Book Review: Indian Marxist’s gaze on Religion

Religion and Society

Author: Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya;
Publisher: Aakar Books, New Delhi, 2013 (Originally Published by Ma-Le Prakashana, Banglore, 1987)
Pages, 211; Rs 250.

---

By Bhawesh Pant
Since antiquity, in the human race, there has been a deep desire to know everything: what the universe is and where we are in it. In-order to decipher every meta-narrative, human has expended a substantial amount of ink. Each philosophy has its answer to these meta-narratives according to their episteme. Religion has always been the subject, which has experienced extensive debates and deliberations. Voices emerging from different theoretical traditions produced the varied form of literature on religion, which is occasionally antipode to each other. From day one of the first-ever civilization that existed to this day, people are continuously scribbling something about religion. Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya, with his Marxists orientation, delved into the ocean of Indian civilization and tried to examine the origin, evolution, and future of religion. Debiprasad has a considerable contribution in pioneering the debate, in “reconstruction of scientific ideas and naïve materialism in Indian antiquity.” (Rajendra, 1993) [1]

Religion and Society is a compilation of eight “Stephanos Nirmalendu Ghose Lectures” delivered by the author himself in 1981 at the University of Calcutta. He visualized religion as the “historical necessity.” The introductory part of this book is trading with ‘Christianity’ and ‘Socialism,’ where the author is extensively quoting from Engels and Thomas Munzer. The readers will also receive a few ardent statements from stalwarts like Archibald Robertson; from which the author makes his understanding that “early Christianity was ‘radical in nature’ and Jesus was up to the task to overthrow the Roman and Herodian rule and to establish ‘Kingdom of God in Palestine.’” (p.15)

We will also witness the theorists like Durham, for whom Jesus was ‘active revolutionist.’ The introductory part of this book is not serving much to Indian readership, but Debiprasad himself confesses that he had two reasons to introduce this book in this manner; firstly he (author) had an obligation to the donor of the lecturership. Along with this, he wanted to diffuse a ‘new understanding’ of the historical Christ (or Christianity) with the Indian audience.

Previous to Religion

In the first chapter, titled ‘Before Religion,’ the author astutely renders a narration of the period when there was no organized religion into practice. The author develops his arguments based on the ethnological study of savages or aboriginals. The civilization of pre-history did not have any ‘standardized religion,’ instead, they were practicing ‘magic.’ The author borrows the words from Jane Harrison, “the savage man is a man of action. Instead of asking a God to do what he wants to be done, he does it or tries to do it himself; instead of prayers, he utters spells. In a word, he practices magic, and above all, he is strenuously and frequently engaged in a magical dance,” (p.34)

James Frazer’s celebrated work Golden Bough [2] was also in the same tenor. The author explored that magic is a collective activity and not an individual business. He very meticulously develops his narration, keeping the advancement in productive technique into consideration. Debiprasad was trying to install a chronological submission that previous to ‘organized religion’ there was ‘magic.’ The study conducted by Abanindranath Tagore on Vrata-s-of Bengal was an excellent example that showcases that ‘magic’ was in the transient phase and was getting in absorbed into the organized religion. These Vrata’s were the epitome of evolution that was going on from ‘magic’ to ‘organized religion.’

The author, while giving the nuanced vignette of transplantation of ‘magic’ to the ‘organized religion,’ he stated that this subtle shift from ‘magic’ to ‘organized religion’ was a windfall for the superordinates. With the first chapter of the book, the author tries to wipe out the misconceptions, that religion which we are witnessing today or the ‘religion’ which we are following was always there. Instead, he was pressing that the ‘religion’ was the outcome of some material conditions, and it has no divine element in it. Debiprasad adroitly affirms that ‘magic’ was anterior to ‘organized religion.’

Religion as ‘Reality’

The author in the second chapter excellently installs the arguments laid by Gordon Childe in- order to understand the process behind the institutionalization of the ‘religion.’ According to Gordon, ‘religion’ was a ‘historical necessity’ of the epoch, which he termed as ‘Urban Revolution.’ Gordon used, his archeological understanding with the essence of Marxism in it, claimed that the religion is ‘the spiritual equipment.’ This equipment is used to control and transform the external reality, and it builds society’s ideology, its superstitions, and religious beliefs. With ‘Urban Revolution’ the question of ‘surplus’ came into play; ‘surplus’ was being produced by the majority residing in the rural setting for the ‘elite’ minorities’ habitant of urbanized world. For Gordon unequal distribution of ‘surplus’ became the lone reason for tremor among specialized performing beings of the urban arena. It was the time when there was dire need to have a mechanism to curb this fracas, ‘religion’ as an overarching force became that mechanism. Debiprasad extensively used Gordon’s acumen to station his premise that religion was the constructed entity with no spiritual character.

