It is said that one of his major theoretical contributions is the analysis of the pre-capitalist Indian Society. Those who make this claim propose (of course in very vague terms) what is their idea of E M S's view on this question. I am not very sure if E M S really had a consistent notion (in writing) on this subject at any time of his theoretical career.
Reading in this E M S area, I found a very strange utterance he made in 1989 which failed to make sense for me as it is apparently antithetical to his pet theory. The following is a quote from E M S Namboodiripad:
Reading in this E M S area, I found a very strange utterance he made in 1989 which failed to make sense for me as it is apparently antithetical to his pet theory. The following is a quote from E M S Namboodiripad:
Owing to this inquiry the Marxists-Leninists have been able to reach certain clear-cut conclusions.
Firstly, the Indian system of thought came into being following the dissolution of the class society in ancient India and evolution of the class society in the form of chaturvarnyam and caste domination. (volume 42, p 311, Complete Works in Malayalam, translation is mine, the original is seen in the page scan)
Namboodiripad was answering a question in his regular advice column in Chinta, the party organ of Kerala State Committee. The question was about another Sankara of another age. While the situation looked very familiar (it would be for anyone who read a bit of EMS) the word I underlined (class society) struck me as strange. I felt that it could have been a slip of tongue or an instance of corrupted text. E M S could have had in mind pre-class society because his contrast requires a classless society on the one hand and class-divided society on the other. Besides, the idea he very often expounded about the breaking of the pre-class (maveli) society into class society based on caste division has to be reckoned with. So, I felt tempted to substitute the first instance of "class society" in the above quote with "classless" or "pre-class society". Unfortunately, I am not an expert in EMS oeuvre and don't find myself confident enough to make that very bold step defying the editors of his Complete Works, E M S scholars and probably E M S himself. In a theoretical career that spanned some sixty years or so of shifting theoretical stances on various questions it would be very adventurous to attempt to place him on one of his pet questions like his formula for the pre-capitalist Indian society. I don't find any way to ascertain the veracity of this assertion in print.
The question arises as this particular assertion goes against the grain of the more popular E M S stuff on this question. Typical of an offhand writer who can dish out popular theories off the cuff, E M S has sickeningly repeated his pet theory of the class evolution in India. Although the theory itself wouldn't outlive a few sentences each time, it is more than clear that the "clear-cut" picture he has on this question (as on any other question) is about a classless society splitting into a class divided society based on caste domination and oppression. So, when he talks of the dissolution of a class society to form another class society based on caste division and domination it raises the question. So, it's E M S's own question.
Whatever my motive I have in posting this question, the question is not mine and for that reason it remains open. That I use it for my own purpose doesn't foreclose it.
The question is important because the idea underpins Namboodiripad's acclaimed contribution of the analysis pre-capitalist Indian society. He called it jati-janmi-naduvazhi medhavitvam ("landlord-upper caste-chieftain-domination" or ജാതി ജന്മി നാടുവാഴി മേധാവിത്വം in CPI(M) lingo).
With the "clear-cut conclusions" that E M S says "Marxist-Leninists" (and for that matter E M S Namboodiripad, too) have been able evolve on the historical period in question, it should be possible for the E M S experts to answer this question. Those scholars who have lauded E M S's contributions on Indian/Kerala history are bound to answer it unless they have already turned their back on their past of loyalty to EMSsism.
An E M S frenzy (especially among academics and writers) characteristic of the 1990's is not in the air nowadays. Have we started forgetting EMS? The publication of his complete works (sampoorna kritikal) is nearing completion. Eighty odd volumes already published, especially those that put together his advice column pieces in the party organ (they alone make more than a dozen volumes) for the first time, provide rich material to assess his scholarship, stances and intellectual progress. However, these volumes don't even receive not so much as a passing mention in the media! It looks like even the publisher's website give absolutely no information on their largest ever project! Have they already started to sweep it under the carpet? Could it be that those eulogists who got carried away in the then prevailing strong currents have found their bearings again and are ashamed of their show of loyalty lacking pith?
The CPI(M)'s hardcore intellectuals are not quoting E M S as they used to do. A major seminar on E M S held last week in Kozhikode struck me like half-hearted effort with its low-profile participation. Very few noted historians or writers attended it except the most loyal party cronies.
Back to the question at issue. Please don't tell me that this is not serious enough to deserve attention. The predominant single motif of E M S oeuvre is the class question, determining the class of anything and everything. If E M S is on quicksand on this basic question, then he is nowhere near his vaunted achievement in the class analysis of ancient Indian society.
The question appears in Malayalam here.
അച്ചുപിഴച്ചതോ ഇ എം എസിനു പിഴച്ചതോ?
