History in the Present Tense - On Sumit Sarkar's 'Modern India' - Das

8/11/2019 History in the Present Tense - On Sumit Sarkar's 'Modern India' - Das

1/27


2/27

History

in

the

Present

Tense:

On Sumit

Sarkar's

'Modern

India'

IN

THE

RECENT

YEARS,

as

several

universities

have

gone

through

the

motions

of

revising

their

syllabi

for

under-graduate

and

post-

graduate

students,

there

has

been

considerable

discussion

on

the

availa-

bility

of

adequate

text-books.

The

discussion

has,

however,

mainly

veered round

the

question

of the

language

of

the

text-books,

their

physical

availability

and,

only

occasionally,

on

their

quality.

Rarely,

if at all, has there been much discussion on the very role of text-books,

such

as

they

are,

in

under-graduate

and

post-graduate

education

in

Indian

universities.

Are text-books

mere

starting

points

of

education

or

do

they

represent

the

very

end

of

education-veritable

encyclopaediae

on

particular

subjects-meant

to tell students

all,

omitting

no detail howso-

ever

slight

?

What

is

the

relationship

between

the

teacher

and

the

text-book

?

Do text

books

become substitutes

for

the

teacher

?

Since

the

role

of text-books

has

never been

adequately

discussed,

the

purveyors

of

packaged

knowledge

have

made

hay. Bearing

the

heavy

burden

of unfiltered

knowledge,

the clients in the educational

system-

the

students--have

been forced

to

accept

as

common

currency

the

'Bazaar

Notes'

which

have

encapsulated

the

information

and

analysis

required

of

them

to

pass

out

through

the narrow

gates

of

academe.

And,

as

the

numbers

of such

'Guides',

'Notes' and

'Keys'

have

proliferated,

inculcation

of

logical

thinking,

the

honing up

of the scientific investi-

gation,

critical

analysis

and

even

good

reading

have

been

pushed

inexorably

to the

edges

of

the academic scene.

In

supplying

such

packaged knowledge,

which

saves the

young

student

the

trouble

of

reading

anything

else,

or

thinking

for

himself,

private

enterprise

has

to date

played

the most

important

role.

In

the

field

of

history,

the

prolific

L

Mukherjee,

the

redoubtable

V D

Mahajan

or

the

partnership

of Grover

and

Sethi,

etc,

have

helped

thousands

of

students

in

passing

examinations.

Recently,

however,

the

State

Text

Book

Corporations,

the

National

Council

of Educational

Research

and

Training

and

the

National

Book

Trust have

made

the

production

of

packaged

knowledge

a

public

sector

activity

also.


3/27

HISTORY

IN

PRESENT

TENSE

The

publication

of

Sumit

Sarkar's Modern

India,*

undoubtedly

one

of

the

significant

occurrences

in

the

production

of

text-books,

is an

important

milestone

in

this

process

of

encapsulating

information and

analysis

"for

the benefit of

students".

Hence,

although

this

book

by

itself is

an

extremely

valuable

addition

to

history-writing

as

such,

discussion

on it must

start

with

taking

into account

the

role

such a

signi-

ficant

publication

is

likely

to

play

as

a

text-book

or

as a

very

valuable

and

very

convenient

handbook

on

the

history

of modern India

to

be used

by

students.

According

to the

author,

"The

present

work

has

a

twofold

aim.

It

attempts

a

synthesis

of

the

massive

data unearthed in

recent

years

by

a flood of

monographs

on

specific problems

in

political,

social and

economic

history.

At the

same

time

it

explores,

in

the

light

of

my

own

research

interests,

the

possibilities

of a

'history

from

below'

as

distinct

from

the usual

tendency

in

the

historiography

of

Indian

nationalism

to

concentrate

on the

activities,

ideals

or

factional

manouevres

of

leaders"

(p

vii).

What

this

means

for

students who

can

stop

worrying

and

start

loving

moders

Indian

history

examinations

is that

they

can

get

every-

thing

the examiners

want to

ask

about the

subject

at

one

place

without

the

trouble

of

going

to the

orginal

authors.

In

different

educational

contexts, this is going to have serious implications. For one, this is

perhaps

the first

good

text-book on

history

for

post-secondary

school

students

going

through

university

systems

which

expect

them

to

either

read

more

than

one book for a

subject

or

to

make

analysis

and

concep-

tualisation

for

themselves,

or

ideally,

both.

But

the

book,

by

the

very

virtue

of

the fact

that it

is so

good,

may

well defeat

the

purpose,

In

a

situation

as in some

metropolitan

universities where

able

teachers

and

supplementary

reading

meterial

are

available to

the

students,

the

book

may

serve

to

ignite

the

need

for

further

investigation

and

independent

analysis. In other situations, like mofussil colleges where total holdings

in

libiaries

may

not

exceed

a

few

hundred

books,

reading

this

particular

book could

encompass

the

totality

of

learning history

of

"modern

India",

uncritically

and

perhaps

uncomprehendingly,

as

there

would

be no

opportunity

for

cross-reference. This last

aspect

is

quite

significant

as,

and

this

is

one

of

the

qualities

of

the

book,

it is not

a

mere

compendium

of fact

and

opinion

like

various

earlier 'text-books'

allowing

the

reader

to take

his

pick

from

various

conclusions recored but

an

original

piece

of reasearch

admittedly

and

self-consciously

attempting

to

take

a

parti-

cular

approach.

As such, it is

only

fair to

compare

it with similar

publications by

Christopher

Hill,

Eric

Hobsbawm

etc.

It

can

be

said

about

Sumit

Sarkar

as was

said

about

Hobsabwm

that,

"under

guise

of

a

text

book

he

has

produced

an

orginal

and

masterly

reinterpretation

of

*Sirlit

Sarkar,

Modern

India:

1885-1947,

Macmillan

India

Limited,

New

Delhi,

1933,

pp

xiv

&486,

Rs 26.50

("subsidized

by

the

Government of

India,

through

the

National Book

Trust, India,

for the

benefit

of

students").

43


4/27

SOCIAL SCIENTIST

(Western)

economic

(not

to

speak

of

social

and

political)

history".1

Such

books

certainly

have

more

than

one use

and

Sumit Sarkar's

book

too will be read

and

used

by

people

other

than

those

preparing

for

exa-

minations.

However,

as it

has been

published

in its

present

form

"for

the

benefit

of

students",

first

examination

of

its

content

must

be

carried

out

from

their

point

of

view,

that

is,

from the

point

of view of

someone

who

is not

already grounded

in

the

facts

and

controversies

which

are

current

knowledge

among

professional

historians but one

who

is

reading

history probably

for the first time.

Such

a

person

may

well

get

confused

with

names, dates,

events, etc,

poppoing up suddenly

at

him

without

adequate

background

information.

