r/TheRadicals
Why Babasaheb broke the Bombay textile mills strike in 1929: Indian labour, Trade Unionism, Failures and Opportunism of Indian Communists.
It is seen that people often want a “proletarian revolution” or a “working class revolution”. I'm not at all against it, but I'd like to address that even babasaheb wasn't against it and he had mentioned how a revolution exactly is. He envisioned that labour must govern the country (in his speech Labour and Parliamentary Democracy). He also believed that Trade Unions must enter politics, and gave a special speech for it (I have included it as its one of the most important speeches), and also addressed that elections are a gamble. Then, why would he break the Girni Kamgar Union’s Bombay Textile mills strike in 1929? Did he suddenly start supporting capitalists because of his “Deweyian pragmatism” for opportunistic purposes? Did he just realize that the British India would be threatened and so would he be as a “British Agent” if they strike, what was really the reason? Let's dive into it.
Section 1: GKU Revolutionaries
The Bombay textile mills had different departments, namely weaving, ring and spinning departments. Some dalit workers worked in the mills, and of course there were caste Hindus who worked in the mills as well. Savarna Marxists would assume as they're both working in the mills, having the same relation to means of production, they must share solidarity and have a common interest and a conflict with the mill owners. Well oh well, nothing as such was the case that savarna marxists like to fantasize.
Different departments had different pay, the most lucrative department was the weaving department, where the workers of that department had the highest pay. While the low paying departments were the ring and spinning departments. Well the problem was, Dalit workers who were mostly Mahars, and others who were chambhars and mangs were banned from working in the weaving department. The noteworthy thing is, they weren't banned by the mill owners, but were prohibited by the workers themselves in the weaving department who were mostly Maratha Caste Hindus.
Here, we must carefully understand why exactly the caste hindu workers didn't let the dalits work in the weaving department. It wasn't simply because they thought dalits don't deserve a high paying job because they're untouchables by birth. They didn't really care what pay dalits were getting. The reason lies in how the weaving department works.
It was only because the Maratha caste hindus would get polluted by their saliva if the dalits worked with them in the weaving department. They would rather have a Muslim work with them than a Mahar.
The Girni Kamgar Union (GKU) led by figures like S.A. Dange and S.S. Mirajkar (yes, Babasaheb called them brahmin drummer boys later), they refused to include the demand for letting the dalit workers in the weaving department and also abolish untouchability in the mills. The reason? The Maratha workers fiercely protested against it, and our dear drummer boys said it'll only harm the class solidarity. To justify it, they believed that caste is only a superstructure and if we change the base, the superstructure would collapse, rendering caste obsolete. Surely, the caste Hindus would realize the “base” has changed and the caste system must no longer be followed, funnily.
Let's see what exactly happened:
---
1928: The Warning and the Critique
During the massive six-month general strike of 1928, Babasaheb did not immediately break the strike, but he fiercely challenged the communist leadership’s priorities.
He Demanded Integration: Ambedkar publicly confronted the communist leaders of the Girni Kamgar Union (GKU). He demanded that if the Dalit workers were expected to bleed and starve alongside the caste-Hindu workers for "class solidarity," the GKU must officially demand the opening of the lucrative weaving departments to Untouchables.
The Communists Refused: The communist leaders (like S.A. Dange) refused to include the desegregation of the weaving sheds in their list of demands. They argued that bringing up "caste issues" would anger the caste-Hindus and break the unity of the strike.
Babasaheb’s Ultimatum: Babasaheb warned them that by capitulating to the caste-Hindu majority, the union was protecting a Brahmanical status quo on the factory floor. He famously argued that the communists were using Dalits as "cannon fodder" for their revolution while refusing to grant them basic human rights in the workplace.
1929: The Decisive Strike-Break
By April 1929, the communist GKU called for another general strike. Because the union had completely ignored his warnings the previous year and continued to tolerate untouchability, Babasaheb took aggressive, decisive action. On top of that, GKU leaders urged the Depressed Classes workers to participate in the general strike while refusing to do anything for their demands.
Babasaheb Actively Organized the Mahars Against the Strike:
Ambedkar held massive rallies in the working-class areas of Bombay (like Parel and Naigaum). He explicitly instructed the Mahar and other Dalit mill workers not to join the communist strike. He argued that it was suicidal for Dalits to lose their wages and face starvation for a union that treated them as sub-human.
He Physically Broke the Picket Lines:
When the communists set up violent picket lines to physically block workers from entering the mills, Ambedkar personally went to the mill gates. He stood at the entrances to ensure the safety of the Dalit workers who chose to cross the picket lines and go to work.
He Leveraged the Strike for Dalit Employment: Because the caste-Hindus were striking, the mill owners were desperate for labor. Babasaheb used this leverage to secure jobs for Dalits in departments that had previously been closed off to them. He prioritized the immediate economic survival and advancement of his people over the abstract, caste-blind "Marxist revolution" the GKU was preaching.
The orthodox Marxists of the time (and today) paint this 1929 action as a "betrayal" of the working class. But we must address and understand this crucially: It was these communists who betrayed the working class. By refusing to fight untouchability in 1928, the communists proved they were just caste-Hindus wearing red shirts. In 1929, Babasaheb simply refused to let his people die for a revolution that did not include them.
But, was he always against strikes? Was this just an opportunity to carry out his pro-capitalist, pro-British actions?
Section 2: The 1938 General Strike
In 1938, the Indian National Congress (which formed the provincial government in Bombay) introduced the Industrial Disputes Bill. The bill essentially made it a criminal offense for workers to go on strike under almost any circumstance. It mandated lengthy, compulsory arbitration and conciliation processes, effectively stripping the working class of their only real weapon against exploitation: the withdrawal of their labor.
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar fiercely opposed the bill in the Bombay Legislative Assembly. He rightly identified it as a draconian, pro-capitalist law designed to crush unions. He famously dubbed it the "Workers’ Civil Liberties Suspension Act" and the "Black Bill.”
Who led and initiated the strike against this bill?
Dr. Ambedkar and his party initiated the strike, and the communists joined his initiative, they didn't initiate this strike. The initiative came directly from Dr. Ambedkar and his Independent Labour Party (ILP). Throughout September and October of 1938, Babasaheb had been fighting a bitter, lonely battle inside the Bombay Legislative Assembly against the Congress government’s "Black Bill." When it became clear that the Congress was going to use its overwhelming majority to force the anti-worker bill into law, the executive committee of the ILP met and officially passed a resolution to call for a one-day general strike. Babasaheb was the primary architect of taking the fight from the parliament floor to the streets.
How Did the Communists Join?
Knowing that a general strike required massive, unified numbers to paralyze the city, Dr. Ambedkar formally extended an invitation to the Bombay Provincial Trade Union Congress (BPTUC), which was controlled by the communists. The communists, realizing the massive influence Babasaheb Ambedkar had over the working-class Dalits (who could make or break any strike in Bombay), accepted his invitation. They formed a joint "Council of Action" to coordinate the strike. Jamnadas Mehta (a prominent labor leader) was made the President of this council, but Babasaheb was the primary driving force alongside communist leaders like S.A. Dange and Indulal Yagnik.
He put aside his profound ideological differences with the communists because the immediate threat of the State crushing labor rights was too great. It showed immense political maturity. He wasn't anti-communist out of spite; he was anti-communist only when they defended the Brahmanical status-quo. When they actually fought for the whole working class, he was willing to lead the charge with them.
Who Led the Ground Mobilization?
The workers were heavily mobilized through an intense, organized campaign led by Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar's cadres.
The Samata Sainik Dal (SSD): Babasaheb’s volunteer organization, the SSD, acted as the vanguard of the strike. They distributed thousands of pamphlets, organized localized corner meetings, and guarded the workers.
The Propaganda Tour: In the days leading up to November 7, Babasaheb personally toured the labor catchments of Bombay. He didn't rely on the communists to do the talking. He went to Kamgar Maidan and told the workers directly that this bill would turn them into "slaves of the capitalists."
The Local Unions: Because the ILP and the Communists united, the municipal workers' unions, railway workers, and textile mill workers all received unified instructions from their local leaders to halt work.
The November 7, 1938 General Strike:
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar and the communist leaders called for a massive, one-day general strike on November 7, 1938, to protest the passing of the Black Bill.
Babasaheb on the Front Lines: He didn't just give speeches from a desk. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar and his ILP lieutenants actively toured the mill districts of Bombay (Parel, Dadar, Worli) in open cars, rallying the workers.
