Indians on Marx and Engels on India
India appeared in the writings of Marx and Engels over a period of about four decades: from the 1840s to the 1880s. The first reference to India — to the Indian gymnosophists, to be specific — appeared in Marx’s doctoral dissertation.1 The Indian caste system is mentioned in The German Ideology.2 The division of labour under the caste system is distinguished from division of labour in the modern workshop, in The Poverty of Philosophy.3 Then came the famous India-related despatches to the New-York Daily Tribune (henceforth, NYDT).4 India figures in the rough drafts and clean copies of the various volumes of the Capital,5 in various letters of Marx and Engels,6 in The Origin of the Family Private Property and the State,7 in Marx’s notes on ethnology,8 history of land relations,9 and Indian history.10 The possibility of some more references to India in the remaining volumes of MEGA2 cannot be ruled out, in view of such long drawn out interest of Marx and Engels in India. The published works of Marx and Engels arrived in India in various stages, mainly in their English rendering, via England, the USA and Soviet Russia. Subsequently, some of these have been translated and written about in a number of codified literary languages of the sub-continent.11 A survey of the entire Indian output in the field is beyond the scope of a single paper or monograph.12 In what follows, I shall first attempt to provide an outline of the background of arrival of the writings of Marx and Engels (I), then a chronology of the arrival of their India-related writings (II) and finally, some notes towards a Rezeptionsgeschichte of these writings (III), in India. The present effort is mainly based on publications in Bengali and Indian English, within my reach.13 I Some capitalist-type enterprises were established in some pockets of British ruled India by the 1830s. A colonial working class was born. Its members came mainly from the traditionally labouring ‘lower’ castes and tribes of India. Colonial commerce and education produced a ‘fresh class’ of Indians, ‘‘endowed with the requirements for government and imbued with European science.’’14 Its members came from the traditionally literate and socially dominant ‘upper’ castes of India. In Bengal they are called bhadralok, well-mannered people. They had irregular and episodic exposure to some of the current European ideas. In the course of their development a conflict arose, between those of them who took a more active, rational and future-oriented approach towards the internal problems of development but were more loyal to the foreign rulers, and those who took up a militant fight against colonialism and imperialism but were passive, past-oriented and negative in their approach to the problems of internal social transformation. At times a single person changed his/her approach at different phases of his/her life.
Raja Rammohun Roy, a contemporary of Hegel, and the first prominent Indian exposed to some aspects of European Enlightenment, espoused the cause of religious, social and educational reform, since his youth. He thought that though the British rule in India was a foreign yoke, yet it ‘‘would lead more speedily and surely to the amelioration of the native inhabitants’’ of India.15 He was also the first Indian to be exposed to some of the current socialist ideas of Europe. In the year 1833, he came in contact with Robert Owen in England.16 A couple of decades later Marx expressed the opinion, that in spite of all its barbarism, the British rule was creating and would create the material preconditions for the future regeneration of India.17 At a time when Marx was sending his first India-related dispatches to the NYDT, the first railway lines were being laid in India. Within a decade the railway workers began resorting to collective action. In 1862, some 1200 workers of the East Indian Railway struck work at the Howrah station, near Calcutta, demanding 8 hour working days, which was already granted to their colleagues in the locomotive department.18 In the same decade, some persons of Indian and European origin jointly established the Bengal Social Science Association. The proceedings of this Association contain some papers pertaining to the conditions and interests of the toiling people of India.19 Marx’s excerpts from Kovalevskij’s book on communal landownership (see n. 9) contain a reference to a paper read at one of the sessions of this Association. 20 Marx also took notes from a book by a member of the same Association 21. These notes contain a reference to another paper read at another session of the Association.22 A member of the ‘fresh class’ of Indians, Shashipada Banerji, organised a Shramajibi Samiti (Labour Union), at Baranagore, near Calcutta, in 1870. In 1871, some people from Calcutta wrote to the General Council of the International Working Men’s Association, expressing their desire to start an Indian Section of the IWMA. The GC of the IWMA advised them to make their section self-reliant and, to include local people in it.23 The fate of this initiative and, the identity of the people associated with it still remain unknown. Shashipada Banerji brought out the first journal for the working class of colonial India, the illustrated monthly Bharat Shramajibi, in 1874. At around the same time, a pioneer of the Romantic trend in Bengali prose, Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyaya wrote a series of articles under the title ‘‘Samya’’ (‘‘Equality’’). 24 Bankim had some acquaintance with the socialist literature of Europe, prior to Marx. He wrote:
‘‘The great tree which Rousseau had planted, through his theory that ‘the land belongs to the common people’, bore ever newer fruits. Europe is full of the fruits of that theory till date. ‘Communism’ is a fruit of that tree. The ‘International’ is a fruit of that tree.’’25
The question of common ownership of land engaged the attention of 19th century scholars in a big way. Marx also dealt with the question a number of times, between the 1850s and 1880s. It is an interesting coincidence, that the name of Marx first appeared in the Indian press, in an article by Jogendra Chandra Ghosh on communal landownership.26 It dealt with the bhaiachara (caste / clan brotherhood) land tenures
and, gotra (gens) relationships — topics that figured in Marx’s excerpts from Kovalevskij (1879).27 It contains references to the reports of the Collector of Azimgarh, James Thomason — also studied by Kovalevskij and excerpted by Marx.28 Ghosh compared the land relations within the Russian mir and, the German clans at the time of Tacitus, with the same amidst the Indian gotras, and wrote :
‘‘An attempt to trace the social history of a time anterior to the formation of the village communities, and that, too, in a country where historical records are almost unknown, may, I fear, provoke ridicule if not contempt. And I shall not meddle with antiquarian researches of this description, but certain vital questions of our own day, seem to be connected with the subject. I would not, however, press the point more than to observe, that there is every possibility of a Gotra community having once existed in the country and before the days of some of the most widely prevalent laws of our society . . . And we may thus come, in fact, to obtain a faint glimpse of a probable historical connection between the communism of Russia and Germany, of Lassalle and Marx, on the one hand, and on the other, the communism of our own society — a communism which has become so much like the atmosphere we breathe, that it is my own countrymen who are most incredulous even about the logical identity of the two social phenomena.’’29
Ghosh was, of course, unaware of the fact that Marx had underscored these historical connections, a clear quarter of a century before him, when he wrote:
‘‘Communal property has recently been rediscovered as a peculiarly Slavic curiosity. 30 But in fact India offers us a pattern card of the most diverse forms of such an economic community, more or less decomposed, but still entirely recognisable; and more thorough historical study finds it as the starting point of all cultured people.’’31
Throughout the 19th century a series of efforts were undertaken to stimulate the rising political aspirations of the ‘fresh class’ of Indians. These efforts culminated in the founding of the Indian National Congress, in 1885. A part of this ‘fresh class’ was taking interest in the questions of socialism. The young poet Rabindranath Thakur (Tagore), wrote an article titled “Socialism’’.32 It was based on a treatise on socialism by the British socialist Earnest Belfort Bax (possibly his Religion of Socialism, 1886). Swami Vivekananda (original name Narendranath Datta), the Hindu reformer, declared that he was a socialist.33 Vivekananda thought of socialism in India as the rule of the Sudras, the people of the labouring Varna, out of which grew the labouring castes of India. The problems of emancipation of the castes and tribes and those of capitalism and socialism remain inter-twined in this sub-continent till date. Prominent Indian political figures like Dadabhai Naoroji and Madame Bhikhaji Rustom Kama came in contact with the British socialist Henry Mayers Hyndman, in the first decade of the 20th century.34 Though there was no socialist party in India, Dadabhai Naoroji attended the International Socialist Congress at Amsterdam in 1904.35 Madame Kama and Sardar Singhji Rana attended the next Congress at Stuttgart in 1907.36 The name and teachings of Karl Marx began to draw the attention of sensitive Indians residing in Europe. In 1910, Naginlal H. Setalvad, then residing at London, wrote an article on socialism in an influential Indian journal.37 It was based on a book by Werner Sombart.38 It contained the first major reference to the ideas of Marx and Engels in the Indian press. It mentioned the Manifesto of the Communist Party
in the Malayalam language. the Sikh and Punjabi émigré labour movement in the USA and Canada organised around the Ghadar Party (some of its members operated from the Latin Americas)46. mingled with their newly acquired Bolshevik understanding of Marx. so far. the USA. the communists and their followers were the principal propagators of the teachings of Marx and Engels in India. national. ‘‘a whole series of economic systems’’ grew upon the social formations based on ‘‘decomposed communal property.49 inside the country.42 contained references to Marx. He was personally acquainted with Marx’s grandson Jean Longuet. where. The first Indian monograph on Marx was also published the same year.48 and the Akali movement of the Shikhs. the left wings of the Indian National Congress. The first communist journals from within the country also made their appearance. and had read the American admirer of Charles Fourier and social reformer. the various Hindu terrorist organisations and groups. In all these publications Marx and Engels appeared as the ideological ancestors of Bolshevism.50 The members of these trends carried with them their already acquired castist. patriotic.40 Its author K. share these multi4
. communal. and suggested that a study of the teachings of Karl Marx can provide a vivid idea of the special characteristics of the new socialism of Europe. Both Hardayal and Pillai knew that Marx wrote for the NYDT. Turkey and Afganistan. The first émigré Indian communist analysis of the Indian situation appeared next. Ramakrishna Pillai was a democratically oriented journalist.(1848). The All India Trade Union Congress was established in 1921. the Pan-Islamic Khilafatist Muhajirs45 operating from Afganistan. These are : the émigré patriotic trend44 operating from Germany. a seer. The first Indian monograph contrasting the politics of Gandhi with that of Lenin. the same journal published a biographical sketch of Karl Marx. identified several antiBritish-imperialist trends which went into its formation. and finally. religious. anarchist and socialist understanding of India and the world. xenophobic.47 the Khilafat movement. In his sketch. Exactly two years later. Since then. yet they were not aware of the fact that some of these dispatches were about India.41 The Communist Party of India was founded at Tashkent in 1920.’’ 51 Our politicians and members of the academic community. then teaching Indian Philosophy at the Stanford University. wherein he was called a Rishi — a sage. Some non-communist members of the academic profession also took some initiative. parochial. following the European colonial interventions.43 The émigré communist journals began to arrive clandestinely. Albert Brisbane on Marx. After the Russian revolution of October (November) 1917. the ideas of Marx and Engels began to appear in the Indian press together with the news of Bolshevism and its progress. Who were and are these people? Historians of the communist movement of India have. Hardayal referred to some letters of Marx’s wife Jenny and. Often their ideology was a hybrid of one or more of these worldviews. to the Capital.39 Its author Lala Hardayal was a prominent emigre Indian political activist and scholar. as well as a biography of Marx by John Spargo. These hybrid forms of consciousness arose from a social soil. interested in Marx and Engels.
