ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846
-A A +A

The Caste Question in the Naxalite Movement

​K Srinivasulu ( is with the Department of Political Science, Osmania University, Hyderabad.

The period following the Chundur massacre of Dalits in August 1991 has witnessed an intense theoretical and ideological debate on the caste question in Telugu society, ignited by the growth of the Dalit and women’s movements. The article examines the debate on the caste–class question in theory and in practice in the Naxalite/Maoist movement in Andhra Pradesh.

The agrarian struggles that have occurred in different parts of India since the 1960s under the leadership of the CPI(ML) [Communist Party of India (Marxist–Leninist)] parties (hereinafter, M–L parties) constitute significant and conscious attempts in the history of rural social transformation. Committed to Marxist–Leninist–Maoist thought, the M–L parties have seen India pre-eminently as a “semi-feudal” and “semi-colonial” social formation that can be emancipated only through an anti-feudal and anti-colonial struggle. One of most formidable challenges the agrarian movements led by them have faced is on the question of caste. Caste as the historical specificity of Indian society has been a major challenge to any effort at social transformation in India, including that of the M–L parties. While their attempts at political mobilisation of the Adivasis in the forest areas, due to the absence of any significant stratification among them, has been quite successful, in contrast, their experience has been quite complex in the plains due to the presence of caste hierarchy/division and resultant contradictions within the rural society.

Theoretically, the M–L parties have sought to understand the rural society in class terms. Landlords and agrarian poor have constituted the two poles of the social stratification, with the middle and rich peasantry comprising the intermediate layers. The principal contradiction is posited between the former two, with the middle and rich peasantry being potential allies of the latter depending on the level of class polarisation and the intensity of social conflict. In contrast to this, they have faced a different situation on the ground, which has demanded a greater sensitivity to caste as it has been a living reality that has ordered not only the social, political and economic spheres but, quite significantly, the everyday life of the subaltern classes. What strikes quite clearly is the hiatus between the theoretical–ideological perspective and the actual mobilisational politics in the movement. What needs to be reflected is the successful mobilisation of the most subaltern sections of the rural society due to the tactical advances in addressing the caste reality in practice. However, the absence of a corresponding theoretical articulation of the caste question also needs to be emphasised.

The Telangana region saw very vibrant and militant peasant struggles under the leadership of the CPI(ML) (People’s War) [CPI(ML) (PW)] and CPI(ML) (Janashakti) in the 1970s and 1980s. These movements assume experimental significance in the history of the post-Emergency agrarian struggles, for one could witness the blending of the anti-feudal struggle with subaltern Dalit and artisanal and service caste mobilisation, and striving to forge unity among them. The attention to the organic link of the agrarian question with the caste question and practical grass-root realities, in fact, resulted in an elaboration of cadre and emergence of even leaders from the Dalit and other subaltern castes. The experience of the CPI(ML)-led movements demonstrates a dialectical intersection of caste and class in practice despite the inadequate theoretical elaboration on the dynamics of their interplay. This article attempts to reflect on the problematic of caste in the Naxalite movement by examining the experience of what are now the states of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.

The argument is presented in three sections. The first section deals with the theoretical–strategic shift brought about by the M–L parties in the understanding of India by characterising it as a semi-feudal and semi-colonial social formation, which in turn paved the way for a shift in the agrarian history of the post-independence period, and became the basis of militant agrarian struggles since the late 1960s. In the second section, we assess the agrarian situation in northern Telangana in the 1970s and examine the development of agrarian struggles there, with a specific focus on caste as the basis of agrarian mobilisation in the post-Emergency period. The third section deals with the challenges posed to the theory and practice of the left by the Dalit movement and dominant electoral politics of caste cooption, and the M–L parties’ response to it.

1 Theoretical–Strategic Shift and Militant Struggles

Two major splits the communist movement has witnessed in the post-independence period are the splits in 1964 that resulted in the formation of the CPI (Marxist) [CPI(M)], and then the emergence of the CPI(ML) from the agrarian struggles in different parts of the country that followed the Naxalbari rebellion in 1967. It may be pertinent to note that what distinguishes the communist parties from others is that they view politics and make sense of political developments in a long-term historical context, and read them in a dialectical theoretical mode. Thus the splits in the communist movement involved deep differences in terms of the characterisation of the present and its contextualisation in the historical process, the assessment of the nature of the state, of class contradictions and the agency of social transformation, and the formulation of strategy and tactics based on the above analysis. Thus the three communist formations, the CPI, CPI(M) and CPI(ML), the latter, the M–L parties, differ significantly on the question of the Indian state and the stage and strategy of revolution in India.

