Historiography :

1. Imperialist /colonial historiography :

Colonial historiography involves writing the history of a colony by the metropolis,
according to its own needs and understanding. In the Indian context, we find that
many schools of thought developed regarding it over the years. The orientalists were
fond of Indian religion and culture, especially its ancient period. The Utilitarians on
the other hand were complete opposites of them. They found all flaws in India. Its
culture was seen as stagnant and decadent, which could only be cured under British
rule. With the setback of 1857 and rising national consciousness, the conceptions of
historians regarding India became even worse.India was portrayed as a disunited
geographical entity, which housed followers of many religions, culture, traditions etc.
It was only under the iron grip of British rule that India would hope to even exist! An
important thread which ran around all these views was the continuation and
strengthening of British rule in India, and the varying ideas, beliefs were designed to
serve this purpose. Though there were some positives as well, they were far
outnumbered by the negatives .

Introduction : Historiography can be defined as the study of the writing of history, based
upon critical examination of sources, selection of particulars from the authentic
materials, and the synthesis of particulars into a narrative that will stand the test of
critical methods.Colonial historiography is one such approach which is commonly
associated with historians who were or are characterized by a 'colonialist ideology' i.e. a
belief that history of the colony should be written in accordance with the understanding
and needs of the metropolis. It not only served the purpose of justifying the rule of the
metropolis over the colony, but also helped in maintaining a strict ideological control over
it.By the time the British established their authority in India they had formulated their
historical ideas and had been much influenced by the Enlightenment school of
historiography They came to India with prior notions about what history is, what is its
nature and how it is to be written. A need was felt to understand the history of the colony,
in order to govern her better and establish greater control over it.. By the time the British
established their authority in India they had formulated their historical ideas and had
been much influenced by the Enlightenment school of historiography.They came to India
with prior notions about what history is, what is its nature and how it is to be written. A
need was felt to understand the history of the colony, in order to govern her better and
establish greater control over it. Fired by the zeal of Enlightenment, the rulers took upon
themselves the responsibility of writing down the history of the Indian people.

1. The orientalists :
● The idea of 'Oriental Studies' began with the translation of the legal codes, such as
the Dharmasastras under the auspices of the Asiatic Society of Bengal(1784)
because Indian civilization was considered to be synonymous with Hinduism and
Sanskritic elements, with other religions and languages remaining in the
background
● The so called Orientalists or Indoligists included important names like William
Jones, Henry Colebrook,Charles Wilkins, Horace Hyman Wilson and later Max
Muller etc
 ● Orientalists were people suspicious of the way things were going on in their home
countries of Europe, especially after the coming of industrialization. Thus they
searched for utopias elsewhere, and according to them the Orient held immense
possibilities in this respect. The idea of orientalism was believed to bring about
another Renaissance in Europe.
● Colebrook and others were influenced by the sense of history advanced by Voltaire:
history was not just a chronicle of political events but a record of the growth of
civilizations.
● Seeing from this perspective, Asia (specifically India) appeared to be in a state of
decline, while the west was taking large strides forward.4 British were claimed to
be harbingers of peace after the tyrant muslim rule; and thus it was in the interest
of the native people to ensure the continuation of the British rule
● . Ashish Nandy has aptly summed it up in the following words- "Colonialism minus
a civilizational mission is no colonialism at all".

2. The utilitarian :
● The 19th century was a great age of facts. Ranke, called the father of modern
history, was the greatest champion of such a tradition .
● By the 19th century, Britain had established its dominance on the world stage,
especially following the defeat of Napoleon. It seeked to control and subdue other
countries, under the dictum of 'Pax-Britannica'.
● British rule had also been thoroughly and firmly established in India. The Mughal
empire, Awadh, Bengal, Hyderabad, Mysore, Marathas etc. had all been forced to
seek security under the British sword . It now considered itself to be the
'paramount power' of India
● It was claimed that only under the British tutelage, India would be able to free
herself from the shackles of despotism. The best name representative of such a
thought was- James Mill(History of British India). Mill divided Indian history into
that of Hindu civilization, Muslim civilization and British.
● The classification in itself is faulty as it periodise Indian history in a way such that
early two periods were characterized by particular religions, while the last i.e. the
British period was associated with that of a nation. It is notable that Mill had never
himself visited India and all his beliefs were based upon his readings of accounts of
British officers who had served or spent time in India.
● He popularized the biased Utilitarian approach (Mill was a proud follower of Jeremy
Bentham, considered to be the founder of the Utilitarian approach) which talked of
all good things for his own home country, but was not ready to extend the same to a
subject, 'uncivilized' colony. It became a standard book for British India civil
servants who underwent training at the East India college (Haileybury) and also the
first medium of interface for an average British citizen, who wanted to know about
India
● Other important names were- Mountstuart Elphinstone (History of Hindu and
Muhammaden India, History of British power in the east), Lord Macaulay etc. They
were thoroughly supported by the newly coming Christian missionaries who came
into the 'land of heathens' in order to carry out the noble task of large scale
conversions so as to spred the gospel of the Bible.
● Evangelicans sought to promote vernacular languages so as to make the Bible
available to all the natives.
 ● The most important characteristic feature of Indian society was termed to be the
popularity of 'Oriental Despotism'- a system of government consisting of a
despotic ruler with absolute power and presence of self-sufficient village
communities.

