> Then why was the caste issue ignored for so long? Didn't this have
> something to do with the CP structure itself -- its reliance on deeply
> authoritarian or neo-patriarchal (some would say, neo-ecclesiastical)
> structures?
Here is one very schematic response:
1. CP structure was a highly centralised one. CP was formed after Stalin's capture of the Comintern and CPGB was an important influence. Indian CP did not have a pre-Stalin tradition of its own. (Like Italians had Labriola, Gramsci, Bordiga or Germans had Luxemburg.) So CP (or CPs) produced all the usual characteristics of Stalinist organisations. But Indian caste system was not replicated in the CPs' inner structure.
2. Struggle against imperialism was the primary objective. Certainly upto 1947. But even thereafter, since a very large section of the CP continued to deny that India was an independent nation-state. British imperialism used every division (caste, language, religion, urban/rural) divide in Indian society to defeat or weaken the freedom movement. Anti-imperialist movement, on the contrary, tended to downplay all such divisions and emphasised the unity of all Indians against imperialism.
3. It was also believed that the caste system was based on a pre-industrial mode of production. It could have no basis in a system based modern manufacturing processes. Changes in the mode of production would _automatically and spontaneously_bring about corresponding changes in the superstructure. This belief was widely held. The concept of the "cultural revolution" arrived in 60s under the influence of CPC.
Ulhas