The original CPI(ML) characterised the social relations in the Indian countryside as predominantly semi-feudal and understood the Indian state as a semi-feudal and semi-colonial one. Though the CPI(ML) witnessed multiple splits subsequently, there is a broad consensus among these different M–L parties and groups on the characterisation of Indian society and the state.

As per the semi-feudal characterisation, it is the landed gentry, absentee and resident, that dominates the countryside. The doras’ or landlords’ appropriation of surplus from the peasantry and different productive occupational castes/communities takes the extra economic forms of coercive extraction like veti1 (begar or forced labour), mamools (bribes) and dandugalu (fines), besides rent and usury. Caste has been the site of coercion and oppression; caste hierarchy and caste-based occupations have determined the form of customary obligation of labour services and products to the landlord. All castes were to be present at the beck and call of the landlord and render the customary requirements of the landlord—the weavers, free cloth; shepherds, free sheep; barbers, free haircuts and shaves; washer-folk, free laundry services; and so on. The Dalits, who constitute the bulk of agrarian labourers, were subjected to severe forms of humiliation, exploitation and subjugation.

In the semi-feudal and semi-colonial context of India’s political economy, the status of the bourgeoisie is that of a comprador class playing a dependent and secondary role to the metropolitan bourgeoisie and domestically collaborating actively with the landlord class. This historical trajectory of compromise and collaboration pre-empts the possibility of independent development of capitalism in India. This in turn has led to the reinforcement of semi-feudal social relations in the agrarian economy in the post-1947 period. The state, with its bureaucratic capital investments, has only played a catalytic role in this process.

The M–L parties, based on this analysis of the Indian society and state, have characterised the present phase of Indian revolution as a “New Democratic” one. In this stage of development, the principal contradiction in Indian society is between the landed gentry and landless agricultural labour and the poor and middle peasantry, taken together. Thus, the agrarian revolution is meant to liberate the countryside from the feudal domination.

The anti-feudal struggles thus organised by the M–L parties emphasised the unity of the landless poor and the poor and middle peasantry—constituting a majority of the agrarian population—against the feudal class. In this view, the struggle against forcible labour extraction, unequal terms of tenancy, bedakhal or eviction of tenants from the land, and the demand for higher wages and distribution of surplus land assume significance as the basis of mobilising the rural poor. Thus it is only by first abolishing feudalism, a major obstacle to social progress, that an egalitarian social system can come on the political agenda.

Based on this understanding, the M–L parties built agrarian movements that involved mass mobilisation in the rural countryside of the Telangana region in the post-Emergency period, the districts of Karimnagar, Adilabad, Warangal and Khammam being at the centre of the militant struggles. What is instructive is to examine the place of caste in these struggles. On their part, however, even as, in practice, the M–L parties organised mass struggles against caste oppression, they chose to interpret the mass mobilisation almost wholly in class terms. Except for an incidental mention, there is no serious theoretical engagement with the role of caste in these movements, this, despite the everyday social (apart from ritual) and systemic significance of caste. Both the dominant and subaltern castes make sense of their respective social dominance and subjugation in caste terms; the former even derive their legitimacy on the basis of their caste superiority.

2 Caste in Agrarian Mobilisation

The Emergency marks an important watershed in the history of independent India. It gave a fillip to new energies and a desire for self-expression and autonomy by different sections of society. The post-Emergency period witnessed a perceptible rise of aspirations on the part of subaltern communities, especially Dalits and Adivasis. Though the process could be said to have begun earlier on, its manifestation could be seen explicitly in the late 1970s and 1980s. The regional educational institutions witnessed a remarkable entry of subaltern-caste youth into their portals. The anxieties of rural subaltern society, its problems and challenges found expression in the hitherto urban-elite university campuses. The beginning of a new chapter in the history of civil rights movement, a new phase of the student movement, informed by the anti-Emergency spirit emanating from the narratives of Emergency excesses and suppression of dissent and protest, and the rise of women’s movements have marked post-Emergency India. To be precise, the post-Emergency period has seen a vibrant civil society against the repressive state, demolishing any illusions about the state and its democratic pretensions. This formed the intellectual and ideological backdrop of the new phase of the Naxalite or M–L movement in India to which the first-generation literate, subaltern-caste youth gravitated and contributed.

