The Liberal & Marxist Perspective On Colonialism

Download Delhi University Political Science Notes from TutorialsDuniya.
com
The Liberal & Marxist Perspective On Colonialism
Discipline Course-1
Semester- 1
Paper : Colonialism in India
Lesson : The Liberal & Marxist Perspective On
Colonialism
Lesson Developer: Dr. Abdul Rahman Ansari
College/Department: Gargi College,
University of Delhi
Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

Download Delhi University Question Papers with Solutions from TutorialsDuniya.com
Download Delhi University Political Science Notes from TutorialsDuniya.com
Table of Contents
Chapter 2: LIBERAL & MARXIST PERSPECTIVE ON COLONIALISM
 2.1: LIBERAL PERSPECTIVE: COLONIAL INTERPRETATION.

 2.1.1: LIBERAL PERSPECTIVE: NATIONALIST
INTERPRETATION
 2.2: MARXIST INTERPRETATION OF COLONIALISM.
 Summary
 Exercises
 Glossary
 References

LIBERAL & MARXIST PERSPECTIVE ON COLONIALISM
FIGURE 2.1
Sourcehttps://www.google.co.in/search?q=Picture+of+colonialism&ie=utf-
8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en US:official&client= firefoxa&channel= np&
source=hp&gws_rd=cr&ei=XPhXUpqiMo-GrAexj4DQDw
“Liberal reformers who were frustrated at home saw immense

opportunity in the imperial project in India as a subject peoples
had little means of protesting. As a result India became a
laboratory for liberal experimentation as cherished measures
such as state sponsored education, the codification of laws, and a
competitively chosen bureaucracy were all introduced in India
first, and then implemented in Britain after success became
apparent “
Thomas R. Metcalf, 1995, Ideologies of the Raj, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press :
28-29.

2.1 LIBERAL PERSPECTIVE: COLONIAL INTERPRETATION

The Battle of Plassey (1757) is the dividing line in the colonial history of modern
India as it led to the foundation of formal colonial rule. However, the
establishment of colonial administration in India was a long drawn process. This
establishment coincided with the emergence of a school of thought in Europe
which was sympathetic to the ideas of empire and colonialism. The fact that it
was a foreign rule colonial administration needed some kind of justification both
for the people they were ruling, the so called ‘natives’, and people back home
(Sullivan Eileen P 1). In order to gain legitimacy, the British Administration
promoted this kind of history writing which was sympathetic to their mission in
India. It portrayed colonial subjects as trapped in time, if not as savages, who
needed some kind of external force to liberate themselves and make them
modern and civilised. The group of thinkers and historians belonging to this
school also projected the Indian National Movement, whether vide the 1857
rebellion or later the rise of Congress and other organisations, as mere cover of
elites. This particular school of colonialism is known as colonial school of history.
The colonial perspective on Indian history developed through phases. When it

was realised that understanding Indians is important for an efficient colonial
administration, it launched projects to study Indian history and culture. In fact, it
is important to note that from early 19th century, reconstruction of Indian history
was the main agenda of colonial power. Warren Hastings argued in 1784 that
“every accumulation of knowledge and especially such as is obtained by social
communication with people over whom we exercise dominion, founded on the
right of conquest, is useful to the state…it attracts and conciliates distant
affections; it lessons the weight of the chain by which the natives are held in
subjection; and it imprints on the hearts of our countrymen the sense of
obligation and benevolence” (as quoted in Metcalf and Metcalf 2: 62). Among the
early writings on Indian history and culture were the works of Christian
missionaries already active in various parts of India by that time. As it is very
clear from the nature of their project, these Missionaries had an agenda to
highlight the backwardness and primitiveness of Indians in order to justify their
presence. For them Indian history was stagnant since ages and made no progress
altogether for a very long time. Apart from Christian Missionaries there were
several trained Orientalists and philologists writing about Indian past and culture.
Most of the sources used by these colonial historiographers were old Sanskrit
texts like Vedas and Smritis and their conversations with pundits and Sashtiries in

different parts of India. The Missionaries and Orientalists did find ancient
similarities between Indian and European cultures. It was more so in their
language. However, they argued that since a very long time where Europeans
have moved much ahead, Indians have remained stagnated and there is noting
progressive in recent Indian history. According to them, the ‘backwardness’ of
Indian society and culture was due to the dominant Hindu beliefs. Based on the
writings of some missionaries and Orientalists, earlier colonial administration
initiated some ‘reforms’ from above and gave the Missionaries free hand to
spread their faith and ideology.
Company administration soon realised the limits of Christian Missionaries and