The history of reception of Marx and Engels in India is unfolding inside this larger history of further articulation of the civil societies in this sub-continent. the courts. though a statutory right. Instead of a civil society giving rise to a corresponding political society. the academic profession in modern India came into existence in a society which was ‘‘not a civil society. a peasant at heart. Sheikhs. colonial and post-colonial periods members of a couple of other ‘upper’ castes — the Kayasthas. The market is the domain mainly of the Banias. Right to property. The attrition of civility and superfluity in the performance of its function in the Indian economy have inhibited intellectual ardour and hampered the growth of intellectual traditions.’’52
According to another view. academic activity was the sole preserve of a thin layer of Brahmans. Narendra Nath
.) of Vatsyayana55 reflect the existence of rule-governed contractual relations. governed by caste-specific paradigms. The currently dominant ‘fresh class’ is a cluster of coalitions of the partially westernized sections of these ‘upper’ castes.C. the executive. France and England — crossbred some Eurasian civil societies in some towns. 53 Within the overall dominance of the varnic / caste-wise division of labour. the political parties. This militates against vertical social mobility. . According to one view. including the communist parties. But there is an important difference among them. Later on this civil society was crossed with several Central Asian and peripheral Persian strains. stagnate. right from the level of child rearing practices. central and lesser elites get fractured. It is still predominantly an ‘upper’ caste preserve.57 Marriages among the majority community of Hindus are still largely casteendogamous and gotra-exogamous at the same time. Vaidyas — entered into the academic profession.E. The Arthashastra (c. straddling several socio-historical time-zones — from that of the hunter-gatherers to that of the netizens — here and now. Manabendra Nath Roy (original name. In the absence of such backcrossing they falter. The present Indian governments are at once extending and limiting their domains. It appears that like the crossbred strains in the plant world and animal kingdom the crossbred civil societies also require continuous backcrossing. for the retention and enhancement of their vitality.) of Kautilya54 and the Kamasutra (c. And being more advanced in scale on which it was carried on than the economic and social structure of the country.-150 C. 300 B. A founder of the Communist party of Mexico in 1919. the linkages among the academic. . The contractual relations they enter into are still largely determined by their caste status in the society. Be it noted that not a single Indian author referred to in the present article belongs to any of the ‘lower’ castes and tribes of India. Finally. the European colonial powers — Portugal. Indian Islam kept it limited among the Ashrafs — Saiyads. though it appears less articulated when compared with its counterpart under capitalism. it could not function as an effective training stage for the central and lesser elites of the country . In ancient India. economy and culture. and the parliament. They have also effectively appropriated the media. the Asiatic mode of production did have a civil society. the industrial worker is a ‘‘peasant manqué’’. is not a fundamental right in India today. a kind of civil society grew in the ancient Indian towns. E. it is a case of a hybrid political society introducing and controlling several hybrid civil societies from above. 300-400 C. In the Mughal. 56 Even in the post-colonial period.faceted forms of modern Indian consciousness. it could not develop a sense of affinity with
the other sectors of the elite — alien and Indian — which ruled the Indian polity. and of the Communist Party of India at Tashkent in 1920.
Karl Marx’s Book the ‘‘Capital’’ is to the Bolshevik what the Geeta [Bhagavad-Gita] is to the Hindu. of the theologization of the Capital and.’’63
‘‘[T]here is a similar relation between the historical and political economic writings of Marx and Stalin’s doctrinal system. wrote. Day by day the very inspirer Karl Marx is passing into a Mythical Being.67 Sarkar defended the change in title with the argument that private property is not the main issue in Engels’ text. Both developments are connected with the process of institutionalization and exercising power. when no longer a communist. Bolshevism has come to acquire a force of religion.’’58 Another early Indian admirer of Bolshevism. Maulavi Mohammad Barakatullah wrote in 1919. that a religion demands. An activist of the anti-British freedom movement. before any other work of Marx or Engels. he observed that questions related to private property are close to Engels’ heart69. in his book called the Republic. submitting itself to changes due to criticism. the main issue there is the history of three centres of human life : the family. the gens and the state. as between the biblical texts and some scholastic system of church doctrine. 68 However. simply a science of politics and economics.
One may add. who later on became one of the leaders of the Communist Party of India. immediately reminds one of Engels’ statement. that he had accepted socialism in 1916. and all that inspired unflinching belief. Christianity and Islam. and widely travelled economist and sociologist.66 II Engels’ Der Ursprung der Familie.59 Barakatullah saw in Bolshevism the fruitition of the spirits. that ‘‘Karl Marx founded the lofty structure of socialism in the 19th century’’ basing himself on the basic principles propounded by ‘‘Plato. culminating in the history of Buddhism in Tibet. but also of Judaism. not only of Plato.Bhattacharya). Professor Benoy Kumar Sarkar prepared a free Bengali rendering of it.’’61
This registration of the religious ‘moment’ in Bolshevism.60 Yet another admirer of Bolshevism. but not ‘‘its materialist philosophy.’’62
Speaking of later Christianity and later Marxism. and got it published from Calcutta. under a changed title. like other sciences. of the mythologization of Marx. that
‘‘The history of primitive Christianity presents peculiar points of affinity with the modern labour movement. the divine man’’. a radical Christian historian of Marxism-in-India observed that:
‘‘Marxism came to India in its generalized catechism form of Marxism-Leninism. or the Bible to the Christian. approvingly wrote in 1921 :
‘‘Bolshevism is not. as well as in the case of the teachings of Buddha and their subsequent transformation. a true Marxian or a Bolshevik will admit of no change in the body of the theories of his faith. while residing at Lugano in Switzerland. des Privateigentums und des Staats was the first text that was translated into an Indian language. that similar relations are also observed in respect of the Vedas and the later codification of brahmanic Hinduism in the Smrtis and in the subsequent commentaries65.
These people are stubborn monists.’’74
In the following year the émigré communist journal Masses reprinted Marx’s NYDT article titled ‘‘The Future Results of British Rule in India. . It draws our attention to the pre-class and non-class social relations and conflicts observed in many parts of the world. Revolution and Counter-revolution in Germany (1851-52). Same is true of the later exact Bengali translations of this text. 71 that the second and third volumes of Marx’s Capital.80 The list of exhibits presented by the government. Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1851).78 The translator. [T]he axioms of economic interpretation are relative. By this time. on any and every sector of any and every society. everywhere shows the marks of Engels’ free editorial hand. India included. Sarkar did not provide any editorial remark or note on the various India-related references found in this text (see n.72 He wrote. P. Dutt’s Modern India (see : n. included R. 1894). did not provide any remark defending the change in title. perhaps. who was then a communist. Rajani Palme Dutt of the Communist Party of Great Britain used some of the India-related writings of Marx and Engels in one of his books on India. containing references to Marx’s
. three volumes of the Capital (1867. under a changed title. Peasant War in Germany (1850).76 Its Bengali translation was serialised in the journal Ganabani. from its 12th issue dated 28 April.’’79
This footnote was added to the 1888 English and 1890 German editions of the Manifesto.73 And that
‘‘The axioms propounded by Marx and Engels are like the axioms of the other sciences. the Anti-Dühring (1878). This is the only India-related footnote added to this text. The Critique of Political Economy (1859). 76) and. the leaders of this party had either read or heard about : the Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848). 70 Sarkar noted.hence. This edition does not contain Engels’ footnote to the famous first sentence of the first section of this text:
‘‘The history of all hitherto existing society* is the history of class struggles. that the opinions and words of Marx and Engels are not to be treated as the Hindus treat the Vedas. Every axiom has its domain. Later on. it was published as a monograph. The Civil War in France (1871) and. .77 The first free Bengali rendering of the Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) was also partly serialised in the same Ganabani.’’75 One does not know how many copies of it reached the readers in India. the Colonial Thesis of the Communist International (1928). as the greatest preceptors of the age. . A year later. In 1929. the leaders of the Communist Party of India were accused of conspiring to violently overthrow the colonial government of India. the subtitle : (An Economic Interpretation of History). Universalist. glossing over of this aspect of the world-historical concerns of Marx and Engels led to many of the later Marxist. 1885. mechanical and dogmatic imposition of the class-struggle schemata. Lack of awareness about or. these are to be tested against facts. before the court. that Marx and Engels are being worshiped by the workers and poor people all over the world. organ of the Bengal Provincial Branch of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Party of India — a legal mass political party that provided cover for the members of the illegal Communist Party of India. 1927. the bigoted followers of Marx-Engels are not ready to accept the relativity of these rules. the ‘‘Gita of Marx’s principles’’. 7 above). However.