Telangana occupies an important place in the agrarian history of India. If the Telangana peasant struggle of 1945–51 was a major historical landmark, the peasant struggles of the post-Emergency period brought significant questions of social and political concern to the fore. Two distinctive aspects of the post-Emergency M–L party-led agrarian struggles need to be highlighted. One, these struggles exposed the real class character of the agrarian reformism of the Indian state, the benefits of which have not reached the actual “tiller” but have led to a certain degree of homogenisation in landownership as evident in the emergence of a new class of rich-peasants-turned-landlords in the countryside. Two, compared to the 1940s, the present movement has a much broader social and ideological base as the subaltern caste literate youth got attracted to it.

The history of the CPI(ML)-led agrarian movement in Telangana in the post-Emergency period can be divided into two phases. In the first phase, from 1977 to the early 1980s, the emphasis was on mass mobilisation and popular forms of protest around the issues of landlord oppression and coercion, the practice of veti, the question of land to the landless, usury, etc. The second phase was the period of armed struggle, the beginnings of which can be traced to the late 1970s itself. It became the dominant mode as armed actions were relied upon almost exclusively since the mid-1980s.

What seems to have made possible the rapid growth of rural mobilisation is the end of the Emergency raj, the ushering in of a new phase of the democratic rights movement as an antithesis to the Emergency, and the popular assertions from below. Critical to this new phase of agrarian mobilisation is the emergence of an educated section from the subaltern castes in Telangana region as a result of the expansion of education and state-policy support to Dalit, Adivasi and OBC youth. The post-Emergency democratic euphoria spurred the radicalisation of subaltern youth in the educational institutions. Given their everyday experience of oppression in the countryside, they found the radical politics of the M–L movement as an alternative to the present state of affairs and this paved the way for its organisational strength.

Two important moves in M–L politics contributed to the expansion of the movement. First, the emphasis was on popular mobilisation by strengthening mass-front organisations like Rythu Coolie Sangam (RCS), the Radical Students Union (RSU), the Radical Youth League (RYL) and the cultural front, the Jana Natya Mandali (JNM). Second, there was a conscious direction to mobilise the subaltern social groups into the movement. These groups were viewed not exclusively in terms of class but in specific caste terms, as Dalit, artisan and occupational castes. They were the communities experiencing utmost oppression and humiliation under feudal domination.

To make sense of the growth of Naxalite mobilisation in the Telangana districts during the 1970s it is necessary to understand the nature of the oppressive agrarian social conditions over there. The social conditions in northern Telangana were, in fact, reminiscent of the Telangana of the 1940s, as this region was not part of the anti-feudal struggle of the 1940s. In the absence of such a militant history, a new class of landlords—who were tenants to the earlier deshmukh doras and/or rich-peasants-turned-landlords—emerged as a result of the benefits derived from the agrarian reformism of the post-independence state. They could enrich themselves due to access to state resources made available through various development programmes, agricultural extension services, agricultural cooperatives and rural banks. They also benefited through their control over civil, excise and forest contracts. They sought to gain legitimacy through electoral politics and especially through the panchayati raj system. In sociological terms, they predominantly belong to the Shudra peasant–landlord castes of Velama, Reddy and in some cases, the Brahmin caste. These landlords, delighted to be addressed as “dora”2 in their new-found position, proved to be much more aggressive in strengthening their feudal hold over the countryside.3

This is the scenario in rural northern Telangana into which the CPI(ML)(PW) entered and formed the RCS (popularly referred to as Sangam) in the villages and through its Gramalaku Taralandi (“Go to the Villages”) campaign involving students, youth and cultural activists belonging to RSU, RYL and JNM. These activists played a catalytic role in spreading the revolutionary message in the villages through speech, story, and song and dance. This was the period which saw a creative use of rural oral folk-art forms, especially of the subaltern castes, for the revolutionary campaign. Gaddar, the iconic balladeer, symbolised the creative cultural upsurge of this movement. His “sangam pedadhamu vaadi sangathendo chudhamu” (“let us form sangam and challenge the landlord”) became a lead song in these campaigns. In this movement the caste question figured quite prominently as the campaign was principally among the Dalits. Another popular song, “Ennallu ee Madiga bathuku” tried to critique the earlier attempts by showing their limitations in ameliorating the status of the Dalits through change of caste name (Madiga being referred to as Harijan) suggested by Gandhi and change of religion (referring to the conversion to Buddhism) by Ambedkar and highlight armed struggle as the only solution to the plight of the Dalits. Class struggle became the leitmotif of the cultural production of this period.4

