Introduction

• Marxism is a dominant presence in Indian historiography post-independence.
• Many historians either align directly with Marxism or have been influenced by it to varying degrees.
• Marxism has influenced most trends in Indian historiography in some way.
• A comprehensive account of all trends and historians within the Marxist tradition in Indian historiography is not possible.
• The focus of this unit is to cover important trends and provide information about significant historians within the Marxist tradition of Indian historiography.

Beginnings

• Two books marked the beginning of Marxist historiography in India: India Today by R. Palme Dutt and Social Background of Indian Nationalism by A.R. Desai.
• India Today was first published in 1940 for the Left Book Club and its Indian edition came in 1947.
• In 1970, Dutt acknowledged the book’s limitations but affirmed it as a foundational text in Marxist thinking about Indian history.
• The book applies Marxist analysis to aspects of Indian society, economy, and politics under colonial rule.
• Dutt criticizes colonial rule for its destructive impact but also mentions its regenerative role, echoing Marx’s views.
• Dutt argues that by the time of his writing, colonialism had ceased to play a progressive role, instead becoming a reactionary force.
• He attributes India’s poverty to colonialism and capitalism, linking the plundering of Indian resources to the funding of capitalist development in Europe.
• Dutt divides imperialist rule into three phases:
  1. Merchant capitalism (East India Company, until the late 18th century).
  2. Industrial capitalism (19th century).
  3. Financial capitalism (20th century).
• Merchant capitalism was marked by the East India Company’s monopoly over trade and plundering of Indian wealth, funding Britain’s Industrial Revolution.
• After the First World War, imperialism shifted towards capital investment in India, with finance capital becoming dominant by 1914.
• Dutt argues that modern imperialism in India obstructed the development of productive forces, becoming reactionary.
• He also critiques the 1857 revolt, seeing it as a revolt of conservative, feudal forces rather than a national uprising.
• Dutt traces the beginning of the Indian national movement to the last quarter of the 19th century, particularly with the founding of the Indian National Congress in 1885.
• Dutt claims the Congress was established by British officials as a safety valve to prevent rebellion and safeguard British rule, thus calling its creation a British initiative.
• Indian National Congress grew from a subservient nature to a strong anti-colonial force due to rising populist nationalist feelings.
• Early nationalism reflected the interests of the big bourgeoisie, including landowners, the new industrial bourgeoisie, and intellectual elites.
• Pre-World War I saw the rise of the urban petty bourgeois class, and post-War, the Indian masses (peasantry and industrial workers) joined the movement.
• Leadership of the Congress remained with the propertied classes, who resisted radicalisation of the movement, fearing it would threaten their interests.
• Gandhi was criticized by Dutt as the “Jonah of revolution,” accusing him of trying to maintain bourgeois control of the mass movement.
• The Non-cooperation Movement and Civil Disobedience Movement were called off to prevent mass militancy from threatening the propertied classes.
• The dual character of the Congress: one strand cooperating with imperialism to counter mass movements, and another leading the masses against imperialism.
• This dual character reflected the Indian bourgeoisie’s role: in conflict with British capitalists but fearing too rapid progress could endanger its privileges.
• Marxist historiography on Indian nationalism was influenced by Dutt’s analysis of the Congress and its leadership.
• A.R. Desai’s book, Social Background of Indian Nationalism, first published in 1948, provided a Marxist perspective on colonial India and the rise of nationalism.
• Desai’s work traced the rise of the national movement in five phases, each supported by different social classes:
  1. First phase (till 1885) – Narrow social base, led by the intelligentsia, with pioneers like Raja Rammohan Roy.
  2. Second phase (1885–1905) – Represented new bourgeois society, including educated middle class, merchant class, and industrialists, with demands like Indianization of services and stopping the economic drain.
  3. Third phase (1905–1918) – More militant, with a broader social base, including the lower-middle class.
  4. Fourth phase (1918–1934) – Expanded to include sections of the Indian masses, but Congress leadership still aligned with the Indian capitalist class, with Gandhi as the leader.
  5. Fifth phase (1934–1939) – Disillusionment with Gandhi’s ideology and the rise of Socialists representing the petty bourgeoisie; peasants, workers, and depressed classes agitated for their demands.
• Communist and socialist groups emerged in the late 1920s, pushing pro-people agendas, while communalist forcessought to divide society.
• Despite these movements, the Gandhian Congress remained dominant, representing the interests of the dominant classes.
• The foundations of Marxist historiography on modern Indian history were laid by Dutt and Desai’s works.
• The next major contribution came from the writings of D.D. Kosambi.