Marxist sociology (A. R. Desai)

Indian Nationalism According to the Marxist Approach

The Marxist perspective on Indian nationalism focuses on class struggle, material conditions, and the economic base of society. Marxism provides a scientific study of society through the lens of historical materialism, where the central belief is that the material mode of production shapes the social, political, and ideological superstructure of society. This approach helps to understand the emergence of Indian society, its social structures, and the nationalist movement through a class-based analysis.

Origin of Marxist Approach to Indian Nationalism:

Marxism in India aims to offer a scientific analysis of society based on the principle of historical materialism. Marxist thinkers argue that Indian society and its institutions are best understood through the material conditions of life, as they shape the economic structure, social relations, and power dynamics.

• Materialist Perspective:
  Marxists believe that material phenomena (like the economy, class structure, and mode of production) determine all other aspects of society, including political institutions, ideologies, and national identity. This contrasts with other approaches, such as idealism or cultural determinism, which view ideas or cultural values as the driving force behind social change.

Premise of Marxism in Indian Context:

• Base-Superstructure Model:
  According to Marxism, society is structured in two main components:

  • Base: The economic base of society, consisting of the mode of production (the forces and relations of production). This includes factors such as labor, capital, and technology.

  • Superstructure: The cultural, political, and ideological institutions that arise from the base, including laws, religion, political systems, and social norms.

• Class Struggle:
  Marxists argue that class struggle is the primary driver of social change. The history of any society is a history of the struggle between different classes, particularly the proletariat (working class) and the bourgeoisie (capitalist class). In India, the nature of feudalism and the colonial impact on the economic structure has shaped the forms of class relations.

Historical Materialism and Indian Nationalism:

• Dialectical Materialism:
  Historical materialism is the method used by Marxists to understand the progression of history through dialectical change—the conflict between opposing forces, which leads to the transformation of society. According to this view, every society evolves through a series of stages based on its economic base. Marxist scholars in India have applied this approach to study the evolution of Indian society and the development of nationalism.

• A.R. Desai’s Contribution:
  A.R. Desai proposed a materialist reconstruction of Indian history, emphasizing the impact of colonialism on the Indian economy and society. Desai’s work focused on understanding the class structure of Indian society, specifically the roles of the feudal elite and the colonial rulers in maintaining oppressive structures. He argued that Indian nationalism could not be fully understood without examining the material conditions of society and the class dynamics within it.

  Desai's work on Indian nationalism focused on the idea that nationalist movements were often shaped by the interests of the ruling classes rather than a unified national consciousness. He stressed the need to examine how the capitalist class emerged in India and its role in the nationalist struggle.

Key Marxist Scholars on Indian Nationalism:

Several scholars have contributed significantly to the Marxist understanding of Indian nationalism. These include D.P. Mukherjee, M.N. Dutta, D.D. Kosambi, A.R. Desai, and P.C. Joshi. Among them, the most influential works have been those of A.R. Desai, D.P. Mukherjee, and Ramkrishna Mukherjee.

• D.P. Mukherjee:
  Mukherjee focused on the role of the Indian bourgeoisie in the nationalist movement, arguing that while they played a key role in challenging colonialism, they often reinforced feudal elements in Indian society. His work highlighted the contradictions within the nationalist movement, where the bourgeoisie’s interests sometimes clashed with the aspirations of the working class and peasants.

• Ramkrishna Mukherjee:
  Mukherjee emphasized the need to consider the economic and social conditions of the working class in the study of nationalism. He criticized the elitist character of much of the nationalist discourse and argued for a more inclusive analysis that took into account the marginalized groups.

• D.D. Kosambi:
  Kosambi was instrumental in applying Marxist historical materialism to the study of Indian history, particularly in terms of the development of Indian society under feudalism and colonialism. He argued that Indian society was a complex mixture of pre-colonial feudal structures and colonial capitalist structures, and that nationalism emerged from these contradictions.

The Marxist Critique of Indian Nationalism:

From the Marxist perspective, Indian nationalism was not a purely unified or homogeneous movement. Rather, it was shaped by the class interests of different groups, particularly the bourgeoisie and the landed elite. Marxists argue that:

• Nationalism and Class Interests:
  Indian nationalism, according to Marxists, often reflected the interests of the middle and upper classes. While these classes mobilized against British colonial rule, their primary goal was often the preservation of the existing class structure, rather than a radical overhaul of society. Marxists argue that the nationalist movement failed to challenge class exploitation and feudal relations deeply entrenched in Indian society.

