Marxist Approach to Indian History: Simple Notes
What is it? This is a way of looking at Indian history, especially the national movement, through a Marxist lens. Marxism is a way of understanding society that focuses on class struggle and economic systems.
Beginning: This approach became popular in India with two important books:
India Today by Rajni Palme Dutt:
Very important book in this approach.
First written for a group in England.
Published first in England in 1940. (Important date to remember!).
Later published in India in 1947.
Social Background of Indian Nationalism by A.R. Desai:
Another key book.
Published in 1948.
How it's Different (Compared to others):
Vs. Imperialist/Colonial Approach:
Imperialist view: British rule was good, or okay, for India.
Marxist view: No. Main problem (contradiction) is between British rulers (colonial masters) and Indian people (subject people). They see the national movement as people fighting against colonial rule.
Vs. Nationalist Approach:
Nationalist view: Focus on Indian unity against the British.
Marxist view: Agrees with opposing British rule, but also looks at problems within Indian society itself. They see "inner contradictions" - different groups within India (rich/poor, castes, etc.) have different interests, even while fighting the British.
Rajni Palme Dutt's View (and a problem with it):
Dutt understood the main fight was against British rule (anti-imperialist contradiction - primary).
He also saw the class problems inside Indian society (inner contradictions - secondary).
Problem: Dutt sometimes struggled to connect these two ideas well. He sometimes made it seem like the class struggle was as important as or even more important than the fight against the British.
View of National Movement: Dutt saw the national movement as mainly led by the bourgeoisie (the middle/upper class who own businesses). He thought it was mostly a "bourgeois movement."
Critique of Dutt by Sumit Sarkar: Historian Sumit Sarkar said Dutt's view was too simple ("simplistic") for a Marxist approach. He thought Dutt overemphasized class and didn't see the national movement as broadly as it really was.
Sumit Sarkar's Idea:
Sarkar looked at nationalist leaders as intelligentsia (educated people).
He thought these leaders acted like "proxies" - they represented the common people, but didn't have strong connections to them. Like acting for the people who were still "passive" (not fully active in the movement yet).
A.R. Desai's View:
Desai saw the national movement growing in five stages (phases).
He thought each phase was linked to specific social classes that supported and pushed the movement forward at that time.
In Simple Words: Marxist historians look at Indian history focusing on class struggles and the fight against British rule. Dutt highlighted the class nature of the national movement but was critiqued for being too simplistic. Desai focused on how different social classes drove the movement in different phases. They differ from imperialists (who thought British rule was good) and nationalists (who focused mainly on unity against the British) by also looking at the divisions and inequalities within Indian society.