Karl Marx and India
Dipak R. Basu
Abstract:
Historical and political writings in India on Karl Marx suffers
from misinterpretations and ignorance. Indian historians have so far ignored
the writings of the Marxian writers of the Soviet Union and have followed a
pro-British tradition.
Key Words: Marx, India, History
There are two types of historians and writers in India. The first
type who claim them..:" selves as Marxists are in reality pro-British
historians. The other types of writers, who are openly anti-Marxists, may not
know anything much about Marx. In this article, some of the writings of Marx
about India are analysed to prove both of the above observations. A number of
writers in India (N. S. Rajaram, M. S. N. Menon, Ram Swarup and others) have
recently made adverse comments about Karl Marx and Marxism, which are not doing
justice to Marx or Marxism at all. The impression one may get from these
writers is that Marx was an anti-Indian and Marxism promotes discriminations
against both India and its civilization. These writers have based their wrong
idea about Marx by calling a number of Indian historians as Marxists.
In India, some recent historians from the Jawaharlal Nehru
University (JNU) and Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) , Romila Thaper, Satish
Chandra, K. M. Shrimali, K.M.Pannikar, R.S. Sharma, D. N. Jha, Gyanendra
Pandey, Irfan Habib, Arjun Deva, and Musirul Hussain, are called Marxist
historians. However, a closer look at their writings would show that they are
not Marxian but loyalist of the British historical traditions, which are
antiMarxist, and anti-Indian.
Western historians influenced by the British Anglo-Saxon
tradition, beginning with James Mill in mid-19th century, Max-Mueller, Drummond,
and most recently Ferguson, Allchin, Ruthermund, and their Indian counterparts
in JNU and AMU, have specific ideas, which does not follow either the
methodology of Marx or what Marx wrote about India.
Marx on India:
Karl Marx was a great admirer of India. He wrote a number of books
(The British Rule in India, The First War of Independence, Notes on Indian
History) and a large number of articles on India and the British rule. He is
the first person to call the so-called Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 as the First War of
Independence of India. Marx's admirations and sympathy for India are reflected
in his writing when he has compared India to Italy, one of the t wo (Greece being
the other one) foundations of European civilization. He wrote: "Hindostan
is an Italy of Asiatic dimensions, the Himalayas for the Alps, the Plains of
Bengal for the Plains of Lombardy, the Deccan for the Apennines, and the Isle
of Ceylon for the Island of Sicily. The same rich variety in the products of
the soil, and the same dismemberment in the political configuration. Gn New
York Daily Tribune, June 25, 1853 and London, Friday, June 10, 1853).
Nationalist writers of India are wrong to categorize Marx as
"Euro-centric supporter of colonialism". N. S. Rajaram, in his book
'Profiles in Deception', wrote, "Marxism, the last of the Euro-centric
doctrines was also the last refuge of the surrogates of colonialism". Ram
Swarup wrote, in an article, Indo-European Encounter: an Indian Perspective,
Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research, Vol. VIII, no2, pp75-96),
that" ... the Eurocolonial-missionary forces triumphed, represented by
soldier scholars like J. S. Mill, Hegel, Macaulay, Marx and many others".
The ideas of Marx and John Stuart Mill are exactly opposite to each other. Hegel was a German
philosopher, who has nothing to do with British colonialism or Missionaries.