The Success: The strike was an overwhelming, historic success. Over 100,000 workers walked out. The textile mills of Bombay were completely paralyzed.
The Kamgar Maidan Rally: That evening, a massive rally was held at Kamgar Maidan. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar presided over the meeting, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with communist leaders like S.A. Dange and Indulal Yagnik, addressing a sea of workers.
The State Violence: The Congress Crackdown
The Bombay Provincial Government at the time was controlled by the Indian National Congress, with B.G. Kher as Chief Minister and K.M. Munshi as the Home Minister. They were terrified by the sheer scale of the Ambedkar-Communist alliance and decided to crush it using state machinery.
Armed Police Deployment: Home Minister K.M. Munshi deployed heavily armed police across the mill districts of Bombay (Parel, Dadar, Currey Road, and Prabhadevi). They were ordered to prevent the strike by force if necessary.
The Lathi Charges and Arrests: As the Samata Sainik Dal (Babasaheb Ambedkar’s volunteers) and communist cadres marched peacefully to enforce the strike, the police launched vicious lathi charges. Hundreds of workers were beaten, and key ground-level leaders were preemptively arrested to break the workers' morale.
The Police Firing: The violence peaked when the police opened fire on a crowd of unarmed striking workers near the Elphinstone Road and Prabhadevi areas.
The Casualties: The police bullets killed two workers and severely injured dozens more (some historical records cite around 70 to 80 workers wounded).
Babasaheb was absolutely furious. At the massive Kamgar Maidan rally that evening, he publicly held Home Minister K.M. Munshi personally responsible for shedding the blood of innocent laborers just to protect the profits of the capitalist mill owners.
The events of November 7, 1938, exposed the true allegiances of the Indian political establishment. Faced with a historic, unified strike initiated by Dr. Ambedkar's ILP and the Communists, the Congress government dropped its 'pro-poor' nationalist facade. Home Minister K.M. Munshi deployed armed police into the mill districts, answering the workers' demands with lathi charges and bullets. Unarmed laborers were shot dead in the streets of Bombay to protect the profits of the textile barons.
This display of working-class power carried a devastating human cost. The tragic deaths of these strikers placed a heavy burden on Dr. Ambedkar, who directed his absolute fury at the Congress government for shedding their blood. Because he had initiated and led the strike, the loss of innocent lives deeply grieved him. This profound grief stood in sharp contrast to the apathy of the Savarna communist leadership in 1928, who readily used Dalit workers as expendable cannon fodder for their revolutionary fantasies while refusing to grant them basic rights.
The 1938 police firing exposed the other side of the same oppressive coin. It proved that the Savarna political establishment, acting through the Congress government, viewed working-class lives as entirely disposable the moment capitalist profits were threatened. These events confirmed the grim reality he had already observed: whether it was the police firing in 1938 or the Girni Kamgar Union's earlier betrayals in 1928, Savarna leaders consistently treated Dalit and working-class lives as expendable for their own political agendas.
Critics today often attempt to dilute this militant history by pointing to his later cooperation with the Congress during the drafting of the Constitution. However, this 1938 clash proves that his political engagements were strictly pragmatic and never unconditional. He fought the Congress ruthlessly when they acted as agents of capitalist oppression, just as he later navigated their assembly when it became structurally necessary to secure constitutional safeguards for the Depressed Classes. His loyalty belonged entirely to the marginalized, never to an oppressive political establishment.
Months before the introduction of the Black Bill, Babasaheb had urgently tried to warn the labour movement. In a landmark speech, “Trade Unions must enter politics to protect their interests,” delivered in February 1938, he diagnosed the exact ideological disease driving these historical betrayals. Savarna Marxists treated caste as a mere superstructure expected to collapse on its own. Dr. Ambedkar explicitly countered this by warning that the working class fought a two-front war. Fighting the mill owners alone would never be enough. The widespread refusal to confront the internal, structural enemy of Brahmanism was actively fracturing the unions and costing actual lives.
Section 3: Brahmanism, Trade Unionism and failures of the (Indian) “Communists”
For the whole section I've taken excerpts from his speech “Trade Unions must enter politics to protect their interests”, Babasaheb pointed out the enemies of the working class. He also recalls what exactly is brahmanism, is it just the ban on inter-marrying and inter-dining, or is there more to it?
What does Brahmanism really mean?
>There are in my view two enemies which the workers of this country have to deal with. The two enemies are Bramhanism and Capitalism. The accusation by our critics arises partly because the critics fail to reckon Brahmanism as an enemy which the workers have to deal with. I do not want to be misunderstood when I say that Brahmanism is an enemy which must be dealt with. By Bramhanism I do not mean the power, privileges and interests of the Bramhins as a community. That is not the sense in which I am using the word. By Bramhanism I mean the negation of the spirit of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. In that sense it is rampant in all classes and is not confined to the Bramhins alone though they have been the originations of it. This Bramhanism which pervades everywhere and which regulates the thoughts and deeds of all classes is an incontrovertible fact. It is also an incontrovertible fact that this Bramhanism gives certain classes a privileged position. It denies certain other classes even equality of opportunity. The effects of Bramhanism are not confined to what are social rights such as inter-dining or inter- marriage. If that was so, one would not mind it. But it is not so. It extends to civic rights as distingnished from social rights. Use of public schools, of public wells, of public conveyances, of public restaurants are matters of civic rights. Everything which is intended for the public or maintained out of public fund must be open to every citizen. But there are millions to whom these civic rights are denied.
It is very important to note what Depressed Class workers have to face compared to other workers.
>Take the Depressed Class worker and compare his opportunities with a worker who does not belong to the Depressed Classes. What opportunities of obtaining work has he ? What are the prospects he has in the matter of security of service or advancement therein? It is notorious that there are many avocations from which a Depressed Class worker is shut out by reason of the fact that he is an Untouchable. A notorious case in point is that of the Cotton Industry. I do not know of what happens in other parts of India. But I know that in the Bombay Presidency the Depressed Classes are shut out from the weaving department in the Cotton Mills both in Bombay and in Ahemadabad. They can only work in the spinning department. The spinning department is the lowest paid department. The reason why they are excluded from the weaving department is because they are Untouchables and because on that account the caste Hindu worker objects to work with them although he does not mind working with the Musalmans.
>In those avocations where he has a chance to obtain work he is employed in the lowest grade. He is excluded from any place of power or authority. He is not only employed in the lowest grade but he is confined to that grade until he retires. There is no rise for him. There is no career for him and often there is no promotion for him. This is what happens to him when there is no slump. In days of slump he is the first to be fired as in the boom he is the last to be employed.
Even today, the views of the savarnas have not changed and there have not been any changes in caste based hiring and caste based promotions. No “revolutionary marxist” will dare to talk about these crucial issues, yet they will dare to talk about “class solidarity” or a “proletarian revolution”. They will only use the lower departments of workers as a cannon fodder for their opportunistic political careers. If they're asked to speak for them, they'll accuse us of breaking class solidarity. But they're the ones to never ever build class solidarity in the first place by not speaking against caste based hiring and promotions, caste based renting/housing (denying dalits a place to rent and live) and other aspects of the Indian economy that are caste ridden.
A revolution without the elimination of the spirit of brahmanism will only result in the dictatorship of the Savarna proletariat over the Depressed Classes proletariats. Savarnas need to feel ashamed to say they would rather deal with it once they do their “revolution”.
How must one eliminate brahmanism?
>That all labourers are one, form one class is an ideal to be achieved and it is the greatest error to assume it as a fact. How are we to consolidate the ranks of labour ? How are we to bring about unity among labour ? Not by allowing one section of the workers to suppress other section of the workers. Not by preventing the oppressed section from organizing. Not by preventing the aggrieved section from agitating against the injustice that is being done to them. The real way to bring about unity is to remove the causes which make one worker the antagonist of another worker on the ground of race and religion. The real way to bring about unity is to tell the worker that he is wrong in claiming rights which he is not prepared to give to other workers. The real way to bring about unity is to tell the worker who makes these social distinctions which result in unfair discrimination are wrong in principle and injurious to the solidarity of workers. In other words we must uproot Bramhanism - this spirit of inequality - from among the workers if the ranks of labour are to be united. But where is the labour leader who has done this among workers? I have heard labour leaders speaking vociferously against Capitalism. But I have never heard any labour leader speaking against Bramhanism amongst workers. On the other hand their silence on this point is quite conspicuous. Whether their silence is due to their belief that Bramhanism has nothing to do with the organisation and unity of workers, whether it is due to their non-appreciation of the fact that Bramhanism has great deal to do with the disorganisation of labour or whether it is due to sheer opportunism which believes in acquiring leadership of labour and not saying anything which would hurt the feelings of the workers I do not stop to inquire. But I must say that if Bramhanism is admitted to be the root cause of the disorganisation of labour then a serious effort must be made to remove it from the workers. This infection will not go away merely by ignoring it or by remaining silent about it. It must be pursued, dug out and knotched. Then and then only will the way for the unity of workers be made safe.