Some other historiographic developments

● In the middle decades of the nineteenth century two great authors wrote on India,
though India was really not in the center of their interest. One was Lord Macaulay
whose essays on some great British Indian personalities like Robert Clive were
published in Edinburgh Review.
● Sir Henry Maine’s - His Ancient Law (1861) and his work on Indian village
communities were path-breaking works in history
● Sir Alfred Lyall’s work, Rise and Expansion of British Dominion in India (1894),
● s W. H. Moreland who examined the economic condition of India at the Death of
Akbar, published in 1920. This work was followed up with another work of
economic history on the period From Akbar to Aurangzeb (1923) and finally a
history of The Agrarian System of Mughal India (1929)
● This is evident from the classic summation of all the British historians’ work on
British India in the 161 volume in the Cambridge History of India (1929) edited by
David Dodwell as well as P E Roberts’ textbook, History of British India (reprinted
often since 1907). Neither Indian economic and social conditions nor indeed the
people of India were in focus in such works, their history was all about what the
British soldiers and civil servants did in India

Colonial ideology in historiography

● It will be an error to homogenize all of British historical writings as uniformly
colonial, since different approaches and interpretative frameworks developed
within the colonial school in the course of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
● An ‘Orientalist’ representation of India was common, promoting the idea of the
superiority of modern Western civilisation; this is a theme recently brought into
prominence by Edward Said and others, but the Indian nationalist intelligentsias
had identified and criticized this trend in British writings from James Mill onwards.
● Many late nineteenth century British historians adopted Social Darwinist notions
about India; this implied that if history is a struggle between various peoples and
cultures, akin to the struggle among the species, Britain having come to the top
could be ipso facto legitimately considered to be superior and as the fittest to rule. •
● India was, in the opinion of many British observers, a stagnant society, arrested at
a stage of development; it followed that British rule would show the path of
progress to a higher level; hence the idea that India needed Pax Britannica.
● • The mythification of heroic empire builders and ‘Rulers of India’ in historical
narratives was a part of the rhetoric of imperialism; as Eric Stokes has remarked, in
British writings on India the focus was on the British protagonists and the entire
country and its people were just a shadowy background.
● • As we would expect, colonial historiography displayed initially a critical stance
towards the Indian nationalist movement since it was perceived as a threat to the
good work done by the British in India; at a later stage when the movement
intensified the attitude became more complex, since some historians showed plain
 hostility while others were more sophisticated in their denigration of Indian
nationalism.

. Impact of historical writings in colonial India ;

● Apart from the obvious fact that the colonial historians laid the foundations of
historiography according to methodology developed in modern Europe, their
contribution was also substantial in providing institutions like the Asiatic Society
and Archaeological Survey of India opportunity for Indian historians to obtain
entry into the profession and into academic research.
● h. Further, despite an ethnocentric and statist bias, the data collected by the British
colonial historians as well as the practice of archiving documents was and remains
an important resource
● Most important of all, the teaching of history began from the very inception of the
first three universities in India at Calcutta, Bombay and Madras (1857-1858). This
had several unintended consequences.
● The history that was taught under colonial auspices was highly biased in favor of
the imperial point of view. The textbooks were those produced by the school of
colonial historiography. Nevertheless, there was a positive outcome.
● First, along with the history of India by James Mill or Elphinstone, Indian students
also read histories of England and of Europe and thus were implanted in the minds
of the educated Indians the ideas of Liberty and Freedom and Democracy and
Equity, as exemplified in European history, the lessons of the Magna Carta, the
Glorious Revolution, the American War of Independence, the struggles of Mazzini
and Garibaldi in Italy, etc.
● Secondly, professionally trained Indian historians began to engage in writing
history. indians professionally trained began to engage in research, first in learned
associations like the Asiatic Society, then in the colleges and universities, and in
the government’s educational services, particularly the Indian Education Service
● Thirdly, and this is the important part, the history which the Indian students were
made to read, the books by British civil servant historians of the nineteenth
century, created a critical reaction against that historiography. The first graduate
of an Indian University, Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, repeatedly revealed the British
interpretation and raised the question, When shall we write our own history?

1. John stuart mill :

● Just about this time, between 1806 and 1818, James Mill wrote a series of volumes
on the history of India and this work had a formative influence on British
imagination about India. The book was entitled History of British India, but the
first three volumes included a survey of ancient and medieval India while the last
three volumes were specifically about British rule in India. This book became a
great success, it was reprinted in 1820, 1826 and 1840 and it became a basic
textbook for the British Indian Civil Service officers undergoing training at the East
India’s college at Haileybury. By the 1840s the book was out of date and in his
comments its editor H.H. Wilson pointed that out in 1844 (Wilson also pointed out
many factual errors in the book); but the book continued to be considered a classic.
● Mill had never been to India and the entire work was written on the basis of his
limited readings in books by English authors on India. It contained a collection of
the prejudices about India and the natives of India which many British officers
acquired in course of their stay in India. However, despite shortcomings from the
 point of view of authenticity and veracity and objectivity, the book was very
influential for two reasons. One of these reasons is often recognised: James Mill
belonged to an influential school of political and economic thought, the Utilitarians
inspired by the philosopher Jeremy Bentham
● As an Utilitarian exposition of history Mill’s history of India was also at the same
time implicitly an Utilitarian agenda for British administration in India. The other
reason for the immense influence the book exercised has not been recognised as
much as one might have expected. This book perfectly reflected the cast of mind at
the beginning of the nineteenth century which we have noticed earlier, a cast of
mind which developed in the wake of Britain’s victory in the Anglo-French wars for
hegemony in Europe, and Britain’s growing industrial prosperity. James Mill
broadcast a message of confident imperialism which was exactly what the readers
in England wanted to hear.

2. Mountstuart Elphinston :
● While James Mill had produced an Utilitarian interpretation of history, a
rival work of history produced by Mountstuart Elphinstone is more difficult
to categorize in terms of philosophical affiliation. Elphinstone was a civil
servant in India for the greater part of his working life and he was far better
equipped and better informed than Mill to write a history of India. His work
History of Hindu and Mohammedan India (1841) became a standard text in
Indian universities (founded from 1857 onwards) and was reprinted up to
the early years of the next century. Elphinstone followed this up with
History of British Power in the East, a book that traced fairly systematically
the expansion and consolidation of British rule till Hastings’
administration.
● The periodisation of Indian 7 history into ancient and medieval period
corresponding to ‘Hindu’ period and ‘Muslim’ period was established as a
convention in Indian historiography as a result of the lasting influence of
Elphinstone’s approach to the issue. While Elphinstone’s works continued
to be influential as a textbook, specially in India, a more professionally
proficient history was produced in the 1860s by J. Talboys Wheeler. The
latter wrote a comprehensive History of India in five volumes published
between 1867 and 1876, and followed it up with a survey of India Under
British Rule (1886).