Marx was severely anti-colonialist and wrote vigourously against the British
colonial oppression in India. Karl Marx
in 'The British Rule in India' wrote:
"There cannot, however, remain any doubt but that the misery
inflicted by the British on Hindostan is of an essentially different and
infinitely more intensive kind than all Hindostan had to suffer before. They
destroyed it (India) by breaking up the native communities, by uprooting the
native industry, and by levelling all that was great and elevated in the native
society. The historic pages of their rule in India report hardly anything
beyond that destruction. "
"Did they not, in India, to borrow an expression of that
great robber, Lord Clive himself, resort to atrocious extortion, when simple
corruption could not keep pace with their rapacity? While they prated in Europe
about the inviolable sanctity of the national debt, did they not confiscate in
India the dividends of the rajahs, who had invested their private savings in the
Company's own funds? The devastating effects of English industry, when
contemplated with regard to India, a country as vast as Europe, and containing
150 millions of acres, are palpable and confounding. "
Many writers in India (for example N. S .Rajaram in his book,
Profiles in Deception, p 186, published by Voice of India press) have misquoted
Marx by saying that Marx made some derogatory remarks on India by saying that
India had no history. However; what Marx wrote in this matter is as follows:
"Indian society has no history at all, at least no known
history. What we call its history, is but the history of the successive
intruders who founded their empires on the passive basis of that unresisting
and unchanging society. Arabs, Turks, Tartars, Moguls, who had successively overrun
India, soon became Hindooized, the barbarian conquerors being, by an eternal
law of history, conquered themselves by the superior civilization of their
subjects." Gn New York Daily Tribune, 1853)
These words demonstrate Marx's admiration for Indian civilization.
He was sad that there is no social or cultural history of India written at that
time in 1853. Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, Swami Vivekananda, and Rabindranath
Tagore also have expressed the fact that there was no history of development of
Indian culture or society. Before the invention of the Aryan invasion theory
and the discovery of Mahenjodaro, the starting point of Indian history in the
books published in 1850 was the Alexander's invasion of India followed by
invasions after invasions. There was no Srinivas or Ramesh Chandra Majumdar in
those days. Rabindranath Tagore wrote in his essay "Varatvarsha",
that in our history books, we can read only mayhem and bloodshed caused by the
Mughals, Pathans, Huns, but there was no explanation how among these chaos we
had Guru Nanak, Tukaram, and Sri Chaitanya.
Karl Marx similarly criticized historyas written by the British in
those days, and went ahead to write Indian history in the way he wanted.
There are two distinct methodologies in history writing. In the
Anglo-Saxon methodology history is only description of events. In the
Russo-German methodology, history is the theory and analysis of events. Karl
Marx, as a German educated in Berlin University, was opposed to the Anglo-Saxon
methodology and has enhanced the Russo-German methodology into what we call
today the Marxian methodology of history.
Marxian Methodology in History:
A historian cannot be called Marxist unless he or she would follow
Marx's method on history, which is based on his philosophical idea of
'Dialectical Materialism'. "Dialectics" is a philosophical method
rooted in the writings of famous German philosophers Hegel and Feourbach, which
emphasize theory behind all historical events, rather than just narrations of
events as the British historians do. In 'dialectics' nature is an integral
whole in which all objects and phenomena are interlinked, inter-dependent, and
inter-conditioned. Nature is always in a state of continual motion and change,
of renovation and development. A Marxist historian follows this basic philosophy
while writing history.
According to Marx, social and historical development has economic
roots. If there is a contradiction (or dialect) develops in the economic
system, social and historical developements follow. Thus, a historian following
Marx's methodology must explain these economic contradictions in history rather
than just narrating invasions after invasions or about kings and emperors.
The historians following the British tradition describe India as
an inferior civilization, always poor, always defeated and fragmented. Both
James Mill in 19th century (in The History of British India) and Gunner Myrdall
in 1970 (in Asian Drama) said that India is a civilization without any quality.