This

is not

to

say

that the

style

or

cantext of the book should have been diluted with additional informa-

tion

on

each

aspect

covered

but a

chronology, glossary,

an

adequate

index,

a few

maps

and

some

degree

of

background

biogarphical,

geo-

political,

sociological

and

other information

would

be

of

immense

use

to

students.

On

the

other

hand,

if

the

book is

aimed

at

a wider reader-

ship

than

only

students,

it

should

have recorded

a

caveat

to this effect

as Hobsbawm

has done with

regard

to

his own

work:

"This

book

will

certianly

be read

by

some

who wish to

pass

one or other

of

the

numer-

ous

examinations

in

economic and

social

history

which

face

students

today, and I naturally, hope that it will help them to do so. However,

it

is

not

designed

simply

as

a text

book,

nor can it be

used

very profita-

bly

as a book

of

reference....

(What

it

covers)

should be

of

interest

to

any

intelligent

citizen,

and

I

have therefore

tried

to

write

in as non-technical

a

way

as

possible

and to assume

no

prior

knowledge

of

any

of

the

social

sciences

in the reader.

This does not

mean

that

the

questions

asked

here

in

ordinary

prose

could

not

be

reformulated

in

the

more technical

language

of

the various

disciplines.

However,

I have assumed

an

ele-

mentary knowledge

of

the

outlines

of British

history...

It

would be

helpful

if readers who

happen

not to know what the Napolionic Wars

were,

or are

ignorant

of names

such as Peel

and

Gladstone,

were

pre-

pared

to

find

out on

theis

own."2

But

Sumit

Sarkar's book

has

been

publised

without

such

an

assumption

expltcitly

stated and

we shall take

it for what

it

is,

much

more

than

a text

book:

"it

explores

..the

possibilities

of

a

'history

from

below'

as

distinct

from the usual

tendency...."

It

is

on

this

last

aspect

that

the

book

needs

to

be

critically

examined,

precisely

because

it is an

exceptionally good

book

in

many

ways

and,

further,

it is

likely

to

be the book

for

many

students of

history

and,

as

such,

the

example

of

'history

from

below'.

The

very

fact

that

Sumit

Sarkar

has authored this volume

will also make

the

book

impor-

tant

for

many

readers

who are

familiar

not

only

with his

earlier

work

which

is of

exceptional

quality

but

also with

him

as

an

inspiring

teacher,

an

outstanding

scholar

and

an unorthodox

analyst

who

is

a

challenge

to

any

'grey

eminence'

in

the

history

trade

in

India

today.

That

such

a

scholar

also

acknowledges

"with

particular

gratitude

and

pleasure

a

44


5/27

HISTORY

IN PRESENT TENSE

nightlong

discussion with

Ranajit

Guha

(the

trend setter in

Subaltern

Studies)...which

modified

many

of

my

ideas..."

(p

viii)

will

make

many

others

look

eagerly

to this

'history

from

below'.

It

is

with

this realisation

of the

significant

place

which

the

book

will

occupy

that it

needs

to

be studied

carefully

and

critically.

II

Conventional

historiography

"eddies round

obscure

dates

and

deservedly

obscure

biographies

of

kings

and

prophets".3

In

recent

times,

various

attempts

have

been

made

to

get

a

new

perspective

on

history,

asserting

that

"the more

important

question

is not

who was

king,

nor

whether the given region had a king, but whether its people used a

plough, light

or

heavy,

at

the

time".4

Such

attempts

at

a

new

under-

standing

of

history

take

as

their

point

of

departure

the view that

"history

must

reflect man's

progress

at

satisfying

his needs

in

cooperation

with

all

his

fellow

men,

not

the

success

of a

few

at

satisfying

them

at

the

expense

of

most of

their fellow

men.

...

To maintain that

history

has

always

been

made

by

such

backward,

ignorant,

common

people,

and

that

they,

not the

high priest,

glittering

aristocrat,

war-lord,

financier,

or

demagogue,

must

shape

it

better

in

future,

seems

presumptuous

for-

malism. Nevertheless, it is true."5 Further, the new historiography is

action-oriented:

it

questions

the

inequities

obtaining

in

present-day

society

and

concerns

itself with

changing

the situation for

the

better:

"the answer

has to

be worked

out

by

correct

thinking,

for

which

the

study

of

history

is

quite indispensable.

But

the solution has

then

to be

made

a

reality

by

correct

action,

which

means

a

step

beyond

mere

study

of

the

past."6

It

is with

this

perspective,

looking

not

on the

past

nor even

on

the

'given' present

but on a

desirable

future,

a

future

based

on

the

aspira-

tions of today's oppressed people, that new historiography challenges

conventional

wisdom.

And,

in

doing

so,

it

rejects

the

perimeters

laid

down

by

tradition,

convention and

'knowledge

from

above'

regarding

both content and

method of

study

of

human

activity. Many

professional

historians,

taking

this

perpective,

have

produced

new

insights

on

the lives

and deeds

of

hitherto

obscured

sections of

society.

Even more

signi-

ficantly,

many

others,

who

are as

such not

practitioners

of

the

trade of

history

but

have been

active

participants

in

social

change

processes

based

among

the

people

at

tlle

bottom of

the social

hierarchy,

have

written

first-hand accounts of those movements.

Others,

scientists and

literati,

anthropologists

and

sociologists,

have

been

paying

attention to

different

aspects

of

'folk

activity',

invention and

adoption

of

technologies

related

to

production,

the

accumulation

of

'folk-memory',

the

development

of

'folk

consciousness',

the social

articulation

of the

understanding

of

their

situation

arrived

at

the

'popular'

level-all elements

in

a

new

perspective

on

the

past

and

critical

evaluation of

the

present

directed

towards

the

appreciation

of

the

possible

human

futures

from

which

the real

future

45


6/27

SOCIAL

SCIENTIST

will

emerge,

not

inevitably

or in a

manner

pre-determined

by

"historical

antecedents'

but

by

conscious human

activity.

History,

as

Marx

warned

us,

provides

no answers and will not

fight

our

bettles for

us.

By

itself

history

does

nothing;

it is

men-'real,

living

men'

fighting

for their

ideals-on

whom the

outcome

will

depend.

History

from

below

is

thus

activist,

popular

and

partisan.

And,

writing

'history

from

below'

is

not

easy.

The

concept

itself

is

revolutionary.

The

power

of

socialisation exercised

by

conventional

wisdom

is so

strong

that it

is

extremely

difficult

to

break

out of

the

boundaries

set from above

and

creatively

apply

the

concept

of

'history

from

below'.

The

process

brooks

no

compromises:

one cannot serve

both

'the

above'

and 'below'

simultaneously.

It is

just

as

necessary

for

such

an

exercise

to look

down

on

the

above

from

below;

rejecting

con-

ventional factual

and

analytical

knowledge,

as

to

find new facts

and

interpretations.

Unforunately,

in

many

instances,

this

rejection

is

not

carried out

strongly

enough

and the

attempt

ends

up

by

mere

accretion

rather than

innovation.