3. Vincent smith :
● If one were to look for the successor to Elphinstone’s work as an influential
text book, one would probably turn to the History of India by Vincent Smith
who stands nearly at the end of a long series of British Indian civil servant
historians. In 1911 the last edition of Elphinstone’s history of ‘Hindu and
Mohammedan India’ was published and in the same year Vincent Smith’s
comprehensive history, building upon his own earlier research in ancient
Indian history and the knowledge accumulated by British researchers in the
decades since Elphinstone, saw the light of day
● From 1911 till about the middle of the twentieth century Vincent Smith’s
was the authoritative textbook on the syllabi of almost all Indian
universities. While Vincent Smith’s book approximated the professional
historians’ writings in form and was unrivaled as a text book in summing up
 the then state of knowledge, in some respects his approach to Indian history
seems to have been coloured by his experience as a British civil servant in
India.
● The rise of the nationalist movement since 1885 and the intensification of
political agitation since the Partition of Bengal in 1905 may have influenced
his judgments about the course of history in India. For instance, time and
again he referred to the fragility of India’s unity and the outbreak of chaos
and the onset of general decline in the absence of a strong imperial
authority. The disintegration and decline experienced in ancient and
medieval times at the end of great empires suggested an obvious lesson to
the Indian reader, viz. It was only the iron hand of imperial Britain which
kept India on the path of stability with progress, and if the British Indian
empire ceased to be there would be the deluge which would reverse all
progress attained under British rule. As regards the potentials of the
nationalist movement and the fitness of the Indian subjects to decide their
own destiny, Vincent Smith did not pay much attention to that ‘political’
question.

2. Nationalist historiography :
Nationalist historiography arose in the second half of the nineteenth century
as a reaction to Colonial historiography and as a result of the nationalist
ideology that arose alongside the Indian national movement. Because
nationalist historical writings were largely a reaction to Colonial historians,
they must be interpreted in the context of Colonial beliefs and systems. We will
go over the background features and contributions of nationalist
historiography in depth in this unit.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE NATIONALIST
HISTORIOGRAPHY :
The Colonial historian charged that Indians lacked the character to rule
themselves,claiming that they were unfit for democracy and self-government.
They claimed thatIndia was a country of philosophers who lacked political and
economic leadership.Indians were also accused of being a disunited
people.Indian rulers were thought to be autocratic. As a result, nationalist
historiography is a term used in a comparative sense, in contrast to history
writing that is colonial or imperialist

FEATURES OF THE NATIONALIST HISTORIOGRAPHY

Nationalist historians were filled with legitimate national pride, and a new
generation of Indian academics sought to defend their country's culture
against the unfounded accusations of European writers. Historical
consciousness, or knowledge of people's past, sustains and promotes the new
consciousness. Nothing, according to Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, is more
important than the study and writing of history in order to foster a sense of
unity, national pride, and a desire for freedom. The glorification of Indian
culture and history was their main focus.

They refuted the charges leveled by colonial historians. The pinnacle of

Nationalist historiography was reached in the 1930s, around the time when the
mass movement, led by Gandhi, became so powerful that the glorification of
India's past coexisted with the nationalist movement to a large extent. The
restoration of national pride, which contributed to the nation's political
development, was a positive aspect of nationalist historiography. Regional
histories were also being written at the same time. The systematic way in
which the caste system was glorified had a negative impact on the glorification
of India. The common man was largely ignored as a historical force. It's
possible that the underlying nationalist approach to historical writings was
responsible for sowing the seeds of communalism in India. One of the
nationalist historians' major flaws was that they did not criticize J.S.Mill's
periodization of Indian history into Hindu, Muslim, and British periods. The
issue was that the scholars became victims of nationalistic and patriotic
sentiments. As a result, they failed to follow important historical principles.
R.G. Bhandarkar, R.C. Dutt, R.K.Mukharjee, J.N. Sarkar, and others were
important nationalist historians. B.P. Nanda, Bhisheshwar Prasad, and Amales
Tripathi have all made significant contributions to this approach in recent
years.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE NATIONALIST HISTORIOGRAPHY

British historians in the nineteenth century were instrumental in inciting a

nationalist response. This reaction manifested itself in a nationalist approach
to history. An effort to restore national self-esteem and glorify India's past
was an important part of this strategy. Another element was the promotion of
economic nationalism through the depiction of the British rule's disastrous
economic consequences in India. Most importantly, nationalist historiography
attempted to re-discover India for the modern Indian mind, as well as promote
political integration and anti-imperialist sentiments in order to advance
India's nation-building cause. Not only did nationalist history have to contend
with earlier imperialist bias in historiography, but it also had to contend with a
communal interpretation of history that began to gain traction in the early
decades of the century. Nationalist historiography was crucial in providing an
ideological foundation for the freedom struggle and in analyzing imperialism's
economic consequences. Nationalist attention was focused on the external, i.e..
imperialist exploitation of India, rather than the intemal, i.e., class
exploitation and the resulting class conflict within Indian society. The
influence of the Marxist approach, which became increasingly evident in the
1940s, resulted in a greater focus on the latter aspect (In the next unit we shall
discuss about Marxist Historiography in detail). Only in the context of colonial
dominance and colonial historiography can the terms nationalist school and
nationalist history be understood. In pre-colonial India, history was not
written in the modern sense. The introduction of English education enabled
the Indian middle class to recognise the importance of historical knowledge
and to become acquainted with both Indian and global history. As a result,
newly educated Indians began to read colonial historians' works. Nationalist
historians began to correct colonial historians' historical writings. As a result,
their writings were tainted by some sort of bias.

R.C. Majumdar coined the term "nationalist historians" to describe Indian

historians who had a nationalist bias in their writings, particularly during the
colonial period. Nationalist historiography aided in the discovery of a diverse
range of sources and the re-examination of all available sources. It grew
stronger over time as a result of the country-wide movement for political
freedom, and it eventually became a part of the movement itself. The study of
India's religion or society was also valued by the nationalists. In other words,
they use their studies to defend religion and society. Against European
criticism, the material side of Hindu culture was also defended with equal zeal.