But none of the Savarna revolutionaries are ready to acknowledge the struggles of Depressed Classes. Let alone actively working to resolve it.
For the people from the Depressed Classes who choose to side with the Communist leaders:
>There are one or two men from the Depressed Classes who have disapproved of this Conference. There is nothing strange in this. Some of them are the tools and hirelings of others. Some are misguided. The Depressed Classes are so weak in themselves and the word union has such a charm in it, especially when it falls from the lips of influential propagandist that it is no wonder they are deluded; but such people forget that there can be no real union between parties whose feelings and attitudes are in every respect opposed to each other and where one of whom claims rights and interests which are adverse to the interests of the others. Union among such people would be nothing but fraud upon the weak and suffering party. Every sincere man who repudiates the fraud is maligned by these imposters, as one who would sow division. Division, indeed! Yes, a division it may be, but it is a division, where a real difference and a real antagonism exists. This antagonism arises chiefly because one section of Labour claims vested rights against another section of Labour namely the Depressed Classes. Nobody wants to create a difference. What we are doing is to recognize the difference and to prevent the difference from working an injustice to us.
Babasaheb fully acknowledged the backlash that comes with independent Dalit organizing. He noted that anyone who calls out the fraud of Savarna-led unity will be immediately maligned as someone who sows division. He unapologetically embraced this division. He argued that the antagonism between the Depressed Classes and Caste Hindus is a material reality. Ignoring this antagonism for the sake of "unity" only subjects the marginalized to further injustice. True solidarity is not created by pretending differences do not exist; it is created by recognizing those differences and preventing them from being weaponized.
Trade Unions and the Communists:
Babasaheb acknowledged that Trade Unionism in India is in a sorry state. The warfare between different unions is far more deadly than the conflict with the actual owners. He explains how communist leaders have been systematically organizing disorganization, which still remains true today.
>There are some labour leaders who are only arm-chair philosophers or politicians who have limited their task to issuing statements in the papers. Organizing the workers, educating the workers and helping them to agitate does not form part of their duty. They are only anxious to represent the workers and speak on their behalf but avoid having any contact with them. A second category of labour leaders is of those who are engaged in forming unions for the sole purpose of finding a place for themselves as Secretaries, Presidents or Chairmen. To maintain themselves in their places they try to keep their unions as separate and rival entities. One notices the astounding and shameful phenomenon that the warfare between different unions is far more deadly than what exists - if any at all - between workers and owners-and all this for what- for no other purpose than that of securing mastery over unions for certain individuals whose ambition is to find a leader’s place for themselves. The third class of labour leaders is composed principally of the communists. They may be well meaning but I have no hesitation in saying that they are a misguided body of men and I go further and say that nobody has brought a greater ruination on the workers than these men. If to-day the back of workers is completely broken, if to-day the masters have the upper hand, if to-day unionism is an anathema it is entirely due to the misuse of the powers which the communists had at one time secured over the trade unions. Their aim seems to bring about discontent among the workers as though there was any absence of it, because they believe that with a discontented body of workers they will bring about a revolution and establish the rule of the proletariat. Therefore to bring about discontent they launched upon a systematic campaign of organizing disorganization. The series of strikes on which they drove the men can have no other meaning and no other consequence except that it was a deliberate attempt to organize disorganization. For a successful revolution it is not enough that there is discontent; what is required is a profound and thorough conviction of the justice, necessity and importance of political and social right. Not even a revolutionary Marxist would make a fetish of strikes, as was done in the good old days by the Revolutionary Syndicalists. The strike was never considered by revolutionary Marxists as a “revolutionary exercise” but was regarded as a very serious measure to be resorted to as a last extremity after all efforts have proved unavailing. But the Communists have thrown all this to the winds and have looked upon strikes as a divine means of creating discontent among the workers. Whether they have created greater discontent or not they have most certainly destroyed the very trade union organizations which were the source of their strength and their power and now they are practically on the streets seeking to take shelter under all sorts of capitalist organizations.
But why would Babasaheb say that the communists have brought a greater ruination than anyone else? how exactly do the communists systematically organize disorganization? It is explained the excerpt below from the speech “YOU HAVE NOT REALISED WHAT TREMENDOUS POWER YOU HAVE”
>The leaders of some of the union in the city, specially the textile unions had led their men into a number of strikes during the last 14 years, said Dr. Ambedkar, but not in one of them had they succeeded in getting any of their demands. In fact these strikes had only resulted, because of unemployment during strike periods and retrenchments and dismissals following strikes, in adding to the woes and miseries of the workers.
>Such activities, far from organising the workers had only resulted in disorganising them and disintegrating their unions.
While the Depression Classes workers already couldn't find work and couldn't get paid enough, the numerous strikes of the communist leaders had already resulted in their loss. Not a single union leader could care about the Depressed Classes workers struggles and interests. At least when Babasaheb broke the Bombay textile mills strike in 1929, Depressed Classes had gotten an opportunity to work and earn which they rarely do, but the Savarnas would never acknowledge it, rather it's a betrayal according to them because we didn't bow down and be their cannon fodder.
The “Communist” Organization of Mr. M.N. Roy:
>There is another section- calling itself communist- represented by Mr. Roy which is vehemently opposed to any separate organization by labour or by any class in India either inside or outside the Congress. Mr. Roy must be a puzzle to many as he is to me. A communist ! And opposed to separate political organization of labour !! A terrible contradiction in terms !! A point of view which must make Lenin turn in his grave. The only rational justification that one can give for so queer a view is that Mr. Roy looks upon the destruction of Imperialism as the first and foremost aim of Indian politics. In no other way can one read any sense in the view which is being propagated by Mr. Roy. This view would be correct if it could be proved that with the disappearance of Imperialism all vestige of Capitalism will also disappear from India. But it does not require much intelligence to realise that even if the British depart from India, the landlords, the mill-owners, the money-lenders will remain in India and continue to bleed the people and that even after Imperialism has gone, labour will have to fight these interests just as much. If this is so why should not labour organize from now ! Why should it wait for developing its organization ? I don’t find any answer. The Congress Socialists evidently realize that labour has to fight capitalism as much as Imperialism and therefore agree that labour must organize. But they have put a proviso that any labour organization must be within the Congress. I am not able to understand the virtue or necessity of this compulsory coalition between the Congress and labour.
Here we can see that someone didn't understand the “Marxist” theory and unfortunately it isn't Babasaheb here but Mr Roy. Babasaheb pointed out the contradictions of M. N. Roy, and he shattered the illusion that Indian communists adhered to Marxist principles when it came to Indian realities.
Roy prioritized fighting British Imperialism, demanding the working class abandon independent organizing to serve the nationalist movement. Babasaheb exposed this lethal trap: if labor waited until after independence, they would simply trade white colonizers for brown Savarna oppressors.
By noting that Roy's stance would make "Lenin turn in his grave," Babasaheb proved he understood Marxist theory better than the communist elite. True Marxism demands absolute working-class independence, yet Indian communists eagerly surrendered this autonomy to nationalist elites.
Ambedkar also torched the "Congress Socialists" for demanding labor organize exclusively within the Congress party. Since Congress was bankrolled by capitalist exploiters, this was like asking sheep to unionize inside a wolf’s den. A labor movement tethered to Congress could never strike against its own funders. Genuine labor politics required absolute, uncompromising independence.
Section 4: Savarna Opportunism, Malignment and The Necessity for repudiating Brahmanical leadership.
I'd like to address something noteworthy. Even though Babasaheb has brought many changes and his methods and his efforts have actually been proven significant and correct, no Savarna Marxist or any Savarna Progressive is ready to acknowledge it. They will turn a blind eye to Indian communists' failure to grasp Marxist theory, and opportunism of other Savarna leaders. But surprisingly they'll point to how babasaheb didn't “understand basic marxism” while he could understand it better than any contemporary marxist. They will literally ignore the major roles of the Savarna leaders, including the communists for failing Indian political struggles.
But what about his involvement in the cabinet of the Congress government and the Telangana rebellion!?
