Marxist approach to study of colonialism and nationalism in India?

Answer 1

The Marxist View:

They conceptualise the nation as an aggregate of internally differentiated classes and underlined the contradictions between the bourgeoise and the proletariat class. Historian Marxists like Rajni Palme Dutt and A.R.Desai talked about the classes of peasants and workers, their role and people in the history.

They saw colonialism as a way of capturing the raw materials of the colony and refuted the arguments of colonialism as being 'Civilising Mission'. They tried to explain the nationalist movement in terms of economic developments of the colonial period, the rise of capitalism and the development of market society in India.

According to them the National Movement was led by bourgeoise class and they directed it to suit their own interests and neglected the interests of the masses. They also believed that even the Congress party was comprised of big landlords and industrialists who were seeking their own interest out of this movement. They highlighted heterogeneity in the Indian society in terms of class and castes, and viewed both colonialism and nationalism as structurally incapable of fulfilling the task of modernization of these disadvantaged sections in the colonies.

Sumit Sarkar in his book, 'Modern India' argued that there were two levels of anti-imperialist struggle in India - One was Elite and the other was Populist, and understanding of Indian history demands the study of both.

Lenin v/s M.N.Roy: According to Lenin, the independence movements rising throughout Asia, led by the colonial middle class and bourgeoise were movements of oppressed nations attempting to throw off the yoke of oppressors. However Roy had a different opinion as he thought that Congress and its leaders were bourgeoise and proletariat should not support them. For him, nationalism could not lead to the overthrow of capitalism. Therefore working class should also place its own class demands and if possible should establish a Workers' State.

Criticism:

This approach to the nationalism was not a balanced one. For them, the society could be divided into only two classes- the 'proletariat' and the 'bourgeoise'. This class based division ignored the presence of different castes, religions and communities but for a proper analysis, divisions based on them were also important.

They neglected the contribution made by the elites and the intelligentsia to the national movement by arguing that they were self-interested. In this way, they also neglected the political organizations formed by them.

They also didn't appreciated the 'non-voilent' character of the national movement. They were revolutionary in nature and didn't give that much importance to the ideology of 'Ahimsa' supported by Gandhiji and their followers.