According to the British historians, whether MaxMuller in 19th century
or F .R.Allchin and Bridget Allchin in 21st century, everything in Indian
civilization was borrowed starting with the Sanskrit language and the Aryan
civilization, which were both of foreign origin. Civilization in India,
according to them, was imported by the successive conquerors whether Mongols,
Arabs, Turks, Persian and Europeans. As Sarvapalli. Radhakrishnan wrote,
"the West tried its best to persuade India that its philosophy is absurd,
its art puerile, its poetry uninspired, its religion grotesque and its ethics
barbarous." [in 'Indian Philosophy', Vol. II, Allen & Unwin, London,
1977, p.779J] The British historians glorify the Muslim rule in India and
dismiss the Hindu period as myths and fantasy. They dismiss the Marxian
analysis of the British oppression of India. They emphasize the improvements in
administration, construction of railroad, universities, abolition of 'Sati' and
'thugis' from India and ultimate peaceful transfer of power to Gandhi-Nehru. In
that history, there was no freedom movement in India, no man made famines, no
transfer of huge resources from India to Britain, no destruction of Indian
industries and agriculture by the British rule, but only a very benign and
benevolent British rule in India.
Marx has explained how British rule has transformed India from a
prosperous selfsufficient country to a country of destitute and famines. This
transformation is the historical process of evolution from feudalism to
capitalism, as described by Marx and Engels. "Constant revolutionising of
production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty
and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones" (in The
Communist Manifesto). For India, it meant destruction of her self-sufficient
village economies along with both Indian industry and agriculture because of
the free trade with Britain, excessive tax collections and absence of any
public works.
Later Ramesh Chandra Dutta has elaborated this thesis of Marx in
his book 'The Economic History of India', published in 1902. Dadabhai Naoroji
(Poverty and Unbritish Rule in India. First published in 1901) in his writings
and lectures in the British parliament has followed Marx's analysis of India
extensively to demonstrate how India was devastated through the British rule. British
historians totally reject these. Recently they are trying to justify
imperialism in terms of expansion of civilization to these dark areas of the
world and establishment of economic progress. These types of arguments of Nial
Ferguson and Michael Ignatief, both Professors of history in Harvard
University, are being reflected by the British Prime Minister Tony Blair,
vice-president of the IMF Anne Kruger, and various Anglo-American historians,
economists and policy makers.
They found a number of Indian intellectual who are prepared to
propagate for their master. Deepak Lal in his books, In Defense of Empire and
Hindu Equilibrium, has justified both the British rule and the exploitative
economic system imposed upon the developing countries by the Western nations.
Meghnad Desai, in The Cambridge Economic History of India, explained the Bengal
famine of 1943, where at least 5 million people were starved to death by the
British policy, in terms of speculations by Indian traders only and thereby whitewashing
the crime of the British. Meghnad Desai also has reduced the number killed in Jaliwanwala
Bagh massacre from 3500 to about 380. It is an insult to Marx to call this type
of historians and economists as Marxists, as their ideas are totally opposite
to what Marx thought about India.
Karl Marx and Swami Vivekananda:
It is unknown in India, but Karl Marx and Swami Vivekananda had
similar views on the historical cycle of the world. According to Marx the world
history has four cycles starting with primitive communism of tribal societies,
then feudalism, capitalism and ultimately socialism followed by advanced
communism. For Marx the history is deterministic, these cycles are bound to
happen due to the contradictions or dialectics in the existing system. In Karl
Marx, "Changes occur in society because of contradictions in prevailing
ideology, in its social, economic and political order. These contradictions
arise from hostilities between the social classes" (in A Contribution to
the Critique of Political Economy, Progress Publishers, Moscow).
Swami Vivekananda similarly divided the world history into four
cycles, starting with the Age of the Priests, Age of the Warriors, Age of the
Merchants as we are now in and ultimately the Age of the Worker, which is
coming. With each cycle, society rises to higher and still higher stages and is
perfected.
The contradiction in the society according to Vivekananda is as
follows, ".. At a certain time every society attains its manhood, when a
strong conflict ensues between the ruling power and the common people"
eVivekananda, Collected Works, vol. iv, p.399). In the new Age of the Workers,
"just distribution of material values will be achieved, equality of the
rights of all members of society to ownership of property established and caste
differences obliterated" (in Vivekananda, Collected Works, vol. vi, p.
343). Sri Aurobindo also has expressed similar views on history.