their kind of history writings. In later parts of their rule, they gradually relied on
works of Orientalist historians like Sir William Jones, Sir Wilson, H.T. Colebrooke,
and Rajendra Lal and another. These historians based their research on different
sources. Unlike missionaries who relied only on Sanskrit sources, Orientalists
used works of foreign travellers in India like Megathenese, Al Baruni and others
as well. Some of them did visit India too and collected primary data.
Orientalists tried to relook at ancient Indian history and discover it’s so called
greatness. They also tried to locate a ‘glorious golden age’ in that history. This
attempt was both a reflection of influence of romanticism and classism on them.
According to Orientalist interpretations during this ‘golden age’ the essence of
Indian civilisation was formed. They identified the essence of the Indian
civilisation in the form of richness of its language and religious texts. They argued
that the ancient Indian civilisation had quite a developed form of Law and other
political institutions which have been lost due to corruption in the last century.
Historian William Jones of Asiatic Society explored the linguistic link between
Sanskrit and Greek and Latin. Not only that, they also tried to link Indian history
with the Biblical stories. For example, they saw the story of Noah’s Ark as an
almost parallel to the story of Manu (Thaper Romila 3). Despite the glorification of
the Indian past, Orientalists viewed contemporary India as inferior and backward
as compared to its past. Some of the adherents of this school, like Elphinstone
and Thomas Munro, had their sympathy towards Indian society and its structures
and argued that British should not try to disturb it. The Oriental school in Britain
was not, however, immune from its biases. Most of them projected the necessity
of the British rule in India as they found Indians lacking in discipline and
modernity. The backwardness of contemporary India was a result of centuries of
stagnation, they reiterated.

Despite the fact that Utilitarians were opposed to any kind of external colonies for
the empire they did make an exception in the case of India. The reason given was
the backwardness of Indian economy. Here the Utilitarians differed greatly with
the Missionaries and other Orientalists who had the habit of highlighting cultural
backwardness of Indians as the reason of external rule as a ‘civilising mission’.
Adam Smith, known as a Utilitarian, even emphasised the need to support Indian
economy so that it becomes a vibrant partner in future for Britain (Sullivan Eileen
P 1)
FOGURE: 2.1.1
CARICATURE OF ADAM SMITH
Source: https://www.google.co.in/search?q=Caricature+Adam+Smith&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-
US:official&client=firefoxa&channel=np&source=hp&gws_rd=cr&ei=7d5XU vKWJoWErAe7jYGoDg
When liberalism, as a dominant source of history writing, started gaining ground

by early nineteenth century Orientalist started losing its charm. They were now
questioned by some of the imperial historians themselves. A new school called
Utilitarianism represented by James Mill, T.B. Macaulay and others became
important source of Indian history. Their approach was quite different from
Orientalists as they opposed the view that Indian past was glorious. According to
Sullivan, unlike rest of the liberals, J S Mill was the first to argue that Indians
were culturally backward and therefore needed British rule for their
modernisation and development. He argued that Indian social, economic and
legal system needs the support of England. For him, “England would ensure order
and security to the Indians and prepare them to enter eventually into a higher
stage of civilisation” (Sullivan Ellen P 1).

John Stuart Mill FIGURE 2.1.2

Source:http://www.google.co.in/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/PSM_V03_
D380_John_Stuart_Mill.jpg&imgrefu-----
In other words, whereas Orientalist had glorified India’s past, the Utilitarian had
condemnation for it. The Utilitarians emphasised the weakness of Indian
civilisation and society. They argued that there was tremendous need for
rationality and individualism if the society was to progress. In order to draw a
dividing line between ancient India and modern India, one of the proponents of
this school, James Mill, divided the history of India into three parts namely, Hindu
civilisation, the Muslim civilisation, and the British period. He argued that the pre-
British Hindu and Muslim civilisations were not only backward and stagnant but
conformed to the image of ‘oriental-despotism’ (Thaper Romila: 4).
In Europe the dark ages gave way to Modernity. Twin processes of Renaissance
and Enlightenment made the modern west. “in India and other dark continents”,
as the utilitarian saw it, “this transition never took place”. “India had remained
unchanged, constrained by the social institutions that defined it – caste, village
community and Oriental despotism” (Kumar Keshvan: 5).
According to postcolonial historians, most of these writings are perfect examples

of ethnocentrisms where all things European is considered to be ‘modern’ and
native culture is seen and compared from these ‘modern’ standards (Chatterjee
Partha: 6). Colonial School was trying to show the superiority of European culture

