Marxist Approach

Some scholars considered India as an Object.

Some scholars considered India as a subject.
Those who consider it as a subject emphasize on Ideologies, Values, culture that bind
people together- hence they feel India needs to be studied from an epistemological
perspective.
Epistemological- Philosophical (The theory of knowledge, esp. with regard to its methods,
validity, and scope.)
Scholars who considered India as a subject- Indologist, Culturelologists.
Scholars who considered India as an object- Structure Functionalists.
There was no consensus among Marxist scholars- Some felt it as an object, others as
subject.
No single Marxist approach, but rather Marxist approaches.
Some closer to Indology e.g. SA Dange, DD Kosambi.
Others closer to Structure Functionalism.
It is like four Blind men and the elephant, i.e. everyone has their own perspective.

SA Dange
Shripad Amrit Dange - considered as father of Marxist party in India
Book From Primitive Communism to Slavery
Views
Ritual performance of Brahmins not a cultural act, rather it was a magical rite
The rituals were basically intended to increase productivity, induce fertility into soil, to
bring rain on time, guarantee health of cattles etc.
Hence rituals instrumental in gratifying material needs of people
He believes respects for Brahmins in Vedic period not due to scriptural knowledge or due
the concept of origin from the mouth but due to the survivalist need of the people (which
is a materialistic need)
Hence he believes human history is a product of materialistic conditions out of which
dialectical classes appear.
He concludes that from Vedic period to contemporary times various classes has evolved
due to dialectical materialism
Being a communist ideologue calls for unity peasants, farmers, workers and labourers
should unite and initiate proletarian revolution
DD Kosambi
Damodar Dharmananda Kosambi was an Indian mathematician, statistician, Marxist historian
Books on history and society
1956 An Introduction to the Study of Indian History
1957 Exasperating Essays: Exercise in the Dialectical Method
1962 Myth and Reality: Studies in the Formation of Indian Culture
1965 The Culture and Civilisation of Ancient India in Historical Outline
2002 D.D. Kosambi: Combined Methods in Indology and Other Writings - Compiled,
edited and introduced by Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya.

WWW.INDIANCIVILS.COM THE ONLINE IAS ACADEMY

Page 1

Views

2009 The Oxford India Kosambi - Compiled, edited and introduced by Brajadulal
Chattopadhyaya
His views are considered of a Historian
Uses Historical texts, Contemporary context, literary sources to explain dynamics of
social change in Indian society
In Rig Veda there is mention of Dasyus (slaves)
Slaves are not born as slaves but become one
They are people of different ethnic groups living in India since historic times
They fight against each other, without losing sovereignty since being indigenous people
However due to Aryan Conquest, defeated Indigenous people were termed as Dasyus
They were pushed out of the four fold Varna system developed by the invading aryans
They were enslaved and assigned with non-rewarding, polluting and manual tasks
Hence he believes Vedic Indian society was not filled with equality rather it was
characterised by exploitation, hierarchy and class conflict
History of Indian society is a history of class formation, history of class consolidation
and a struggle for liberation from class based inequality
He Criticized Danges views, and said rituals of Brahmins were a conscious attempt to
induce dominant ideology into minds of tribes
Sanskritisation or casteisisation of tribes is a coercive attempt of the dominant caste to
legitimise their domination over the masses in ancient Indian society.
Rise of endogenous rulers, led to patronising dominant values, which led to
institutionalisation of caste, based inequality.
He felt that India is not moving from castelesness to class character rather Economic
history of India is filled with class based inequality, deprivation and exploitation.
He considers Mughal rule, British rule replaced one type of class structure with another
type of class structure among various classes in India