How Marxist historians look at India:
The view of the Marxist historians in the Soviet Union should be
considered seriously if we want to know the Marxian view of India. The opinion
of the historians of the Soviet Union, following Marx's methodology, was exactly
the opposite to that of the Anglo-American view on India.
The Institute of Oriental Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences
in Moscow did enormous amount of works on India and other Asian countries. The
institute is also highly influential politically. Yevgeny Primakov, a great
scholar on Middle Eastern history, was the director of the Institute during the
1970s. He was, also at that time, a member of the Polit Bureau of the Soviet
Union-the highest decision making body of the country, when Brezhnev was the
General Secretary. He later became the foreign minister and the prime minister
of Russia in 1998. The Institute has produced a large volume of research works
of great merits on every aspects of India. Soviet historians were aware of the
falsification of history of the developing countries by the Western historians
and their followers like the historians of JNU and AMU in India. Soviet historians
said, "The philosophical heritage of India is extremely rich. Progressive
thought springs from the depths of centuries of history. Modern Indians have a
great deal to be proud of, to guard, and to hold sacred. Guarding the heritage
means also relentlessly denouncing falsifiers of history such as Harry Barnes
or Jacques Chevalier, who do everything they can to denigrate the spiritual
culture of the Oriental people, including Indians" [in World History:
Studies by Soviet Scholars, published by the USSR Academy of Sciences] Harry
Marnes wrote An Introduction to the History of Sociology published by the
University of Chicago Press in 1948. Jacques Chevalier wrote, Histoire de la
pensee, published by Flammarion, Paris in 1955. Both gives a very distorted and
derogatory picture of Indian and Asian civilizations, similar to what the
British historian James Mill wrote in his book 'The History of British India' in
the 19th century.
Marxists historians and intellectuals of the Soviet Union have
interpreted Indian history and philosophy according to the Marxian methodology
and tried to relate Indian thought to that of Marx-Engels-Lenin. However, there
was no insult or derogatory remarks anywhere, but praise for the ancient India
and pre-Muslim period of the Indian history. Indian History Congress,
controlled by the JNU-AMU historians, has accepted a proposal recently that there
should not be any excavations in India in historical monuments of religious
significance, demonstrating their fear of truth. Soviet archeologists however
excavated the basement of the world's oldest official Christian Church, nearly
2000 years old, in Yerevan, Armenia to find out a temple of Mitra, the god of
the Rig-Veda. For ancient India, "The cosmic hymn of the Rig Veda is, in
our view, fundamentally a realistic work with strong elements of spontaneous
materialism and dialectics. The Vedic literature has a great significance for
the study of the forms of social life in ancient India" [in Vladimir
Brodov's book 'Indian Philosophy in Modern Times' ; Progress Publishers, Moscow,
1984J.
Ivan Diakonov in the book Early Antiquity (published by the USSR
Academy of Sciences) has collected the works of the scholars of the Oriental
Institute on ancient India, which in spirit follows the work of Ramesh Chandra
Mazumdar, denounced as communal historian by Irfan Habib. About the Muslim
period of India the Soviet historians wrote, describing Aurangjeb as follows: "This
cold calculating politician was a fanatical Moslem and his victory over Dara Shukoh
signified the advent of a policy, which stripped Hindus of their rights .. '
Between 1665 and 1669, he gave orders for Hindu temples to be destroyed and for
mosques to be erected from their debris. Hindus were not allowed to wear any
marks of honor, to ride elephants etc .. The heaviest burden of all was the
poll-tax on non-Moslems, or jizya, introduced in 1679 ... " [in The
History of India by K. Antonova, G. Bongard-Levin, G. Kotovsky, Progress
Publisher, Moscow 1979, p. 255).