and civilisation and at the same time attempting to portray the Indian society as
inferior. According to them India has not gone through the transition to modernity
and it is basically a stagnant society. In this context, colonialist historiography
was a justification of British rule in India. If Indians cannot manage their affairs
because of their backwardness and stagnation, if they do not catch duo with time
they need someone to guide or even force them into modernity and development.
The foreign rule in India was doing the same and therefore it was legitimate.
British should be appreciated as they are carrying the ‘the white men’s burden.’
This ethnocentrisms and racism became the source of Colonialists criticism of
1857 rebellion and any subsequent national movement for independence. These
historians believed that the rise of Indian nationalism was not a result of British
colonialism. Instead they believed that what is called ‘India’ in fact consisted of
religious castes, communities and interest. There is no Indian nation and
therefore there is no Indian nationalism (Chandra Bipan: 7).They argued that the
basis of political organisations in India is caste and religion and not a sense of
nationalism. This line of thinking logically concludes that national movement was
not a movement of common people but was a product of the needs and the
interest of the elite groups. These elite groups were only interested to serve their
own selfish and narrow interests. That is why; their needs and interest are the
driving force behind the idea, ideology, and movement of Indian nationalism
(Chandra Bipan: 7).
Broadly, “the colonial historians tried to show that Indian nationalism was nothing
more than an unprincipled, selfish, amoral bid for power by a few Indian elites”.
And “these elites had used the traditional bonds of caste and communal ties to
mobilise masses for their own ends” (Kumar Keshvan: 5). Nationalism was used
as a mere ideology by these elite groups to legitimise their narrow ambitions and
to mobilize public support. Anil Seal argued that, “what from a distance appears
as their political striving were often, on close examination, their effort to conserve
or improve the position of their own perspective groups” (8). According to
Pannikar, “the colonial historians conceived India as a country of communities in
conflict to which a sense of unity was imparted by the operation of colonial
administrative institutions” (9).
In Brief, Colonialist perspective on colonialism was based on the justification of

the colonial rule. It tried everything to prove the worth of external administration
of the various societies in Asia and Africa and elsewhere. For colonialist
historians, India needed colonial administration in order to realise its potential

and its long due modernisation. “Essentially colonial perspective on India is

Eurocentric and imperialistic in nature. The tendency to read Indian history in
terms of a lack, an absence, or incompleteness that translates into ‘inadequacy’ is
obvious in these excerpts” (Pannikar K N: 9). According to Bandyopadhaya, the
history writings all colonial powers “escaped serious interrogation outside of the
specific contestations of the nationalist struggle” as they had the monopoly over
the literature. It was only when “new critical inquiries were initiated by figures as
various as Bernard Cohn, Edward Said, and Ranajit Guha” that the colonial
historiography got exposed (Bandyopadhyay Sekhar: 10).
2.1.1 NATIONALIST INTERPRETATION.
This school was represented by political activist such as Dada Bhai Naoroji, Lala
Lajpat Rai, A.C.Mazumdar, R. G Pradhan, S.N. Banerjee, and B.R. Nanda and so
on. This school of thought emerged in response to Colonial interpretation of
Indian history and tried to expose the exploitative character of British colonialism.
Early nationalist challenged the colonial view that British government has brought
to the subcontinent modern political system and political unity. Instead, they
argued that colonialism had harmful effects on economic and cultural
development of India. Modernity and political unity are in fact fruits of struggle
undertaken by the Indians themselves against the imperial rule (Bandyopadhyay
Sekhar: 10). Though, they accepted some of the interpretations of Orientalist
historians such as the idea of classical golden ages of India and its decline, but
they refused to accept the colonialist interpretations that they were responsible
for India’s unification and modernity. Further, they found British responsible for
India’s decline.
In order to highlight the glorious past of India, many nationalist historians went a
step further to classify pre-colonial history through the prism of religion.
Contextually, for them, ancient India was Hindu India and medieval India could
be defined as Muslim India. This categorisation was based on the belief that a
single religion could pervade the whole age and the whole society. In other
words, nationalist school of thought was a product of national movement by
which they tried to establish the superiority of the past over the present while
using the categorisation of James Mill. Mill viewed the remote past, as Hindu
civilisation and projected it as the golden age (Thaper Romila: 3).

Propagators of this school tried to discover roots from where we have descended.
They did this by answering questions such as ‘who they are’, ‘where we began’,
‘what we are’ and how we have arrived at and the like. By discovering their
glorious past, they tried to prove their superiority that was under attack as a
result of colonial interpretations (Thaper Romila: 3). This attempt to establish
superiority was based on a dichotomy between spiritual India vs. materialist
West. Thinkers like Aurobindo Ghosh particularly emphasised this. However,
nationalists’ attempt to rediscover their glorious past in ancient Hindu India gave
rise to communal historiography. This communal interpretation was a result of
religious nationalism which stressed on related communal identities such as Hindu
or Muslim (Thaper Romila: 3). Additionally, nationalist historians, in contrast to
colonial interpretation, tried to view national movement as peoples’ movement.
They argued that the national movement emerged as a result of consciousness
generated due to the idea of self-determination amongst people. Consequently,
various leaders of Indian national movement from Dadabhai Naoroji to Gandhi
accepted India as a nation in the making. They also advocated the emergence of
a ‘Pan-Indian National Identity’ while recognising the local and regional identity
(Chandra Bipan 7: 23).
2.2. MARXIST INTERPRETATION OF COLONIALISM
Marxists conceptualise the nations as aggregate of groups of people which are