With the publication of some Vedic texts, Rajendrala Mitra began the
nationalist writing in India. He was proud of his ancient Indian ancestors and
took a rationale. comparative approach to ancient Indian society. RC Dutt
compiled the writings of Mitra, Bhandarkar, and some of Europe's most
illustrious oriental scholars in three volumes titled "Civilization in Ancient
India" in the late 1880s. This, according to Majumdar, is the first nationalist
history in the true sense of the word. The Fundamental Unity of India, by R.K.
Mukharjee asserted that religious and spiritual unity among Hindus across
India, as well as their ideal of an all-India empire, were the foundations of
Indian nationalism in the past. The thesis of oriental despotism is also
addressed by K.P Jayaswal in his Hindu Polity. In their economic criticism of
the British government, Dadabhai Naoroji and R.C. Dutt. They popularized the
drain theory, exposed colonialism's exploitative nature, and revolutionized the
national movement; they cleverly used history as an instrument for forming
India as a nation on various levels, despite its flaws. Important nationalist
writers included R.G.Bhandarkar, H.C.Raychaudhury, J.N. Sarkar, G.S. Sardesai,
S.Krishna Swami Ayyangar, Lalalajpath Roy. C.F.Andrews. Pattabhi
Sittaramayya, Girija Mukharjee, and others. They inspired the Indian people
and instilled in them a sense of self- confidence and national pride, bolstering
the national movement.

Nationalist Historiography's Defects: Nationalist historiography, too, has

flaws, such as methodological flaws, chauvinist approaches to caste, cultural,
and social bias. Detachment, balance, perspective, and objectivity all became
causality as emotion and sentiment took over the place of reason. They also
failed to consider and address certain aspects and issues, such as tribes,
women, underprivileged people. marginalized societies, and so on. Some
sensational accounts helped to create a sense of community. Instead of
providing a critical analysis, it glorified Indian history, culture, and events.

LET US SUM UP
You should have learned by the end of this unit that the development of
nationalist historiography was primarily a reaction to British Imperialist
historiography on India. The growth of national identity was another factor in
the development of nationalist historiography.

The glorification of India's past was emphasized by nationalist

historiographers, who inspired the people of India and reawakened
self-confidence and national pride among the masses, strengthening the
national movement.

MARXIST HISTORIOGRAPHY

INTRODUCTION

In the post-independence period in India, a new method of history writing

emerged, Marxist historiography, which was also deeply rooted in the writings
of nationalist historians. The Marxist theory of historical dialectical
materialism served as the foundation for Marxist historiography. The study of
the relationship between social and economic organisation and its effects on
historical events is at the heart of this new approach. We'll talk about this
approach to historical writing in India in this unit.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF MARXIST HISTORIOGRAPHY

Historical processes are linked to social relations in Marxist dialectic, and

these are made up of opposing forces (thesis and anti-thesis). The class
struggle between these opposing forces, according to Marx, was the agent of
change, leading to a new mode of production and a new era (synthesis) with
new existence. The material requirement of man. i.e. economy, was a major
factor in this relationship. Using this as a starting point, Marx divided history
into periods based on the material circumstances of the time, with the slave
mode of production roughly covering the ancient period, the feudal mode of
production covering the mediaeval period, and the socialist and capitalist
modes of production covering the modern period. As a result, historical
materialism's central feature was class struggle in society. Scholars such as
D.D.Kosambi, Irfan Habib, K.M.Panikkar, Bipan Chandra, A.R. Desai, and others
have applied the Marxian model to Indian history. The Marxist Phase does not
imply that the writers were all Marxists, but rather that they embraced
materialistic interpretation as a means of comprehending historical events.
The primary contradiction within Indian society, as well as the process of
nation-building, is clearly seen by Marxist historians.

Marxist historiography focuses on social and economic history, and it has

challenged Mills' periodization of Indian history. The Marxists also addressed
important issues point, Marx divided history into periods based on the
material circumstances of the time, with the slave mode of production roughly
covering the ancient period, the feudal mode of production covering the
mediaeval period, and the socialist and capitalist modes of production covering
the modern period. As a result, historical materialism's central feature was
class struggle in society. Scholars such as D.D.Kosambi, Irfan Habib,
K.M.Panikkar, Bipan Chandra, A.R. Desai, and others have applied the Marxian
model to Indian history. The Marxist Phase does not imply that the writers
were all Marxists, but rather that they embraced materialistic interpretation as
a means of comprehending historical events. The primary contradiction within
Indian society, as well as the process of nation-building, is clearly seen by
Marxist historians.

Marxist historiography focuses on social and economic history, and it has

challenged Mills' periodization of Indian history. The Marxists also addressed
important issues such as the distinction between pre-modern and modern
societies, the distinction between pre-capitalist and modern societies, changes
in the caste system and the transition from clan to caste, and the
interpretation of religion as social ideology, among others.

FEATURES OF THE MARXIST HISTORIOGRAPHY

It was a fresh take on Indian historiography, or historical writing. The term

"Marxist writing" does not imply that the authors were all Marxists, but rather
that they used materialistic interpretation as a method of understanding and
analysis of historical events. Their interpretation is based on Karl Marx's
historical philosophy of dialectical materialism. The essence of this new
approach is the study of the relationship between social and economic
organisation and its effects on historical events, rather than political history.
They focused more on the history of ordinary people and the history of the
underprivileged. With his work 'India in Transition, published in 1922, one of
the founders of Marxism in India, M.N.Roy, established the Marxist
historiography on modern India. It was followed by R.P. Dutt's India Today in
1940 and A.R.Desai's The Social Background of Indian Nationalism' in 1959. All
three were traditional Marxists who saw the Indian national movement as a
particular stage in the evolution of the mode of production. For a long time,
India Today was regarded as an authoritative Marxist work. Later on, it became
an important historical school in India. Dutt and Desai investigated Gandhi's
negative and positive contributions to the national movement. They
emphasised the positive aspects of the national movement as a mass
movement by bringing national consciousness to the backward masses. On the
negative side, as a representative of the Indian bourgeoisie, he limited the
revolutionary tendencies contained by liberal bourgeois nationalism's ability
to operate. Historians such as D.D. Kossambi, R.S.Sharma, RomilaThapar,
Bipan Chandra, Sumit Sarkar, Susobhan Sarkar, Sunil Sen, Hiran Mukharjee,
K.N. Panikkar, Irfan Habib, and others have dedicated their studies to the
development of historiography in the post-independence period. Marxist
historians attempted to understand India's transformation during colonialism
and saw it as a part of the globalisation of capitalism and British imperialism's
exploitative concerns. India Today, a seminal work by R. P. Dutt, divides the
colonial period in India into three categories. The first phase was mercantilism
or merchant capitalism under the company from 1757 to 1813. followed by
industrial capitalism as a result of the industrial revolution from 1813 to 1858
(marketisation), and finally finance capitalism as capital and colonial
investments from 1813 to 1858. It later became a recurring theme in nationalist
writings. Marxist historians focused on the inner contradictions of Indian
society, marginalised groups such as peasants and workers, and their role in
the movement, women's role, and so on. They even questioned India's
communal periodization. Early Marxists, such as Dutt and Desai, saw the
national movement as a bourgeoisie movement. However, historians such as
Bipan Chandra, with his recent research on the movement and publication of
works, have criticised this viewpoint. Marxist writings shifted the focus of
history away from the state and toward society They introduced an
interdisciplinary approach to recent studies, as well as a new way of explaining
problems.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE MARXIST HISTORIOGRAPHY