One may not locate much of Debiprasad in this chapter, but in the latter part of the chapter he comes with a pertinent query, that what if any cult or any individual tries to disrupt the existing framework of ‘organized religion.’ The author gets his answer in Barrow Durham’s work on Heroes Heretics and Pharoah; where Durham claimed that cults have always failed to transform the extant religion. Debiprasad made an explicit submission that each organized religion has the baggage of history latched to it, which develops consciousness, and it is hard to alter. This was the only reason why cults were short-lived with minimal influence on grand faiths. The author did well to remind us that the genesis of religion is the result of a sophisticated process, and its wilting will need a revolutionary structural change.

Religion in Indus Civilization

Chapter three of the book comprises of the nuanced account of the nature of religion that prevailed in Indus Valley Civilization. This chapter becomes more significant because, in this, the narrations established are based on archeological evidence. The author captures the account from Marshall work titled Mohenjodaro and the Indus Valley Civilisation where he gave a brief description of religion that was in Indus Valley Civilization and tried to connect or relate it with the latter features of Hinduism.

The captivating part of this chapter comes when historians such as D.D Kosambi and Needham comes into the picture. Both of them were talking in the same vein and concluded that weapons unearthed from Harappan sites were flimsy, indicating the lesser use of direct violence and hence of comparatively higher use of religious superstitions to rein any standoff situation. The author himself confesses that the inferences drawn by historians might not be cent percent evidence weighted, but then too he is interested in investing in it. Cessation of the Harappan civilization was another inquiring subject in which the author was engaging himself. Taking the cues from several works, Debiprasad devised his submission that, “the city was already slowly dying before its ultimate end.” The author extensively borrows from Childe, Allchin, and Wheeler. This chapter is replete with theories regarding withering away of Indus Valley Civilizations.

Vedas and Religion

Following the extensive narration from Indus Valley Civilizations, Debiprasad sweeps into the Vedic period where he is inquiring hard to satiates his urge to know the nature of religion that was frequent in that epoch. The author took the whole three chapters to deliberate on this very theme. One can regard these three chapters as the prise of the book, and it is the mainstay of the book. This part has a lot for the Indian readers, sometimes it educates them, and on seldom occasions will astound them. In the fourth chapter, the author foregrounds his submission that there is no spiritual ascription attached to the religion in Vedic times; instead, Vedic literature was full of comradeship, heroic stories attached to deities with no Godhood there.

The author primarily draws from M.M.H.H Sastri’s understanding of orthodoxy in Vedas. According to Sastri, the ‘Devas’ or gods were ‘crassly human heroes’ for the fulfillment of purely worldly desires. This chapter also comprises nuanced account of Winternitz, who asserts that there were several instances in Rigveda where themes like incest, seduction, conjugal unfaithfulness, the procuring of abortion is mentioned. Keeping these mentions into consideration, Winternitz concluded that Aryans (Vedic Age People) were active, joyful, and were having savage traits.

By the end of the fourth chapter, the author makes it very clear, the said Gods in Vedas are mere cultural heroes. He also unravels how priestly corporations have monopolized the interpretation of Vedas; this becomes more evident from Marx’s biting word, “the Indian Brahmin…. Proves the holiness of the Vedas by reserving for himself alone the right to read it.” (p. 97)

In chapter five of the book, the author revolves around the propositions with weighted atheism in ‘Purva Mimansa.’ According to representatives of Mimansa, “Vedic Gods were mere sounds and words as we have hundreds of synonyms for the word ‘Agni’ or fire in the Vedas; theses were equivalent to hundreds of different Vedic deities.” (p.125) But ‘Purva Mimansa’ never remained the same, Radhakrishnan encapsulated this by commenting that, “this lacuna of the Purva Mimamsa was so unsatisfactory that later writers slowly smuggled in God.” (p.127)

Debiprasad was trying to proffer that with the ‘atheism’ of Mimansa there were also ‘theistic’ traditions that were going in tandem. In chapter six of the book, Debiprasad reproduces a debate where Kumarila (representative of Mimansa) is strenuously negating the inferences forwarded by theists. The two theistic assumptions are ‘God created this world’ and ‘God possesses a body.’ One can discern that Debiprasad was toiling hard to portray the ‘stark atheism’ which was prevalent in the Vedic period, based on the narration given by Sabara and Jamini.