under special orders of the court.90 both in India and in the Soviet Union and. excerpts from the reports of the 6th Congress of the Comintern titled ‘‘Effects of Imperialism in the Colonies. popular among the communists. A few copies of some Dutch publications93 arrived in some Indian libraries in the 1980s. as well as from some letters of Marx and Engels dealing with the development and decay of the economy of the village communities of India and. the changes introduced by the British rule in landed property in India. some more of the India-related writings of Marx and Engels were brought out. from Maksim Maksimovich Kovalevskij’s Obshinnoe Zemlevladenie i. but from the USSR. P. within a few years. The Selected Works of Marx and Engels were also available in many Indian language editions.83 also in respect of the introduction of Bolshevism and Marx. published in 1999. with the predatory methods employed by early imperialist capitalism in India. as these were confiscated in the customs under government orders.81 This gave the accused an opportunity to ask for more books. the difference between this mode and European feudalism and. Though the title suggests that it is a selection of Marx’s articles.d. (Moskva.87 It contains an ‘Introduction’ culled from different passages of a second book on India by R. were widely distributed in India. it contains excerpts from the volumes I and II of the Capital. These books were then brought from England. became available in India for the first time in 1938. Similar considerations prompted a Bengali translation of Marx’s excerpts on the history of land relations in India. A somewhat abridged Bengali translation of Marx’s excerpts from John Budd Phear’s ‘‘Modern Village Life in Bengal’’. not in India. Different volumes of the MECW (1975-) were available through a large number of communist-run book-stores. 88 which was. Dutt.’’ A similar selection came out in two editions.86 Joseph Stalin’s ‘‘The Capitalist System and the National Question’’ and.94 The editorial introduction to this translation underscored the fact that Marx’s study of India did not remain static at its 1850s level. and still is. 1879).95 These excerpts of Marx were
. The collapse of the USSR has closed that supply channel. which the communists of India were yet to read. and given to the accused to read in jail. which they had never read or seen.85 some letters of Marx and Engels dealing with Ireland. June 14. After a gap of about 15 years. 1853). Private Property and the State. The Calcutta Review (July and October 1874). A selection of the India-related writings of Marx and Engels. was published in a journal in 1987.84 Its Appendices contained : Marx’s ‘‘Revolution in China and in Europe’’ (NYDT. Related western publications of the same period 91 achieved somewhat limited circulation. The Comintern was its only historical rival in that area. together with a large number of other texts. 82 It appears that the British rule in India was an ‘‘unconscious tool of history’’. from Engels’ Anti-Dühring and The Origin of the Family.89 These publications were then translated into several Indian languages. A soviet publication of the late 1970s92 was more accessible to a larger section of Indian readers.writings on India.t. It was pointed out that these excerpts of Marx are important for a study of the questions related to the Asiatic mode of production.
in December 1925. with the words :
‘Apart from its theoretical value the article shows how remarkably well-informed the writer was at that remote epoch when India was a fabulous terra incognita even to the leading statesmen of Britain.first published in a Russian journal in 1958. S. one does not find any mention of the already published India-specific writings of Marx.2500 B. Private Property and the State. To some it is an unmixed good and to the others an unmixed evil.96 Some 25 years have elapsed since the inclusion of their English rendering in a Dutch publication. introduced Marx’s NYDT article titled ‘‘The Future Results of the British Rule in India’’.P. the critical mind of Marx grasped the historical significance of British conquest of India.103 However. he did not associate the name of Marx with studies in Indian history. when so little was known as to the state of affairs in India. All through its bloody history British domination of India has been either praised or condemned. A month before the first all-India conference of the communists on the Indian soil.100 A leader of the Indian National Congress. Evidently. Having accomplished an historical mission British rule in India became a positive hindrance to the normal progress of the forces let loose by the revolution. N.’’98
The first Indian language summaries of Marx’s NYDT articles appeared in the early 1940s. A.) to the early 1940s.97 Indians.106 Dange was aware of the facts that India did not have labour slavery of the Greek or Roman type. Marx’s general analysis of social development and.C. Roy from abroad. As far back as 1853. 1945). however.105 In reality it was more effectively inspired by the codified historical materialism of the History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks).
The first Indian response to an India-related article of Marx figured in an émigré communist journal. In his own words. Marx indicated the great revolutionary effect that would result from British conquest. in this widely popular tour de force on Indian history. Even today one finds a partial awareness of Marx’s India-related writings. Today we see how correct was the forecast made by Marx. Short Course (Moscow. U. Jawaharlal Nehru published his study of Indian history101 in the late 1940s.102 He also believed that ‘‘Lenin successfully adapted the Marxian thesis’’ to some of the later developments.107 and that
. the monthly Masses. only among some specialists and. The authors of these summaries appreciated Marx’s ‘‘deep insights’’ 99 and ‘‘scientific spirit’’. While bitterly condemning the imperialist robbery. remain almost silent (there appeared only two reviews of the publication indicated in n. 95) about them till today. 104 between October 1942 and January 1943. a somewhat pragmatic concern about the immediate issues of life. from the period of Indus Valley Civilization (c. He claimed that his text closely followed Engels’ The Origin of the Family. issued by M. later on the first Prime Minister of independent India. He declared with his characteristic boldness that effect would not in a mean degree make up for the evil done to India by the British conquerors. Dange drafted his study of Indian history. some members of the older generation of more literate communists. his worldview was a ‘‘mixture’’ of some aspects of the idealism of monist Vedanta. British conquest has had in India the significance of a great revolution. held at Kanpur. while in Jail.
Maine owes an unacknowledged debt to Marx and Engels. which Marx characterized as ‘‘idyllic republics’’. its merit lies in the tendency to dispel some traditional Hindu notions and superstitions from the political and trade union activists? It has this negative merit although it cannot positively teach history. however. to 1850 C.). C.) to the 1950s. Secondly. But it has two merits which should not be overlooked. cannot be explained away even at the level of Indian scholarship of the 1950s. in respect of his belief that
. Bhupendra Nath was a political extremist in his youth. He was aware only of the selection: Karl Marx. He was active in the Berlin committee of the Indian patriots around 1914.’’110
The next such study came from the pen of Dr. Dange posed but did not pursue the question : why the merchant capital of medieval India ‘‘could not grow to the point of giving birth to the bourgeoisie and set bourgeois development going in our country?’’109 Dange did not revise the later editions of his book in the light of subsequent critique of his work. a leader of the working class. 1500 B. the scanty material collected in English regarding the pre-English History of India and the misdirection of Maine have led Marx and Engels to accept the idea that tribal communism or communistic villages. it is written by a trade unionist. On a more pragmatic ground. emanating from non-exposure to the India-related historiagraphic118 and ethnological 119 excerpts of Marx.113 Datta thought that ‘‘Marx was in doubt regarding the institution of private property in land in India. . How could the authors of earlier publications be ‘‘misdirected’’ by a later publication? What is more. but did not join the Communist Party. . Bhupendra Nath Datta. [E]licited wide interest and very severe criticism both in India and abroad. did anthropological research in Germany. In the words of a later communist critic: Dange’s book
‘‘. . It suffers from all conceivable defects. have been repeated by many later authors. existed in India. I predates it. went to Moscow as a member of an Indian delegation in 1921.’’114 He held that Marx’s opinion about Muhammedan responsibility for the principle of ‘no property in land’ throughout Asia.‘‘Marx had not come to a final conclusion’’ about the questions of land relations in India.111 Datta’s study112 offers a bird’s eye view of the land tenure systems in India from the Vedic age (c. He was influenced by the Russian revolution of 1917. Datta’s charge that Marx and Engels were ‘‘misdirected’’ by Henry Sumner Maine.’’117
Most of these criticisms. Later on he studied in the USA and. 200 B. Vol. and that feudalism did not develop in India. younger brother of the Hindu reformer Swami Vivekananda. Articles on India (see n. It deserves all the criticism that any historian can level against it. 87). E. Maine’s book on the village communities120 appeared about two decades after the India-related NYDT articles and letters of Marx and Engels.116 In his opinion:
‘‘. . Even Capital. Firstly.C. as he found it to be too tightly under the direction of the Comintern. 108 But he held fast to his belief in the existence of ‘slavery’ and ‘feudalism’ in India. It has more mythology than history. it is the first work of its kind by an Indian communist who is not a professional historian. He was not aware of the fact that a part of Marx’s excerpts from Kovalevskij’s book on communal landownership covered a part of the same ground (from c. But these very defects have provoked many critical minds to do a better and more systematic study of ancient India.115 was not tenable in the light of modern ‘‘Orientology’’. which is not the best ground.
that the introduction of ploughs in agriculture changed the structure of villages. a numismatist. . [T]hat Marx speaks of all mankind where we deal only with a fraction. mentioned in Marx’s Preface to the Critique of Political Economy (1859). .‘‘he had made a colossal discovery when he said that our entire progress in comparison with previous epochs consisted in our having evolved FROM STATUS TO CONTRACT. the greatest periods of Indian history. anthropologist and historian by preoccupation. a definite theory of history known as dialectical materialism. Though not a communist. in the Pod Znamenema Marksizma. they mark precisely the formation and spread of the basic village society or the development of new trade centres. it should be kept in mind
‘‘.131 Kosambi also did not accept Marx’s dramatic statement that the
‘‘Indian society has no history at all. retrogression. According to him:
. . a mathematician by training and occupation and. and wrote:
‘‘India showed a series of parallel forms which cannot be put into the precise categories. never clearly defined by Marx. were exchanged as commodities. for the mode based on slavery is absent. . linguist. 126 He cautioned that while applying Marx’s approach to Indian history.’’132
In rebuttal Kosambi wrote :
‘‘. and that the forms of state and other aspects of the superstructure changed relative to the density of village units in a given region.123
The Communist Manifesto (1848) predates Maine’s Ancient Law (1861) by more than 12 years.’’128
He knew of some inconclusive discussion on the theme.133 Satavahana. . the Mauryan. from an inherited state of affairs to one voluntarily contracted 121 — a statement which. he was broadly influenced by ‘‘. The next major marxian study of Indian history124 was authored by Damodar Dharmanand Kosambi. .127
According to Kosambi. was contained long ago122 in the Communist Manifesto’’. or evolution by atrophy are possible .’’125 Kosambi knew that Stalin had omitted the Asiatic mode.134 Gupta. archaeologist. in his list of socio-economic formations. For short periods in restricted localities. not produced in most villages. The really vexed question is what is meant by the Asiatic mode of production. insofar as it is correct.