The historians of JNU and AMU will certainly dispute that view
about Aurangjeb and other Muslim emperors of India. Jamia Milia Islamia
historian Mussirul Hassan said (India Partitioned, Oxford University Press,
1985) that Muslims came to India first to Malabar Coast peacefully, but Karl
Marx wrote in his book 'Notes on Indian History' the followings: "Mussulman
Conquest of India: First Arab entry into India A.D.664 (year 44 of the 28 Hegira):
Arabs reached Kabul; in the same year Muhallab, an Arab general, raided India, advanced
as far as Multan".
Modern India was summarized by the Soviet historians in the
following way:
"Progressive thought in India in the latter half of the 19th and
early 20th century is characterized by the following features. "
"Direct links with the historical destiny of the country,
with the search for the solution of political and economic problems and for the
ways of the country's democratic transformation (Dayananda Sarasvati, Swami
Vivekananda, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Sri Aurobindo and others) "
"Anti-colonialism. Links between the theory and practice of
the national liberation struggle and the condition of the masses (Vivekananda,
Tilak) . "
"Distinct rudiments of the ideas of petty-bourgeois Utopian
socialism (Vivekananda)."
"The struggle between two historical tendencies, the liberal
and the democratic, as an expression of two paths of the country's capitalist
development, reformist and radical. "
"The progressive trends aimed at connecting philosophy with
real life, with the practice of the national liberation movement, reorienting
traditional Vedanta in such a way as to strengthen its ties with all spheres of
life, private, social and international." (in V. Brodov' s book, Indian
Philosophy in Modern Times, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1984)
Russian historians have emphasized various popular uprisings
against the British rule in 18th and 19th centuries including the revolt of the
Sanyasis mentioned in Ananda Math of Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, the
revolutionary movements in the 20th century, the role of the ideology of Tilak,
Vivekananda and Tagore, the revolt of the Indian Navy in 1946; but dismissed Gandhi-Nehru
and the endless negotiations between the British and Gandhi.
On the contrary, the Western historians put emphasis on the
process of transfer of power from the British to the pro-British Indian and
Pakistani politicians like Gandhi-Nehru-Jinnah. The historians of JNU and AMU
also put extreme importance to Gandhi-Nehru-Jinnah, dismissing every other
aspect of the political and historical developments of India. Romila Thaper in
her book, A History of India (Penguin Press, 1966), has dismissed the Indian
revolutionaries as 'bomb throwing terrorists' in one sentence. She has spent
only two sentences for Subhas Bose and the Azad Hind Fauz. It is worthwhile to
remember that the Soviet Union has recognized the Azad Hind Government in 1942
and allowed Subhas Bose to open a consulate in the Soviet Union; while the
British has branded him as a war criminal. British historians (the best example
is The History of the Second World War written by Winston Churchill) do not
mention Indian revolutionaries or Subhas Bose. Thus, these Indian historians of
JNU and AMU have followed the British historical tradition, not the Marxist
one.
Conclusion:
Karl Marx was one of the greatest philosophers of the world, and
he was highly sympathetic to India. Both Marx and Lenin wrote substantial
amounts of India, which have inspired a number of anti-British writers and
politicians of India during the days of the freedom struggle. The Soviet Union
was the source of inspirations and the model to be followed by the Indian
freedom fighters. The writings of Karl Marx and the Soviet historians are very pro-Indian,
unlike those of the Anglo-American writers. The historians of JNU and AMU are
the followers of the Anglo-American writers on India, who are by nature
anti-Marx, antiSoviet, and anti-Indian.
There was no shortage of pro-British politicians and intellectuals
in India before 1947. They used to receive prestige and privilege due to their
alliance with the British establishment. Similarly, the intellectuals of India
today derive their recognitions and rewards because of their pro-Western
attitude, without which they would not be able to publish in Western journals
or by the Western publishers and, as a result, would not be recognized. If some
academics would assert their independent opinion to pursue the truth, they
would be denounced by the Western writers and editors as nationalist,
fundamentalist Hindu or communal. Due to these pressures, the historians of
JNU-AMU are pursuing a policy to reflect and amplify the Anglo-American
opinion, which is hostile towards India and particularly towards the Indian religions.