RK Mukherjee
R. K. Mukherjee trained in economics at Calcutta University, taught sociology at Lucknow
University. He made a series of micro-level analyses of problems concerning rural economy,
land, population, and the working class in India as well as the deteriorating agrarian relations
and conditions of the peasantry, inter-caste tensions, and urbanization.
Views
In his Book social structure of Values rejects indological perspective of Ghurye, which
justified Brahminic/Sanskritic values as source of Indian unity
Ghurye justified this to explain Indian unity in the absence of a centralised monarchy, an
universal law or a common form of punishment
RK Mukherjee feels than Hindu cultural values are not an outcome of different ethnic
groups rather these values are created by Brahmins
These values are transmitted by Brahmins as teachers or preachers from one generation
to another.
Over generations these values are indoctrinated into the psychosis of the masses
Masses accept Hindu values not because they accept it, or are in love with it

WWW.INDIANCIVILS.COM THE ONLINE IAS ACADEMY

Page 2

They confirm these values because without which their survival or existence in society
will be at risk
Unity in Indian society is out of Brahminic class consciousness, that gave importance to
Kshatriyas right to rule, Vaishyas right to make wealth and Shudras duty to serve others
to gratify their needs.
Structural Inequality in Indian Society is a product of coercive value created and
transmitted by Brahmins.
Their aim was to institutionalise their dominance throughout History of Indian Society.

AR Desai
Dr A. R. Desai was born on April 16, 1915 at Madia in Gujarat.
He graduated from University of Bombay and secured a Law degree and a PhD. in
Sociology from the same University in 1946 under Dr G. S. Ghurye.
Dr Desai started his academic career in 1946 as a lecturer of Sociology at Siddharth
College in Bombay.
In 1951 he joined the department of Sociology of Bombay University.
In 1969 he became Professor and the Head of the Department till his retirement in 1976.
Writings
1. Social background of Indian Nationalism (1948)
2. Peasants struggles in India (1979)
3. Indias path of development: A Marxist approach (1984)
4. Recent trends in Indian Nationalism (1960)
5. Agrarian struggles in India after Independence (1986)
6. Rural Sociology in India (1975)
7. Violation of Democratic Rights (2 volumes) (1986)
8. Edited a monthly journal in Gujarati- Padkar which means challenge.
Views
As a student of Ghurye he doesnt out rightly reject indological approach
Considers that Marxist approach is an alternative to indological approach
History of man is different from animals because he engages in the activity of production
to gratify his personal needs
When Marxist approach is applied to India he finds that mode of production has evolved
from pre-colonial times-colonial times-post colonial times
Hence his understanding is broadly divided into pre-colonial stage, colonial stage and
post-colonial stage
Desai considered India should be studied as an object giving importance for mode of
production
Pre Colonial Stage
Marx called it Asiatic mode of production
According to Marx in this stage, there was communal property holding, absence of
market, presence of political inequality, production meant for livelihood, absence of
exploitation, mutual exchange of service and skills etc. (Jagmani System)
Desai states that Marx is not right and is only using the example to justify his theory
In reality private ownership/right over land existed in pre-colonial stage, because
officers, priest, advisors working in kings court have got land grant from rulers