In contrast to the Telangana peasant struggle of the 1940s when the base of the movement was predominantly in the Kapu–Reddy peasant castes, in the CPI(ML)(PW)-led movement, there was a conscious attempt to establish the party base in the Dalitwadas and among the service and artisan communities. Through the above-mentioned mass cultural campaign, the anti-feudal mobilisation of the poor peasants, farm servants and agricultural labourers was sought to be expanded and consolidated in the form of RCS. It also blurred the social spatial segregation of wada or palle (Dalit locality) from vuru (caste Hindu locality) by consciously trying to bring them together through the struggle. Due to the focus on unity among the oppressed cutting across caste distinctions, the Sangam came to be looked up to by the subaltern castes, especially the Dalits, as an organisation that is capable of fighting against the upper-caste landlord class. What also played a crucial role in the initial success of the mobilisation is the relatively weak social support base and network of the landlords. This is particularly true of the Velama landlords whose numerical presence is insignificant.

The issues taken up and the demands made displayed sensitivity to the caste dimension. First was the demand for the abolition of veti services and payment of mamools to the landlord. The Sangam replaced the landlord in the arbitration of disputes. Then followed the demand for higher agricultural wages, which were below the minimum wage prescribed by the law.

The struggle began with a call of “social boycott” which entailed discontinuation of agricultural operations on the landlords’ farms followed by the service castes, like Chakali (washermen) and Mangali (barbers), refusing to provide their services to the landlords. The social boycott worked wonders not only by harming the economic interests of the landlords but also causing a great deal of inconvenience in the everyday life of the landlords. As a result of the solidarity and organised strength of the popular classes in the villages, the landlords had to concede to their demands. These successes motivated the people in the neighbouring villages to organise themselves under the Sangam.5

Northern Telangana has a long forest track which is a major source of tunika leaf, used in beedi-making, apart from other minor forest produce. Despite low wages, tunika beedi leaf collection is a major source of livelihood during the lean season. Militant struggles for just wages were launched against tunika leaf and forest contractors, who also happened to be the local landlords. In this region, after agriculture, it is the beedi-making which is a major source of employment. The M–L parties, especially the CPI(ML) (Janashakti), played a key role in organising militant struggles of beedi workers, predominantly women, for higher wages and fair treatment.6 Anti-feudal mobilisation moved beyond the traditional confines of land-based struggles to encompass a whole gamut of issues and demands and expanded in its scope and focus.7

Two phases could be identified in the landlords’ reaction to the popular mobilisation. In the first phase, the landlords used their henchmen to threaten the local activists so that they would disassociate themselves from the activities of the Sangam. The violence unleashed by the landlords included physical attacks, vandalising habitats, destroying possessions, and unleashing terror to deter the people from supporting the Sangam.8 With the landlords increasingly resorting to violent means, the party moved away from its initial peaceful path, consisting of boycott and public hearings, to an organised armed resistance aimed at the annihilation of notorious landlords after sufficient warnings. This led to a further escalation of violence by the landlords.

The elimination of landlords by the M–L parties in the name of “annihilation of class enemy” led to the direct involvement of the state machinery to suppress the movement. As the cycle of violence and counter-violence assumed a regular pattern, the state, instead of addressing the anti-feudal socio-economic basis of the rural unrest, treated it as a “law and order” problem and sought to suppress the movement through violent means. The culmination of this was the declaration of the region as a “Disturbed Area”9 under the Telangana Suppression of Disturbances Act, 1948.

