Anna Bhau Sathe’s Fakira: A Marxist Reading

Anna Bhau Sathe’s Fakira: Author as Vanguard

To understand the text, we must first understand the hands that wrote it. Anna Bhau Sathe was not an ivory-tower academic. He was a “Lokshahir”—a people’s poet—born into the “untouchable” Matang community in 1920. He was denied formal education, yet he rose to become a founding figure of the Dalit Panther movement’s literary lineage.

Crucially, Sathe was deeply embedded in the Communist Party of India (CPI) and the Indian People’s Theatre Association (IPTA). He spent his youth in the textile mills of Mumbai, organising strikes and performing street plays (Tamashas) to awaken the class consciousness of the workers.

The “Snake’s Head” Philosophy

Sathe’s Marxist worldview is encapsulated in his famous inaugural address at the first Dalit Literary Conference:

“The earth is not balanced on the snake’s head, as the myths say. It is balanced on the palms of the toiling workers and Dalits.”

This single sentence destroys the mythological “Superstructure” (the religious lie) and replaces it with “Historical Materialism” (the economic truth). Fakira is the fictional expansion of this thesis. The hero is not a prince or an avatar; he is a labourer who refuses to be crushed by the machinery of feudalism.

Anna Bhau Sathe’s Fakira: Base and Superstructure

Classical Marxism argues that an Economic Base (who owns the land/factories) forms the foundation of society, supporting a Cultural Superstructure (laws, religion, caste). The Superstructure exists solely to justify the power of the Base.

In Fakira, Sathe brilliantly exposes this relationship. The village of Wategaon is a microcosm of feudal India.

The Economic Base: Land and Grain

The primary conflict in the novel is over resources. The British Government and the local feudal lords (the Khots and Patils) control the means of production—specifically, the land and the grain. The Matang community, to which Fakira belongs, owns nothing but their labour power.

When the famine strikes, it exposes the contradiction of capitalism. British granaries stand full. The ‘market’ functions correctly for the coloniser—who stores grain for export or tax—but fails the producer. From a Marxist perspective, this is not a natural disaster; it is a man-made crisis of distribution. The grain exists. The “law” says it belongs to the State. Fakira’s rebellion begins when he rejects this law. He recognises that Property Rights are secondary to Human Rights.

The Superstructure: The Jogini Fair

Sathe demonstrates how culture is used to maintain order. The “Jogini” fair is a religious ritual, supposedly for the good of the village. Ranoji, Fakira’s father, enters the competition to win the honour of carrying the Mal (garland) for his village.

Ranoji wins through sheer physical merit. However, the feudal lords cannot tolerate a Dalit man claiming this cultural capital. They conspire to murder him. This plot point is crucial. It proves that the “superstructure” (religion/tradition) is rigged. The game is designed so that the lower classes can never truly win, even if they follow the rules. Ranoji’s murder is the breaking point. It teaches young Fakira that you cannot use the master’s tools to dismantle the master’s house. You must burn the house down.

Anna Bhau Sathe’s Fakira: Proletarian Hero

The central figure of the novel fits perfectly into the framework of the “social bandit”, a concept defined by Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm. Hobsbawm argued that social bandits are peasant outlaws whom the state regards as criminals, but whom their people consider heroes, champions, and avengers.

The Redistribution of Wealth

Fakira is not a thief in the capitalist sense. A capitalist thief steals to accumulate private property. Fakira steals to redistribute it. When he raids the British treasury or the grain godowns, he immediately shares the loot with the starving Mangs, Mahars, and other lower castes.

“He did not steal for greed. He stole for survival.”

This is a primitive form of socialism. Fakira acts as a one-man welfare state. He bypasses the market mechanism. In the market, you need money to buy grain. In Fakira’s world, you need to receive grain. He enforces the communist maxim: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

The Guerrilla of the Sahyadris

The geography of the novel is also significant. Fakira retreats into the Sahyadri mountains. In Marxist history, the mountains have often been the refuge of the guerrilla (think of Cuba’s Sierra Maestra or China’s rural base areas). The mountains represent the “ungovernable” space where the writ of the Colonial State does not run. By operating from the periphery, Fakira challenges the centre. He forces the British to stretch their resources, engaging in asymmetric warfare that humiliates the technologically superior police force.

Anna Bhau Sathe’s Fakira: The State

In liberal theory, the State is a neutral referee. In Marxist theory, the State is the “executive committee of the ruling class”. Fakira portrays the State in its rawest, most violent form.

The Criminal Tribes Act (1871)

The invisible villain of the novel is the Criminal Tribes Act (CTA). This British law branded entire communities—like the Mangs and Ramoshis—as “criminal by birth”. This is the ultimate form of alienation. The State alienates the individual from their own humanity, reducing them to a biological category of “suspect”. Fakira’s existence is illegal. He is born a criminal in the eyes of the law. Therefore, his only path to freedom is to become an outlaw. Sathe uses this to critique the colonial legal system. He shows that “law” and “justice” are not synonyms. In a colonial state, the law is a weapon used to secure cheap labour and maintain order through terror.