There

is still

in

much of this 'new'

writing

the

search

for

the

absolute

and

complete

historical

'truth'

in

spite

of the

theoretical

realisation

that

there

are

no

absolutes.

At best what is

admitted,

even

by

the

practitioners

of

such

'new'

history-writing,

is

that

the absolute truth has not been arrived at because knowledge is, to date,

incomplete.

The

attempt

is,

therefore,

restricted

to

filling

in

the

gaps

in

the

conventional

picture

of

the

past

by adding

to

the

'history

from

above'

aspect

of

'history

of

the below'.

'New'

historiography,

in

many

cases,

merely

widens

the frame

of the conventional

picture

of

kings,

prophets,

great

men,

mahatmas

and

significant

events

(in

cinemato-

graphic

parlance,

a

close-up

is

replaced

by

a

middle

distance

or

even

long

shot,)

finds

gaps

in the

picture,

and

attempts

to

include

mortals

lesser

than

kings

and

prophets

into

the

enlarged

picture.

If

there

are

still blank spaces in the picture, attempt is made to fill in futher detail.

Within

the

existing,

albeit

expanded,

framework

are added

a

struggling

tribal

here,

a rack-rented

peasant

there,

an

emerging

proletarian

else-

where.

The

picture

becomes

more

full and

there

are more

details

to

notice.

But

the

cainvas

and

the frame

remain

the

same,

bounded

by

'elite'

events

and

dates.

In

such

cases,

subaltern

studies

become

more

sub-alternative

studies

and

'history

from

below'

is

replaced

by 'history

at

the

below'

or

at

best,

'history

of

the below'.

As

an

eminent

professional

historian

Sabyasachi

Bhattacharya

has

pointed

out,

"The

history

of

the

'oppressed',

or

'history

from below' is not merely the addition of some

'radical'

topics

to the

historians'

stock

in

trade.

...

History

of the

poor

should

not be

just

poor

hirtory."7

In

spite

of the

self-conscious

attempt

on

the

part

of Sumit

Sarkar

to

remedy

some

of these

defects,

his book

too,

at least

in some

respects,

suffers

from this limitation

in

exploring

"the

possibilities

of

a

'history

from

below'

as

distinct

from

the usual

tendency

in the

historiography

of

Indian

nationalism

to

concentrate

on the activities, ideals,

or

46


7/27

HISTORY

IN PRESENT

TENSE

factional

manoeuvres

of

leaders".

Let us take

one

of the

limitations of

traditional

historiography

that

Sumit

Sarkar

places

on

himself:

his

points

of

beginning

and

ending

the

book-1885 and 1947.

The

reader

may

justifiably

ask

the

relvance

of

these

dates

in

beginning

and

ending

a

'history

from below'. The

author

states,

"The

sixty

years

or so that

lie

between the

foundation

of

the

Indian

National

Congress

in

1885

and

the

achievement

of

independence

in

August

1947

witnessed

perhaps

the

greatest

transition

in

our

country's

long

history"

(p

1;

emphasis

added).

Mark the final words.

The

starting

point

of "the

greatest

transition in

our

country's

long

history"

is

indi-

cated

not

by

any

reference

to

changes

in

the

forces of

production

obtaining in it, nor of the particularity of relations of production, nor

of

natural

events which

are

cataclysmic

enough

to

become

significant

points

of

reference

in

popular

memory

nor

a

major

occurrence of

popular

upsurge,

nor,

for

that

matter,

the

enactment

of

the

Bengal

Tenancy

Act

(also

in

1885),

the first

legal recognition

of

a

large

dent

made

from

below

in

the

Permanent

Settlement

but

"the

foundation

of

the

Indian

National

Congress",

an

event when

an

"attempt

launched

at

the initiative

af

Allan

Octavian

Hume

succeeded

on

a

permanent

(sic)

basis,

and 72

largely

self-appointed

delegates

met for

the

first

session

of

the Indian National Congress at Bombay in December 1885" (p 88,

emphasis

added).

The

author

elaborates:

"While

1885

was

chosen

mainly

for

convenience

it

can be

argued

that

what is

recognizably

'modern'

India

began

not

with

the

Mughal

break-up

or

with

Plassey,

but

during

the latter half of

the

nineteenth

century"

(p

vii,

emphasis

added).

Two

significant

issues

arise

from

this:

(i)

the

question

of

the

historian's

'convenience'

in

attempting

a

'history

from

below'

and

(ii)

the

quadri-partition

of

history

into

the

water-tight

compartments

of

'ancient',

'medieval',

'modern'

and

almost

as an

after-thought,

'con-

temporary'.

The

first

quality

which

differentiates

'history

from

below'

from

conventional

historiography

is

that

through

'history

from

below'

histo-

rical

learning

is transformed

from an

exercise in

favour of

conservatism

to

an

active

struggle

principally

directed

towards

change

through

"autonomous

popular

movements"

(p

vii).

And,

if

this is

the

concern

of

the

historian,

his

personal

'convenience' has

no

place

in

determining

a

particular

event or

personality

to

be of

significance.

History

is

what

specific

people

in

specific

situations

collectively

and

actively

'recollect'

of their

past

in

understanding

their

present,

living

in

it

and in

attemp-

ting

to

change

it.

As

a

political exercise,

therefore,

it

ought

not

to

be

left

to

be

determined

merely

by

the

pleasure

of

the

ruling

classes or

the

convenience

of

the

professional

historian.

"History

is

much

too

impor-

tant

a

matter to

be left

to

the

historian."8

Ruling

classes

and

groups

have

always

attempted

to

control

history,

invoking

the

secrecy

of

the

archives,

controlling

historical

knowledge,

practising

deliberate

occulta-

tion

and

falsification,

ruthlessly

uprooting

and

destroying

evidence of

47


8/27


9/27

HISTORY IN PRESENT

TENSE

In the

concrete

situation

of

Indian

capitalism,

such

a

statement

has

the

implication

that such

relations are mere

'pre-modern'

remnants

in

the

sweeping away

of which

the

'national

bourgeoisie'

has

an

interest

and

significant

role.

An

unquestioning adoption

of

the

terminological

parameters

of

imperialism

thus

leads the

author,

for

instance,

to

make

this studied

statement

in

describing

a

process

in

"what

is

recognisably

'modern'

India"(p

vii)

The inherent contradication

can

only

be

glossed

over

if

one

takes a

bourgeois,

modernistic,

narrowly

technicist

view

of

progress,

a

view

wherein

the

dominant

actors

are still

above

the

people

and

not

participants

in

a

'history

from

below'.

The classification of a

period

of

our

history

as that of

"recogniza-

bly 'modern' India" springs from the compartmentalisation of human

activity:

progressive

industry,

modern

technology,

semi-feudal

agri-

culture,

backward

social

relations,

'tribal'

rituals,

ancient

caste-systems,

primitive

bride-burning,

and

weaving

it all into

a

fabric

created

by

early

bourgeois

historical

optimism,

a

certitude of

progressive

and

uninterrupted

improvement

of

living

conditions of

the

human race-a

certitude

in

linearity

shared with

the

emergent bourgeoisie

by

the

Stalinist

strand within

Marxism.