The centrality of social class and economic constraints in determining

historical outcomes is one of Marxist historiography's main tenets. The history
of the working class, oppressed nationalities, and the methodology of history
from below have all benefited from Marxist historiography. It promoted
inter-disciplinary approaches in social science analysis and gave birth to new
disciplines of social and economic history as a result of its pervasiveness in
social analysis. Furthermore, Marxist history is part of their plan to bring
about social change in accordance with their philosophy. which is based on
action and practise rather than thought. Historical materialism promoted
cause-and-effect analysis on a material, rather than ideological, basis, which
fueled the study of social phenomena through a materialistic lens. Critics, on
the other hand, argue that Marx prioritised material conditions over the
significance of ideas. Furthermore, they disagree with Marx's proposed order
of various periods in human history

LET US SUM UP

You will be able to learn about the historical development of Marxist

historiography in India after completing this unit. In-depth discussion of the
material interpretation or historical materialism of history writing.

The most important aspects of Marxist historiography in India. The most

significant contributions of Marxist historiography

APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF INDIAN SOCIETY THE SUBALTERN

APPROACH (RANAJIT GUHA, 1923)
In critical theory and postcolonialism, the term "subaltern" refers to a social
group that is socially, politically, and geographically outside the colony's or
colonial homeland's hegemonic power structure. The concept of subaltern
identity is derived from the work of Italian Marxist intellectual Antonio
Gramsci on cultural hegemony. Sociology, social anthropology, history, and
ethnography have all had a tendency to study the depths of micro-reality but
not to rise above it into the realm of conceptualising or theorising it. The
subaltem approach was not properly conceptualised until Ranajit Guha and his
colleagues launched it in a big way Ranajit Guha is credited with coining the
term "subaltern historiography," a critical approach to studying tribal and
peasant movements in India and elsewhere. This approach aims to investigate
the role of 'people' politics in Indian history, as opposed to elite politics. As a
result, it creates binary distinctions between the 'people' and the 'elite'
(Dhanagare, 1988). We examine Ranajit Guha's method of subaltern
historiography, the historiography of peasant and tribal insurgencies, the
influence of Marxism and other theoretical frameworks on his methodology,
and the impact of his subaltern perspective on the trajectory of Indian
sociology in the following paper .

The subaltern approach advocates believe that elitist historiography, whether

by neo- colonists or neo-nationalists, has failed to incorporate or
acknowledge the contributions of people who are not part of the elite. Rather,
they have exaggerated their role in the construction of Indian nationalism's
interpretation. It maintains that, in addition to elite politics, there has been a
parallel domain of politics that has existed throughout the colonial period and
later, with subaltern groups and classes such as the labouring population and
intermediate strata in towns and the country as the primary actors
(Dhanagare, 1988). People are treated as autonomous domains by subaltern
historiography, which does not derive from or rely on the national elite. As a
result, unlike in elite politics, mobilisation in subaltern politics occurs
horizontally rather than vertically. Guha admits that the subaltern domain is
not a homogeneous uniformity due to differences in ideology, diversity of its
social components, and so on. Divergences and divisions exist among these
groups, which tend to undermine horizontal alliances.

The goal of subaltern historiography is to create the 'other history.' or the

history of people's politics and attempts to write their own narratives. Guha
points out that the goal of historiography is to interpret the past in order to
change the present, which necessitates a radical shift in consciousness, while
analysing tribal and peasant insurgencies in colonial India. He therefore urges
historians and social scientists to see tribal or peasant insurgencies as makers
of their own history, with their own transformative consciousness, rather than
as objects of history (Dhanagare, 1988). Traditional discourses on peasant
tribal insurgencies, according to Guha, have served colonial historiography by
portraying them as disruptions in the law and order system. In this way, these
studies were "counterinsurgency" efforts to prevent future uprisings. These
studies, according to Guha, ignored the movements' conscious spontaneity
and structure, relegating them to the realm of 'pre-political' phenomena.
Ranajit Guha believed that the term "pre-political" was value-laden and
deceptive, and that peasant/tribal insurgencies during colonial times should be
seen in the context of the colonial state's attempts to establish landlordism
and parasitic landlords. The oppression to which the peasantry and tribal
groups were subjected in this existing power structure prompted them to
revolt. In this sense, their uprisings were not pre- political, but were as
political as Congress politics or twentieth-century left-wing peasant struggles.
Guha does acknowledge, however, that the basic elements of these early
movements, such as ideology, leadership, and goals, were qualitatively
different from the more advanced movements of the twentieth century
(Dhanagare, 1988). Ranajit Guha's goal in studying insurgent movements was
to figure out how patterns of subordination and insubordination paralleled
each other throughout India's colonial period.

It is necessary to look into Guha's colonial historiography in order to better

understand

the country's subaltern historiography

Elitism, both colonialist and bourgeoisie-nationalist elitism, has dominated

the historiography of Indian nationalism. Both, according to Guha, arose from
British colonialism's ideological product. Both types of elitism believe that
their elite efforts were responsible for the formation of the Indian nation and
the development of nationalist consciousness. The colonialist historiography
defines Indian nationalism as a reaction to stimuli, i.e.. it is a collection of
colonialism's ideas, institutions, and resources. This perspective sees Indian
nationalism as a kind of learning process in which the native elite allied with
the colonial elite in order to share in the benefits of wealth, power, and
prestige. On the other hand, the nationalist elite portrayed Indian nationalism
as a phenomenal expression in which the native clite's goodness, combined
with their antagonistic relationship with the colonial regime, obscured the
reality of their cooperation and association with them. According to Guha, they
glorify their role as champions of the people and oppressed, leading them to
freedom, rather than depicting their acceptance of a semblance of power and
privilege bestowed upon them by colonial powers. This elitist historiography
has its uses, according to Guha, because it helps to understand the ideological
nature of historiography itself.