As it is already talked about in this article, much before he had joined the cabinet as a law minister to secure constitutional safeguards and rights for every oppressed group, the “Communists” and the “Socialists” were already part of congress themselves. M N roy was someone who worked with Lenin but he refused to let socialists or communists organize outside Congress. Congress was funded directly by the wealthy industrialists as well, but they'll never really bring this up because it doesn't suit their attempt to malign Babasaheb.
Some “Marxist intellectuals” may try to argue that Babasaheb actually had any authority or administrative jurisdiction over operation polo against the telangana rebellion. It is clear that Babasaheb never really “green lit” the operation polo or condemned the telangana rebellion. It was simply not part of his administrative jurisdiction because that's how parliamentary democracy works. Even though these “communists” and “socialists” were part of the Congress, I wonder how they don't share any blame for the same, but somehow Babasaheb who was never even in the Congress Party is to be blamed.
He may have opposed the communists and the socialists, but it is important to note that he was against the individuals who were supposed to adhere to their ideologies, Babasaheb was never fully against the ideology of Marxism himself, while he did have some disagreements with the ideology but he was never against the core goal of it. They just tried to show some of his quotes speaking against the communists which were cropped and taken out of context, and somehow tried painting Babasaheb as an anti communist and implying him to be pro capitalist and pro congress without making any sense, they tried to forcefully somehow relate the telangana rebellion to babasaheb being in the cabinet as a law minister and needing to be blamed.
What the Savarna Marxists will never tell you about the Telangana rebellion:
What the Savarna Marxists will never tell you about the Telangana rebellion is that its command structure perfectly mirrored the oppressive caste hierarchy they claimed to destroy. The top communist leadership was overwhelmingly dominated by wealthy, land-owning dominant castes, specifically the Reddys and Kammas. Meanwhile, the foot soldiers bleeding on the front lines were Malas, Madigas, Koyas, and Gonds. Dalit and Adivasi peasants, desperately fighting to escape forced labor, were turned into human shields for a Savarna-directed ideological war.
This was the exact same blueprint of betrayal Dr. Ambedkar diagnosed during the 1928 Bombay strikes. Savarna communists used marginalized peasants to wage their war against the State, but when the Indian Army's brutal retaliation arrived, the contrast in consequences was horrifying. Dalit and Adivasi peasants were slaughtered by the thousands, and marginalized women were subjected to horrific mass rapes. But what happened to the Savarna elites who directed the insurgency? They did not face firing squads. Instead, men like Puchalapalli Sundarayya and Ravi Narayan Reddy called off the struggle and seamlessly transitioned into mainstream electoral politics. The marginalized died in the dirt, while their Savarna commanders traded revolutionary rhetoric for comfortable Parliament seats, proving they have always viewed the Depressed Classes as entirely expendable.
Savarnas only cared to get a leadership position, while Babasaheb only cared for the people.
He warned he would burn the Constitution if majoritarians used democracy to suppress minority rights.
While he fought in the streets under colonial rule, he rejected armed rebellion in a republic as the "grammar of anarchy." He knew the communist playbook well: upper-caste elites directing armed struggles from the top while Dalit and Adivasi peasants acted as cannon fodder.
Joining the first cabinet was never a surrender. It was a calculated mission to secure permanent constitutional safeguards, prioritizing the law so his people would never again bleed for unwinnable wars. The moment the establishment blocked his broader social reforms by stalling the Hindu Code Bill, he resigned. His loyalty belonged exclusively to the oppressed, never to the Savarna political elite.
The True Vanguard of Labor
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar declared in the speech “Trade Unions must enter politics to protect their interests” the Depressed Classes, the natural leaders of the Indian labor movement. Because they endured the deepest social wrongs, their politics were grounded in brutal material reality, not upper-caste political abstractions. This authenticity made them the true beacon for all workers.
He also revealed the strategic genius of their assured legislative quotas. While general elections are a volatile gamble, the Depressed Classes possessed guaranteed structural power. This quota was a constitutional weapon that the entire working class could wield, provided other labor groups accepted Dalit leadership.
Conclusion:
The real people against the status quo are not the ones who call themselves a leftist, but the ones who are against the Brahmanical Status quo and rightly see that Capitalism and Brahmanism are the two enemies of the people.
Babasaheb could achieve what the opportunistic savarna communists could never achieve in their collective careers. He could bring change, and he could do what no one dared to. The wealthy Savarna Landlord leaders of the Telangana insurgency conveniently shifted to electoral politics without needing to deal with any of the state retaliation and lived a comfortable life. The Telangana rebels were killed and mass raped, their leaders felt no remorse about it. The GKU leaders like SA Dange used Depressed Classes workers for securing benefits for the caste Hindus while refusing to abolish untouchability and never allowed the Depressed Classes to work in the weaving department which had a better pay.
It was Babasaheb who led the 1938 general strike against the black bill for the whole working class, and the strike had paralyzed the entire Bombay province. It was Babasaheb who never cared for leadership positions but only the people of India.
Jai Bhim.
u/EpicFortnuts — 8 days ago
Debunking OIT believers: The myth of "Pashupatinath" seal
OIT believers are a bunch of delusional people who don’t have a basic understanding of Linguistics, archeology or genetics. They can’t even understand what a study says - but they like to interpret it in their own ways.
Like they tried to manipulate what the Rakhigarhi results revealed.
All their arguments come from their scriptures. They don’t rely on scientific evidence.
- They reject Linguistics as a western propaganda
- They reject genetics as a western propaganda
- The only thing they rely on is their scriptures.
Coming to the Pashupatinath Seal
It was named Pasupati seal by John Marshall.
John believed that the seated figure with three faces and a horned head dress represented Proto Shiva. Since the figure was surrounded by wild animals - he named it Pasupati.
But how does this prove that Indo Europeans originated in IVC and spread outside? For all we know is - IVC people worshipped a seated deity with a horned head dress.
Similar seated deities can be found in other seals too:
The above seal has another seated deity with horned head dress and a single branch with three pipal leaves rises from the middle of the headdress.
- Does this supposed Proto Shiva fit the rig Vedic description of Rudra?
- Did Rigvedic Aryans worship Shiva Linga?
- Who was the prominent god of Rigvedic Aryans?
Before making a joke out of themselves, these OITians have to prove that Vedic people worshipped Lingams or Phallus.
If OITians start studying about material cultures, they will understand that IVC had a different material culture than the subsequent Vedic civilization. IVC was succeeded by PGW which was a different culture. B.B.lal was the first to identify PGW with Vedic Aryans.
The IVC was largely an urban culture which wasn’t nomadic and it wasn’t centered on horse or horse driven chariots or Indo-European gods who are described in Rigveda as driving chariots.
The horse problem:
We know that Indo Europeans laid great emphasis on horse motifs, they revered horses as the horse twins, described their gods and goddess as driving horse chariots.
Divine Twins:
Vedic : Divó nápātā (the Asvins); Lithuanian: Dievo sūneliai (the Asveiniai); Latvian : the Dieva dēli, Greek: the Diós-kouroi (Castor and Pollux), Celtic : the Dioskouroi
But, why horse was so important for them? They were one of the first group of people to domesticate horses. Horse domestication began in the steppes of Eurasia - where wild horses were found.
OITians don’t understand all this, they cite Sandor Bokonyi findings of horse remains in IVC. Without even fully reading what Bokonyi said about the remains.
The Lack of horse motifs in IVC:
Bull motif is in abundance in IVC and Bull is the most represented animal on the seals. Of the 1400 sites, there are a handful of figurines which archeologists claim to be horse figurines.
In general - horse is missing in the representations. OITians do some mental gymnastics as to why there is a lack of horse motifs in IVC.
OITians often cite a study by J. Manuel (he was with ASI tutored by K.K.Mohammad) in Purattatva.
He claimed that the lack of horse figurines and motifs or badly made horse figurines (the few that were identified as horse) might be due to the fact that the artists were not familiar with the animal as they were with rhinos.
He calls it ‘the occasional horse used by merchants’
He also agrees that there aren’t many examples of horse remains from IVC and those which are found are from late harappan times were all Equus Caballus - the Eurasian horse.
Yet he tries to mislead the audience by using words like - Indigenous horses.
Indigenous horses of Indian subcontinent had long went extinct, even before Indus Valley civilization came into existence.
They looked something like this:
They were Equus Namadicus.
There isn’t a single study that shows that true horses (domesticated horses) originated from Equus Namadicus.