True,

historical

optimism

was not

absent from

the

thinking

of Karl Marx

himself,

but what

the

principles

of progress in Marx's writings mean is that, in the long run-and only

in

the

long

run-all

human

societies

are

capable

of

progressively

freeing

themselves,

which

is

quite

different

from

the

conception

of

automatic

progress

regardless

of

what

happens along

the

way.

"The

modes of

production

and

socio-economic

forms

of

organisation

as

defined

by

Marxist

theory

are

abstract

models.

And

as

abstract models

they

are

indispensable.

In

reality,

however,

passage

from

one

system

to another

is not a

mechanical

process.

Concrete

history

is

unfinished,

incomplete.

It

consists of

detours,

gaps,

obstacles,

take-offs,

shortcuts, survivals,

reversals-and even of regressions and retreats. The study of these

complex phenomena

has

been

consistently

over-looked

by

narrowly

specialised

historians.

They

have

abandoned

it

to

the

'philosophers

of

history'

in

the worst

sence

of the

word-the

practitioners

of

empty

rhetoric,

babbling

for

page

on

end

about

the

tumultuous

March of

Tinme...."11

And,

the

unquestioning,

uncritical

historian

has

taken

for

granted

that

because the

Indian

bourgeosie

is

recent,

its

India

has

to

be

'recognizably

modern

India'.

The

historian

of

'modern India'

having

adopted

the

starting

date

of 1885 "for

convenience",

takes as the

ending

date,

the

apocalyptic

midnight

in

August

1947: "the millions

who

rejoiced

throughout

the

sub-continent,

thrilled

to

Nehru's

midnight

speech

on

Indian's

'tryst

with

destiny'

and

made

of

15

August

an

unforgettable

experience

even

for

someone

who was

then

only

a

child,

and not

been

entirely

deluded.

The

Communists

in

1948-51 learnt

to

their

cost that

the

slogan

yeh

azadijhuta

(sic)

hai

('this

freedom

is

a

farce')

cut

little ice.

Indian

freedom

was

the

beginning

of

a

process

of

decolonization

which

has

49


10/27

SOCIAL

SCIENTIST

proved

irresistible...."

(p

453).

Going

on

to

write

on

the

achievements

of

post-independence

India in

terms

of

development

of

"an

independent

foreign

policy,"

promulgation

of

"a

broadly

democratic

constitution...

despite many

limitations",

gradual

easing

out

of

princes

and

zamindars,

imposition

of

land

ceilings

(seldom imposed,)

achieving

"the old

ideal

of

linguistic

reorganisation

of

states",

building

up

of

basic

industries

through

planned

development

of

a

public

sector,

considerable

increase

in

food

production

(pp

3-4 and

454),

Sumit

Sarkar

himself

says:

"None

of

this

happend

automatically

due

to

August

1947,

for much

of

it

was

only

realised

through

bitter

popular

struggles"

(p

454).

Nevertheless,

he

ends his

attempt

at

'history

from below'

at

1947,

an

example

of

"the

heroic

climax to which all earlier endeavours inevitably

lead".'2

At

another

place,

Sarkar,

commenting

on

the

Cambridge

scholars,

says,

"Namierism

tends in fact

to

by-pass periods

of

big

movements:

thus

Bayly's

otherwise

valuable

study

of Allahabad

ends

abruptly

in

1920"

(p

8).

Could

not a similar

criticism

be made

of

the

present

otherwise

valuable

study

? Or

does

the

rooting

of the

state

"in

the choice

of

a

broadly

capitalist

path

of

development"

(whatever

'broadly'

may signify)

represent

enough

of

an

apocalypse

to

end

an

attempt

at

"history

fiom

below" ?

Given that both the beginning has more to do with convenience

of the

author

and the

exercise ends

at

outlining

"a

complex

process

of

change

through struggle

which is still

far from

complete"

(p

454),

what

then

is

the

significance

of

"history

from

below"

?

A

rough page

count

indicates that

if

one-third

of the

book

talks of

activity

at

the

popular

level,

nearly

twice

as much

space

and attention

is

devoted

to

the

"acti-

vities,

ideals of

factional

manoeuvres

of

leaders".

Analysis

of

space

distribution

is of

course

not the

way

to

arrive

at

the

approach

of an

author:

'above' can

be

studied

from

'below'

and vice

versa,

but if

the

sections on the 'above' stand by themselves, without reference to the

'below'

(e

g

'The

Viceroyalty

of

Curzon',

'Business

Groups

and

Upper

Classes' 'The

Mahatma's

Finest

Hour')

then

not much

distinguishes

such

history

from

the

"usual

tendency

in the

historiography

of

Indian

nationalism".

Furher,

if activities

of

the

people

are

put

in

the

context

of

the

actions,

ideals

or

factional

manoeuvres

of leaders

(e

g,

the

peasant

movements

at

Champaran

and

Kheda

and

the workers'

struggle

at

Ahmedabad

under

the

rubric

of

'Mahatma

Gandhi'

(pp

183-186)

or

under

titles

such

as

'Congress

and

Labour',

'Congress

and Kisans'

etc)

the

attempt

becomes

not so much to

explore

the

possibilities

of a

'history

from

below'

but

merely

to

estimate

the

influence

of

popular

'pressures'

on

the

decisions

and

actions

of

the

elite.

As

Sumit Sarkar himself

says,

"...the

decisions

and

actions

of

leaders,

British

or

Indian,

cannot

really

be

understood

without

the

counterpoint provided

by

pressures

from

below"

(pp

414).

Note the

word

'counterpoint',

another

value loaded term

used

uncritically.

The

implication

of such a classification

of

popular

action

is

to

make

the

people

appear

merely

reactive,

objects

of the actions

of

50


11/27

HISTORY IN

PRESENT

TENSE

the

elite,

not

really

capable

of

autonomy.

Hence,

the

emphasis

is

not

on

the

people,

not

'history

from below' but

on

the

elite,

British

or

Indian,

in

power

or outside its formal

structure.

Witness,

"The

British( )

did

build

in

India

an

impressive

railway

network..."

(p 64),

"The

net

result

(of

Curzon's

administration)was

the

beginning

of

quite

a

new

phase

in the

history

of

Indian

nationalism"

(p

101),

"...Nationalist

( )

interest

in labour

slumped suddenly" (p

119),

"student recruits

to

Extermism...were

also

quickly

drawn

into

terrorism,

since

prospects

for

mass

politics

were

evidently

( )

poor"

(p

126),

"Indian

Communist

groups

on

the whole

tried to work within

the nationalist

mainstream"

(p

249),

"...nationalist

collapse

of

1932-33"

(p

257,

"(Congress)

did

raise the demand, however, for universal sufferage for adult of both

sexes,

... a

significant

comment, this,

on the

oft-repeated

argument

that

the Indian

nationalists

were

elitist

politicians,

white

rulers

were

seeking

to

protect

the

interests

of

the

masses"

(p

264),

"Nationalist

support

for

labour

came easier

in

Bengal

than

elsewhere..."