divided on class lines. They highlight the differences among those classes and
emphasis that nationalism’s claims of commonality are superficial. Hence, Marxist
school of history writing engages with the aspirations of the marginalised sections
of society. According to them, the struggle, both explicit and latent, between the
affluent and poor is the core of the historical developments. Proletariat (the
working, poor classes) in India or colonised societies elsewhere, was a by-product
or an unintentional contribution of colonial administration. Marxists historians talk
about how colonial processes bring consciousness among certain classes of
peasants and workers through shaking the historical links between them and their
exploitators. According to Marx, for example, the material destruction caused by
British loot in India would create conditions on which marginalised classes will
built their own sources of emancipation (16). In other words colonialism makes
the poor classes aware enough to ask about their role and place in the history of
their societies. Though there is a criticism about the fact that Marxist historians
overemphasised the class division in the Indian context, which somewhat marred
their study of different other sections of the society such as Dalits, Adivasis, and

TutorialsDuniya.com
Download Delhi University Notes & Previous Year
Question Papers with Solutions from
TutorialsDuniya.com
 General Electives  AECC

 B.Sc. (H) Computer Science  B.Sc. (H) Mathematics
 B.Sc. (H) Chemistry  B.Sc. (H) Physics
 B.Sc. (H) Electronics  B.Sc. (H) Statistics
 B.Sc. (H) Botany  B.Sc. (H) Geology
 B.Sc. (H) Home Science  B.Sc. (H) Zoology
 B.Com (H)  B.Sc. (H) Microbiology
 B.Sc. Physical Science  B.Sc. Mathematical Science
 B.A. Programme  BMS
 B.A. (H) Psychology  B.Sc. Life Science
 B.A. (H) Economics  B.A. (H) English
 B.A. (H) Hindi  B.A. (H) History
 B.A. (H) Journalism  B.A. (H) Philosophy
 B.A. (H) Political Science  B.A. (H) Geography
 B.A. (H) Sanskrit  B.A. (H) Sociology
Please Share these Question Papers with your Friends

women. Nevertheless, Marxist historians have been able to put forward certain
vital questions and have been able to generate debates which have enriched our
knowledge of colonial history. On the issue of colonialism and nationalism in
India, there are several works done by Marxists historians. Rajni Palme Dutt and
A. R. Desai are the two most prominent historians coming from this school.
KARL MARX
FIGURE 2.2
Source: https://www.google.co.in/search?q=Picture+of+Karl+Marx&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-
8&rls=org.mozilla:enUS:official&client=firefoxa&channel=np&source=hp&gwsrd=cr&ei=ftlXUsbtGI
vOrQfl8oDoBg
Marxists have conceptualised “the nation on the basis of its secular character and
explored its strengths and weaknesses as evolved during the colonial and post-
colonial periods” (Pannikar K N: 9). Marxists historians saw colonialism as a way
of capturing the raw materials of the colony. They refuted the arguments of
colonialism being a ‘civilising mission’ for Marxist believed that any kind of
cultural change is directly related to the dominant mode of production. According
to Marxists, colonialism is the highest phase of imperialism. Its origin is in the
capitalists’ nature of expansion for profit. Colonies were created to tackle the
problem of constant and cheap supply of labour, raw materials and availability of
markets for the manufactured goods. There was no doubt in the minds of the

Marxists that colonial occupation was not guided by any philanthropic motive as
claimed by colonial historiography.
V I Lenin (the leader of the Russian Revolution of 1917) worked Marxist ideas and
gave the theory of imperialism in the midst of an intensification of control over
colonies by the European countries in different parts of the world. This
intensification had begun during the second half of the 19th century. Lenin
argued that, domestically, capital was concentrating into the hands of large
monopolistic corporations led by a few large financial oligarchies. These oligarchs
are big bankers and industrialists who control finance capital.
DO YOU KNOW
THE VIEWS OF VLADIMIR LENIN ?
Figure 2.2.1 Source:https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/photo/1895-

1917/index.htm
Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and
finance capitalism is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance;
in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all
territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.
VLADIMIR ILYICH LENIN, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism

The concentration of capital in fewer hands created massive inequalities in these

societies. Inequality in these European countries which are also known as ‘core’
controlled total demand levels from rising. The domestic market made of common
people with limited or no demand, could not absorb all the commodities produced
there. It was uneconomical to lower the production as high investments were
made to create latest and advanced capacities of production in the form of
machines and other technologies. Hence, the insufficiency of demands created
continual crises in nascent capitalist societies which compromised the profit of
capitalist class. The increasing prices of basic raw materials, such as coal and
cotton further threatened the profits margins. Therefore, in order to maintain the
levels of profit some kind of creativity and expansion was required. The specific
needs of expansion were felt in the regions, other than the conventional
continental Europe, for investment in addition to cheaper sources of raw materials
and unexploited markets. Ultimately this led towards imperialism. Lenin identifies
that imperialism gave birth to a new capitalist class which was based on ‘the
export of capital’ rather than on the goods exchange as in the case of old
capitalism.
According to Lenin imperialism started in the form of finance capital. He also