‘‘. . Kosambi asserted that the theoretical basis of his work ‘‘remains Marxist’’. . .’’136
Having levelled all these criticisms on matters of historical detail. feudalism greatly different from the European type with serfdom and manorial economy. . a dead end.’’129
Kosambi did not accept Marx’s statements about a generalized notion of the selfsufficient and unchanging Indian village community.135 owed nothing to the intruders. also called Marxism after its founder.’’. at least no known history. 130 He pointed out that metals and salt. What we call its history is but the history of the successive intruders who founded their empires on the passive basis of that unresisting and unchanging society.
to me. A strident dissenting note came from the eminent epigraphist and historian Dinesh Chandra Sircar. who wrote :
‘‘With the exception of certain late medieval records of Vijayanagara143 speaking of the Amara tenure involving enjoyment of royal land by persons on the condition of supplying soldiers to the king or landlord when necessary. a very fine example of Marxist theory working very well in practice.’’140
Kosambi was evidently unaware of the fact that Marx had some more information about land relations in pre-colonial and colonial south-west India.’’137
He expected the students of Indian history ‘‘to remember that no single mode’’ of production and distribution ‘‘prevailed over the whole country at any one time. . in other fields of his contemporaries. Darwin. Marx’s own failure to publish anything out of the MS of the Pre-Capitalist Economic Formations must be construed as evidence of his hesitation to put forward as his firm opinion what was little more than speculations. They should note that even the Amaranayakas of Vijayanagara were not tied to the soil in the feudal sense. It coloured very deeply most of the official 12
Publication of the English translation of Marx’s manuscripts on the Pre-Capitalist Economic Formations (see n. he freely used the term ‘feudalism’ in respect of precolonial India. Stalinist. Unfortunately Marx had only the solitary report of Buchanan-Hamilton on Karnatak villages.‘‘Marx had a scientific theory. Among the British administrators at that time there was a strong tendency to emphasize the institution of the village community in order to justify a paternalistic form of government.139 not even the Foral of 1640 by the king of Portugal guaranteeing the rights of Goa village communities. historians and economists of India till date. of any tenure even remotely resembling any aspect of the socio-economic system called feudalism that was prevalent in much of Western Europe in the Middle Ages.’’145
Habib was of the opinion that Marx and Engels modified and ultimately abandoned their earlier theory of the Asiatic mode. Ancient Indian records derive from the brahman caste and those who read them pay no attention to the function of caste in ancient — (as well as modern and feudal) — Indian society. Professor Irfan Habib suggested that:
‘‘ . 91) led to some more Indian interventions. and which could not be called ‘hydraulic’ in view of the torrential rainfall.142 This usage is in tune with the dominant practice of the Marxist. which might have to be extended like those. Trotskyist and Maoist politicians. Gauss.’’138 A few years after the publication of ISIH. Maxwell. of yielding verifiable predictions. . but which still has the equal merit of working in practice. which existed in a much more primitive form. Mendeleev. there is no trace. One: Marx’s 1850s remarks on India
‘‘had been based on a reading of English parliamentary papers and Bernier’s Travels.141 Though Kosambi refused to periodize early Indian history within the formats of Slavery or Asiatic mode of production. Indian history is. where Goa is situated. Leninist. in ancient and medieval India. Kosambi wrote :
‘‘The real difficulty here (not in China) is the misleading documentation. But some writers are inclined to confuse Indian landlordism with European feudalism.146 Why? Habib suggested ‘‘two reasons’’.
and if so what is the better alternative general formulation.’’153
‘‘Some time back there was a tendency to dismiss this as a distinct social formation . These passing reflections cannot therefore be taken as a finished study of the subject in any dogmatic sense.’’155
Sarkar then grouped Marx’s remarks on India under the following five heads:
Professor Susobhan Sarkar observed that:
‘‘Marx did not leave behind any systematic presentation of the history of India. but particularly for the second. He set down his observations on certain current Indian questions which attracted public attention. Marx’s revolutionary followers did not generally accept or stress the Asiatic mode. The mere existence of urban life or considerable commerce in the interstices of an agrarian society will not be enough to negate the picture of the domination of the village community and agriculture in ancient India. the general framework and chronology of the history of India. detailed study will always reveal various facets which have been ignored in the long-range view. . Sarkar wrote :
‘‘The economic presentation of an unchanging Indian past has been critised as undue simplification. But in any historical generalisation.reports and it ultimately found its most systematic and exaggerated expression in Sir Henry Maine’s works. ‘‘The last word was said on the matter by Stalin in his classic essay on Dialectical and Historical Materialism. and the consequences of the British rule in India. .’’156
On Marx’s views about the stagnatory nature of the Indian societies prior to the British conquest. Marx appears to have done little reading except towards the last years of his life. the role of the [British] East India company. This poser of an Asiatic mode of production as a distinct social formation serves to explain some of the peculiarities of ancient and medieval social history of India. though of course many problems remain unsolved. in European history also for instance. .147 On the pre-British history of India proper. the nature of India’s ancient society.’’149 Habib concluded. that for these ‘‘two reasons.’’150 And finally. as set out in the Communist Manifesto and summed up in the celebrated passage of the Preface to the Critique of Political Economy. that was never his main preoccupation. the character of the [Indian] Revolt of 1857.’’151
Subsequently Habib has been less categorical in his statements about the Asiatic mode or about Marx’s alleged abandonment of it. Gangadhar Adhikari conceded that:
‘‘It is now established that Marx spoke of an Asiatic mode of production . a 13
. . . precisely in the period when his own references to the Asiatic mode of production disappear altogether. 1938.152 From among the leaders of the Communist Party of India. . nor did he continue to seek support for his views from Stalin’s ‘classic’ last words on the matter. or drew materials from India’s past and present conditions to illustrate parts of his more general arguments.’’148
Two: ‘‘Besides the weakness in the information available to Marx and Engels during their earlier years. The central issue is whether the generalisation is basically wrong.
there was the equally important question whether the acceptance of the theory of the Asiatic mode would not make the vast majority of mankind an exception to the materialist conception of history.
no solid periodisation has yet been worked out in the fuller light of a century after Marx. and to speak the truth. ‘‘thus produced the greatest. Marx ‘‘relied heavily on the accounts of Elphinstone and Sewell.168 Sarkar wrote:
‘‘It is difficult to deny the fundamental truth in this. It is interesting to reflect that modern research is at long last veering round to the viewpoint of Marx. without coming to a final authoritative formulation. was by no means an established concept like his [concept of] bourgeois society. . the accepted authorities of his time.’’167
On Marx’s statement that the British conquest blew up the economic foundations of the village communities in India and. that Marx passed ‘‘over the entire Hindu epoch of our history. Marx’s concept is most important in the sense that it draws attention to the social conditions in the East and helps to dissolve the facile idea of an unilinear historical evolution all over the world of a somewhat Hegelian pattern. the only social revolution ever heard of in Asia’’. He was exploring the idea undogmatically for years . disfigured by ‘native’ atrocities. As for the possible social transformations in ancient India.166 According to Sarkar:
‘‘Marx’s comments on the Revolt of 1857 constitute an original contribution to the study of contemporary Indian history. .’’157
Sarkar noted that ‘‘Indian opinion is often outraged’’ by Marx’s evaluation of the Indian society. planted upon Asiatic despotism’’.’’160
Not being aware of Marx’s excerpts from Kovalevskij on the History of the Land Relations in India at the Time of the Indigenous Rajas there.169
. that regarding the chronology of later Indian history (664-1858). Simple hearts forget all this. would have [expressed] or did express themselves on similar lines about traditional Indian life.’’163 Regarding Marx’s characterisation of the general nature of the British East India Company’s regime in India. Sarkar wrote that Marx provided the keynote to it in the expression. one has also to remember his viewpoint of the ardent advocate of a sweeping social revolution. however. must have been much more complex and less durable than Marx imagined.’’159 Sarkar observed that: ‘‘Marx never repudiated the concept of an Asiatic society’’ and. . put down by British valour. however over emphatic the simplification might appear in the light of detailed and intensive research’’. contemporaries more or less of Marx.161 Sarkar wrote.picture which.164 and then again this was ‘‘only an imitation of the Dutch’’165 model as described by Thomas Stamford Raffles.’’ 162 Sarkar noted. but certainly presented its theory for further exploration . that he ‘‘did not make a fetish of the Asiatic society. to remember his scathing attack in the even earlier Communist Manifesto on the vaunted bourgeois civilisation of his own Europe.’’158
Sarkar was of the opinion that :
‘‘Marx’s concept of an Asiatic society. or time and again on the British rule in India. of which India was a part. They are in sharp opposition to the established orthodox theory of regarding the rising as essentially a military mutiny. ‘‘European despotism. Some of the best minds among the Indian Westerners. yet
‘‘In fairness to Marx. .
91 above] and Irfan Habib’s ‘‘Problems of Marxist Historical Analysis. and feudal formation did not develop there. nor did Marx study the (Fifth) Report of the Committee of the House of Commons (1812) in the original. Monsoon. Both the scholars. Habib went further to state that the concept was abandoned by Marx. the possible consequences of the introduction of the railways in India.Marx had listed the forces of future regeneration of India and. S.’’ Enquiry.S. 145 above]. especially after he had read Kovalevsky.170 Sarkar observed that: ‘‘It is difficult indeed to improve upon either list — the forces of regeneration and the possibilities of the railways. and that it was basically fallacious. was the Asiatic Mode of Production.178 to show that these sources do not warrant the conclusions derived by Marx and Engels on precolonial Indian geography.’’174
‘‘There is no basis in the claim that either Marx or Engels.179 Naqvi suggested that Marx and Engels did not study Bernier’s full text. 1969) [see n.’’175
Naqvi was partially acquainted with Marx’s excerpts from Kovalevskij on the land relations in India under Muslim rule.’’171 The question of the Asiatic mode of production continued to surface in the 1970s.’’181
Raychoudhuri himself is of the view. two important contributions to the subject were Daniel Thorner’s ‘‘Marx on India and the Asiatic Mode of Production’’ in the Contributions to Indian Sociology (Vol. pointed out that the references to the concept are absent in the later writings of Marx and Engels. E. economy and society. including his letters to Colbert180 and others. A leader of the Communist Party of India (Marxist)172. Namboodiripad opined that Marx’s reference to the ‘‘Asiatic society’’ was nothing ‘‘more than the analysis of the conditions under which that society was being subordinated to capitalism. who contributed to the discussion from the Indian angle. that the concept of an Asiatic mode of production
. Professor Tapan Raychoudhuri observed that:
‘‘The concept Asiatic mode of production has generated considerable interest among Marxist historians from time to time . causing stagnation in economy and social institutions. 1966) [see n.’’ and that it should not be viewed as the key to the understanding of the entire course of our historical development.176 He examined two sources referred to by Marx and Engels : the Travels of Bernier177 and.173 On the same theme. From the point of view of Indian history. the Fifth Report on India presented to the British Parliament in 1812. IX. Naqvi observed that:
‘‘Marx and Engels were categorical and altogether unambiguous in their thesis that the Oriental societies did not evolve private property in land. .M. at any stage abandoned their concept of Asiatic Mode or that their views were beginning to be re-considered by themselves. with a system of built-in equilibrium which remained more or less stable and undisturbed due to the absence of antagonistic classes and class struggle. He concluded his paper with a series of counter-factual conditionals of the form : had Marx read this or that part of Bernier’s text or of the Fifth Report in the original. . then he would not have arrived at such and such conclusions. and what did come into existence and was perpetuated.
it is simply a means for the transformation of surplus into commodities for the market. We have as yet no record of conflict between the ‘owner’ and ‘nonowner’ or between the different grades of rights in land within the system of production.‘‘[E]laborated in the light of modern research as has been done by Godelier. inter alia. . Within the system of production. . . . Raychoudhuri observed that in the case of precolonial India we are left with a situation. Hence. . .’’188
Banerjee then went on to show that two levels of analyses are implicit in Marx’s conceptualisation of the AMP. . it does so better than any other alternative that has been suggested . . trade of such nature cannot act as a dissolvent of existing production relations. The agrarian unrest in the Mughal Empire is hence very different from the feudal conflict of classes. thus. somewhat muted by the low articulation of property rights. it explains satisfactorily the social processes at work in the greater part of the subcontinent (regions like Tamilnadu and Malabar excluded . with its unity of agriculture and handicrafts ensuring a direct identity of man and nature.183
Rejecting Habib’s characterization of the precolonial Indian society as a form of feudalism. and with its unity of politics and civil society holding back the clarification of the latter.