(p 269),

"...it

must

be

emphasised

that

the

anti-imperialist

movement

in

the

world's

biggest

colony

did enter

a

radically

new

phase

when

at

midnight

on New

Year's

Eve,

the

Congress

at

long

last

adopted

the

creed

of

Puma

Swaraj..."

(pp

283-284,

emphasis

added),

"...militant

students

fanning

out

from

centres.. and leading a veritable peasant rebellion..." (p 395, emphasis

added),

"The

strikes,

however,

were

all

on

purely

economic

demands;

what

remained

lacking

was a

sufficiently

influential

and

determined

political

leadership"

(p

439,

emphasis

added),

"The

historically

much

more

significant

point

surely

is

that

Nehru's

opposition

was

sufficient

to

make Mountbatten

abandon,

a

plan

.."

(p

448,

emphasis

added)

and

so

on

Altogether

a

grin

list of

attributing popular

achievements

to

the

elite,

taking

an

undifferentiated

view

of

'culture'

seeing

nationalism

to

be

a

monopoly

of

only

a

section

at

the

top, understanding

popular pressure

as

the doing of leading individuals, etc, scarcely a 'history from below'

'History

from

below'

would

begin

with

the

rejection

of the

rhetoric

of the

elite

rather

than its

reinforcement

and

sanctification

through

adept

usage.

Calling

on

'history'

to

buttress its

position

is

an

old trick

of

the

rulers

who

invoke

the

'Tryst

with

Destiny'.

The

critical

historian,

attempting

a

'history

from

below'

sees

through

the

charade

and

asks not

only

what

history

is

about but

also

what is

historyfor.

He

concerns

himself

with

the uses

of

history-by

the

rulers

and

by

the

people.

The

past

is

dead,

as

dead

as

the

human

beings

who

made

it.

The

only

reason,

beyond

sheer

antiquarianism,

to

be concerned

with

the

past,

is

to

gain

insight

into

the

present

and

a

glimpse

into

possible

futures.

Seen

in

this manner

history

becomes

an

active

discipline,

used

not

merely

to

understand

society

and

to

wait

for the

logical,

'historical',

inevitable

culmination,

but

indeed a

weapon

of

change.

And,

as

a

weapon

of

change,

'history

from

below'

becomes

live, vital,

uncompromising,

sharp,

even

insurrectionary

(just

as

insurrectionary

sociology

came

about in

the

late

'sixties).

As

such,

history

from

below

throws

away

its

51


12/27


13/27

HISTORY

N PRESENTTENSE

the

1885-1905, 1905-1917,

1917-1927,

1928-1937,

1937-1945,

1945-1947

division which

is

episodic

and

hinged

on

'apocalyptic'

events like the

founding

of the

Congress,

the

viceroyalty

of

Curzon,

the Montford

Reforms,

the

appointment

of the Simon

Commission,

the formation of

'popular'

ministries

in

the

provinces,

the Second World

War

and,

of

course,

the famous

midnight

in 1947. If

the

mould

is

elitist,

the cast-

ing

cannot

be

popular.

A

non-episodic understanding

of

history

draws

the historian back from

a

futile search

for

"rounded

general

studies"

and

brings

him

to the

realisation

that historical truth

can be

revealed

even

through

"microstudies"

albeit "recent"

(e

g,

Kathleen

Gough,

1974;

K

Suresh

Singh,

1966;

etc).

Such

a

history

from

below

would

certainly not "prefer to express patriotism through (a) ... vicarious but

safe

medium"

(p 5)

exhibited,

for

instance,

in

remarks such

as

"The

very

use of

the term

'elite'

is

dubious...

as

the

one

genuine

and

truly

exclusive elite

in

colonial

India

consisted

of

the

whites"

(p

67),

nor

would

it

automatically

accept

the

term

"separatism"

(p

255)

to

chara-

cterise

'tribal' demands.

Such

usage

makes for

a

history

which

is

neither

from below

nor

ostensibly

from

above. But

the

"unstated or

unconscious

bias

(which)

is the

most

dangerous

of

all"

(p

11)

lets it

hang

uncertainly

in

the

middle,

at the will

of

the

ruling

classes,

search-

ing for the "true elite" (p 67), "mainstream of Indian life" (p44),

"Indian

unity" (p

255),

"continuity

through

change" (p

11).

III

To be

fair to the

author,

however,

it

must

be

recorded that

writ-

ing

history

from below is

not

his main

concern:

"The

sudden

expansion

of research

on modern India

over the last

decade

has

made

existing

text

books

and

general

studies

seriously

out

of date.

Something

like

a

synthe-

sis,

however

provisional

or

incomplete,

of

this

wealth

of

new material

has become essential, and that is the main purpose of this volume"

(p

8,

emphasisadded).

In

this

task,

Sumit

Sarkar

has

succeeded

admirably.

His

coverage

of the vast

quantities

of

material.

supplemented

through

independent

research,

is

presented

lucidly

without

the

jerks

of

style

which

ars difficult

to avoid in

academic

writing.

A

refreshing aspect

of the

book

is

the non-use

of that

irritating symbol

of

professional

acad-

emics,

the

footnote.

Compared

to

most

other

works

on

the

subject,

the

present

book is

outstanding

in

its

scope

and

coverage.

The

warp

of

independent

research and

the woof

of

recent

historiography

have

made for a smooth

fabric,

albeit

shaded

tricolour.

If,

therefore,

on

account of

some

unanswered

questions

jerks

are

felt

here and

there

in

going through

the

book,

their

impact

seems

so

much

more

exagger-

ated

just

because

the

rest

makes

for

such

smooth

reading. Precisely

because the book

is

so

comprehensive,

the

reader

may expect

in

it

answers

to

all

questions

arising

from

reading

it,

forgetting

perhaps

that

some

of

those

questions

may

have

appeared

important

enough

to

the

professional

historian to

attempt

an

answer.

Nevertheless,

as

some

of

53


14/27

SOCIAL SCIENTIST

these

questions

seem

to

the

lay

reader

to

be

important

from

a

contemporary

perspective-and

history

does

concern

itself

with

the

present-it

is

worthwhile

raising

some

of

those

questions.

One

prolem

which

arises

in

any

discussion of "what is

recogniz-

ably

modern

India"

revolves

round

the

heterogeneity

of

India,

its

uneven

development, regional

and

sectional

disparities,

the

"unity

in

diversity"

that

is

often

upheld

by

the

proponents

of

"national

integration"

and centralised

socio-political

control.