proclaims that this form of capitalism is ‘the highest stage of capitalism.’ He
identifies capitalism’s latest and most highly developed form due to the reason
that instead of soiling their hands in primary goods production, now capitalists
are sitting and enjoying and their wealth is creating further prosperity for them.
He defined capitalism as “commodity production at its highest stage of
development, when labour-power itself becomes a commodity” and imperialism
as ‘monopoly capitalism’. He argued that modern capitalism is basically
‘monopoly capitalism’. He argues unlike Hobson, that capitalist aspire not for
market but for investment. In other words, Lenin believed that in the era of
‘monopoly capitalism’ the export of capital took place rather than commodities
and capitalist aspired for investment opportunities and not for market in other
countries. This leads towards imperialism. It became possible because in modern
capitalism, there is uneven development and accumulation of surplus of capital in
the advanced nations under the control of a financial oligarchy of bankers. This
finance capital reigned supreme over all other forms of capital. This is highest
stage of capitalist development. That is why Lenin said that Imperialism is the
‘Last Stage of Capitalism’ (11).

According to Lenin, the ‘monopoly capitalism’ creates cartels, syndicates, and

trusts that divide the domestic market and take control of industry in their own
countries. But capitalism also creates a world market. Monopoly capitalism led
towards the division of the colonial world into spheres of influence which reflect
the struggle of finance capital for raw materials and of the export of capital. Lenin
stressed that the “rise of ‘national financial-industrial’ combines that struggle to
divide and re-divide the world amongst themselves through their respective
nation-states. The rivalry among these competing national capitals led to inter-
state competition, military conflict and war.” (11)
Lenin states that the political control over other countries facilitates for the
capitalists from the developed world to freely exploit the working classes of
colonised countries. This profit is largely kept by the capitalists. However, a part
of this profit is spent in the domestic industries and production activities which
increase the wages and living standards of the workers in the developed
countries. This is done, according to Lenin to “pacify the working class to not go
for revolution at home” (11). In this way capitalist are able to keep the revolution
at bay. This perpetuated the imperialistic ambitions of colonial powers. This
theory is, in its earlier versions was also used by the ‘drain of wealth theorists’
namely Dada Bhai Naoroji in the nineteenth century. In a way this explains the
growing pauperisation of the Indian masses and slow, but steady, economic well-
being of the conditions of the workers in Britain.
Lenin’s idea of imperialism is criticised on the ground that it focuses only on

economic aspects of it. He refuses to acknowledge that Imperialism has any other
purpose than serving the interest of finance capital. The political control over
other states, as a form of security and territorial gains, had also been a motive of
creating empires. Imperialism was declared as the highest form of capitalism
however, it has survived the end of direct imperialism. Nevertheless in the
present era of indirect imperialism it is finance capital which rules the world
empires.
Despite the fact that Lenin and other Marxists believed in the idea of colonialism
being just a stage of imperialism, where one imperial power occupied another
country for its raw materials and market, they too believed that in most of the
cases colonial occupation had been helpful in modernising the occupied societies.
The Marxist school of thought sought to analyse the class character of the

nationalist movement and tried to explain it in terms of economic development of

the colonial period, primarily the rise of industrial capitalism and the development
of a market society in India (Bandyopadhyay Shekhar: 10). According to them
the national movement in India was led by rising national bourgeoisie which
gradually found foreign rule adverse to their interests.
Marxists identify the process through which the national bourgeoisie comes into
existence. According to Marxist historians, the rise of national bourgeoisie in most
of the colonies including India was due to establishment of modern industrial
production and modern education system introduced by the colonial masters for
their own compulsions. They agree that the reason for the establishment of
modern industry and education had nothing to do with the so-called civilisation
mission and benevolence of the colonial administration. It was done due to the
need of having local support base for their rule and also for getting skilled cheap
labour. This bourgeoisie, however, gradually became the enemy of colonial
administration. According to Marxist historians, the Congress in India was a party
of big landlords and industrial bourgeoisie, and despite its progressive
contribution in Indian history, its leadership was basically an elite grouping.
According to Marxist historians this bourgeois leadership directed national and
anti-colonial movement to suit their own class interest and neglected the interest
of masses and to some extent betrayed them (Dutt R P: 12). Marxists do not buy
the nationalist argument that India is a homogeneous entity. According to them
India has never been one. They highlight, instead, the heterogeneity in Indian
society and emphasis on the changes brought by the resisting masses throughout
the history of the country (Dirks Nicolas: 13). They argue that the hostile class
relations in India, as like any other society, were the reasons of ‘unequal and
uneven development’ which could neither be overcome by colonial rulers nor the
successive nationalist rulers.
According to Marxists, various streams within the national movement adopted