‘‘. exploitation relations correspond to a gradation of rights over the means of production. where society is by no means homogeneous.’’184
Raychoudhuri is of the view. .’’ From the stand point of long-term change. that since 1857 Marx was trying to picture:
‘‘a more complex form of the AMP [Asiatic Mode of Production]. but the surplus is extracted mainly by the state from outside the system of production.
. the relevance of the Asiatic mode of production to an analysis of India’s pre-colonial society. in a sense reinforced. operating through the political and social system reinforced the existing property relations and ensured the continuity of the existing organisation of production. that under such circumstances. with its unity of the individual and community holding back the growth of man as the subject of history. Marx’s view of 1857 that the transformation of the traditional oriental society ‘‘is hardly possible. The conflict between the exploiter and exploited could in such a situation contribute to the dissolution of the political superstructure.’’186
Raychoudhuri. even the significant changes produced by the coastal trade in 17th century India failed to alter the existing relations of production and exploitation. trade is not an expression of merchant production internal to the life of the community. And
‘‘Since this is the form in which surplus in cash or kind was eventually expropriated by the state. . that in the context of the Asiatic mode of production. Diptendra Banerjee wrote. The
‘‘[R]elationships of exploitation.’’185
Raychoudhuri went on to show.’’187 Dwelling upon the problem structural transformability of the Asiatic societies. but the socioeconomic order remained virutally unaffected. . .) in the precolonial India’’. The characteristic conflict in such a society is between the state and the peasant producer — almost certainly the ‘‘land-owning’’ producer. the trader appears as virtually a ‘‘state functionary. except as a result of wholly external influences. the paradigm fits the Indian case as much as any such generalisation can.182 has considerable explanatory value for the dynamics of social change in India in the long period. with the help of data generated in the course of later historical research.
. which brings about the rationalisation of the entire world. which aims to cross the boundaries of capitalism.’’194
Banerjee then examined the positions of Engels and Marx on the problems of transformability of ‘semi-Asiatic’ Russia. and found that:
‘‘Engels does not allow any independent role to ‘Asiatic’ societies in the work of their societal transformation. he never said that this work of dissolution was already a fait accompli. and appropriation and utilisation of the positive results of western capitalism without taking on its modus operandi. . . .195
For Marx the problem of ‘Asiatic’ transformation does not boil down to such a singletrack formula:
‘‘Marx’s personal examination of semi-Asiatic Russia’s noncapitalist path of evolution makes it a perfectly valid theoretical possibility before capitalism could assume a dominant role in the economy. although the AMP is close to the ancient and medieval modes of the West in matters of quality.‘‘The first is related to the use of the concept of capitalism as a methodological paradigm to study the AMP along with other prebourgeois forms. although in 1853 Marx underlined the dissolution of the AMP’s communal conditions of life and existence in India under the impact of world capitalism.’’198
. capitalism leads to ‘asynchronic’ and ‘uneven’ developments in world-history. he wrote:
‘‘If it is asked whether Marx had not given up his 1853 position on the question of AMP’s transformation. . Only a successful revolution in the west can do the trick. Marx himself underlines this point when he rebukes Mikhailovsky191 for the latter’s attempts to ‘metamorphose’ the West-European form of capital’s genesis into ‘an historico-philosophic theory of the general path every people is fated to tread’.’’189
The second level contra posits
‘‘the AMP itself with the other prebourgeois forms. serving as a model to be imitated’’. the process of AMP’s disintegration in India was not at all complete.193 . But the world-universal stage of capitalism is also that stage in which the nonidentity of capitalist theory and capitalist practice becomes acutely sharp. is dependent for its fruitition upon two factors: removal of the deleterious influences which assail them from every quarter. . and specifically on India. Hence the possibility of terminating capitalism itself.’’190
Here the Asiatic Mode of Production
‘‘[R]epresents for Marx a nonwestern sociohistorical paradigm. and vice versa. the answer would be both yes and no. An answer which cannot be just this or that . In other words. at the same time. commotions in the ‘Asiatic’ spheres of the world are apt to react on the socialist movement at the capitalist end. Since. That is to say.’’196
Banerjee was of the opinion that :
‘‘Such a transformation is of course possible in this era of world-capitalism. The implication is nothing else but that of the present continuous tense.’’197
Finally. Marx makes a similar point in his letter to Vera Zasulich. there must be an objective interconnection between the developed and undeveloped spheres of the world. 192 Surely Marx is here concerned with the differing paths of human development. The possibility . This becomes particularly clear from a reading of the Introduction of 1857 and the section on the original accumulation of capital in the Grundrisse. unlike the western. which none can explain by using any super-historical ‘master key’. Marx’s ‘Asiatic’ paradigm implies a different path of development. the ancient and medieval European formations of slavery and serfdom. Hence also the logic of the western socialist movement.
Pre-Capitalist Economic Formations. The interpretation of the scientific materialism of Marx that came to shape and form the thinking of contemporary social scientists. Madan grouped Marx’s views on various aspects of Indian society under the following heads:
‘‘1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 India’s woes more under British rule than in the past Principles of laissez faire and neglect of irrigation No responsible authority to look after people’s welfare Undue burden of Indian princes Destruction of hand industries Village communities and their role in historic development Property rights in arable land Indian land tenure Indian revenue and taxation Dual role of England — destructive and regenerative Indian social structure and human progress.’’199
Ray lamented the fact that the new creative avenues opened up in European Marxist thought in the twentieth century did not percolate down to India. R. in the repair and maintenance of the irrigation facilities in South India. However. which by itself is antithetic to Marxian dialectics. historians and philosophical thinkers in India was very largely coloured by this strong positivist and empiricist tradition. Madan’s attempt202 to summarize Marx’s India-related writings may be viewed as representative of the empiricist reading of Marx.204 Madan also offered some empirical data and differing opinion on some issues. an England that had a strong empiricist tradition from the late eighteenth century onwards. academic intellectuals in India. In the words of Professor Niharranjan Ray:
‘‘Historically speaking. the Marx-Engels correspondence reproduced in Karl Marx. products of positivist thinking as obtained in England during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. thereby destroying the initiative of the people in organizing irrigation in that part of the country. particularly social scientists and historians. have been. and Capital. For instance. percolated down to the general leftist intellectual levels.201 Sociologist G. and replaced them with the newly set up. 205 The princely houses of Baroda and Mysore were exceptions to Marx’s observations on the
. Vol.200 He also observed that the Indian Marxists are not abreast ‘‘of the ‘epoch making discoveries in the sphere of natural science’ that have taken place in the twentieth century’’. But it was an interpretation which our academic intellectuals came to accept and adopt for their intellectual exercises and which. less effective. basing himself on: Marx’s 1853 NYDT articles on India. its auto critique also generated newer hind sights and insights. district boards. Marx’s Notes on Indian History. slowly but surely.’’203
Madan summarized Marx’s views under each of these heads. it failed to recognize the traditional role of the local self-governments at the village level and of their higher organs. III. he noted that from the 1860s onwards the British government of India made some attempts to improve irrigation facilities. generally.As Marxist historiography gained momentum in India. referred to by Ray above.
when the Punjab and the United Provinces were subjected to invasions. which he assigned to his followers by way of reward. The king had no right to disturb the ownership of the cultivator unless he was in default of payment of rent due to him. BadenPowell210 and M.208 The Britishers also did not have any clear idea on this question. Elphinstone.). though they were jointly responsible for the
. both under Hindu and Muslim rule. Marx’s observation that the village communities were disappearing under the impact of steam power and English commerce is not wholly correct. Views differ as to whether the arable land was held on an individual basis or jointly by the villagers. Some irrigation facilities were maintained by the village panchayats or their higher organs. If some great irrigation projects were left to the government. in a century or so. In course of time the family of the assignee multiplied and. The joint holdings of the villages in the North. The separate record of each landowner in the village. who descended from a common ancestor. R. some are partly correct. C.206 Madan is of the view that some of Marx’s observations on the village communities of India are correct. kept by the village accountant during the Maurya period (c. Madan included such authorities as A. British. while others are incorrect. Marx’s observation that the village communities restrained the human mind is true to some extent. how it led to despotism is not clear.209 B. It was really a complex question. Marx’s observation that the villagers wholly depended upon central government for irrigation purposes leading to despotism is not wholly correct. There was always some resistance. 211 while he listed the names of Sir Henry Maine212 and Dr. machinemade goods mostly affected the urban centres. to some extent such communities prevailed even in Europe before the industrial revolution.Indian princes : they had a broader outlook and took active part in the development of their states. instead of one owner there was a co-sharing body of village proprietors. 321-184 B. not in joint tenancy but in tenancy-in-common. Jataka stories and the Smrtis bear testimony to the prevalence of the system of peasant proprietorship in India since very early times. A daring chief conquered and occupied a tract of land. Altekar was of the view that the Vedas. where a group of persons constituting the village community held the village land. H. Among the supporters of the former view. Government ought to perform such functions and providing irrigation facilities is now recognized as one of the important functions of a modern democratic state. Mukherjee213 as supporters of the latter view. as these were beyond the control of local initiatives. appeared in the medieval period. The cheap. Each assignee became the owner of the village land. During the Hindu period the land belonged to the tillers of the soil. Each had a clear idea of his ownership in the joint land. S. For instance. as mentioned in the Arthashastra is proof of the same. Altekar. Marx’s observation that the villages were unconcerned about the towns or about the country as a whole — is only partly true. Isolated village communities were not a uniquely Indian phenomenon. whether it was held separately by each cultivator or jointly is a different question. This was particularly tough in the South. The villagers cooperated whenever their king gave such a call. None of the pre-British invaders could subjugate the entire country.207 Madan is of the view that Marx was not clear about the property rights in arable land in India. K.