This intervention of the state on behalf of the landlords led to a clear drawing of the battle lines. The struggle was now no longer seen as one against the landlords but as one extended to the state acting on their behalf. This changed scenario generated its own dynamics. One, it led to a gradual and definite deceleration of mass mobilisation and open legal activity. Two, it led to an escalation in armed resistance resulting in a cycle of violence that only paved the way for an inescapable intensification from both sides. This was the reality of northern Telangana by the mid-1980s. With increasing armed dalam activity, the social question of caste—intrinsic to the phase of mass mobilisation—receded and it even lost practical attention, let alone theoretical consideration.10

3 Challenges Posed by the Dalit Movement and by Co-option

Time and again the significance of caste in Indian society is brought to the fore in the form of caste riots and atrocities on Dalits, especially in the countryside, which has provided an occasion for the left to reflect on the relevance and the necessity of grappling with the caste question in practice. The Dalit movements in different regional contexts have drawn our attention to the potency of caste as the structural location of contestation, conflict and violence in the process of social transformation in India today.

The contemporary Dalit upsurge in different states is a reaction to the rise and consolidation of the Shudra nouveau riche and their prime position in the regional political economies and regime structures that have emerged in post-Emergency India. A beneficiary of the agrarian change brought about by state interventions like green revolution, this class, in the process of its consolidation, has displayed an aggressive, violent, casteist assertion in the countryside. The growth of Dalit movements in different regional contexts has to be understood as a response to the violent proclivities of these caste–class regimes of power.

The Karemchedu (1985) and Chundur (1991) massacres of Dalits in coastal Andhra form two important landmarks in the history of the contemporary Dalit movement in Andhra Pradesh.11 The Dalit Maha Sabha (DMS), which emerged in response to the Karamchedu massacre, grew in stature and in its support base among the Dalits across the state and gained visibility in the civil-society arena. The debate on caste initiated and sustained by the DMS and other Dalit organisations12 not only pushed the left parties to state their stand on caste but also caused a visible dwindling of their cadre base, especially of the M–L parties, as the anti-feudal struggles and the Dalit struggles share a common social space in terms of constituency, the bulk of agrarian poor being the Dalits. The formation of grass roots Ambedkarite cultural and social organisations like Dalit Kala Mandali (DKM) and Dalit Writers, Artists and Intellectuals United Forum (DWAIUF), mostly by the activists from left backgrounds, signified the perceptible change catalysed by the caste question in the sociocultural milieu.

The exit of K G Satyamurthy, one of the founders of the CPI(ML)(PW), despite the complexity of the issues—personal, organisational and ideological—involved, was basically perceived and also projected as a result of differences centred on caste. His exit led many Dalit activists to leave the party and its mass fronts and thereby seriously affected the party’s organisational structure, cadre and support base. In the case of CPI(ML) (Janashakti), the debate on caste and the surfacing of serious differences caused a spilt in the party, leading to the formation of a separate group by Veeranna. Splits in the M–L parties have been quite numerous, but this was the first time a split occurred due to serious differences concerning the caste question.

The Dalit movement, as the experience of Andhra Pradesh shows, has been one of the important sources of caste-related turbulence in the radical left, intensifying its organisational and ideological fault lines. Yet what is important to note is its positive role in highlighting the necessity of theoretical recognition of the caste question within Marxist discourse, which has two aspects. One, caste has to be seen in specific historical and social terms and cannot be reduced to the general laws of historical materialism and therefore cannot be subsumed into class. Two, caste as a system has evolved, transformed and adjusted to different modes of production, political regimes and religious systems, and continues to reproduce itself despite the changes in them over the very long term.

What is conspicuous about the Naxalite parties is the absence of any significant theoretical response to the challenges on the caste question. Clubbing the caste question under the broad rubric of “identity politics” is considered divisive. The Naxalite parties have restated the well-known class perspective on caste. This is evident from the following statement:

As far as ‘identity politics’ is concerned, it divides the masses; what is required is a class approach that unites the masses, including the oppressed. A class approach to the caste question demands an end to upper-caste oppression, brahaminical ideology and abolition of the pernicious caste system, including ‘untouchability.’ But, ‘identity politics’ only emphasises caste and acts to ossify caste divisions further.13 (emphasis added)

This surprisingly continues to be the official position of the CPI(Maoist) in spite of the crucial historical role of caste in their anti-feudal agrarian struggles, the impact of the autonomous Dalit movements in different regional contexts on their social base, and the effective cooption of subaltern castes on the basis of caste calculus in electoral representative politics and governance.