different strategies and modes of struggles. This was first, a result of their own
understandings of the situation and second, an attempt to ensure their long
overdue and rightful inclusion in the idea of ‘Indian nation’. Most of these groups
are different classes organised on caste and religious lines. They all have
articulated their interests differently which is a mere manifestation of the
diversity of Indian masses. Nationalism would, ideally have brought all these
people on one front together irrespective of their differences. Freedom struggle
and nationalist upsurge was able to overcome some differences and was also able

to create some common interests. Nevertheless, those differences were so deep

and wide that it failed to create a real unity of cause beyond a point among all
the sections of the Indians. According to Dirks it was limitation of the ‘liberal
project’ in India (Dirks Nicolas: 13). Marxists’ views were based on the above
understanding, that neither colonialism nor nationalism is structurally capable of
modernising the Indian colony.
According to Marxist historians, though India was impoverished due to colonial

exploitation, it became more modernised in the process. Colonial power did
create new identities and India was more socially divided. However, due to
education and secular bureaucracy, brought by the British, oppressed sections
became more aware of their conditions. Colonialism made feudal elements weak
and emerged new industrial working class due to introduction of capitalism. The
industrialisation and establishment of administrative units created urbanisation in
colonial societies. The new working class there in the urban areas had the
potential to revolutionise the colonial society including India. R. Palme Dutt,
emphasised the need of forming extra territorial solidarity between Indian and
British proletariat as neither the colonial masters nor the national bourgeois could
address their issues (Dutt R P. 14). Sumit Sarkar in his book, ‘Modern India’
argued that there were two levels of anti-imperialist struggle in India; one elite
and the other was populist. Understanding of Indian history demands the study of
both as their interaction formed the backbone of Indian national movement (15).
In other words, in modern India there were two levels of anti-imperialist struggle.
One struggle was elitist and another struggle was the struggle of the common
people. In order to understand the full picture of the Indian national movement
there is a need to look in to the interplay of both, elitist and populist movements.
Bipin Chandra, countering the Marxist understanding of colonial Indian history,

argued that Indian national movement was a popular movement of various
classes, not exclusively controlled by the bourgeois. It was a national movement
based on the primary contradiction between the interests of Indian masses and
British rule. However, he accepted that, apart from the fact that independence
was for every one, there were also several secondary contradictions within Indian
society of different classes, castes, and religious communities (Chandra Bipan:
7).
R.P Dutt pointed out that the nature of British colonialism in India changed
historically. In the beginning it was basically an agricultural economy that offered

raw materials’ reserve. It was also seen as a market for some of the British and
European products. Restrictions on Indian industries hampered their development
and these were deliberately imposed to facilitate the uninterrupted growth of
British Industries. The limited liberty, which Indian bourgeoisie got was also an
attempt of give enough outlets to British capital. Politically the essence of the new
imperialist policy (during post First World War) was taking Indian bourgeoisie as a
junior partner. The cornerstone of British ‘reforms’ in India were limited
“industrialisation and diarchy”, leading it to “dominion status” (Dutt R P: 14).
Romila Thapar argued that in the 1970s, the question was whether there had
been incipient capitalism in India prior to the colonial expansion in the 19 th
century. What was the state of the Indian economy? The famous ‘drain theory’
came into play here, the argument being that with industrialisation in Britain and
the latter’s need for resources and markets, much of India’s wealth was drained
away into Britain, fundamentally impoverishing Indian society (Thaper Romila:
3).
As far as the goal of independence is concerned, Marxists viewed that real

emancipation of India as a nation is not possible until there is a kind of social and
economic emancipation of the peasants and workers too. R.P. Dutt argues that
“the demand for independence needs to be combined with the demand for the
repudiation of the foreign debts and expropriation of foreign concessions and
capital holdings in India” (Dutt R P: 14). In other words, the independence of
India is of no use to its proletariat, unless they get their equal share in the
society.
Summary
● The establishment of colonial administration in India was a long drawn process.

This establishment coincided with the emergence of a school of thought in Europe
which was sympathetic to the ideas of empire and colonialism.
● In order to gain legitimacy, the British Administration promoted history writing
which was sympathetic to their mission in India. It portrayed colonial subjects as
trapped in time, if not as savages, who needed some kind of external force to
liberate themselves and make them modern and civilised.
● Orientalists tried to relook at ancient Indian history and discover it’s so called
greatness. They also tried to locate a ‘glorious golden age’ in that history. This
attempt was both a reflection of influence of romanticism and classism on them.