• Colonial Impact on Indian Economy:
  Marxists highlight the role of colonialism in shaping India’s economic structure. The colonial state’s policies contributed to the exploitation of Indian resources and labor. As a result, nationalism, while a movement for independence, was also a response to economic underdevelopment imposed by British rule.

• Contradictions within Nationalism:
  Marxist scholars like A.R. Desai point out that the Indian nationalist movement was not always consistent in its goals. There was a contradiction between the demands for political freedom and the preservation of existing social structures, including caste and feudalism. The nationalist elite often did not fully support the radical demands of the working class and peasants, leading to an incomplete form of independence that did not address economic inequality.

Akshay Ramanlal Desai (A.R. Desai)

Background:

• Born: April 16, 1915, in Nadiad, Gujarat, India

• Died: 1994, Baroda, Gujarat, India

• Education: A.R. Desai was a student of the renowned sociologist G.S. Ghurye and a prominent figure in the development of Marxist sociology in India. His intellectual journey was shaped by his deep study of Marx, Engels, and Trotsky.

• Political Involvement: Desai was actively involved in Marxist politics from his undergraduate days and remained a lifelong Marxist. His political engagement was notable for his direct participation in formal political parties, setting him apart from many sociologists.

Pioneers of Marxist Approach in India:

• Desai is widely regarded as one of the pioneers of applying the Marxist approach to sociological investigations in India. He was one of the first sociologists to introduce the dialectical-historical model to understand the complexities of Indian society, particularly its social structures and political movements.

Major Writings:

1. The Social Background of Indian Nationalism – Desai examined the economic and social conditions that shaped Indian nationalism, arguing that the nationalist movement was deeply tied to the class structure of Indian society.

2. Rural Sociology in India – Focuses on the changes in rural society, its structures, and the economic transitions in India's villages.

3. Slums and Urbanization in India – Desai studied the demographic challenges and social dynamics within urban slums in India, exploring the relationship between urbanization and economic inequality.

4. State and Society in India – Analyzes the relationship between the state apparatus and social structure, focusing on the influence of capitalism in shaping India’s political economy.

5. Peasant Struggle in India – A study of peasant movements and class struggles in rural India, examining the role of the peasantry in the social transformation of Indian society.

6. Rural India in Transition – Investigates the evolving economic and social conditions in rural India and the process of change brought by capitalism and industrialization.

7. India’s Path of Development – Desai explored the development trajectory of India, emphasizing the role of capitalist development and its implications for Indian society.

Methodological Approach of A.R. Desai:

• Dialectical-Historical Model:
  Desai was a strong advocate for the dialectical-historical model of Marxism, which emphasizes historical materialism and the importance of understanding social phenomena through the lens of economic and material conditions. He used this model to analyze the evolution of Indian nationalism, peasant movements, and the relationship between state and society in India.

  • This model is based on the principle that society develops through the conflict of contradictions—for instance, contradictions between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, or between different social classes.

  • In his work, Desai examined how these contradictions shaped Indian nationalism, the rise of the capitalist class, and the state’s role in maintaining or transforming social order.

• Focus on Economic Structure:
  Desai rejected interpretations of tradition based solely on religion, rituals, and cultural practices. Instead, he emphasized the economic nature of social institutions. For Desai, tradition and social change should be viewed through the economic lens, especially the mode of production. He argued that social structures like the family, village, and state are fundamentally shaped by economic relations.

  • This perspective positions economics at the core of social life, suggesting that social transformation is ultimately driven by changes in production systems and economic relations.

• Contradictions in Social Transformation:
  Desai’s analysis of social change in India focused on the contradictions emerging from the growing nexus between the capitalist bourgeoisie, the rural petty bourgeoisie, and the state apparatus. These contradictions stem from the common social roots of these classes and their vested interests in maintaining or transforming the existing social order.

  • The intertwining of these groups created a dynamic where economic exploitation and social inequality were reproduced, despite the discourse of nationalist or democratic ideals. Desai’s critique highlights the class-based nature of Indian social change.

• Divergence from Micro-level Views:
  A key feature of Desai’s work is his macro-level approach to Indian society, which contrasts with the micro-level focus of Indian social anthropology in the 1960s and 1970s. While many sociologists were focused on understanding the village as a microcosm of Indian society, Desai expanded his analysis to include broader national and economic structures.

  • Desai’s work was more concerned with macro-sociological questions, such as the development of capitalism, the role of the state, and class struggles in Indian society. This broader approach allowed him to explore the interconnections between various social groups and institutions in shaping Indian nationalism and social change.