The Police as Class Enforcers

The police in the novel are not protectors of the peace. They are enforcers of property. They do not care that the villagers are starving; they only care that the granaries are breached. The torture inflicted on the community—the beating of women, the burning of huts—demonstrates the Repressive State Apparatus. When “Consent” (ideology/religion) fails to keep the Dalits in line, the State switches to “Coercion” (violence).

Anna Bhau Sathe’s Fakira: Caste and Class

One of the greatest debates in Indian revolutionary politics has been the relationship between Caste and Class. Traditional Marxists argued that Caste was just a byproduct of Class (feudalism). Traditional Ambedkarites argued that Caste was a unique, primary oppression.

Anna Bhau Sathe dissolves this binary. In Fakira, the oppression is “Caste-Feudal.” The characters are poor (Class) because they are landless. They are landless because they are Dalits (Caste). You cannot separate the two.

Vishnupant: The Class Traitor

Sathe introduces a fascinating character: Vishnupant Kulkarni. He is a Brahmin—the highest rung of the Caste ladder. Yet, he supports Fakira. He admires the rebel’s courage and cause. From a Marxist perspective, Vishnupant is a “Class Traitor” to the bourgeoisie. He aligns himself with the proletariat despite his privileged background. This nuance saves the novel from being a simple “Caste War.” It suggests that solidarity is possible across caste lines if there is a shared recognition of injustice. It elevates the struggle from identity politics to a broader humanistic revolution.

Anna Bhau Sathe’s Fakira: Gender and the Revolution

Friedrich Engels, in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, argued that the rise of private property caused the oppression of women. In Fakira, the bodies of women become battlegrounds for this class conflict.

Radha: The Iron Matriarch

Fakira’s mother, Radha, is arguably the strongest character in the book. After her husband Ranoji is decapitated by the feudal lords, she does not collapse. She demands vengeance. Radha represents the resilience of the working-class family unit. The State tries to destroy this unit to break the morale of the rebel. But Radha transforms her grief into political energy. She raises Fakira not just as a son, but as a soldier. She is the ideological anchor of the resistance.

The Weaponisation of Shame

The feudal lords frequently target the women of the Matang community to “shame” the men into submission. This is a tactic of control. By threatening the “honour” of the women, they hope to control the labour of the men. Fakira’s defence of women is not just traditional chivalry. It is a defence of his community’s sovereignty. By protecting the women, he is denying the feudal lords their “right” to dominate the bodies of the oppressed.

Anna Bhau Sathe’s Fakira: Colonial Exploitation

While the local villains are the Patils and Kulkarnis, the ultimate enemy is the British Empire. Sathe subtly integrates the “Drain Theory”—the economic idea popularised by Dadabhai Naoroji that Britain was draining India’s wealth.

The famine in the novel is not caused by a lack of rain alone; it is caused by the extraction of resources. The grain is moving out of the village to feed the Empire’s needs (wars, urban centres), leaving the producers to die. Fakira’s raids are an interruption of this drain. By stopping the grain carts, he is blocking the flow of capital from the periphery (the village) to the core (the city/London). This makes him a threat not just to local order, but to the imperial economy. EXPLORE MORE

Conclusion

The novel ends in tragedy. Fakira is captured. To save his community from collective punishment, he surrenders. He is executed by the British.

A bourgeois novel might have given him a miraculous escape. But Sathe writes a Revolutionary Tragedy. Why must Fakira die? Because in a realist novel, the individual cannot defeat the System alone. Fakira is a “Primitive Rebel.” He has the courage, but he lacks the organised political party (the Vanguard) to overthrow the State completely.

However, his death is not a failure. It is a martyrdom.

“They killed the man, but they could not kill the legend.”

In Marxist terms, Fakira’s death serves to “heighten the contradictions.” It reveals the brutality of the State for all to see. It radicalises the next generation. The myth of Fakira becomes more dangerous to the British than the man ever was.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Is Fakira considered a communist novel?

Technically, no. It is a historical novel. However, it is deeply influenced by communist ideology. Anna Bhau Sathe was a member of the Communist Party. Therefore, he wrote the story to highlight class struggle and the exploitation of the poor.

2. What is the definition of a “Social Bandit” in this context?

The term comes from historian Eric Hobsbawm. It refers to an outlaw who is considered a criminal by the state but a hero by the people. Fakira fits this perfectly. He steals from the rich to feed the starving, acting as a primitive revolutionary.

3. How does the novel connect Caste and Class?

Sathe argues that you cannot separate them. The characters are poor (Class) because they are Dalits (Caste). The feudal system uses caste rules to maintain economic control. Thus, Fakira’s fight is against both social discrimination and economic poverty.

4. Why is the Criminal Tribes Act important to the story?

This British law branded the Matang community as “born criminals.” From a Marxist view, this is a tool of the state. It allows the government to control labour through fear. Fakira’s rebellion is a direct rejection of this unjust law.

5. What is the “Drain Theory” mentioned in the analysis?

This is the economic theory that Britain was draining wealth from India. In the novel, the grain is taken from the village to feed the Empire. Fakira interrupts this flow. He returns the resources to the local producers (the villagers).