●, Where-as Orientalist had glorified India’s past, the Utilitarian had

condemnation for it. One of the proponents of this school, James Mill, divided the
history of India into three parts namely, Hindu civilisation, the Muslim civilisation,
and the British period. He argued that the pre-British Hindu and Muslim
civilisations were not only backward and stagnant but conformed to the image of
‘oriental-despotism’. The Utilitarian and Economists, such as Adam Smith, had
their own logic about the benefits of empire for people of England. They somehow
agreed that empire is a liability rather than an asset. For details see Sullivan
Eileen P (1983), Liberalism and Imperialism: J S Mill’s Defense of the British
Empire, Journal of the History of Ideas, 44 (4): 599-617.
● According to postcolonial historians, most of these writings are perfect
examples of ethnocentrisms where all things European is considered to be
‘modern’ and native culture is seen and compared from these ‘modern’ standards.
● A school of thought represented by political activist such as Dada Bhai Naoroji,
Lala Lajpat Rai, A.C. Mazumdar, R. G Pradhan, S.N. Banerjee, and B.R. Nanda
etc. emerged in response to Colonial interpretation of Indian history and tried to
expose the exploitative character of British colonialism. They argued that
colonialism had harmful effects on economic and cultural development of India.
Modernity and political unity are in fact fruits of struggle undertaken by the
Indians themselves against the imperial rule. Further, they found British
responsible for India’s decline.
● According to Marxists, the struggle, both explicit and latent, between the
affluent and poor is the core of the historical developments. Proletariat (the
working, poor classes) in India or colonised societies elsewhere, was a by-product
or an unintentional contribution of colonial administration. Marxists historians saw
colonialism as a way of capturing the raw materials of the colony. They refuted
the arguments of colonialism being a ‘civilising mission’ for Marxist believed that
any kind of cultural change is directly related to the dominant mode of production
Despite the fact that Lenin and other Marxists believed in the idea of colonialism
being just a stage of imperialism, where one imperial power occupied another
country for its raw materials and market, they too believed that in most of the
cases colonial occupation had been helpful in modernising the occupied societies.
Exercises
1. ” In order to gain legitimacy, the British Administration promoted history

writing that was sympathetic to their mission in India.” Elucidate.

2. What views were articulated by the Utilitarian thinkers as regards British

Colonialism in India?
3. “The attempt by Nationalist historians to establish superiority was based on a
dichotomy between spiritual India vs. materialist West. Thinkers like Aurobindo
Ghosh, particularly, emphasised this.” Do you agree with this view? Give reasons
for your answer.
4. Write a critique on the Marxist understanding of colonial Indian history.
Glossary
1 Benevolence: kindness.
2 Christian Missionaries: Religious group committed to the spread of the religion
of Christianity, as their main mission.
3 Orientalists: Scholars of the history, art, language and culture of the East
{Middle East and Asian countries} as opposed to that of the West or the
Occidental.
4 Proletariat: The working class, usually the poor.
References
1 Sullivan Eileen P (1983), Liberalism and Imperialism: J S Mill’s Defense of the

British Empire, Journal of the History of Ideas, 44 (4): 599-617.
2. Metcalf Barbara D and Thomas R Metcalf (2006), A Concise History of Modern

India, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Thaper, Romila, “Interpretations of Colonial History: Colonial, Nationalist, Post-

Colonial” in Peter Ronald deSouza, (2000), ed. Contemporary India: Transition,
Delhi: Sage Publication: 25-36.
4. Oriental despotism became the key concept in the 19 th century to explain the
situation in India prior to the coming of the British. Thapar, Romila, Ibid: P-30.
5. Kumar, Kesava, P, (2008) “Indian historiography and Ambedkar: Reading

history from Dalit perspective”, International Journal of South Asian Studies,
Vol.1 (1): 1-122.

6. Chatterjee, Partha (2010), Empire and Nation: Essential Writings, 1985-2005,

Permanent Black: New Delhi.
7. Chandra Bipan, et al, (1988), India’s Struggle for Independence, Delhi:

Penguin Books India: 18.
8. Seal, Anil, (1968), Emergence of Indian Nationalism: Competition and

collaboration in the later 19th Century, Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
9. K.N. Panikkar, “History as a site of struggle”, The Hindu, August 15, 2007.
10. Bandhyopadhyay Sekhar (2009), From Plassey to Partition: A History of

Modern India, Orient BlackSwan: Hyderabad.
11. Lenin, V.I. (1967), Selected Works in Three Volumes, Moscow: Progress
Publishers.
12. Dirks, Nicolas, (1992), Colonialism and Culture, Michigan: University of

Michigan Press.
13. Dutt, R.P., (1928), “Indian Awakening”, The Labour Monthly, Vol. 10, June
No. 6: 323-341
14. Sarkar Sumit (1983) Modern India, 1885-1947, Delhi: Macmillan
15. Hussain, Iqbal (ed), (2006) Karl Marx On India, New Delhi: Tulika Books
Read “An Empire of Good Intentions: Liberalism and the Justification of

Britains’s Empire in India.”
http://www.academia.edu/1545698/An_Empire_of_Good_Intentions_Liberalism_
and_the_Justification_of_Britains_Empire_in_India_c.1820-1905
Web Links.
Figure2.1
Source
https://www.google.co.in/search?q=Picture+of+colonialism&ie=utf-
8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en US:official&client= firefoxa&channel=
np& source=hp&gws_rd=cr&ei=XPhXUpqiMo-GrAexj4DQDw