Central Ideas of A.R. Desai: Indian Nationalism and Post-Independence Development Path

Introduction:

A.R. Desai's work on Indian nationalism arose from his engagement with the social struggles of India and its people. Desai's social enquiries were rooted in addressing the complex issues India faced during colonial rule and the transformation post-independence. His doctoral research, later published as The Social Background of Indian Nationalism, marked the beginning of his critical work on nationalism. Desai also published Recent Trends in Indian Nationalism, expanding his analysis of India's political and social struggles.

Nationalism as a Historical Category:

Desai saw nationalism as a historical category—a phenomenon that emerged at a specific point in history, shaped by the colonial experience.

1. Objective and Subjective Factors: He argued that Indian nationalism was the result of both objective (economic exploitation, colonial oppression) and subjective (political awakening among intellectuals) factors. The Indian masses, who were political subjects under British colonial rule, were shaped by these combined forces.

2. Evolving Nationalism: Although early stirrings of nationalism appeared in the 19th century, Indian nationalism only took concrete shape by the late 19th century. It was not a homogeneous movement but one that emerged from the clash of different classes and interests shaped by colonialism.

Classes in Pre-colonial India:

Desai critically examined the pre-colonial Indian society to challenge the Western view of Indian villages as self-sufficient "little republics." According to Desai:

1. Class Structure: Contrary to Marx’s theory, Desai found that class in Indian villages was not solely determined by land ownership but by social relations, often intertwined with caste. Classes like barbers, carpenters, and goldsmiths were not landowners but dependent on upper-caste groups, which Marx and colonial thinkers failed to identify.

2. Caste and Class: Desai argued that the caste system in India had a significant role in shaping social relations, which were not adequately understood by either Marxists or colonial theorists who had oversimplified the social complexity of India.

Impact of Colonial Rule:

British colonialism led to a deep structural transformation in Indian society, introducing capitalist development and fundamentally altering various spheres of Indian life.

1. Capitalist Transformation: British rule transitioned India from a feudal economy to a capitalist economy, largely driven by the British capitalist class rather than indigenous capitalists. The economic shift created a unified national economy, facilitating the growth of cities and modern infrastructure.

2. Structural Changes: The capitalist development under British rule initiated industrialization, although it was insufficient and unbalanced. Nevertheless, this industrialization played a revolutionary role in modernizing the Indian economy and consolidating a unified national economy.

3. Social Changes: British rule introduced modern transportation, communication networks, and Western education, which significantly changed the social fabric of India, laying the groundwork for future social and political movements.

India’s Social System Before British Rule:

Desai’s analysis also delved into the pre-colonial social structure, especially the caste system and the self-sufficient nature of village communities. According to Desai:

1. Agrarian System: The agrarian system in pre-British India was based on small-scale agriculture and lacked private land ownership. The traditional village economy was based on collective work and community-oriented organization.

2. Decline of Artisanal Industries: The colonial transformation led to the decline of town handicrafts and the destruction of village artisan industries, which were critical to the economy before colonial intervention.

Conflict and Rise of Nationalism:

The contradictions brought about by British colonial rule, along with the emergence of new social forces and classes, eventually gave rise to Indian nationalism.

1. Colonial Conflict: The encounter between British colonialism and Indian society led to several social, political, economic, and cultural movements, each addressing specific grievances or injustices.

2. Thesis and Antithesis: Desai used the dialectical method to explain how the thesis (Indian society) and antithesis (British rule) interacted and gave rise to a synthesis, which eventually contributed to the nationalist movements. This process transformed agriculture, industry, and trade.

3. Complex Movements: Desai described these nationalist movements as complex, which ultimately created a new history of India, with different classes and social forces fighting for independence.

Critical Phase of Indian Nationalism:

Desai identified a critical phase in Indian nationalism that began around 1918, during Gandhi's leadership. This period was marked by:

1. Mass Mobilization: The nationalist movement became mass-based, with the participation of many social classes and groups, including peasants, workers, and the emerging middle class.

2. Indian Capitalists’ Role: While Indian capitalists began to support the Indian National Congress in the 1920s, their influence increased over time, especially with independence, as they came to dominate the political and economic landscape of post-independence India.

Emergence of New Social Classes:

Desai highlighted the emergence of new social classes as a direct result of:

1. Capitalist Economic Structure: The new capitalist structure introduced by British colonial rule created new social classes, particularly in urban areas, as the Indian economy shifted from a traditional agrarian base to a modern capitalist economy.

2. New State System and Education: The spread of Western education, combined with the establishment of a new state system and administrative machinery, led to the formation of new social classes with different grievances against British colonialism.