This type of historical writing, on the other hand, cannot be accepted because
it presents an incomplete and thus erroneous picture of Indian nationalism. It
does not take into account the contributions made by ordinary people, who are
not influenced by national elites. It doesn't explain how mass movements like
the 1942 Quit India movement and the 1919 anti-Rowlatt uprising gathered
tens of thousands of people. It situates such movements as ideological
appropriation by the influential elite, rather than as genuine political
processes by the people.
The inadequacy of elitist historiography, according to Guha, stems from the
assumption that the parameters of Indian politics are those of the institutions
introduced and set up by the British government, as well as the corresponding
set of laws, attitudes, and so on. equating politics with the activities of those
directly involved in operating these institutions.

The elitist historiography ignores the people's autonomous domain of politics,

which includes subaltern classes and groups. Guha refers to this domain as
autonomous because it arose independently of elite politics and does not rely
on it for survival. Its origins can be traced back to pre-colonial times. after
which it has evolved to fit the conditions that prevailed during colonial rule.
The horizontal mobilisation of people based on traditional kinship and
territory organisation, or class associations depending on the level of
consciousness of the people, was one of the domain's most important
characteristics. In comparison to the elite's legalistic and constitutionalist
mobilizations, these subaltern mobilizatious tended to be more violent. They
were also more spontaneous in nature, which was most evident in peasant
uprisings for Guha • Despite its diversity, one of the subaltern domain's
characteristics was a sense of resistance to elite dominance. This resulted from
all of the domain's social constituents being in a state of subjugation.

Another distinguishing feature of the subalterns was their exposure to

exploitation, which ranged from peasant and worker labour to the manual and
intellectual labour of the non-industrial urban poor and the lower echelons of
the petty bourgeoisie in varying degrees. Because of their shared experience of
exploitation, these classes are seen as distinct from the elite. Guha claims that,
despite changes in the course of these subaltern mobilizations, these
medications have maintained the boundaries between the elite and the
subaltern. That is to say, they coexisted. This, according to Guha, is due to the
Indian bourgeoisie's inability to speak for the entire country. They were unable
to incorporate vast areas of people's lives and consciousness into their
hegemony. This is what he refers to as a structural dichotomy. The existence of
such a structural dichotomy does not imply that there has been no contact
between the two domains; rather, Guha claims that there has been contact
from time to time, and that the bourgeoisie has attempted to integrate them.
Guha also claims that initiatives bor in the subaltern domain were unable to
achieve their full potential in terms of national liberation because the working
class had not yet developed the consciousness of being a class unto itself and
could not firmly align itself with the peasantry. The subaltern domain's
sectional nature did not attract revolutionary leadership, which required rising
above localism and launching a nationwide campaign. Guha claims that the
failure to achieve national liberation due to the bourgeoisie's and working
classes' inadequacy is the central theme to be studied in colonial India's
historiography.
Ranajit Guha and his Contribution
Ranajit Guha, perhaps the most influential figure in postcolonial and
subaltern studies, is also the founding editor of Subaltern Studies. He taught
history for many years at the University of Sussex, England and also served as
Professor of History, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National
University, and Canberra. Guha’s works have deeply influenced not only the
writing of sub-continental history but also historical investigations elsewhere,
as well as cultural studies, literary theories, and social analyses across the
world.

.Methodology: Guha used subaltern historiography as a method for his study of

peasant insurgency.

4.3.6.2.Writings:
• A Rule of Property for Bengal: An Essay on the Idea of the Permanent
Settlement (1963)
• Elementary Aspects of Insurgency in Colonial India (1983) • Subaltern
Studies (edited volumes 1 to 10).
• Defining the subaltern perspective through subaltern studies
. • How did subaltern studies get to be recognized so? • The idea of subaltern
perspective.
• The emerging subaltern perspective.
• The inchoate quality associated with the subaltern perspective
. • Peasant insurgency. Guha tried to write the history of subaltern from the
subaltern’s perspective. Then and then alone would it be possible to notice the
kind of role that the majority of the population, the silent majority if you wish,
played in directing the courts of history. Inevitably, the issue is who was
dominating whom and who revolted against the domination and in what kind
of manner came to be central importance in these studies.

Selected text of subaltern history :

Guha, Ranajit. Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in

Colonial India.

Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India is

considered one of the inaugural works of the subaltern studies group. In
Peasant Insurgency, Guha marks not only the bias of the historiography
and archive of colonial India’s government documents, but also the bias
of the folklore, which has traditionally been perceived and touted by
nationalist groups as authentic and untainted by the colonizer Britain.
Thus, for Guha, any colonial historiography of the peasant in India is
necessarily tainted by a bourgeois lens, either through the colonial
agenda or through the nationalist agenda. Guha’s intervention is then to
trace the mounting everyday actions that are silenced in favor of the
larger event. In this intervention, he moves to dispel the notion that
Indian colonial subjects were powerless during the colonial rule,
specifically from 1783-1900, and instead seeks to describe from the
peasants’ point of view the complex relations of subordination,
dominance, and subsequent rebellion.

Amin, Shahid. Event, Metaphor, Memory

Similar to Guha’s project of looking at colonial revolt, Amin examines the

singular event of the infamous 1922 arson of the Chauri Chaura thana
(police station) that a mob of “peasants” enacted in the name of
Mahatma Gandhi and the Non-Cooperation Movement. In his book,
Amin seeks to examine the circumstances and context surrounding the
actual Chauri Chaura rather than the metonymic word that has become
synonymous with nationalism. To do this, Amin returns to the area of
the Chauri Chaura event and interrogates the colonial, the judicial, and
the national accounts of the event alongside oral histories of surviving
residents or relatives of those involved in the incident. In doing so, he
expands the narrative to include multiple viewpoints and interpretations
of the event itself and the local political context preceding it.