There was another species which was found in Himalayas, it was called Equus sivelensis. Both Sivalensis and Namadicus were more closely related to zebras and asses than true horses.
Horse and Indo Europeans:
This is an Ancient Greek depiction of Sun god Helios
It’s a common theme in Indo European cultures to depict the Sun god going around the sky in chariots.
- In the Norse traditions, Sól rode through the sky on her chariot every day, pulled by two horses named Arvak and Alsvid.
- Apollo rides a chariot
- Helios rides a chariot
- In Vedic tradition- Surya rode through the sky with his chariot pulled by seven horses
The very reason is - they associated horse with speed.
- Indo Europeans were among the first to start domesticating and adopting horses as domestic animals.
- Horse domestication helped them spread far and wide. They started revering the animal as horse twins(Asvins - Vedic, Asvieniai- Lithuanian).
- They also associated the animal driven chariot with their deities.
Now let us look at the material culture in the IVC:
Indus Valley people had a different culture vastly different from Vedic aryans.
- For starters - they had knowledge of writing which RigVedic Aryans lacked. (The PGW which was linked with Vedic aryans by B.B.Lal - lacked knowledge of writing in the first phase)
- IVC seals and their depictions of animal sacrifices in seals - are clearly non-Vedic.
- IVC seals didn’t depict Vedic gods or their horse driven carriages or their lifestyle in general.
- IVC deities were associated with Peepal tree or peepal leaves. The worship of peepal trees in India must have had roots here.
- The most represented animal in the seals were - Bulls, not horses.
The OITs funnily even call the Unicorn seal modeled after a bull -as an evidence of horse.
Single horned bull seal:
A bull seal:
Lack of warrior burials:
Even the most vocal proponents of OIT in ASI haven’t denied the fact that IVC lacked a warrior class, which is an important aspect of Aryan society.
Both the Vedic Aryans and their cousins Iranians had a four-fold system and defined a warrior class and their duties.
The evidence of very first warrior tribe or presence of warrior class comes from Sinauli in UP. Which is classified as OCP culture - not IVC.
IVC lacks warrior burials.
A warrior burial usually has - remains of the warrior, his chariot, his accessories such as the helmet, sheaths, swords so on.
A Balkan Celtic warrior burial unearthed all this
The Sinauli warrior burial site:
Of the thousands of IVC sites - not even a single warrior burial was found.
OITians have no evidence on their side, they don’t have genetic evidence to show that there was a large-scale migration from Indian subcontinent to outside.
Their only argument for every single question is :
But, Rigveda mentions a river named Saraswati.
Iranians can use the same logic.
- The Avestan scripture Vendidad mentions that Aryans left their homeland Airyanəm Vaēǰah *(*Aryānwēžan in Parthian, literally meaning ‘expanse of Aryans) and migrated to 16 perfect lands created by Ahura Mazda, because it became inhospitable due to severe cold.
- The 10th lands their god created and they migrated to was Harahvaiti (Avestan equivalent of Saraswati - the regions surrounding the river Arghandab and the 15th land they migrated to is - Hapta Hndu. (Sapta Sindu)
What does Vendidad mean? It’s a contraction of - Videvdat, meaning,
“Given against the Devas(demons)”
Even if OIT favoring archeologists try to twist facts- the fact remains that Archeology had repeatedly favored the - theory of Aryan migration into the subcontinent and not the other way around.
If Indo Europeans indeed originated from Indian subcontinent and spread to Eurasia,
- OITians have to prove that horse domestication started in Indian subcontinent. But, scientific evidence shows that - all modern domesticated horses originated from the Eurasian horse.
- OITians have to explain lack of horse motifs in Indus seals unearthed. And explain why they don’t depict the Vedic gods or Indo-European gods.
- OITians have to explain why steppe migrations into Indian subcontinent is largely male mediated.
- They have to explain the presence various language families in the Indian subcontinent. Do they believe all the language families are indigenous? Do they reject Austroasiatic migrations too?
When they do so conclusively with archeological, linguistic and genetic evidences, their theory will be accepted. That's how science works.
For now, scientific consensus favors the steppe hypothesis over the Anatolian hypothesis.
References:
http://www.rhinoresourcecenter.com/pdf_files/140/1401080013.pdf
u/UnionChoice2562 — 7 days ago
Work without wages: India tops global ranking for unpaid overtime
For most workers, putting in a few extra hours now and then has become part of the job.
A skipped lunch break, a late evening spent finishing tasks, or an extra hour answering emails often goes uncompensated. But in India, unpaid work appears to have become far more than an occasional occurrence.
u/UnionChoice2562 — 10 days ago
Caste In Hinduism - A detailed analysis and refuting the apologia (Part-1)
There is norm among apologists to somehow use scripture as some defense to save their casteist history, I had made a detailed post on casteism in Bhagwat Gita
(https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRadicals/s/cVCvlgfJNU),
but it does not stop apologist from making useless claims from other scripture. It's like a circularity, when u bring puranas and smritis they will jump to Shruti (Vedanta) but when u show evidence from Vedanta, they will then go back to bring evidence from smritis and puranas or Mahabharata, so below is a detailed analysis of caste in Hinduism, I will also refute commonly raised objections by apologist of caste mobility as well as caste based discrimination in totality of Hinduism, Mind you I am not showing some verses, I am explaining how Hinduism at its core preserves the discriminatory nature of varna-jati system thus no amount of few good verses can change that.
this part will only focus on birth-based caste system in scriptures and analyzing the verses often quoted to show mobility and in other posts I will show instances of untouchability, violence, cruelty, slavery based on caste
Birth Based Varna System:
I will get to the root of the very analysis by first showing from all scriptures how varna itself is based on birth and to be more precise, it is based on the actions of "Past lives", I will also answer to objections under each category.
First let me cite from Bhagwat Gita itself, many apologists have a habit of using the word "nature" and "gunnas" to show that varna is based in qualities, but the scripture themselves define prakriti to be Gita's explanation of Prakriti and Svabhava does mean natural talents, preferences, or professional inclinations. In Chapter 14, Krishna describes Prakriti as some cosmic mother of all embodied beings and prakriti is decided by actions of past life and therefore gunnas are created out of prakriti at birth itself, this is also further clear from commentary on Shankaracharya, ramanujacharya and rambhadracharya on 18.41 and 4.13 as you can see here the qualities themselves are result of actions of past life
>The nature of Brāhmaṇas, Kṣatriyas, Vaiśyas, and Śūdras arises from their respective inherent dispositions. This means that their past Karma determines their births as Brāhmaṇas and so on. The qualities (Guṇas) such as Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas are the results of such Karma.
shankaracharya's commentary on gita 18.41 -english
ramanujacharya's commentary on Gita 18.41-english
>Further even Upanishads especially older one and vedantic ones like "Chandogya Upanishad" reaffirm the case that case is indeed based on past life
Among them, those who did good work in this world [in their past life] attain a good birth accordingly. They are born as a brāhmin, a kṣatriya, or a vaiśya. But those who did bad work in this world [in their past life] attain a bad birth accordingly, being born as a dog, a pig, or as a casteless person.
Chandogya Upanishad, Verse 5.10.7 (English and Sanskrit)
But I have a separate post for BG, in this one I will be including several other scriptures as well so here we go.