Critique of A.R. Desai’s Theories

A.R. Desai's Marxist approach to understanding Indian nationalism and society has drawn criticism from several prominent scholars, who have pointed out the limitations and oversights in his analysis. Below are some key critiques:

1. Andre Beteille’s Critique:

Beteille argues that Desai’s theory is an exaggeration of economic history in order to fit it into Marxist theory. He suggests that Desai overemphasizes the role of economic factors and class struggle while underestimating the importance of other social and political factors in shaping India’s national consciousness. A key example Beteille points to is Desai’s portrayal of peasant movements across India, which he interprets as a sign of democracy. Beteille critiques this, arguing that the peasant movements, while significant, do not necessarily represent the democratic evolution of Indian society, as they were often driven by complex local and regional dynamics rather than an overarching national democratic struggle.

2. Yogendra Singh’s Critique:

Yogendra Singh contends that Marxist theory does not provide alternatives for social change but instead remains skeptical of existing structures. According to Singh, Desai’s approach is overly critical and dismissive of the potential for alternative paths to social change within Indian society. Desai’s skepticism, rooted in Marxist theory, makes him hesitant to recognize the diverse possibilities for progress that might exist outside of the traditional Marxian framework of class struggle and economic transformation.

3. Gail Omvedt’s Critique:

Gail Omvedt critiques Desai’s Marxist perspective, arguing that the theory **ignores the unequal degree of inequality across different social classes, particularly in India. Omvedt points out that the Dalits (formerly untouchable castes) experience immense suppression, making them the worst victims of Indian society, something that Desai’s framework overlooks. According to Omvedt, the Marxist dichotomy of two polarized classes (the bourgeoisie and the proletariat) does not adequately account for the complexities of India’s caste-based system of social stratification, where the oppressions faced by Dalits are not easily explained by economic class alone.

4. Jyoti Basu’s Critique:

Jyoti Basu challenges Desai for ignoring caste and religion in his analysis of Indian society. According to Basu, one of the biggest follies of Marxist studies in India is their tendency to downplay the significance of caste and religion, which are deeply ingrained in the social fabric of the country. Desai’s class-based approach, by ignoring caste and religion, fails to recognize that these factors play a central role in shaping social relations, political movements, and the structure of Indian society.

5. S.C. Dube’s Critique:

S.C. Dube criticizes Desai for neglecting the proliferation of the middle class in India, which emerged over time and played a major role in influencing the country’s class structure. Desai’s focus on agrarian classes and capitalist class relations overlooks the growing influence of the middle class, which became a key player in India’s social and political landscape. Dube suggests that Desai’s emphasis on economic determinism overlooks the complexity of class formation, especially the role of the middle class in the evolution of Indian society.

6. Dr. Ambedkar’s Critique:

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar believed that the real conflict in Indian society lies in caste, rather than in a well-developed class structure. According to Ambedkar, Desai’s Marxist framework fails to address the importance of caste in shaping the lives of millions of people in India, particularly the Dalits. Ambedkar argued that caste oppression was more fundamental than class oppression in the Indian context, and Desai’s focus on class struggle obscured this central issue in Indian social dynamics.

7. M.N. Srinivas’s Critique:

M.N. Srinivas critiques Desai for being economically deterministic, similar to many Marxist theorists, while Indologists were criticized for being culturally deterministic. According to Srinivas, Desai’s focus on economic factors alone fails to capture the complexity of Indian society, where cultural factors, including caste, religion, and local traditions, also played a key role in shaping social relationships and national consciousness.

8. Romila Thapar’s Critique:

Romila Thapar challenges Desai’s assertion that India was a unified nation under British rule. Thapar argues that **India has always been composed of multiple nations or regions with distinct cultures, languages, and histories. She maintains that Indian nationalism was primarily a reaction to colonial rule and that the sense of national unity emerged only later, during the freedom struggle. Thapar’s perspective contrasts with Desai’s view that nationalism was a continuous process that had already begun during colonialism.

9. Ignorance of ‘Divide and Rule’ and Socio-Religious Movements:

One significant criticism of Desai’s analysis is his failure to address the colonial policy of ‘Divide and Rule’, which was highly effective in preventing the polarization of Indian masses during the colonial period. The British exacerbated divisions between various religious, ethnic, and social groups to undermine unity and prevent collective action. This strategy limited the potential for solidarity among the Indian masses, and its effects continue to be felt in contemporary Indian politics.

Additionally, Desai’s Marxist approach ignores the importance of socio-religious reform movements, such as those led by Rammohun Roy, Swami Vivekananda, and Jyotirao Phule, which helped strengthen national consciousness and mobilize people for the freedom struggle. These movements, which were often non-economic in nature, played a critical role in shaping India’s national identity and providing alternatives to colonial rule.