Chakrabarty, Dipesh. Provincializing Europe.

Chakrabarty seeks to reinvestigate the writing of Indian histories by

situating the entire body of that writing so far as existing in a state of
subalternity, where both India and Europe are “hyperreal” imaginary
constructs with Europe given the upper hand. Europe is a “silent
referent” that symbolizes a completeness, a modernity, and a bourgeoisie
present, thus positing India, even within subaltern studies’ framework,
as a symbol of lack, historical primitivism, and peasantry. He associates
this state of Europe as referent as associating strongly with capitalism,
citing Marx as laying forth a temporal framework that focuses on
developmental stages where Europe comes before the Other. The
modern bourgeoisie subject of capitalism thus becomes the default
assumption of history, and all histories are then taught and written with
that default in mind. Europe comes to signify not only a region but an
entire body of scholarship and thought system grounded in historicist
liberalism. Chakrabarty traces several texts through the British Indian
colonial example that illustrate not only the European-driven production
of the idea that a European future is the only one worth aspiring to, but
also the Indian upholding of such Eurocentric historicism.

Pandey, Gyanendra. Unarchived Histories: The “Mad” and the

“Trifling” in the Postcolonial World.

Gyanendra Pandey takes up the opposite side of Spivak’s project, moving

not to merely trace what the archive considers reasonable but to account
for the “unarchived” unreasonable, what he terms the “trifling” and the
“mad.” The archive, he remarks, is not only a space of remembering, but
“also at the same time a project of forgetting” things and people deemed
trivial, inconsequential, and thus unhistorical (4). The background noise
from which the archive moves to distinguish itself is unreason. Pandey
turns his attention to the “trifling,” the commonplace that happens so
often in the everyday that it is forgettable, namely domestic abuse,
domestic labor, and microaggressions as they concern subaltern women
in lower castes and classes. Such acts are so forgettable that even the
women writing the narratives Pandey examines do not think to include
them, like the way Viola Andrews “never remember[s] to mention” race
relations in her 1960s Atlanta memoirs (10) and how Baby Kondiba
Kamble’s memoirs do not include her husband beating her because she
didn’t know how to talk about something so commonplace that
happened to everyone (14). The ephemeral, fleeting acts of the everyday
thus cannot register as evidential or as reasonable, and thus are cast into
the domain of unreason, not to be taken into account by the archive, but
still extant for the historian to locate.

Gender History :
Gender History or better Gender Studies is a sub branch of History, and
looks at history and hence human life from the perspectives of Gender.
Gender is a concept that can be used in many ways. Gender, a social and
cultural construct, can simply refer to studying the relationship between
men and women. In other words, gender refers to the way by which men
and women are socially conditioned to their respective roles not only in
the family but in the society as well. To Joan Scott, the American
historian on France, gender was a key category of historical analysis and
that is vital to study how femininity and masculinity were culturally
constructed in relation to each other in different societies. Gender
History had passed through different phases to make its present form.
The first stage in the development of Gender History was Women
history, where historians focused on the study of famous women,
although without interrelating the lives of women with the social fabric
in which they lived. This phase was also characterized by the entry of
larger number of women into the historical profession. The next stage
began with the Feminist movements, particularly with the second wave
of Western Feminism. But these trends studied women not as a historical
category, but women as a monolithic category, just opposite to their
counterparts. This understanding of women as binary opposite to men
undermined women’s role in the making of history . Thus, it was left to
Gender historians to make an indepth study of the society in which
women lived, so as to bring forth their marginalized nature and non
documentation in the mainstream history. It stated without any doubt
that the understanding of human life, for that matter, the understanding
of history cannot gain perfection without paying attention to the lives of
women and men as such. It also clearly demonstrated that the study of
gender roles in a given society has to be given emphasis for the actual
understanding of the marginalization of women. Gender History focuses
on the study of systematic differentiation of womanhood and manhood.
Finally, Gender History tries to relate women not only with the society in
which they live, but also with men, who determine and consciously
create the ethos and spine of society. Gerda Lerner (1920-2013) Gerda
Lerner (1920-2013) was an American historian, novelist, script writer
and public activist, with special emphasis on women movements. She
was a Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Wisconsin and
acted as a visiting Professor at Duke University. Lerner was one of the
founding members of the National Organisation for Women and worked
as the President of the Organisation of American Historians. Lerner’s
major work, ‘Black Women in White America’ is acclaimed as one of the
bestsellers and most read books in History. Published in 1972, this book
deals with the 350 years of the slavery of Black women in the Americas
and its lasting impacts on the history of the US. It can be considered as a
documentary of history of the varied levels of the lives of the Black
Women in the US. Her other prominent books are, ‘The female
Experience’, ‘Why History Matters’ and ‘Women and History’. Lerner can
also be considered as one of the pioneers in the study of the history of
women. She started the First Women’s History course in the world at the
New School for Social research as early as in 1963. Through her many
articles and books, she made Gender history as a specific field of study.
Moreover, she is also one of the first to apply feminist approach in the
study of History. As a true representative of Gender Studies, Lerner
made an indepth study of the educational deprivations of women, their
isolation from many of the customs and traditions of their respective
societies, the compositions of women as expressive outlets etc. As an
activist of women movements, she used history to change the definition
of culture, where men have not only made culture, but determined
culture, from the perspective of women. Bring out the Contribution of
Michael Foucault with regard to the history of Sexuality to Historical
studies Michael Foucault (1926 -1984) was a French philosopher,
historian, Literary Critic and a social theorist. He made radical changes
in the study of History by his innovative ideas on power, its working, and
the relation between power and knowledge. A representative of Post
structuralism, Foucault revolutionized historical studies with his theory
of ‘archeology of knowledge’.This theory dismissed the importance of
individual thinkers or individual motives . It emphasized the inescapable
mind sets that characterize different periods in history. Foucault’s
another unit of analysis was ‘discourse’.To him, discourse is a way of
thinking. It is to be understood as a system of possibility for knowledge.
The exclusive function of discourse is to serve as a transparent
representation of things and ideas standing outside it. But his
outstanding contribution to historiography is his study of sexuality. In
his work,‘History of Sexuality’ published in three volumes, in 1976, he
made an exhaustive study of sexuality in Western World. He rejected the
much accepted idea that Western society suppressed sexuality from 17th
to mid 20th centuries. Foucault, instead, argued that there was much
interest and proliferation of the discourse on sex. This proliferation, to
him was due to the development of dominant bourgeois class in Europe.
This new class of people encouraged study on sexuality. Sex became a
topic of debate in different areas of society. He argued that society’s
approach to sexuality finally determine population growth.This concept
of Foucault is centered around the notion that the identities of the people
are increasingly tied to their sexuality. The book, ‘History of Sexuality’ is
one of the finest historic analytical enterprises.This work, divided into
three volumes; the first volume is titled as “The Will to Knowledge” , the
second as “Use of Pleasure” and the third is captioned as “The Cave of
the Self”.
As a social theorist, Foucault had authored many influential and
provocative works: They are Madness and Civilisation (Published in1961)
The Birth of Clinic (1963) The Order of Things (1966) The Archaeology of
Knowledge (1969) Discipline and Punishment (1975)