>Notice something important here, In Hinduism there are 2 births one the natural birth and another is the "Upanayana samskara" which makes some castes as "dvija", thus many apologists say that one can change their varna at upanayana samskara, but that is outright wrong as the "original-birth" decides varna and the "Upanayana samskara" is only a ceremony that marks people of upper 3 varna eligible to perform their varna duties but it does not allow a Shudra born to have upanayana rights to begin with
Mahabharata 13.143.6 “The illustrious one said, ‘The status of a Brahmana, O goddess, is exceedingly difficult to attain. O auspicious lady, one becomes a Brahmana through original creation or birth. After the same manner the Kshatriya, the Vaisya, and the Sudra, all become so through original creation.” (The Mahabharata, Book 13: Anusasana Parva: Section CXLIII | Internet Sacred Text Archive)
Mahabharata, Santi Parva 12 Section 72: "Matariswan answered, ‘The Brahmana, O best of kings, has sprung from the mouth of Brahman. The Kshatriya has sprung from his two arms, and the Vaisya from his two thighs. For waiting upon these three orders, O ruler of men, a fourth order, viz., the Sudra, sprung into life, being created from the feet (of Brahman). Originally created thus, the Brahmana takes birth on earth as the lord of all creatures, his duty being the keep of the Vedas and the other scriptures. Then, for ruling the earth and wielding the rod of chastisement and protecting all creatures, the second order, viz., the Kshatriya was created. The Vaisya was created for supporting the two other orders and himself by cultivation and trade, and finally, it was ordained by Brahman that the Sudra should serve the three orders as a menial.’ “Pururavas said, ‘Tell me truly, O god of Winds, to whom, this earth righteously belongs. Does it belong to the Brahmana or to the Kshatriya?’ “The god of Winds said, ‘Everything that exists in the universe belongs to the Brahmana in consequence of his birth and precedence. Persons conversant with morality say this. What the Brahmana eats is his own. The place he inhabits is his own. What he gives away is his own. He deserves the veneration of all the (other) orders. He is the first-born and the foremost. As a woman, in the absence of her husband, accepts his younger brother for him, even so the earth, in consequence of the refusal of the Brahmana, has accepted his next-born, viz., the Kshatriya, for her lord…” (Section LXXII [Mahabharata, English])
Srimad Bhagavatam 11.5.5: “But Brahmanas, Ksattriyas and Vaisyas, by virtue of their original birth, and second birth through their Upanayana (investiture of the sacred thread) ceremony (become eligible for studies, performance of sacrifices, etc.) …” (Yuga-wise Methods of Worshipping the Lord [Chapter 5])
Srimad Bhagavatam 10.86.53: “By his very birth, a brahmana is the best of all living beings in this world, and he becomes even more exalted when he is endowed with austerity, learning and self-satisfaction, what to speak of devotion to me.” (Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 10.86.53)
>The Skanda Purana explicitly states that a Shudra must not study or perform sacrifices and must remain in the same status into which he is born, directly contradicting the apologetic claim that a Shudra can become a Brahmin through Vedic study.
Skanda Purana V.iii.122.16: “A separate duty has not been assigned by Paramesthin to the Sudra. He need not have any Mantra, consecration or pursuit of lores. He need not have any conventional study of the science of words (i.e. Grammar) and special worship of deities. He has to be, day and night, in the same state as at birth.” (The Greatness of Kohana Tīrtha [Chapter 122])
Padma Purana II.38.20b-24 “[The Sages said:] The three castes viz. brahmanas, ksatriyas and vaisyas are twice born. This (i.e. the Veda) is an ancient sacred text meant for all the castes. The beings behave according to the Vedic practices; therefor they (continue to) live. You are born in the family of Brahman. (So) you are a brahmana only.” (The End of Vena’s Reign [Chapter 38])
**Agni Purana 162.3-7: "**By reading the Vedas and practicing equally to all, a man enters the region of paradise. This is the prerogative of the twice born castes, specifically belonging to a Brahamana as his birth right, as he might read the Vedas and realise the truths inculcated therein by living any of the four orders of life. A Brahmana by dwelling in this world, may attain the Supreme Brahma.” (Agni Puranam Vol I : Manmatha Nath Dutt : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive)
Vasistha Dharma Shastra 4.1-3: “The four castes are distinguished by their origin and by particular sacraments. There is also the following passage of the Veda, ‘The Brâhmana was his mouth, the Kshatriya formed his arms, the Vaisya his thighs; the Sûdra was born from his feet.’ It has been declared in (the following passage of) the Veda that (a Sûdra) shall not receive the sacraments, ‘He created the Brâhmana with the Gâyatrî (metre), the Kshatriya with the Trishtubh, the Vaisya with the Gagatî, the Sûdra without any metre.’ (Vasistha Dharmasutra: Chapter IV)
Narada Purana I.24.7-9: “Those castes are said to be four, viz., the Brahmans, Ksatriyas, Vaisyas and Sudras. Among these the Brahmana is the foremost. The Brahmanas, Ksatriyas and Vaisyas- these three are called Dvijas (the twice-born), because at first they are born of their mothers and later on, they are consecrated by means of sacred thread with due repetition of the Mantras (which constitute the second birth). Thus twice-born-ness is attained by these three classes. All holy rites and duties must be performed by these castes in accordance with the specific duties prescribed for their castes. By failing to perform the holy duties prescribed for one’s own caste, one is called a heretic by learned men.” (The Narada-Purana, Part 1 : J. L. Shastri, G. V. Tagare : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive)
Myth of Caste Mobility and refuting commonly cited verses (this will further prove why caste and varna are based on birth):
Mahabharata 13.27.3-6: “O best of kings, how may one, if he happens to be a Kshatriya or a Vaisya or a Sudra, succeed in acquiring the status of a Brahmana? It behoveth thee to tell me the means. Is it by penances the most austere, or by religious acts, or by knowledge of the scriptures, that a person belonging to any of the three inferior orders succeeds in acquiring the status of a Brahmana? Do tell me this, O grandsire!’ “Bhishma said, ‘The status of a Brahmana, O Yudhishthira, is incapable of acquisition by a person belonging to any of the three other orders. That status is the highest with respect to all creatures. Travelling through innumerable orders of existence, by undergoing repeated births, one at last, in some birth, becomes born as a Brahmana.” (Section XXVII [Mahabharata, English])
>
Hindu apologists often misinterpret texts to suggest that certain individuals attained a higher caste within the same lifetime. In fact, the scriptures consistently indicate that caste elevation or degradation occurs only in subsequent births. According to the consensus of Hindu law texts, a person’s caste in a given life is fixed by birth, with changes in future incarnations only
Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva, 13.28: “f born as human being, he is sure to take birth as a Pukkasa or a Chandala. Verily, one having taken birth in that sinful order of existence, viz., Pukkasa, one, O Matanga, has to wander in it for a very long time. Passing a period of one thousand years in that order, one attains next to the status of a Sudra. In the Sudra order, again, one has to wander for a long time. After thirty thousand years one acquire the status of a Vaisya. There, in that order, one has to pass a very long period. After a time that is sixty times longer than what has been stated as the period of Sudra existence, one becomes a person of the fighting order. In the Kshatriya order one has to pass a very long time. After a time that is measured by multiplying the period last referred to by sixty, one becomes born as a fallen Brahmana. In this order one has to wander for a long period. After a time measured by multiplying the period last named by two hundred, one becomes born in the race of such a Brahmana as lives by the profession of arms. There, in that order, one has to wander for a long period. After a time measured by multiplying the period last named by three hundred, one takes birth in the race of a Brahmana that is given to the recitation of the Gayatri and other sacred Mantras. There, in that order, one has to wander for a long period. After a time measured by multiplying the period last named by four hundred, one takes birth in the race of such a Brahmana as is conversant with the entire Vedas and the scriptures…” (The Mahabharata, Book 13: Anusasana Parva: Anusasanika Pa... | Internet Sacred Text Archive)
Manu Smriti 9.334-5: “But to serve Brahmanas (who are) learned in the Vedas, householders, and famous (for virtue) is the highest duty of a Sudra, which leads to beatitude. (A Sudra who is) pure, the servant of his betters, gentle in his speech, and free from pride, and always seeks a refuge with Brahmanas, attains (in his next life) a higher caste.” (The Laws of Manu IX | Internet Sacred Text Archive)
Apastamba Dharma Sutra 2.5.11.10-11: “In successive births men of the lower castes are born in the next higher one, if they have fulfilled their duties. In successive births men of the higher castes are born in the next lower one, if they neglect their duties.” (SBE 2: &Acirc;pastamba: Pra<I>s</I>na II, Pa<I>t</I>ala 5... | Internet Sacred Text Archive)
>Thus, irrespective of personal conduct or achievement, an individual is required to perform only the duties prescribed for their birth-based caste, with the prospect of attaining a higher caste deferred to future births, often after many lifetimes.
Skanda Purana V.ii.22: states that a Kshatriya king had been born as a Shudra named Somaka in a previous life.
Srimad Bhagavatam 1.13.15: records that Yama, having been cursed by Sage Manduka, was born as a Shudra.
Srimad Bhagavatam 7.15.72–73: narrates that Sage Narada was cursed to be born as a Shudra from the womb of a maidservant, and only after serving Brahmins in that life was he reborn as a Brahmana.
Shiva Purana, Kotirudra Samhita 4.9.3 mentions that a Brahmin woman named Saumini became an outcaste in her next birth.
Mahabharata 13.10 states that a Shudra, by acquiring merit through prescribed conduct, was reborn in his next life in the family of a great king and eventually attained great splendour. (SB 4.30.48 - Vanisource)
Answering Objections of varna change and Upanayana samkara:
Claim: Satyakaam Jaabaal was son of a prostitute but became a Brahmin.