and it also fluctuated from time to time. For instance. Madan observed that many people have joined the new industries. religious. Madan is of the view that before the British conquest two systems of land tenure were prevalent in India: the ryotwari system of peasant proprietorship and. Clement Atlee as prime minister came to power. Others have noted that Marx did not live to see the results of the revenue surveys and caste inquiries of India. Marx strongly criticized all these systems. Marx wrote that all the English bourgeoisie may be forced to do will neither emancipate nor materially mend the social conditions of the mass of the people till in Great Britain itself the ruling class is replaced by industrial proletariat or the Indians themselves have grown strong enough to throw off the English yoke altogether. the land was re-distributed among the villagers equalizing the fertility of the soils. it was given up in many areas. The British. social. imposed the zamindari system. However. India got independence in 1947 only when the Labour Government with Mr. In the face of resistance from the local people. People of each generation in every country labour under the load of the main gaps in contemporary knowledge. familistic. Madan found that this observation of Marx has also proved to be true. He contended that in the earliest times the entire village land belonged to the community without any individual rights in the property. the mahalwari system of joint ownership. as was the case with the ancient European communities.219 One may add that the discovery of the Indus Valley Civilization and of the text of Arthashastra also took place after Marx’s death. with the exception of population. Dutt214 almost concurred with Marx’s views on the British Indian systems of revenue and taxation. R. Joint cultivation was undertaken to keep community life better.220 Sunil Mitra.221 Debi Chaterjee. while joint responsibility for payment of land revenue was in vogue to avoid oppression by the rulers.217 Madan concluded that:
‘‘Karl Marx studied all the aspects of Indian society.216 Marx believed that the railways and modern industries will lead to the dissolution of hereditary division of labour and caste distances..
.215 He also noted that the observations made by Marx in connection with the future results of the British rule in India turned out to be true. Maine held that though later on individual rights in property were recognized in these villages. An opposite view was held by Maine. many of the upper castes still prefer nonmanual jobs and are not interested in taking up industrial enterprises.222 André Béteille. following their own tradition that the king was the sole proprietor of land. the ryotwari and the mahalwari systems introduced later on under the British rule were not satisfactory.’’218
Madan forgot to mention that Marx predeceased the Indian population studies. The ryotwari system of peasant proprietorship was a decayed form of the joint holdings system.government revenue. leaving their hereditary occupations and are working together at one place. and later on in the other parts of North India. However. although promises were made earlier from time to time by various other parties in power to give independence to India. first in Bengal. including political. economic. ruralurban. Madan observed that Mr. as the land revenue was very high. cultural etc. the otherwise painstaking surveys and interventions of Sudipta Kaviraj. C.
the orientalist and anti-orientalist etc. This reveals a certain time-lag and communication gap between Indian and Western Marx-studies. In England and France it laid the foundations of ethnlogical studies. and thereafter. respectively. which mar the hitherto evolved reception of Marx’s writings on India. He was interested in finding out how this historical ‘other’ of Europe was getting transformed into something else. His study of political economy and world history complemented each other. In the German speaking part of Europe this interest manifested itself as a discourse on the philosophy of human social history. The future21
. What is more.223 and Debesh Roy Choudhury. and largely even after. and for that matter Asia and the entire world. like the volumes of the MEGA. After all. European Indology was mainly interested in India’s past. Till date their efforts are preponderantly characterized by a certain externalist orientation. Krader’s editions of these texts (see n. 8 and 9) were available and read. and turned his gaze firmly on India’s present and future. stereotypes. here too. When Marx began his studies on India. containing numerous very large sub-domains. the former unfolds inside the latter. 9) was not even available and. as in many other. he took his cues from the entire preceding scholarship. on linguistic grounds. about India’s past. even in the realm of matters pertaining to India. but not much commented upon. the Romantic Movement and. He inherited this interest from European Renaissance and Enlightenment. We can expect that in the process many interesting hind sights. and not even India. Marx effected an ‘inversion’.224 and Dipesh Chakrabarty225 suffer from the contemporary Indian lack of awareness about the India-related ethnological notes and land-relations-historiographic excerpts of Karl Marx. Many Marxists in India and abroad have turned their attention to India. his journalistic involvement lured him into a study of the more enduring structures of the socio-economic formations that evolved in this part of the world. insights and foresights will also be generated. misconceptions and.227 it may be heuristically suggested. Before him. wherein India figures solely as an object of investigation and therapy and. remains inaccessible to most Indians. which grew into empirical and theoretical anthropology. In the case of India. Historiography and. has come to an end! Their study remains open ended. present and future. Marxism appears as a repository of some methods which are external to it. Harstick’s edition (see n. nor political economy. Neither world history. * * * * * * * * *
Marx’s interest in India was a part of his interest in the dynamics of world history. the critique of that movement in Hegel. 226 The exposure to the data and texts from the non-European world gave rise to an interest in world history in Europe. is internally connected with the very process of emergence of Marx’s historiography228. these connections are mediated through the interfaces of India-Studies. Borrowing an expression from an well-known result obtained in the realm of another discourse. The study of these internal connections alone can set right the imbalances. They have generally failed to notice that India. Anthropology. that hence the ‘incompleteness’ of our cognitive efforts — Marx’s included — in these. domains. As in the case of political economy. Philosophy of History. all of these are very large domains. Multi-dimensional study of world history came into being.
Bengali. 546-49. III (Moscow. S. 2nd ed. Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature. 3840 of August 8. 607-11. 137 (footnote). 1978).. 1986). Vol. 140. 337. Santhali and Sindhi languages. Capital. 331-43. 6 (Moscow. Manipuri. 1976).c. II (Calcutta. Vol. Kanada. 1975). Biplab Chakraborty. 1879). pp. 26 (Moscow.orientation is crucial here. 12.). Vol. This list does not include publications in the Kashmiri. 1987). 297. 232. Nepali. Geburtstag (Berlin. 706-09. l. pp. in : Lawrence Krader. Selected Correspondence (Moscow. Karl Marx : through Indian Eyes (Calcutta. 755-56. Theories of Surplus Value. 12 (Moscow. 440. pp. 305-21. 148. Hindi. pp. 39 (Moscow. 435-52. 39-93. 1853. 527-38. 169. MECW). 188. 333-34. 148-56. See: MECW. 275 (footnote). 245-71. 1992). Karl Marx. 162. 333-34. Part I (Moscow. Vol. 29 (Moscow. 560-62. 341. Vol. The Correspondence of Raja Rammohun Roy. in : MECW. Tamil. late Somnath Ghosh. While collecting materials for this article I received a lot of help from Rajani and Sanjiv Vaidya.. Marx-Engels. 1986). 151. 1997). 1122. Part II. 1978). 1965). 416. 339-40. 1979). 241. 575-88. 327-30. G.). I (Calcutta. Konkani. See: MECW. 990. and Engels. but also to change her for the betterment of her people and of the entire humankind. Bharater Shramik Andolaner Itihas (History of Indian Labour Movement) (Calcutta. See: MECW. 336-56. Vol. see : Arati Datta and Phani Bhusan Roy. 309. 174-84. Part II (Moscow. 351. (n. p. 3rd ed. (ed. Vol. 1978). The possibility of publications existing in some more of the Indian languages can not be excluded. See: the weekly Somprokash (Harinavi. 435. 307. 348. pp. Lawrence Krader (ed. Karl Marx über Formen vorkapitalistischer Produktion (Frankfurt/Main and New York. pp. Earlier attempts in this direction include: i. 55. See: Dilip Kumar Biswas (ed. Vol. 1978). NYDT. 376. Ramarao. 322-27. 407.
6 7 8 9
13 14 15 16 17 18
1 2 3 4 Karl Marx. Marathi. 184-85. 553-59. See: Id. I (Moscow. see especially therein.c. 217-22. in: Horst Krüger (Hrsg. Gujrati. 392-99. 337-39. (n. 1990). 1978). vol. Neue Indienkunde. 218. The Correspondence of Raja Rammohun Roy. Bhanudeb Dutta. See : MECW. 314. 333-34. 209-16. Kumarappa and. 1976). 106.). 339. 4). F. pp. 1977). 4). pp. Part III (Moscow. 419-24. 125-33. 15 (Moscow. pp. 1983). Collected Works (henceforth. 253. 1976). 281-84. pp. ii. 1960). Vol. 5 (Moscow. 482. Festschrift Walter Ruben zum 70. pp. 119.c. 174. pp. Vol. Malayalam. 16. (n. 192-200. No. as the task is not merely to interpret India. (Moskva.). 347. See : MECW. II.J. p. pp. Vol. 23 Baishakh 1269/5 May 1862. Vol. pp. 1975. 297-300. p. The Asiatic Mode of Production : Sources. Indian English. G. 34-35. 424. 406. The Ethnological Notebooks of Karl Marx (Assen 1972.t. Marxist Views on India in Historical Perspective (Madras. p. 344. 1975). 28 (Moscow.d. l. 159-60. 103.. 590-95. ‘‘The Future Results of the British Rule in India’’. 361-78. 504-09. 1 (Moscow. 41. 1984). Development and Critique in the writings of Karl Marx (Assen. 736. 1970). quoted in: Sukomal Sen. Chapter II : Indian Marxists on Marx and Indian History. 345-48. See: MECW. 63-112. 168. l. pp. Karl Marx. Excerpts from Maksim Maksimovich Kovalevskij’s Obschinnoe Zemlevladenie i. Punjabi. 12. 125-33. II (Moscow. 1984). For a selected list of books in the Assamese. 1983). pp. Vol. ‘‘Marxism: Indian History and Philosophy’’. in : Hans-Peter Harstick (Hrsg. pp. Oriya. p. See: MECW. Vol. 1974). pp. pp. 217-22. 775-76. Telegu and Urdu languages upto 1983. Karl Marx. 345-99 and. Bastiaan Wielenga. in: Marx K. 15). Vol. pp.). Notes on Indian History (Moscow. Vol.
