste motives behind this.

Whenever a force poses a formidable challenge to the Sanatana ideology—both theoretically and in terms of the devolution of power—this brand of toxic common sense is unleashed against them. What is deeply concerning, as observed in recent media debates, is that from ordinary Marxist speakers to ultra-radical Marxist theorists, many have succumbed to this "common sense" disease engineered by the Brahminical apparatus, losing their capacity for independent critique.

The Politics of Hatred: A Rotting Arena

This malignant political disease, which abandons ideological critique and relies solely on "hatred" as its prime mover, has turned the entire political arena into a cesspool crawling with maggots. If this degraded landscape of hate politics continues, a healthy, people-centric politics serving the working class will remain a distant dream.

Those with a Marxist-Leninist perspective must confront this situation through two crucial methodologies:

1. Specific Exposure

Whether it is the DMK or any other political party, it is absolutely essential to target, expose, and fight the corruption of specific individuals with concrete evidence. Only such a targeted approach paves the way for legal action against the wrongdoers and isolates them before the peoples' court. Conversely, speaking loosely about "the corruption of a party" as a blanket generalization only helps to shield the specific individuals committing the corruption, allowing them to hide within the crowd.

2. Ideological Criticism

Similarly, when the political policies and empirical economic programs of a party run counter to the interests of the working class, raising sharp theoretical critiques and organizing mass struggles against them is what paves the way for a healthy alternative politics.

Conclusion

Failing to adopt these two Marxist-materialist methodologies, and instead dancing to the tunes of Sanatana media by reductionistically branding a single party as an "evil force" or "corrupt party," will only play directly into the hands of Sanatana and Brahminical hegemony. It will never inspire the masses to think toward a genuinely progressive 'alternative politics.'

As forces duty-bound to shatter Brahminical cultural hegemony, let us understand this deceptive common sense and strive to prepare the masses on the true ideological front!

Ooran / Pon. Sekar

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