WWW.INDIANCIVILS.COM THE ONLINE IAS ACADEMY

Page 3

These land owners had legal right over production out of such property, in which tillers
were employed to crop
So in this stage both private property as well as exploitation existed
Desai considers that in this stage there existed cottage industries, handicraft production
etc.
They were selling these products to acquire wealth
So occupation not limited to agricultural labourers
But these products were only for a selected segment of buyers i.e. royalty, aristocracy
etc., hence it was a market driven by buyers, sellers didnt have much control over price,
volume etc.
He concludes this stage was not like Asiatic mode of production as explained by Marx.
In pre-colonial stage there existed religious, cultural, political cities and commercial
cities on banks of rivers.
History proves that we even had trade relationship with distant countries, so pre-colonial
India was not classlessness
He also states that different castes were present in village India, living at the mercy of
land holding castes, contradicting Marxian view of harmonic Indian villages where skills
and services were exchanged
He cites Jagmani system an in-harmonic system of relationship between the patron and
clients
He concludes that pre-colonial India manifest elements of feudalism
Indian feudalism is unique as where right of land is offered to service class (petty land
lords), right of land belonging to village (communal land)-but in reality controlled by
village elders who made all decisions.
Colonial Stage of Production
British came to India as traders bringing with them goods qualitatively different(machine
produced) from indigenous producers
Desai states that capitalist nations have two distinct advantages over others, i.e.,
industrial technology and industrial production of war heads and weapons.
Initially they only targeted requirement of dominant class but later supplied mass based
commodities like textile, consumer durables, utensils etc.
Whereby they destroy the indigenous cottage industries, making specialist producers
jobless.
These unemployed people shifted to agriculture for subsistence, whereby increasing the
pressure on land, leading to decline in production, also aggravated by lack of new
technology or investment in improving cropping methods leading to large scale poverty
in India.
British interest slowly converged from commercial into political, using advanced war
heads they defeated indigenous rulers and converted others into colonial agents.
This ultimately led to political control over Indian Territory indicating economic
domination is a source of political domination than vice versa.
After seizing state power British went for agrarian and industrial policy ultimately giving
way for capitalist development in India.
They introduced patta in terms of agricultural land introducing legal individual right
over land.

WWW.INDIANCIVILS.COM THE ONLINE IAS ACADEMY

Page 4

Communal property converted to private property, land became a commodity that can be
bought and sold.
They introduced intermediaries between state and tillers, who were identified as owners
of land responsible to pay advance tax to state (Zamindars).
These Zamindars appointed sub-Zamindars and sub-sub Zamindars, making stake
holders over land numerous.
This expanded tax liability of the peasants and farmers.
Non-payment of tax led to expulsion from land, exemplary punishment etc., this led to
dependence and origin of money lenders.
Therefore failure of agriculture and expansion of tax liability led to mass destitution of
Indian peasantry (Marxian Pauperisation of masses).
Introduction of monopoly act led to domination of Indian industry by foreign capitalists,
high taxation, uncontrolled import of foreign goods led to complete drain of wealth from
India.
So freedom struggle is an outcome of pauperisation of peasants, mass movement in India
initiated by the middle class, and succeeded by the participation of the masses.
Economic history of India is a shift from feudalism to exploitative capitalism.
Post-Colonial India
The new nation was committed to socialistic ideology,
Introduction of land reform system, education for all, equal pay for equal work, factories
act, mines act, community development programme,
Cooperative movement, poverty alleviation measures driven by socialistic ideology
In his books man and plan in India and development planning in India he questions
the efficacy of socialistic planning
When even after years of planning land holding in 1976 reflected that 80% of agricultural
land was controlled by 10% of Indias population
Benefits of green revolution and farm subsidy reaching only rich farmers, a large extend
of the population living below poverty line and illiterate
The rate of unemployment constantly increasing, rural urban dichotomy is further getting
expanded
In socialist India, capitalist development is gaining momentum, he states that external
colonisation is replaced by internal colonisation
Relevance of Marxist Approach to Understand India
A good approach to understand contemporary reality
Andre Beteille criticizes Marxist approach as economic determinism
Marxist fail to realise reality is beyond economic factors, there are various other factors
that make it more complicated
SC Dubey criticises them by stating that they drag facts to fit into their theory rather than
explaining facts in it.
TK Oomen states that Marxian approach is as much deterministic as indological
approach, not apt to study India
Despite its limitation Marxian approach has given an alternative against cultural or
indological approach

WWW.INDIANCIVILS.COM THE ONLINE IAS ACADEMY

Page 5

Conclusion
Marxist approach in India started with SA Dange, developed with DD Kosambi and matured
with Mukherji and AR Desai, ultimately evolving into a dynamic paradigm to understand
dialectical relations present in different spheres of Indian social life contributing for social
dynamics and social change.

WWW.INDIANCIVILS.COM THE ONLINE IAS ACADEMY

Page 6