Such

dis-

parities

are

often recorded

in

the

book

but there

is

neither

an

adequate

explanation

of

their

occurrence

in the

period

covered

nor

of

their

impact

in

subsequent

times.

The

most

important

of

these

springs

to mind at the very

end of

the

book.

If,

the

question arises,

the

proce-

sses

outlined

in

the

very

end

of

the

book

historically

lead to

what

is

the

India

today:

decolonised,

pursuing

an

independent

foreign policy,

non-aligned

and

friendly

towards socialist

countries,

with

a

broadly

democratic

polity,

basic

industries,

planned

development,

etc:

why

is

it that the

same

processes

had different

results

in

India

and Pakistan

?

Surely,

the commonness

of

historical

exprience

at least

over

the

period

covered,

1885-1947,

should

have ensured

not

such

dissimilar

results.

Or,

is

history

really

subservient

to the

present

rather

than

the

other

way round? Has Pakistan come out of the same continuity through

change

which

characterises

what

is

recognisably

modern

India ?

This

unexplained

difference

apart,

there

are

many

other

quest-

ions

which

also

arise

in

the context

of

regional

disparities

in

the

history

of

India.

For

instance,

a

section

on

"Social

Roots

of the

Intelligentsia"

(pp

65-70)

reports

that

in

1886-87

there

were

18,390

"educated

natives"

in

Madras,

16,639

in

Bengal,

7,196

in

Bombay

(all

nodal

points

of

contact

with

the

British),

but

only

1,944

in

Punjab,

608

in the

Central

Provi-

nces

and

274

in

Assam.

Yet

in

spite

of this

disparity

of

numbers

bet-

ween the Presidencies and the hinterland a claim is made that "Engilsh

education

gave

its

beneficiaries

a

unique

capacity

to

establish

contacts

on

a

countrywide

scale"

(p

66).

One

wonders

if

such

contacts

were

uniform

or

of

equal

efficacy

on

a

'

country-wide

scale". Secondly,

what

has

been

the result

of these different

numbers

of

'educated

nati-

ves'

in

different

areas

on the

subsequent

development

of

the

areas

themselves?

Could

the

present

events

in

Punjab

and

Assam

be

explai-

ned,

at

least

partially,

in

terms

of the

emergence

of

middle

class

(madhyabitta-sreni)

consciousness

and

politics"

(pp

65-68)

in

those

areas

later

than in the

relatively

quieter

Presidency areas? If so, what

is

the

explanation

for

the situation

in the Central

Provinces

(Madhya

Pradesh)

today

?

The

regional

unevenness

crops

up

again

the

descriptions

and

analyses

of

various

'nationalist'

movements.

For the

period

1905-08

(pp

111-135)

there

is

no

mention

of what

happened

in 'Native

India'

and

hardly any

account

of what

happened

even

in British

India's

Hindi

heartland'.

Did

nothing

happen

there

worth

noting

?

If

not,

what

54


15/27

HISTORY

IN PRESENT

TENSE

were

the

causes

? In

Indian

history,

analysing

what

happened

in

some

areas is

only

as

important

as

explaining

what

did

not occur in

other

areas

because

together they

constitute

the

reasons

for

what exists

in

today's

totality

of

the

Indian

polity.

Indeed

an

interesting

feature

recorded

later

(pp

153-156)

relates

to

the areas

where

'Movements from

Below' occurred

during

1905-1917;

it

is curious that

these

happened

in

areas where

swadeshi

and other

such

movements

are

not recorded.

These

two

types

of'regional responses'

seem

unconnected.

But

were

they

really

discrete

phenomena

?

The

analysis

is

lacking,

as

it

is

also

regarding

why

in

1921-22,

"Bihar

and

the United

Provinces"

during

Non-cooperation suddenly

became

"

...the

strongest

bases

of

the

Congress" (p 222). And,

where

there

is

some analysis, e g, "Aram-

bagh

was

certainly

not

an

area of rich

peasant

development,

though

in

this

it

may

not

have

been

typical

of

most

Gandhian

rural

bases"

(p

231);

the

analysis

is neither

consistent nor

adequate.

Were

"most

Gandhian rural

bases"

really

"areas of

rich

peasant

development"

?

If

so,

why?

On the

other

hand,

discussing

1942,

the

author

says,

"In

general,

one

may

hazard

the tentative

hypothesis

that

regions

marked

by

some

amount of

agricultural

progress

and

the

emergence

of

a

prosperous

and broad

rich

peasant

upper

stratum

tended to

keep

away

from the 1942 rebellion" (p 403). On the face of it, these generalisa-

tions

appear

far too

facile

to

be

convincing.

There

is

not

only

an

element of

inconsistency

in

these

analyses

but

there

are

too

many

exceptions

recorded

to

make

the

analyses

seem

valid.

The

inadequacy

of

analysis

is

apparent

even if

one

considers

what is recorded

about

just

one

typical

region,

Bihar.

The

deindustriali-

sation of

Gangetic

Bihar

between

1809

and

1901,

studied

in

detail

by

Amiya

Bagchi,

is

noted

by

Sumit

Sarkar

with

the

remark,

"The

sufferings

of

artisans

have

to

be

kept

in

mind

as a

significant

factor in

the understanding of many movements of our period..."

(p 30).

However,

there

is

no

mention of

the

role of

artisans

or

the

effect

of

their

suffering

in

the

analysis

of

any

subsequent

movement in

Bihar.

He records

the

similarity

of

land

relations

in

Bengal

and

Bihar

and

rightly

observes

"a

mass of

intermediate

tenures below

them(zamindaries)

providing

the

major

economic

basis

for

the

Bengali

Bhadralok"

(p

33).

But

there

is

no

discussion of

why

a

similar

bhadralok

did

not

develop

in Bihar and

play

a

comparable

role

there

in

the

'nationalist'

movement.

Then

there

is

the

curious

understanding

of

the

working

class,

based

on

giving

card-of-membership

of the class

primarily

to

male

wage

workers

in

organised

industries--the classical

limiting

of

the

'proletariat'

numerically

and

hence

also

politically-exhibited

in

statement

such

as,

"East U

P,

Bihar and

Madras

Presidency

constitued

the

main

catch-

ment

areas

for

the

flow

of

labour to

eastern

Indian

plantations,

mines

and

factories,

and

the

working

class

of

the

Calcutta

industrial

area

thus

became

predominantly

non-Bengali"

(p

41).

The

effect of

this

non-local

component

of

the

working

class

in

metropolitan

areas

like

55


16/27

SOCIAL

SCIENTIST

Calcutta

in terms

of

its "trade

union

and

political consequences"

(p

42)

is recorded:

"... middle-class

philanthropy

died

away

in

Calcutta

in

the

1890s as

up-country immigrant

labour

from eastern

UP and

Bihar

increasingly

displaced

Bengalis

in the

jute

mills"

(p 61,emphasis

added).

