Skip to content

Contribution of Marxist Historians in Historiography

    Marxist Historians Marxists have helped a lot in looking at the Indian national movement as a whole. Karl Marx himself has discussed the Indian National Movement. He strongly condemned the subversive actions of the British rule. According to him the destructive elements of British rule did not allow the whole structure of Indian society to flourish. He also discussed the revivalist aspect of British rule. According to him, only political transformation can bring Indians out of the clutches of foreign rule. Bipin Chandra has done a correct analysis of Marx’s ideas in one of his articles. According to him, many facts about the history of India by Marx cannot come down to absolute truth. The importance of Marx lies not in his facts, but in the method adopted by him. Later Marx himself changed his views. He also gave importance to economic aspects in the study and analysis of Indian nationalism. H. SWING ” Adopting this side of Marx, Rajni Pam Dutt first discussed the various dimensions of nationalism in her book “Aaj Ka India”. All the factors responsible for nationalism can be correctly assessed by him. By his exploitative steps, he made the Indian economy agrarian and gave rise to population tension on the land, due to which the people here became useless, the problem of starvation became severe. Due to this, the feeling of anger and vengeance developed which ultimately led to the rise of nationalism. According to Dutt, India’s industrial development under British rule is a “myth”. According to him, Gandhiji was a weak creature who tricked the farmers and working laborers through his guise of truth and non-violence. Gandhiji was the custodian of personal wealth in the name of religion. He inflicted severe blows on the Indian national movement from time to time when that movement was at its peak and success was very near. Gandhiji was the representative of the conservative and narrow elements. Rajni Pam Dutt was a firm believer that independence could be achieved only through military rebellion and colonialism could be ended forever. She praised the revolt of the Garhwali soldiers. Her view was “Quit India Movement”. During this, Gandhiji did a lot of damage to nationalism. He held Tilak and Gandhi responsible for all the communal problems. The partition of India was a joke. This partition was the open surrender of the Indian bourgeoisie (Shakti) to British colonialism. International powers for Indian independence, Britain’s weak position after the war, extreme state of dissatisfaction in the Indian army which could give rise to rebellion at any time, was mainly responsible.They do not give the credit of independence to Gandhiji and Congress.

    See also  Lord Lytton and his reactionary Policies

    There is no doubt that Dutt, in his attempt to present the communist profile of Indian nationalism in a very detailed manner, has made a good distinction between imperialism, colonialism and Indian nationalism and has thoroughly discussed the relationship with the conservative elements of the Congress. ; But he has distorted the facts and presented an ultra-mechanistic Marxist interpretation. Indian national leaders such as Dadai Naoroji, Mahadev Govind Ranade, Gopalkrishna Gokhale etc. reacted against British economic exploitation and refuted the romantic notion of British rule in India. These leaders were scholars and philosophers who were They were guided by thought and not by selfish interests, but this does not mean that these people were mere theorists, they were also practicalists and devoted to the interest of the nation. Historians often limit their influence on future historical thought but Bipinchandra has shown that these leaders left an indelible mark on the Indian national movement for which the entire nation will be indebted to them. A detailed exploration of religious aspects. R. Desai has done this in his well-known book “Social Background of Indian Nationalism”. This book has been composed by adopting the fundamental sources and adopting the method of Rajni Pam Dutt, in his erudite and inspiring work “The Swadeshi Movement in Bengal-1903- 08” Sumeet Sarkar has attempted to show how the Swadeshi movement remained confined to the ‘Bhadraloka’ and failed to develop a mass movement. He used the Trotsky method, ‘substitute’, to explain Indian nationalism. Substituism) and considers materialism different from Gramsci’s traditionalism. The ‘Freedom Struggle’ has been composed by the Government of India. Its authors are Bipinchandra, Amlesh Tripathi and Varun. These writers also followed the Marxist method. It has been adopted wisely. In few pages, these authors have presented a balanced description of the national movement. The same thing with reference to Bipinchandra’s book, Modern India and Sumeet Sarkar’s book Modern India. Can also be said 1 Two words and (Two Words) More) – The research of historians on the Indian national movement is still going on. Many questions related to this still remain unanswered. In such a situation we can do nothing but agree with Socrates’ statement that ‘things must go on’. It is possible that in future new facts related to Indian nationalism may come to light, on the basis of which another history of Indian freedom struggle can be written. The Government of India is also making efforts in this direction. A scheme to award rewards for those presenting a true and fair view was also announced.

    Leave a Reply