52-63. B. Studien über die innern Zustande des Volksleben und insbesondere die ländlichen Einrichtungen Russlands. 71. Sociology in India (Calcutta. Ibid. 19). see Marx-Nachlass (IISG. Vol. pp. n. Sociology in India. 389. of the original was published under the title : Der proletarische Socialismus (‘‘Marxismus’’). Repr. pp. Jogendra Chandra Ghosh. Reverend James Long..). (n. See: Marx-Nachlass (IISG. Naginlal H. under the title : ‘‘Banglar Gramsamaj Prasange Karl Marx’’ (‘‘Karl Marx on the Rural Society of Bengal’’). VI (Calcutta. The Calcutta Review. Read on 26 March 1872. (n. Karl Marx. 29. 26). Vol. Part Two. CXLVIII (Calcutta. Sadhana (Calcutta. Krader. reproduced in : Krader (ed. partially reprinted in: Bela Dutt Gupta. pp.c. tr. B140. Ghosh. 13th repr. ‘‘The Village Community of Bengal and Upper India’’.) The Ethnological Notebooks of Karl Marx. l. and. pp. pp. l. 37-38. B 140. Bharatbarse JamiSamparker Itihas Prasange (On the History of Land Relations in India). 30. pp. pp. in : Krader. p. 351. subsequently reissued as : Sozialismus und soziale Bewegung. Ibid. Madame Bhikhaji Rustom Kama (New Delhi.c.c. partial Bengali tr. pp. 30.. the disscussion that followed this publication. Jahrhundert. For Marx’s notes from it see : MarxNachlass (IISG. Part II. Repr.. by Partha Chattopadhyaya in collaboration with Sujan Chanda and Shuvoranjan Dasgupta.. 1882). Amsterdam). The Modern Review. 243-84. 38. (n. Ibid. in : MECW. 257. 66. The reference is to: August von Haxthausen. pp. Village Communities in India and Russia. l. Peary Mohan Mukherjee [in Marx’s notes: Babu Peary Chund Mookerjee].
25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
.. 1874-76). 1973). 1909). On the condition of Bengal Ryot. 71. Part II. (Calcutta. Subsequently. pp. See: Marx-Nachlass (IISG. 498-533. John Budd Phear. ‘‘Socialism and the Social Movement’’. The Ethnological Notebooks of Karl Marx. The Asiatic Mode of Production etc. 5). p. l. 507. Socialism and the Social Movement (London and New York. 1847-1852) and. 397. For Marx’s excerpts containing a reference to it. (n. 278-307. (n. 87-91. 530. (n. Vol. pp. in : The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda. 9). 19). Reissued as a monograph in 1879..c.. tr. Here and henceforth all translations into English are mine — P.). pp. Part II. B 146.). pp. p.. 350. Pratham Angsha (Calcutta. Outlines of the Critique of Political Economy (Rough Drafts of 1857-58). 253. Bengali tr. Swami Vivekananda. Bankim distanced himself from the views expressed therein. Sociology in India. 258. 3 vols.. (n. 244.c. Rabindranath Thakur.). l. See: Khorshed Adi Sethna. LXXIV. Bangadarshan (Calcutta. 8). See: the Documents of the First International : 1870-1871 (Moscow and London. pp. Amsterdam). see especially therein: Part Two. Vol. 186-94. The Calcutta Review. l. in: Dutt Gupta. 346-55. No. p. 76. Baromas (Calcutta. 29-34. p. pp. March 1910). 31.c. Part Two. 1896. ‘‘Samya’’. The Asiatic Mode of Production etc. 3 (Calcutta. B 146. 381-82. Amsterdam). pp. 227-70. l.. Read on 11 February 1870. (Hanover. (n. 1972). 344-61. Werner Sombart. (n. 8). The Aryan Village in India and Ceylon (London. Eng. 136. ‘‘Socialism’’. Amsterdam). B 140. 1st November. 186-94. 9). 1880).19
See: the Transactions of the Bengal Social Science Association: 1867-78..c. Letter to Miss Mary Hale. 1956.. d. No. 221-77. For Marx’s excerpts from it see: Marx-Nachlass (IISG. in 1924 the 10th ed. 382. Autumn 1987). Bankim Rachanasangraha.. Amsterdam).. 1995). pp. l. Jaistha 1299/May-June 1892). 62. Karl Marx. The Asiatic Mode of Production etc. in : Pradip Baksi (ed. 9). 255-67. VII. 1987). 2-22.c. in: Gopal Halder (ed. pp. Krader. Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyaya. 1999). Sozialismus und soziale Bewegung im 19. Eng.c. l. p. pp. Krader (ed. Repr. p. 128-54. 40. pp. in : Dutt Gupta. ‘‘The Village Community of Bengal and Upper India’’. Prabandha Khanda. 368. Setalvad..
repr. (n. 75. N. 123-28. 47-73. Centre for Asian Studies. See the 44th amendment to the Inidan Constitution adopted in 1978. 1974). For an Eng. 1971). 294-303. in : MECW. by Captain Samad Shah of the British-Indian Army. pp.c. Mukherjee (ed. No. N. Vol. pp. presently operative in Indian Pubjab. 392-445.. March 1912). in: Id. M. Mohan. pp. p. repr. (n. (n.. 123. ‘‘Karl Marx : A Modern Rishi’’. 48 below). tr. which arose as a result of Muslim fears for the integrity of Islam.. 8). Narayan (Calcutta. together with a reprint of Hardayal’s essay (see n.
42 43 44 45 46 47 48
50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
. 1912). 29. It was a campaign in defense of the Sultan of Turkey. pp. Elites in South Asia (Cambridge. A movement in early 20th century India. DHCPI). N. India in Transition (Genéve. pp. by Richard F. 199. See: Gangadhar Adhikari (ed. The Arthashastra. Bolshevism and Islamic Nations (in Persian) (Tashkent.nl). pp. A Study of Industrial Labour in Post-Colonial India. 1919. Vol. who was also the Khalifa (Caliph) of Islam. pp. 205-37. August 4. A movement for the liberation of the Sikh shrines (Gurudwaras) from the clutches of autocratic clergy (Mahants). 50). Jan Breman. Home and Political Department. in collaboration with Abani Mukherji. and sympathised with the plight of the Sultan of Turkey (see n. 33-37. p. Karl Marx. in : Shipra Sarkar and Anamitra Dash (collected). 1975). 1993). Gandhi vs Lenin (Bombay.. Rangarajan (New Delhi. pp. see : P. Ramakrishna Pillai. File No. tr. Damodaran.c. The Asiatic Mode of Production etc. Bangalir Samyabad Charcha (The Cultivation of Communism in Bengal) (Calcutta. 123-28. pp. After the attainment of democratic control of the shrines in 1925. See : Kautilya. 39). Burton (New Delhi. Edward Shils. in : Edmund Leach and S. Vol. C. The Party originated in California. l. 1919). (E-mail : breman@pscw. 41-126.). Eng. 337-39 therein.39 40
Lala Hardayal. Volume One: 1917-1922 (New Delhi. extremist and. 324-56.c. Joshi and K.. Karl Marx (Palghat. Amsterdam. and introduced by L. See: The Kamasutra of Vatsyayana. 281-87. Like the Yugantar and Anushilan in Bengal. (n. 1. Gandhi vs Lenin. Upendranath Bandopadhyaya. tr. ‘‘The Academic Profession in India’’. 10.. 29. 3 (Calcutta. rearranged. The party was dissolved in 1948.c.uva. 2295.000 Muslim peasants went to Afganistan from India. ‘‘Europe Samaj Biplab’’ (‘‘Social Revolution in Europe’’). the movement turned itself into a political party. Selected Writings. 1964). 1921). Manabendra Nath Roy. See: Krader. l. Mohammad Barakatullah. l. Sripad Amrit Dange. Pan-Indian. 223-52. 253. see therein p. Roy’s Memoirs (Bombay etc. Outlines of the Critique of Political Economy (Rough Drafts of 1857-58). Marx comes to India (Delhi. 369-91. pp. especially pp. 1 (Bombay. 1970). It collapsed when Mustafa Kemal Atatürk abolished the caliphate in 1924. preserved in the National Archives of India. 1-4. 1922). Attempted uprising in central Punjab in 1915. They considered India under the British to be an apostate land.. in : his Selected Writings. Dange. p. about 18. partially reproduced in : DHCPI. ed. 273-86. 1998). Asara 1327/June-July 1920). of it by K. See: the working paper on Asian labour by Prof. l. 108-23. 1992). tr. In 1920. 42). A large number of their members joined the communist and trotskyist parties in the 1930s. Ibid. P. The Modern Review.. Vol. Largely secular. Documents of the History of the Communist Party of India (henceforth. p. p. 265-74.). Volume One : 1917-1922. IX.. 5). 327-39. K.
pp. p. p.. p. 1977). 12. Samakalin Samajer Uttaraner Samasya (Problems of Social Transition Today). 12. Compare: Rajani Palme Dutt. pp. Rajani Palme Dutt. Partially reproduced in : Marx. and MECW. l. tr. Accused in the Meerut Conspiracy Case. (n. Samajik O Rajnaitik Prasanga (On Issues Social and Political) (Calcutta. 1959). pp. 1926. Selected Writings. vi. 2. 4). U.. l. repr. 482. 137-38 therein.c. 1940. 1924). Delivered from 26th October 1931 to 5th January 1932 (Meerut. 471-76.. (n. L. I..). (Moscow. Paribar. vii-viii. Vol. p. 43 (Moscow. Private property and the State). Appendix E. 1977). 482. 513. Gosthi O Rastra (Itihaser Arthanaitik Byakhya) [The Family. 1945). ii). Masses. A. 1943. Vol. l. p. 1926). iv. viii. pp. Vol. 1979). 23-24 Benoy Kumar Sarkar. A.. p. Marxist Views on India in Historical Perspective. Marx and Engels on India (Allahabad. xviii. Additional Sessions Judge. 11 (November..c. See: Anjan Bera.62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
Frederick Engels..c. 132. Notes on Indian History.c. Dange. Ibid. in : MECW. l.. See: Pradip Baksi. see pp. xix-xx. (n. Mulk Raj Anand (ed. 49-51. Before R. Ibid. Meerut. Gosthi O Rastra (Itihaser Arthanaitik Byakhya). Marx. See: MECW. Karl Marx. May. Engels. See: Frederick Engels. Paribar. xxii-xxiii. Written between June 19 and July 16. India Today (London. Engels. 1944). anonymous tr. 80). 2nd ed.C. Articles on India (Bombay. p.c. 1976). Rammohun Roy Memorial Lecture (Calcutta. (n.. pp. Foreword. p. 2000). Ibid. See: MECW. Calcutta reprint of 1997). 40 (Moscow. pp. Indian reprint : Bombay. by Manmatha Nath Sarkar (Calcutta. 67). For this * marked footnote see: MECW. 1925).. Paribar. 1929). Vol. xvi. Vol. tr. (n. November 1944). l.. 11). 20. 1983). 1938).. Ibid. l. Ibid. Id. the Gens and the State (An Economic Interpretation of History)] (Calcutta. p. xiii. India. Yorke. 1894. Pre-Capitalist Socio-Economic Formations (Moscow. l. 6. Vol. Marx. 12. 83-96. p. in: S. No. 1932). pp.