The ideas propagated by the JNU historians have their origin in the Anglo-American
writings, which are not only biased but also full of ignorance, falsehood, and misinterpretations
of facts (for a detail description of these Anglo-American opinion on India see
the article by Avijit Bagal, Biases in Hinduism Studies, www.IndiaCause.com. November 21, 2004).
The JNU-AMU academics do not confront their critics with solid academic arguments but instead denounce them as fascists. It is wrong to call them as Marxists, as Marxism has nothing to do with their anti-Indian opinion. Nationalist writers of India are wrong to brand these pro-British historians as Marxists; they are also wrong to call Karl Marx as Euro-centric and anti-Indian. Marx and Lenin were internationalists and well known for their sympathy for the Indian people oppressed under the British colonial rule. Nationalist writers are also wrong to relate militant Islam with Marxism; in reality, these are opposed to each other. Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries have financed the terrorists to destroy the socialist governments of Afghanistan and Ethiopia. Saudi Arabia has also financed President Reagan's efforts to destroy the socialist movements in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, and Mexico. Kuwait, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and most other Islamic countries had no relationship with the Soviet Union. Socialists and Marxists cannot physically exist in .any Islamic countries. The Hanbalites and the Shafiites, the two most important schools of Islamic jurisprudence, believe that "no contract should be made with the ungodly or those who do not believe in the supreme God. They must be given only two options: accept Islam or be killed. "
The JNU-AMU academics do not confront their critics with solid academic arguments but instead denounce them as fascists. It is wrong to call them as Marxists, as Marxism has nothing to do with their anti-Indian opinion. Nationalist writers of India are wrong to brand these pro-British historians as Marxists; they are also wrong to call Karl Marx as Euro-centric and anti-Indian. Marx and Lenin were internationalists and well known for their sympathy for the Indian people oppressed under the British colonial rule. Nationalist writers are also wrong to relate militant Islam with Marxism; in reality, these are opposed to each other. Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries have financed the terrorists to destroy the socialist governments of Afghanistan and Ethiopia. Saudi Arabia has also financed President Reagan's efforts to destroy the socialist movements in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, and Mexico. Kuwait, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and most other Islamic countries had no relationship with the Soviet Union. Socialists and Marxists cannot physically exist in .any Islamic countries. The Hanbalites and the Shafiites, the two most important schools of Islamic jurisprudence, believe that "no contract should be made with the ungodly or those who do not believe in the supreme God. They must be given only two options: accept Islam or be killed. "
Rewards for the pro-Western intellectuals and politicians are
great and punishments for the seekers of truth are most severe. Rakhal Das
Banerjee, who has discovered the ruins of Mahenjodaro, was expelled from the
Archeological Survey of India as he has demonstrated direct links between the
Indus valley civilization and the ancient Hindu civilization, thereby proving
the Aryan invasion theory invented by the British colonialists as groundless. Jadunath
Sarkar, by enhancing the British idea about the greatness of the Mughal
emperors, received Knighthood. Romila Thaper, by repeating what her British
tutors told her, received the Kluge Chair in the Library of Congress in
Washington D. C. in USA. Romesh Chandra Mazumdar, even after completing his
monumental works on Indian history, could not get any recognition from the
British or American but denounced as a communal historian. JawaharIal Nehru, by
declaring his total loyalty to the Vice-Roy Linlithgow, who has presided over
the ruthless oppression during the 1942 revolt and the 1943 Bengal famine, was
selected as the future prime minister of India by both Gandhi and the British.
Subhas Chandra Bose, because of his anti-British attitude, was expelled from
the Congress Party by Gandhi, and was declared as a war criminal by the
British. Thus, it is no surprise that the pro-Western historians of JNU-AMU
would pose as Marxists.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.