What

is not

analysed

in

depth

is the effect

of

this

kind of

emigration

on

the

agrarian

situation

in

estern

UP

and

Bihar or

its

impact

on

socio-political

developments

in

those

regions.

The

"carry-over"

of

community-consciousness

rather

than

a

clear

recognition

of

class

by

the

immigrant

workers

and their

"popular

communalism"

(p 79)

is

recognised

but

there

is no

mention

as

to whether

peasant

radicalism

in

their

'home'

areas

had

any

impact

on

their

new

being

and

consciousness just

as artisan radicalism

had

affected the

making

of the

English

working

class.

And,

if it

had no

effect,

then

why

not

?

For the first

thirty

years

of

the

period

covered,

the

focus of

attention

is

so

much

on

Bengal,

Madras,

Punjab

and

Bombay,

that

significant

regional

trends

in

other

areas-of

fairly

profound

consequence

later

on-are

missed.

For

instance,

the

otherwise

comprehensive

account

of

the

partition

of

Bengal

and

the

protest

movements

subseq-

uent

to

it,

take

no

notice

of what

happened

in,

for

example,

Bihar.

The

steady growth

of

the

madhyabitta

shreni

(middle

class

intelligentsia)

there is ignored, as is the anti.Bengali movement in Bihar (a precursor

of

today's

tragic

events

in

Assam)

which

began

then

and

gathered

intensity

after

the

revocation

of

the

partition

of

Bengal,

creation

of

Bihar

and Orissa

as

a

province

and

the

transfer of

a

very

large

number

of

clerical

government

employees,

lawyers

and other

professionals-the

backbone

of

themadhyabitta

shreni-from

Dacca

to Patna

consequent

on

their

being

rendered

redundant

in

East

Bengal.

Taking

notice

of

such

phenomena

would

perhaps

not have

been

important,

if

history

were

to

concern

itself

exclusively

with

spectacular

episodes

which

occurred in the past. But if history is a method to elucidate significant

trends

in

the

present,

the

contemporary

lack

of

integration

among

peoples,

their

division

into

linguistic,

communal,

casteist

and

other

groups,

and

their

deep

and

yet

"vicarious"

(pp

5,

84)

involvement

in

narrowly regional

and

sectional movements

cannot

be

ignored.

Their

historical

antecedents

must

be

investigated

in

greater

detail

than

by

merely

recording,

for

instance,

that "The educated

Bengali

with

his

lead

in

jobs

and

professions

was

very unpopular

among

his

neighbours"

(p

164).

Neither

does

there

apper

to

be

any

element

of

understanding

of the role of the

people

in

history

in a bland statment like "... in Bihar

an

agitation

by

Kayastha

professionals

under Sachchidananda

Sinha

for

a

separate

province...accompanied

and

followed

the

formation

of

the

new

province

of

Bihar

and Orissa

in 1911"

(p

164,

emphasis

added).

Its

correctness

or

incorrectness

apart,

the

'internal

colony' argument,

manifesting

itself

in

the

Assam-type

movements,

the

popularity

of

the

blatantly

regionalist

sentimentst

as

expressed

throgh

the Shiva

Sena

in

Maharashtra

and

'Sons

of

the

Soil'

demands

elsewhere,

needs

to

56


17/27

SOCIAL

SCIENTIST

revival

... of

the

(large

and

spectacular)

anti-zamindar

peasant

agitation

which had

plagued

the

Darbhanga

estate

in

1920,

and from which the

Bihar

Congress leadership

had

firmly

dissociated

itself"

(p

22).

For

an

understanding

of what

happened

in

Bihar,

as in the case of other

areas,

the

focus

of

attention

must

shift

to

the

activities

of

ordinary

people

rather

than

of

the leaders

even

though they might

have been certified

by

the Mahatma himself.

Except

for

brief references

to

the"more

radical

and

more

genuinely

plebian

movements"

(p

243)

of

the 'intermediate' castes

in

the

1920s

for

the

improvement

of their social status

and to

the role

of Subhas

Bose

in

the labour

movement

in

Jamshedpur

(p

270)

the

story

of the labour

movement

having

been

gleaned

from the

correspondence

between

G D Birla and

Purshottamdas

Thakurdas,

the

leading lights

of

Indian

capital,

when Bihar next

emerges

in

the

book,

it is as

a

"well established

Gandhian

stronghold"

(p 291)

clubbed as

such

with

Gujarat,

U

P

and

coastal

Andhra.

There

is,

of

course,

no

explanation regarding

how

these

areas

in

general

and

Bihar

in

particular

become

part

of the

"well-established

Gandhian

stronghold".

However,

facts

regarding

the

leading

role of

the

Gandhian

approach

in

the

politics

of

Bihar are

produced

as

evidence

in

a tautological manner: "In the countryside, the early 'official' type of

Gandhian

Civil

Disobedience

had

its

natural

starting points

and

strongest

bases

in

pockets

which

had

already

witnessed some

amount of

Gandhian

rural

constructive work

through

local

asramas-Bardoli

and

Kheda

in

Gujarat,

Bankura

and

Arambagh

in

Bengal,

Bihpur

in

Bhagalpur

district

of

Bihar,

to

give

only

a

few

better

known

examples"

(p

293).

The asramas

in

other

provinces

may

have

carried

out

Gandhian rural

constructive

work,

but the area

around

the one

in

Bihpur

did not

witness

much,

if

any,

of that sort of

activity.

There

is

certainly

no

legacy

of

such rural "constructive" work in that area which is at the meeting point

of

the

enormous

illegal

estates

of

three

of

the

notoriously

largest

land-

owners

in

today's

India.

In

1931

too,

a

contemporary

official

record

(verified

by

many

villagers

around

the area

and

even

some

inmates

of

the

Bihpur

asrama)

says,

activities

other than

Gandhian rural

contructive

work

were

being

carried

out;

"In

Bhagalpur,

a

regular

camp

had

been

started

at

Bihpur,

where volunteers

were

lodged

in barracks

and

were

taught

drill and lathi

play,

the

whole routine

being

regulated

by

bugle

call"'5

a

set-up

not

quite

in

keeping

with the

Mahatma's

certificate

to

Bihar's leaders that

they

"understand the true

spirit

of non-violence".

A whole series

of

events,

described as

"instances

of

lower-class

mili-

ancy"

(p

305)

show

that

describing

Bihar

as

a

"Gandhian

stronghold"

is

incorrect,

just

as it

is an incorrect

understanding

which is

reflected

in

the

observation,

"It

is

significant

that

the autonomous Kisan

Sabha

move-

ment

which

had

started

developing

in Bihar

under

Swami

Sahajanand

in

1929

seems

to

have

totally

disappeared

in

the next

year,

swamped

by

the

atmosphere

of

multi-class national

unity;

it

would revive

only

after

58


18/27

HISTORY

IN

PRESENT TENSE

be

considered

seriously.