Refutation:
Satyakam Jabal was initiated by Gautama Rishi only after the sage confirmed that he was a Brahmin by birth, as noted by Adi Shankara in his commentary on Brahma Sutra 1.3.37, cited earlier in this article. The relevant passage from the Chandogya Upanishad is as follows.
Chandogya Upanishad 4.4.4-5: “He said to him: ‘Of what family are you, my friend?’ He replied: ‘I do not know, Sir, of what family I am. I asked my mother, and she answered: “In my youth when I had to move about much as a servant, I conceived thee. I do not know of what family thou art. I am Gabâlâ by name, thou art Satyakâma,” I am therefore Satyakâma Gâbâlâ, Sir.’ He said to him: ‘No one but a true Brâhmana would thus speak out. Go and fetch fuel, friend, I shall initiate you. You have not swerved from the truth.’” (The Upanishads, Part 1 (SBE01): Kh&acirc;ndogya Upanishad... | Internet Sacred Text Archive)
>The very first question Gautama asks is about Satyakam's gotra and lineage, showing that birth and ancestry were the normal basis for determining eligibility. Only because Satyakāma's lineage was genuinely uncertain does Gautama infer his Brahmin status from his ability. This is an exceptional case for resolving uncertain parentage, not a general rule for assigning varṇa, further gunnas ( abillities) themselves are based on actions of past life,
When Satyakāma cannot identify his father, he is sent to ask his mother about his ancestry. This itself shows that his mother's caste and family background were considered relevant in deciding his status and rights. If varna were determined solely by one's present qualities, there would have been no need to inquire about either parent's lineage at all. Gautama resorts to Satyakāma's truthfulness only because the normal method of determining his birth status had become impossible due to uncertain paternity. Thus, the story presents an exceptional solution to an exceptional case, not a rejection of birth-based varṇa.
Claim: "Everyone is a Shudra by birth (Janmanā jāyate śūdraḥ...) as per skanada Puran, and one can change or decide their varna at upanayana samskara"
Refutation:
the verse is contradictory as well as meaningless if you look at it in the context of skanada Puran as well as other scriptures
>To begin with, it contradicts numerous texts that explicitly describe varṇa as determined by birth or original creation. Mahabharata 13.143.6 states that one becomes a Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaishya or Shudra through original creation or birth. Mahabharata, Śānti Parva 12.72 explains that the four varnas were created separately by Brahmā and continue to be born accordingly, assigning their respective duties from birth. Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.5.5 distinguishes between the first birth into a varṇa and the second birth through Upanayana, proving that Upanayana presupposes an already existing birth-varṇa rather than creating one. similarly Bhagavad Gītā 18.41, as interpreted by both Śaṅkarācārya and Rāmānujācārya, explains varṇa in terms of svabhāva arising from past karma, while Chandogya Upaniṣad 5.10.7 describes future births into different varṇas according to karma, again treating varṇa as something acquired at birth rather than at initiation.
>but here is an even interesting thing, The interpretation also contradicts the Skanda Purana itself. If every person were born a Shudra and later became a Brahmana through Upanayana, the Purana should prescribe a path for Shudras to receive initiation and Vedic education. Instead, it repeatedly states the opposite. Skanda Purana clearly states that a Shudra must not study, must not sacrifice, he has to stay in the same state as at birth which is contrary to what apologists claim that a Shudra by studying Veda becomes a Brahmin,
Skanda Purana V.iii.122.16:” A separate duty has not been assigned by Paramesthin to the Sudra. He need not have any Mantra, consecration or pursuit of lores. He need not have any conventional study of the science of words (i.e. Grammar) and special worship of deities. He has to be, day and night, in the same state as at birth.”
Skanda Purana III.ii.6.79:” One should never teach a Vedic Mantra to a Sudra. (Thereby) the Brahmana becomes deficient in his Brahmanical powers and the Sudra in his merit”
Skanda Purana V.iii.228.8-9:” One should not give knowledge, leavings of food or Havis to a Sudra. He should not be taught righteous and pious rites nor should he be initiated in Vratsa. The following six things cause downfall of women and Sudras: japa, penance, pilgrimage, renunciation of the world, practice of Mantras and initiation for the adoration of a deity”
Skanda Purana V.iii.200.6:”It has been decided that for merely pronouncing the Veda (Vedic text by a Sudra) the tongue of that Sudra should be cut off by Ksatriyas who the protectors of Dharma are”
>
The claim becomes even more absurd when we look at the age prescribed for different varnas to be initiated into upanayana samskara, if varna was decides by upanayana samskara the age of initiation would not be dependent on the varna status itself, this is literally evidence that as per scriptures varna status is decided at birth before upanayana samskara ,If everyone were literally born a Shudra and only became twice-born through Upanayana, then no one could ever become eligible for Upanayana in the first place. The argument becomes circular: one must already belong to the twice born varṇas to receive the very ceremony that is claimed to create those varṇas.
Manusmriti 2.36:"The Brahmana shall be initiated in the eighth year, the Kshatriya in the eleventh, and the Vaishya in the twelfth." This command takes it for granted that the child is already a Brahmin, Kshatriya, or Vaishya at the time of the ceremony, as there is no provision for ascertaining varna at such tender ages. An 8-year-old Brahmin boy has yet to demonstrate Vedic skill or knowledge, and the text requires initiation purely on the basis of his birth into a Brahmin class. If varna were not determined in advance, how would one know when to initiate a Brahmin boy at eight versus eleven or twelve? Lack of any skill-based test prior to Upanayana coupled with the birth eligibility requirement confirms varna at birth and not through the ceremony or later actions. (Manusmriti Verse 2.36 [Initiation (upanayana)])
Even vedantic scriptures like brahamsutra prohibit upanayana samksara to Shudras:
Claim: Vatsa became a Rishi though born to a Shudra (Aitareya Brahman 2.19).
Refutation: The Aitareya Brahmana does not mention the name or caste of Vatsa’s father. However, Rig Veda 8.8.8 and Pancavimsa Brahmana 14.6.6 state that Vatsa was born to a Brahmin named Kanva. Furthermore, Rig Veda 8.8.11 identifies Vatsa as the son of a sage, indicating that Kanva himself was also a sage.
Claim: Ailush Rishi was son of a Daasi, gambler and of low character. However, he researched on Rigveda and made several discoveries. Not only was he invited by Rishis but also made an Acharya. (Aitareya Brahman 2.19).
Refutation: The story of Kavasa Ailusa appears in Aitareya Brahmana 2.19 and Kausitaki Brahmana 12.3. He was born to a Brahmin father named Ilusha and a slave woman. When Kavasa joined the sacrifice by the Saraswati, the rishis expelled him, questioning how the son of a slave woman could remain among them or be initiated. Only after the Saraswati miraculously favored him did the rishis accept him. His initial expulsion from ritual participation is a clear illustration of social exclusion based on birth and shows that access to religious rites was ordinarily restricted to Brahmins or Dvijas.
It is therefore essential to distinguish rare narrative exceptions from the normative social rule. The Dharma Shastras and other major Hindu texts consistently permit only Dvijas to undergo initiation and to perform Vedic sacrifices, making ritual eligibility explicitly dependent on birth. Texts such as Manu Smriti codify varna in rigid hereditary terms, detailing mixed unions, the transmission of status through lineage, and regulations that severely restrict social mobility, thereby leaving no scope for a genuinely merit based caste order.
Claim: Matanga was son of Chandal but became a Brahmin. (Mahabharat Anushasan Parva Chapter 3)
Refutation: The Mahabharata does not state that Matanga transitioned from a Chandala to a Brahmin.
Mahabharata 13.3 ‘Matanga was born as a Chandala, and could not attain to Brahmanahood’ Tr. Kisari Mohan Ganguli (The Mahabharata, Book 13: Anusasana Parva: Anusasanika Pa... | Internet Sacred Text Archive)
Matanga performed rigorous penance. Pleased by his asceticism, Indra appeared before him several times, offering boons. Matanga repeatedly requested to be elevated to the status of a Brahmin. Indra, however, consistently refused.
Mahabharata 13.29. ‘Sakra said, ‘One born on a Chandala cannot, by any means acquire the status of a Brahmana. Do thou, therefore, name some boon so that all this labour of thine may not prove fruitless–Thus addressed by the chief of the celestials, Matanga became filled with grief… Matanga also, casting off his life-breaths, attained to a high place. Thou mayst thus see, O Bharata, that the status of a Brahmana is very high. That status is incapable of being acquired here (except in the natural way of birth) as said by the great Indra himself.” (The Mahabharata, Book 13: Anusasana Parva: Anusasanika Pa... | Internet Sacred Text Archive)
Claim: Sons of Vishwamitra became Shudra. Vishwamitra himself was a Kshatriya who later became a Brahmin.