In the preceding three chapters, the author appreciably accentuates the pertinent debates that were in discussion among the scholars of Vedic literature. ‘Mimansa’ school became the favorite weapon for the Debiprasad, from where he was borrowing the arguments to challenge how supernatural or sacred status was attached to an anthology of hymns. The author deepens his analysis with a critical look on the Vedas itself and explores new dimensions of queries by hinting towards the ‘atheistic’ silhouette of the Vedas.

Buddhism and Foe Buddhists

Debiprasad now takes his voyage to Buddhism, where he tries to establish that there was no uniform Buddhism; instead, time to time, there had been altercations in Buddhism with the change in material conditions. The seventh chapter, titled “Buddhism: Revolutionary Sociology into its Opposite,” brilliantly documents the philosophy of Buddhism on ‘religion’ and changes that surfaced within Buddhism. Debiprasad claimed that Buddha’s teachings were very close to ‘secular sociology.’ For the author Buddha with his ‘dialectical outlook’ was advocating for ‘palliative remedy’ for the subordinates in the class-divided society. Buddha was upholding a ‘pragmatic’ stand without using any ritualistic or divine narration. Buddha stresses the relentless doctrine of ‘pratiya-samutpada, i.e., everything that comes into being is due to some collocation of several specific conditions, and hence they are destined to pass away. Following this doctrine, Buddha invalidates the ownership of the private property because it is the sole reason for all sorrow and miseries.

Debiprasad was articulate enough when he unfolded the ‘metamorphosis’ that Buddhism experienced when it got patronage from monarchial elites. Mahayana Buddhism was the altered form of original Buddhism. The ‘Mahamaya’ philosophy was often criticized for smuggling the ‘Upanishadic’ conception of soul or ‘Atma’ which was unceremoniously discarded by early Buddhists. The author states that Buddhism witnessed a drastic change, “flouting the universal flux, which was a mandatory element of old Buddhism, now new Buddhism was pleading for divine sanction and therefore unalterability of kingship.” (p.179)

Impending Religion

Debiprasad being the representative of Marxists tradition, his speculation for religion was similar to what he was having for the ‘class.’ One can conveniently learn the intent of the author for what religion’s future will be by this statement, “with the active overthrow of the class structure of society, religion is destined to wither away.” (p.197) The author in the penultimate chapter of the book titled ‘Future of Religion’ tried to build an analogy between the development of class with the maturation of religion.

The author acknowledges the Engels’s work ‘Anti Duhring’ where he (Engels) quotes; “religion is a sentimental form of men’s relation to the extraneous natural and social forces which dominate them so long as men remain under the control of these forces. Bourgeois economics can neither prevent crises in general nor protect the Individual capitalists from losses, bad debts, and bankruptcy nor secure the individual workers against unemployment and destitution. It is still true that God (i.e., the external force of the capitalist mode of production) disposes.” (p.197) The author was accentuating that religion was the outcome of material processes, thus the change in this material condition will unquestionably change the figuration of religion.

This book induces epistemic questions about the interpretation of Vedic texts. The important feature of this work is that the reader can crop several critical arguments from the complex narrations. While the volume appreciably compiles a rich variety of narratives, it automatically becomes susceptible to criticism also. Debiprasad extensively wrote on Hinduism and Buddhism, but bookworms will surely raise the questions of why Jainism and Sikhism which found their root of origin in India, were omitted.

On seldom occasions when the author is hailing from a declared tradition, he/she strives hard to prove his/her arguments, the same was with Debiprasad. The author was from Marxists tradition, the readers will note that in the few instances, the author was sweating to prove his arguments based on the ‘dialectical’ headset, which becomes tough for readers to absorb. This book was originally published in 1987, but it has a lot to serve the readers of present times. In the current era, especially in India where ‘masculine nationalism’ is arduously busy in coloring the Religion, this book can provide an orientation to them with the ‘argumentative’ aspect of Indian religions.

Notes and References

[1] Prasad, R. (1993). Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya: Social Scientist, 21(5/6), 102-105.
[2] The Golden Bough: A Study in Comparative Religion (retitled The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion in its second edition) is a wide-ranging, comparative study of mythology and religion, written by the Scottish anthropologist Sir James George Frazer.