4.New history : All the history emerge after 1960 are included in
new history . it is different from traditional history term initiated
from french historiography in 20th century 1970 . connect history
with present (food media clothing ) . new history should be scientific
but away from super natural perspective .

History of everything !

For example : virtual history was written in new history reimagine

the history

Food History – Felipe Fernandez- Armesto Felipe Fernandez-

Armesto is a British historian, who is famous in history for his
path-breaking studies on the history of food in the world. He is the
first academic historian to make a detailed study on the history of
food and society. His magnum opus, ‘Near A Thousand Tables:A
History Of Food’ published in 2001, stands as the best read, an
exclusive and most influential work on the history of food and its
effect on changing the attitude of the people. Armesto traces the
history of food through eight revolutionary stages. He identified
‘Origin of Cooking’as the first stage, which was the first revolution;
while the second stage in the evolution was “The Meaning of Eating”,
that was characterized by ‘Food as Rite and Magic’ or the
Ritualisation of Eating. “Breeding to Eat” was the third Stage,where
herding revolution had taken place along with the change from
‘Collecting’ Food to Producing It . The Fourth phase was “The Edible
Earth” in which the main speciality was ‘Managing Plant life for
Food’. ‘Food and Rank’was the fifth stage, where,’Inequality and the
rise of Haute Cuisine’ was the main stay. He identifies the sixth stage
as ‘The Edible Horizon’, in which ‘Food and Long Range Excahange of
Culture’was the main mark. In the Seventh stage, which branded as
“Challenging Evolution”,‘Food and Ecological Evolution was the
characteristic. The final stage was known as “Feeding the Giants”
where, ‘Food Industrialisation of the 19th and 20th centuries was the
prime feature. Armesto considers food as a universal and fundamental
to human life. To him ‘food is what matters most to most people for
most of the time . As already stated, he makes an indepth study and
vividly portrays how food had changed the attitude of human beings
through centuries. His findings are that ‘You are what you Eat’ and
that a man of average life time approximately spends ten years at
dining table .

His exclusive study on food makes him a unique figure among

historians of the 21st century, for, his is the first detailed, authentic
and exhaustive study not only on the history of food, but on the
different food habits of the world.

Environmental History – Alfred W Crosby Alfred Worcester Crosby Jr.

was born in Boston (USA) on Jan. 15, 1931. He graduated from
Wellesley High School.He graduated from Harvard in 1952 with a
degree in history and then served in the Panama Canal Zone as a
sergeant in the Army, which gave him first ever experience of the
Latin American culure. He obtained a doctorate in history from
Boston University. Alfred W. Crosby is regarded as the father of
environmental history, Through his ground breaking
interdisciplinary research, he incorporated studies of biology,
ecology, geography and other sciences in his efforts to chronicle and
understand human events — work that introduced sweeping
explanatory concepts like “the Columbian Exchange” and “ecological
imperialism.” In “The Columbian Exchange: Biological and Cultural
Consequences of 1492,” a wide-ranging book published in 1972,
Professor Crosby examined in detail how disease had devastated
indigenous populations after Columbus landed in America After
Columbus landed in America, the European invasion of Americas has
begun. This brought about parallel development that transformed
global ecology forever: the transoceanic movement of plants and
animals, in which Europeans shipped staple crops like wheat, oats
and fruit stock along with horses, goats and pigs to the Americas,
where they were not known, and transported back to Europe New
World cultivars like maize, potatoes and beans. The trans atlantic
exchange had brought both the worlds ( Europe and America)
together like never before. According to Crosby “That trend toward
homogeneity is one of the most important aspects of the history of
life on this planet since the retreat of the glaciers.”He had expanded
on that idea in 1994 in “Germs, Seeds and Animals: Studies in
Ecological History,” a collection of essays. He wrote that a venture
into epidemiology had led him to “a more general subject: ecological
history, the history of all organisms pertinent to human history and
their (our) environment.” In 1986, with “Ecological Imperialism: The
Biological Expansion of Europe, 900-1900,” Professor Crosby, in his
words, “took ‘The Columbian Exchange’ up another notch in scope
and abstraction.” In this book he posited the existence of
“neo-Europes,” areas and countries where Europeans settled,
especially between 1820 and 1930, after they had “leapfrogged across
the globe.” These settlers became so successful at food production
and food export that they easily dominated indigenous cultures and
then nearly decimated them. Native Americans’ downfall, Dr. Crosby
said, was not so much the superior technologies or fighting prowess
of the conquistadors but the smallpox and other pathogens that
Spaniards unwittingly carried on their ships. The result was what Dr.
Crosby called a “virgin soil epidemic,” in which diseases ravaged a
population that was exposed to them for the first time

He traced the rise of these “neo-Europes” to a kind of environmental

competition that the invading Europeans won. Flora and fauna native
to the Americas were so different from the plants and animals that
Europeans brought with them, and so acclimated to specific growing
conditions, that they couldn’t compete biologically. What Professor
Crosby called “the companions of the conquistadors” conquered as
well. Crosby pointed out that how plants and animals, especially
disease microbes, had radically changed human lives before the
modern era