Response: Vishvamitra was born a brahmin as per the Mahabharata (Anushasan Parv 4/40-4/48) It is mentioned in the stories that King Gadhi married his daughter to the sage Rishi Mṛcīka. However, when no son was born to them, one day, his wife asked her husband to arrange it such a way that both she and her mother would bear sons. When she asked her husband for this, he made different types of offerings for both—one with Kshatriya qualities for the mother and Brahmin qualities for his wife (as mentioned in Mahabharata, Anu Parva 4/38). But the two women swapped the offerings— the mother took the Brahmin offering intended for the daughter, and the daughter took the Kshatriya offering intended for the mother. When the sage learned of this, he said, 'Now, your mother will give birth to a Brahmin.'" (The Mahabharata, Book 13: Anusasana Parva: Anusasanika Pa... | Internet Sacred Text Archive)
Claim: Mahrshi Valmiki and Mahrshi Ved Vyasa were Shudras.
Refutation:
Mahrshi valmiki was the son of “Mahrshi Prachetas”
प्रचेतसोऽहं दशमः पुत्रो राघवनन्दन(VR/Uttarkand/96/19)
मरीचिमत्र्यङ्गिरसौ पुलस्त्यं पुलहं क्रतुम् । प्रचेतसं वसिष्ठं च भृगुं नारदमेव च ॥Manu 1.35|
Ved Vyasa, also known as Veda Vyasa, is traditionally considered to be a sage and a Brahmin in the context of the Mahabharata. The Mahabharata mentions several key details about Vyasa's lineage and background that indicate his Brahmin status. Below are some relevant verses and references: Vyasa's Birth and Parentage: Vyasa is the son of the sage Parashara and Satyavati. Parashara was a revered Brahmin sage, which implies that Vyasa himself is a Brahmin by birth. This is mentioned in the Adi Parva of the Mahabharata. Adi Parva, Section 63 (Sambhava Parva):
अपि चास्मि महाप्राज्ञ पितरं वेद पारगम् | वसिष्ठस्य महात्मनः पुत्रः साक्षादिति श्रुतम् ६३-११ | Translation: "O highly intelligent one, I am the son of the great sage Parashara, who is known to be the son of the great sage Vasishtha
there is no doubt Parashar was a Rishi, Satyavati was rajnakanya. कैवर्तपुत्रिका न त्वं राजकन्यासि सुन्दरि ॥(SkandaPurana/Avanti-Reva Khand/97.18)
Claim: there are instances of varna change in manusmriti and other scriptures.
Refutation:
All such instances are done via either past life or confusion about caste of parents or by inter caste marriages, not by some aquired skills or talents, Hinduism has explicit rules to decide the varna of child based on varna of parents, if varna was truly based on talents and aquired skills and conduct this would not have been case to begin with
Manu Smriti 10.5: “In all castes (varna) those (children) only which are begotten in the direct order on wedded wives, equal (in caste and married as) virgins, are to be considered as belonging to the same caste (as their fathers).” (Manusmriti Verse 10.5)
Medhatithi commented on above verse as follows,
Mahbharata 13.48 “The Brahmana may take four wives, one from each of the four orders. In two of them (viz.,the wife taken from his own order and that taken from the one next below), he takes birth himself (the children begotten upon them being regarded as invested with the same status as his own)… A Kshatriya may take three wives… The Vaisya may take two spouses…The Sudra can take only one wife, viz., she that is taken from his own order. The son begotten by him upon her becomes a Sudra” (Section XLVIII [Mahabharata, English])
If the parents belong to different castes, the child does not fully belong to either the father’s or the mother’s caste, and in some cases is assigned to the mother’s caste.
Vishnu Smriti 16.1-3: “Sons [begotten] on women equal in caste [to their husbands] are equal in caste [to their fathers]. [Sons begotten] on women of lower castes, become of the caste of their mothers. Sons begotten on women of higher castes are despised by the twice-born.” Tr. Julius Jolly (Source)
Agni Purana 150.9-11: “The duties which appertain to the Shudra caste, O thou best of the Bhrigus, are to serve the Brahmins and to practice the handicrafts. Since the investiture with the holy thread, a member of the twice born caste is supposed to take a second spiritual birth, and I shall describe the castes which children born of parents not members of the same caste, would respectively belong to. A child born of parents belonging to different castes would get the caste of its mother, but on the contrary a child born of a Shudra father by a Brahmin mother would be a Chandala.” (Agni Puranam Vol I : Manmatha Nath Dutt : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive)
Manusmriti 10.6–23 enumerates the castes said to arise from various forms of inter-caste marriages.
Manusmriti 10.6-23 (The Laws of Manu X | Internet Sacred Text Archive)
Like Manu, Yajnavalkya also proceeds to enumerate various castes from verse 91 onward. However, this scheme does not appear to apply in cases of Niyoga. According to the tradition, when Kshatriya men were exterminated, Kshatriya women approached Brahmins for Niyoga, yet the sons born from these unions were still regarded as Kshatriyas.
Sons born to a father of a higher caste, such as a Brahmin, are described in the Manusmriti as possessing Brahminical qualities, even though they are assigned a caste lower than that of their father.
Manu Smriti 10.67-69: “The decision is as follows: ‘He who was begotten by an Aryan on a non-Aryan female, may become (like to) an Aryan by his virtues; he whom an Aryan (mother) bore to a non-Aryan father (is and remains) unlike to an Aryan.’ The law prescribes that neither of the two shall receive the sacraments, the first (being excluded) on account of the lowness of his origin, the second (because the union of his parents was) against the order of the castes. As good seed, springing up in good soil, turns out perfectly well, even so the son of an Aryan by an Aryan woman is worthy of all the sacraments.” (The Laws of Manu X | Internet Sacred Text Archive)
If a child born from a Śūdra woman to a Brāhmaṇa goes on being wedded to a superior person, the inferior attains the superior caste, within the seventh generation.—(manusmriti 10.64)
The Śūdra attains the position of the Brāhmaṇa, and the Brāhmaṇa sinks to the position of the Śūdra; the same should be understood to be the case with the offspring of the Kṣatriya or of the vaiśya.—(manusmriti 10.65)
Some scholars interpret the term “sacraments” here as referring to minor rites, such as the Pakayajnas, which may also be performed by lower castes. It is mentioned in Mahabharata,
Mahabharata 13.48.5: “The son that is begotten by a Brahmana upon a Sudra wife is called Parasara, implying one born of a corpse, for the Sudra woman’s body is as inauspicious as a corpse. He should serve the persons of his (father’s) race. Indeed, it is not proper for him to give up the duty of service that has been laid down for him.” (Section XLVIII [Mahabharata, English])
I will refute even more instances in further parts, do check out my post on casteism in Bhagwat gita (https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRadicals/s/cVCvlgfJNU)
u/Putrid_Lab_7405 — 7 days ago
Inside UP’s Bonded Labor Horror | Beaten With Belts, Served Animal Food, Forced To Work 20 Hours
Just came across a reel related to this and it broke me. Ground report from Muzaffarnagar UP.
u/UnionChoice2562 — 7 days ago
Extreme heat cost India’s farm workers 54 days of labour in the hottest year on record
Extreme heat cost India’s farm workers 54 days of labour in the hottest year on record
A UK-based analysis says extreme heat cost agricultural workers an average of 648 hours in the hottest year on record, with a possible Super El Niño threatening to push temperatures higher in 2026 and 2027.
Summary :
Indian agricultural workers lost an average of 648 hours, or 54 full working days, to heat stress in 2024, a UK-based analysis says.
The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit found that total heat-related working hours lost across India’s agricultural workforce rose sharply over the past decade.
India ranked third among 15 climate-vulnerable countries studied for heat-induced agricultural labour losses, after Ghana and Vietnam.
A possible Super El Niño could intensify heat risks in 2026 and 2027, adding to baseline global warming and worsening conditions for outdoor workers.
The report warns that rising heat stress could deepen income insecurity, disrupt agricultural labour and affect food production.
u/Lotus532 — 12 days ago
"In her lifetime, she is worth nothing in terms of asset entitlement or wealth accumulation, at least not in any enforceable, quantifiable way." analyzing recent SC judgement.
u/Sharklasers6889 — 12 days ago