It may not be far from true to suggest that this theoretical position, despite the recognition of the presence of caste by the party, is a result of its anxiety to avoid any deviation from the established frames of Marxism and therefore an inability to place caste in the Marxist theoretical framework. Needless to say, this dispensation forecloses the possibility of conceptualising caste as the historical particularity of Indian society and adequately addressing it in practice.


1 D N Dhanagare defines vetti as a deformed version of the jajmani relations. See his “Social Origins of the Peasant Insurrection in Telengana: 1946–51,” Peasant Movements in India, 1920–50, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1983, p 185.

2 Deshmukhs used to be addressed as dora (meaning lord), more out of fear than respect. The Telangana peasant movement put an end to this practice. But it continued to be in force in the areas where feudal forms of oppression persisted.

3 This landlord caste–class continued to resort to forcible extraction of vetti labour services and goods through a series of customary caste obligations. Thus it is “extra-economic” factors like customary practices governed by caste rules and physical force rather than contractual market relations that governed the relations between the labouring, service castes and peasantry and the landlord. Thus every caste had to provide its services and goods free of cost to the dora. Doras exercised adjudicative powers and “earned” huge incomes in the process of “panchayat” dispute settlement through collection of fines, often from both the parties to the dispute.

4 Another iconic song titled “Dalit Manifesto” by poet Salandra states, “Okadu nannu Harijanudannadu, inkokdu antaranodannadu ...,” and suggests armed struggle as the only path to end caste humiliation and oppression (Interview with U Sambasiva Rao, Hyderabad, March 2017).

5 The similarities with the Telangana peasant struggle of the 1940s are striking. For an analysis of the role of the Chitti sangam in the spread of the movement then, see, K Srinivasulu, “Telangana Peasant Movement and Change in the Agrarian Structure: A Study of Nalgonda District,” unpublished PhD thesis, School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, 1988.

6 For an account of the beedi industry in this region, see K Srinivasulu, “Impact of Liberalisation on Beedi Industry,” Economic & Political Weekly, Vol XXXII, No 11, 15 March 1997.

7 C V Subba Rao, “Resurgence of Peasant Movement in Telangana,” EPW, Vol XIII, No 46, 18 November 1978. For empirical cases of conflict in the villages, see T Papi Reddy, Agrarian Unrest in Peasant Struggles and Social Change, Warangal: Sony Publishing House, 1990.

8 For an account of the struggles in Karimnagar, see K Balagopal and M K Reddy, “Forever Disturbed Peasant Struggle of Sircilla-Vemulawada,” EPW, 27 November 1982 and K Balagopal, “Peasant Struggle and Repression in Peddapally,” EPW, 15 May 1982.

9 According to the act “any magistrate, any police officer not the below the rank of sub-inspector can open fire or order opening of fire or otherwise use force, even to the causing of death, against any person who in a disturbed area is acting in contravention of any law or order for the time being in force,” and further, it fully protects the officials by providing for the sanction of the state government to initiate any prosecution suit or other legal proceedings against any person in respect of anything done or purporting to be done in exercise of his powers. This act thus provides the functionaries of the state with unrestrained powers. See Mohan Ram, “Mini-Emergencies to Suppress the Poor,” Economic & Political Weekly, Vol XIII, No 46, 18 November 1978, p 1880.

10 K Balagopal even goes to the extent of seeing hostility to the caste issue in Maoist politics: “they remain not only theoretically but practically too, hostile to any expression of identity politics, seen invariably as opportunistic deviance.” See his article, “Maoist Movement in Andhra Pradesh,” EPW, 22 July 2006, p 3186.

11 For an analysis of the Dalit movement in Andhra Pradesh, see K Srinivasulu, Caste, Class and Social Articulation in Andhra Pradesh, India: Mapping Differential Regional Trajectories, London: Overseas Development Institute, 2002.

12 It is stated that if Naxalbari inspired the fight against revisionism, then Karamchedu roused the struggle against Brahminism. U Sa (ed), Dalita Rana Ninadham, Edureetha Publications, 2005, pp 84–91.

13 For a statement of this Maoist position, see Azad, “Maoists in India: A Rejoinder,” EPW, 14–20 October 2006, p 4383.

Updated On : 29th May, 2017


(-) Hide

EPW looks forward to your comments. Please note that comments are moderated as per our comments policy. They may take some time to appear. A comment, if suitable, may be selected for publication in the Letters pages of EPW.

Back to Top