And,

for such

a

consideration,

for

a

historical

understanding

of

the

phenomenon,

it

is

necessary

to

reverse the

past-

present

relationship

in

historical

scholarship.

The reel

must

be wound

backwards.

But

sticking

for

the time

being

to a

straight chronological

narrative

in

the

book

with

particular

reference

to

Bihar,

we

find

the

province

making

its

next

appearance

only

in

the context

of

the celebrated

Champaran

Satyagraha

of 1917.

There

too,

the focus

of

attention has

only

been shifted

downwards

from

tile

Mahatma himself

through

the

"small-

town

intelligentsia

(vakils

like

Rajendra

Prasad

(how'he

can be classi-

fied

as a member

of

the small-town

intelligentsia

is

another

matter),

A N

Sinha,

or

Braj

Kishore

Prasad,

or

the

Muzaffarpur College

teacher

J

B

Kripalani-the

'subcontractors'

of

Judith Brown)"

to

"a

somewhat

lower

stratum

of

rich

and

middle

peasants"

(p

183).

There

is

no

explanation

as

to how

in

Champaran

where

"..

psychological

impact

(of Gandhi)

far

surpassed

the

concrete

activities..."

(p

184,

emphasis

added),

"Gandhi

acquired

the

reputation

of a man who could

take

up

local

wrongs

... and

usually manage

to

do

something

concrete about

them"

(p

183,

emphasis

added).

The account adds

to

the notion of the

'magic'

wrought

by

Gandhi

rather

than

constituting

any

attempt

at

de-

mystification. It does not explain why this "area of rich peasant

development"

where Gandh's

"indispensable" (p

156)

intervention

raised

a

local

issue

"to the level

of all-India

politics"

(pp 155-156),

where

Gandhi

personally

"left behind

him

a

group

... for

constructive

village

work",

there

did not

develop

a "Gandhian

rural base":

"...only

three

village-level

workers were

still

active

by

May

1918"

(p

184).

In

spite

of

this

apparent

initial

'consumer

resistance'

in

Bihar

towards

the

'hard-sell'

of Gandhian

mumbo-jumbo,

we find four

years

later

(1921)

that

"Bihar

won the

Mahatma's

praise

as 'a

Province in

which the most solid work is being done in connection with Non-

cooperation.

Its leaders

understand

the true

spirit

of

non-violence

"

(p

221,

emphasis

added).

An

attempt

to

explain

the massive

participation

in

Bihar

in the

anti-imperialist

struggle

in

terms

of

its

having

developed

into

a "Gandhian

rural base"

is not

satisfactory

in

spite

of the

Mahatma's

own contentment

with

the

quality

of the

Congress leadership

in

Bihar.

The

explanation

has

to

be

sought,

outside the Gandhian

paradigm;

in

the

"populist

groundswell

virtually

forcing

more

radical

courses"

(p

198),

in

the

continuing

peasant

unrest,

albeit

unspectacular,

and in

agitation

by

other sections at the lower levels of the social and

economic

hierarchy.

In this

respect

"sporadic

incidents

like...hat-looting

... the

attack

on

Giridih

... an

epidemic

of illicit distillation

...

wides-

pread

tension...

over

appropriation

of traditional

village

pastures

by

zamindars

and

indigo planters

..

dispute(s) regarding

grazing rights...

(possible)

no-tax movement

... and ... exodus

from mines

..."

(pp 221-222)

are

of

much

greater

significance

than either

that

"its

(Bihar's)

leaders

understand

the true

spirit

of non-violence"

or

that

"there

was

no

57


19/27

HISTORY

IN PRESENT TENSE

the

defeat

of Civil

Disobedience

in

1933-34..."

(pp

304-305,

emphasis

added).

Even

a

contemporary

official

publication,

concerned

more with

the

official

Civil Disobedience

than with

agrarian

movements,

noted

that "the lawless

spirit

born of civil

disobedience

was

always

liable

to

drive

tenants

to violence

when

any

dispute

occurred between

them

and

the

landlord".l6

Non-official

publications

and

unpublished

records

and

many

participants

in

such

struggles testify

that

tenants

continued

to

agitate

militantly

and

organised

themselves

into Kisan

Sabhas

which

were

formed

in

Patna,

Gaya, Mungher, Chemparan

and

Palamau,

"where

the

genuine

grievances

of the

raiyats

gave

new life

to

the

local

Kisan

Sabha,

but

agitators

used

the

opportunity

to

preach

non-payment

of rent and chowkidari tax, the wholesale cutting down of the jungle,

and

physical

resistance

to

the

landlords'

agents".17

Swami

Sahajanand,

who had

kept

himself aloof

from

the

Civil

Disobedience

for

a

large

part

and

was

certainly

not

"swamped

by

the

atmosphere

or

multi-class national

unity",

observed: "The

Satyagrah...brought

unprecedented

awakening

among

the

Kisans

...

their

problems

also

came to

the

forefront".18

Clearly,

it

is

wrong

to

see

the

dominance

of

"multi-class national

unity"

over

"lower-class

militancy"

in

Bihar

in

this

period.

Coverage

of

the

history

of

the Kisan

Sabha in

Bihar

in

the

1930s, the largest ever organisation of the working people in the region,

is

so

brief

in

Modern India

that

the

focus

of

attention

is

only

on

its

leadership,

in

particular

on

Sahajanand.

"Sahajanand

was

able

to

quickly

mobilzie

large

sections of

peasants

..and

the

membership

of

Ilis

Kisan Sabha

shot

up..."

(p

33).

Over-emphasis

on

the

role of

the

CSP

(Congress

Socialist

Party)

leadership

and

on

the

formal

organisation

(pp

333,

340)

prevents

an

adequate

appreciation

of

the

force

of

radical

peasant

nationalism,

a

continuous and

growing

pheno-

nienon,

occasionally

exhibiting

itself

in

the

massive

Kisan

support

extended to Subhas Bose in organising the 'Anti-Compromise

Conference'

at

the venue of the

Ramgarh

Congress

Session

in

1940

and

spectacularly revealing

itself

in

the

'August

Revolution'

in

1942. It

is

because

this force is not

taken into

account

adequately

that

tlhe

author

can

talk of "the

relative

weakness

of

the

national

movement

between

1939 and

1941"

(p

383);

and

the

description

of

the

'Stirring

Events'

and

'Great Deeds'

of

1942

once

again

appear episodic,

spectacular

and

wonderful,

indeed,

one

more

instance

when

"nationalist

Inilitancy

probably

blunted

to

some

extent

the

edge

of

social

radicalism .."

(p403),

"the

very

extent of

anti-foreign

sentiments,

as

in

1857,

possibly

reduced

internlal class

tensions

and

social

radicalism"

(p

398).

Once

again

the

evidence

gleaned

from

even

'official'

sources

which

have

been

referred to

by

Sumit

Sarkar

with

regard

to

Documents

History in the Present Tense - On Sumit Sarkar's 'Modern India' - Das