Figure 2.1.1
Source: https://www.google.co.in/search?q=Caricature+Adam+Smith&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-
US:official&client=firefox
Figure2.1.2
Source:http://www.google.co.in/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/PSM_V03_
D380_John_Stuart_Mill.jpg&imgrefu-----
Figure 2.2
Source:https://www.google.co.in/search?q=Picture+of+Karl+Marx&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-
8&rls=org.mozilla:enUS:official&client=firefoxa&channel=np&source=hp&gwsrd=cr&ei=ftlXUsbtGI
vOrQfl8oDoBg
Figure 2.2.1
Source: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/photo/1895-1917/index.htm

TutorialsDuniya.com
Download Delhi University Notes & Previous Year
Question Papers with Solutions from
TutorialsDuniya.com
 General Electives  AECC

 B.Sc. (H) Computer Science  B.Sc. (H) Mathematics
 B.Sc. (H) Chemistry  B.Sc. (H) Physics
 B.Sc. (H) Electronics  B.Sc. (H) Statistics
 B.Sc. (H) Botany  B.Sc. (H) Geology
 B.Sc. (H) Home Science  B.Sc. (H) Zoology
 B.Com (H)  B.Sc. (H) Microbiology
 B.Sc. Physical Science  B.Sc. Mathematical Science
 B.A. Programme  BMS
 B.A. (H) Psychology  B.Sc. Life Science
 B.A. (H) Economics  B.A. (H) English
 B.A. (H) Hindi  B.A. (H) History
 B.A. (H) Journalism  B.A. (H) Philosophy
 B.A. (H) Political Science  B.A. (H) Geography
 B.A. (H) Sanskrit  B.A. (H) Sociology
Please Share these Question Papers with your Friends

The Liberal & Marxist Perspective On Colonialism

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Liberal & Marxist Perspective On Colonialism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Download Delhi University Political Science Notes from TutorialsDuniya.

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 2.1: LIBERAL PERSPECTIVE: COLONIAL INTERPRETATION.

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

LIBERAL & MARXIST PERSPECTIVE ON COLONIALISM

“Liberal reformers who were frustrated at home saw immense

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

2.1 LIBERAL PERSPECTIVE: COLONIAL INTERPRETATION

The colonial perspective on Indian history developed through phases. When it

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

Company administration soon realised the limits of Christian Missionaries and

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

When liberalism, as a dominant source of history writing, started gaining ground

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

John Stuart Mill FIGURE 2.1.2

According to postcolonial historians, most of these writings are perfect examples

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

In Brief, Colonialist perspective on colonialism was based on the justification of

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

and its long due modernisation. “Essentially colonial perspective on India is

2.1.1 NATIONALIST INTERPRETATION.

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

2.2. MARXIST INTERPRETATION OF COLONIALISM

Marxists conceptualise the nations as aggregate of groups of people which are

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 General Electives  AECC

Please Share these Question Papers with your Friends

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

Figure 2.2.1 Source:https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/photo/1895-

VLADIMIR ILYICH LENIN, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

The concentration of capital in fewer hands created massive inequalities in these

According to Lenin imperialism started in the form of finance capital. He also

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

According to Lenin, the ‘monopoly capitalism’ creates cartels, syndicates, and

Lenin’s idea of imperialism is criticised on the ground that it focuses only on

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

nationalist movement and tried to explain it in terms of economic development of

According to Marxists, various streams within the national movement adopted

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

to create some common interests. Nevertheless, those differences were so deep

According to Marxist historians, though India was impoverished due to colonial

Bipin Chandra, countering the Marxist understanding of colonial Indian history,

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

As far as the goal of independence is concerned, Marxists viewed that real

● The establishment of colonial administration in India was a long drawn process.

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

●, Where-as Orientalist had glorified India’s past, the Utilitarian had

1. ” In order to gain legitimacy, the British Administration promoted history

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

2. What views were articulated by the Utilitarian thinkers as regards British

1 Sullivan Eileen P (1983), Liberalism and Imperialism: J S Mill’s Defense of the

2. Metcalf Barbara D and Thomas R Metcalf (2006), A Concise History of Modern

3. Thaper, Romila, “Interpretations of Colonial History: Colonial, Nationalist, Post-

5. Kumar, Kesava, P, (2008) “Indian historiography and Ambedkar: Reading

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

6. Chatterjee, Partha (2010), Empire and Nation: Essential Writings, 1985-2005,

7. Chandra Bipan, et al, (1988), India’s Struggle for Independence, Delhi:

8. Seal, Anil, (1968), Emergence of Indian Nationalism: Competition and

10. Bandhyopadhyay Sekhar (2009), From Plassey to Partition: A History of

12. Dirks, Nicolas, (1992), Colonialism and Culture, Michigan: University of

14. Sarkar Sumit (1983) Modern India, 1885-1947, Delhi: Macmillan

Read “An Empire of Good Intentions: Liberalism and the Justification of