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
. (n. Sarkar.. Ibid.S. Vol. Sadharan Swattwabadir Istahar (Manifesto of the Upholders of Common Ownership) (Calcutta. Dange. pp. Byaktigata Sampatti O Rastrer Utpatti (The Origin of the Family. (n. Modern India (London..c. 193-95. See: Karl Marx. ‘‘Rammohun O Amader Kal’’ (‘‘Rammohun and Our Times’’). Esqr. ‘‘The British Rule in India’’. pp. 1998). 93-100. 1988). The History of Primitive Christianity. Karl Marx : through Indian Eyes. See: the Statement of S. Wielenga.c. by Rebati Barman (Calcutta. P. Selected Writings. Banglay Marksbadi Prakashanar Pratham Parba (The First Phase of Marxist Publications in Bengal) (Calcutta. (Moscow. The First Indian War of Independence 1857-1859 (Moscow. 2 (Bombay. v. See: Dange. translator’s introduction to : Rammohun Roy. Soumendranath Thakur. 4). See: Datta and Roy. 10). 389-91. 18 March. Ibid. 1998).
108 Ibid. (n. 75). Shlomo Avineri (ed.l.).c. by E. No. 30. 114 Ibid. Vol.. 106 See: Ibid. 8 and n. J. (n. 9. Aprakashita Rajnitik Itihas (Unpublished Political History) (Calcutta. 3-13). Vol. Hobsbawm (London.. p. No. Dange. 259. partially repr.. Dialectics of Land Economics of India. 2nd ed. 112 Id. 1347/1940). December 1966). p. B 146.. 62). Bhupendra Nath Datta. Ed. 3-32). 6). p. p. 12. ‘‘Marx on India and the Asiatic Mode of Production’’. 1958). l. Karl Marx. (n. Dialectics of Land Economics of India (Calcutta. 115 The reference is to Marx’s letter to Engels dated 14 June 1853. l.91
For instance: Karl Marx.. (n. p. 1981). (n. in Masses. 14.c. India: from Primitive Communism to Slavery — A Marxist Study of Ancient Indian History in Outline (New Delhi 1949. 1972). 5th ed.. ‘‘Karl Marx Ani Hindustan’’ (‘‘Karl Marx and India’’).c. xi. 117 Ibid. repr. 1949). p. See: ‘‘Banglar GramSamaj Prasange Karl Marx’’. 21). 107 Ibid. See: Baksi (ed. l. (NYDT. Hirendranath Mukhopadhyaya. 111 See: Dr. IX (Paris. the Middle East and North Africa (New York.c. p.c. J. in : Krüger (Hrsg. p. 39. Parishista (Appendix): Capital Granthachi Parshabhumi (The Background of the Capital). pp. Bharatbarse Jami-Samparker Itihas Prasange. 112). See n. 1964). ‘‘Marxism: Indian History and Philosophy’’.. Karl Marx on Colonialism and Modernization: his despatches and other writings on China.. No. Mexico. 589-90. 41). The Discovery of India (Calcutta. Volume Two : 1923-1925 (New Delhi. B 140. pp. Introduction repr. in Sarkar and Dash (collected).
. 118 See: Marx-Nachlass. Daniel Thorner.c. 116 Datta. pp. 1969). See n. ‘‘Iz neopublikovannykh rukopisiej Karla Marksa’’. Marxche Capital-Sargrantha (A Summary of Marx’s Capital) (Mumbai / Bombay.c. Neue Indienkunde. 109 Ibid. 20). p. p. 1946. 110 Ramarao.. 3-28). Marx. Engels. (n. Pre-capitalist Economic Formations. 105 Ibid. Bangalir Samyabad Charcha. 119 See: Marx-Nachlass. Gadgil. 240-353. Introduction to: Karl Marx. 101 Jawaharlal Nehru. 2nd print 1982). l. No. 11 (1925). No. l. 33-66. 9.). ‘‘The Future Results of the British Rule in India’’. Sovetskoe Vostokovedenie (Moskva. l.
92 93 94 95 96 97 98
100 Panduranga V. 5 (str. Pre-Capitalist Socio-Economic Formations. 232.. 135. pp. xxiii. and Intro. p. l.i).. 331. Cohen. 1853).. 231. (n. p. 348. India. 3 (str. 1953). 4 (str. A. ‘‘Bharatbarsa O Karl Marx’’ (‘‘India and Karl Marx’’) (Calcutta.). 1952).c. p. 104 S. xxvii. of August 8. Contributions to Indian Sociology. 3840. 113 See: Ibid. 231. xvi. 103 Ibid.. 1974. 29-30. (n. Baromas. 1941. see MECW... Preface by Norrire Ter-Akopyan. tr. 102 Ibid... in DHCPI. New Delhi..
Area: the whole of India.C. 70-71. 138 Ibid. 146 Habib. revised version in : Science and Human Progress : Prof.c. p. 4th-2nd centuries B. p. C. Kosambi. see : D. ‘‘Problems of Marxist Historical Analysis’’. (n. pp. minus the area south of Karnataka. 1992). Sircar.. 1st century B.. 145 Irfan Habib. 134 Time: c. 11. ‘‘Problems of Marxist Historical Analysis’’. l. (n. 1974). 125 Ibid.. 124 Damodar Dharmanand Kosambi. 137 Ibid. All subsequent references are to this revised version. The Culture and Civilisation of Ancient India in Historical Outline (New Delhi. 1962). l. pp. 2nd ed. Village-communities in the East and West etc. l. 14 139 Perhaps the reference is to: Francis Buchanan. 145). 144 D. and its relation to modern ideas (London. Area: north Deccan. ‘‘Landlordism confused with Feudalism. 1991). to which are added Other Lectures. (n.. ‘‘The Future Results of the British Rule in India’’. 337-39. 120). p. Capital. 148 Habib. 8-9. 136 Kosambi. ISIH) (Bombay. V. 128 Ibid.. B 140. in: Science and Human Progress etc. included in : Id. Letter of Pierre Vidal-Naquet. p. 122 See: MECW. Ch. 1861). 26.. 1970. rev.. 170. 124).c. (n.
. Vol. 123 MECW. 2000).E. 9-10. ‘‘Problems of Marxist Historical Analysis’’. ISIH. An Introduction to the Study of Indian History (henceforth. p. D.. 57. Vol. D. Vol. 130 See: Marx. 7). 485-89.’’ in : Id. 186. (ed. Interpreting Early India (New Delhi.. ‘‘The Contribution of D. 4th-6th centuries C. 36. D. D. l.C. (n. 135 Time: c. 1975. 124). 142 See: D. Kosambi Commemoration Volume (Bombay. pp. l. 3). Canara. Area: north India. and Essays (London. pp. p. 5).c. Village-communities in the East and West. History and Beyond (New Delhi. l. 4th Repr. 1966). Addresses. pp.-3rd century C. For Kosambi’s study of the Goan village organisation. which was. D. 131 Kosambi. 6. Kosambi to Indology’’. Kosambi. 12. p. pp. (n. l. See: Marx-Nachlass. 15 (Kosambi’s note 13). p.E.120 Henry Sumner Maine. Ancient Law: its connection with the early history of society.E. Myth and Reality (Bombay. p. p. p..c.c. 140 D. 132 Marx. l. p. Vol. A Journey from Madras through the Countries of Mysore. Kosambi. 126 Ibid.. (n. 5). (London. in MECW.. Area: a part of the Deccan. and Malabar. p. B 140. (n..c. Monsoon 1969). 6th impression 1981).. 141 See: Marx-Nachlass. pp. I... 37. 3 vols. 145). 4th July 1964. according to him.).c. D. 133 Time: c. 143 Time: 1336-1646 C. Land System and Feudalism in Ancient India (Calcutta. pp. ISIH. 38. 217. 34-47. 129 Ibid. 68. 12.c... 51-56. (n. pp.. the model for the Karnatak settlement and which survived almost to the 1960s. l. 147 See: Maine. 1807). in: Science and Human Progress etc. 105.c. 15-16 (Kosambi’s note 14). 127 Ibid. 1871). Enquiry (Delhi. 10. 166-210. 1956. quoted in: Romila Thapar. 121 Id.
Kosambi Commemoration Volume. l. 178 Report of the Committee of the House of Commons (London. p..)..).). Vol. 155).c. 159 Ibid. 97.. The Marxist. in : Mohit Sen and M. l. 152 See. see p.] 168 See MECW. p. p. B 140.. in : Joshi (ed. See also Marx-Nachlass. 154 Ibid. 1968). 107. (n. (n. l. April-June 1972). 158-65. also included in: Marx on Indonesia and India. 48-76. the Asiatic Mode and the study of Indian History’’. 172 Formed in 1964 after a split in the Communist Party of India. See also.149 Ibid. 150 Ibid. D. 1812). 155 Susobhan Sarkar. Volume One (Calcutta. 161 See Marx-Nachlass. Das Kapital Centenary Volume : A Symposium (Delhi etc. (n. Homage to Karl Marx: A Symposium. 38. p. ‘‘Marx. 1 (New Delhi. in : P.. 176 Ibid. in : Joshi (ed.4). Homage to Karl Marx : A Symposium. p. p. 218-21. in Id. 174 S. 151. July-September 1983).). Naqvi. (n. 2 (Madras... 94.. 4). ‘‘Marx’s Perception of India’’. ‘‘Marx on Indian History’’. 155). in MECW. Mit Beiträgen von Fritjof Tichelman und Irfan Habib. pp. p. 357-65. Vol. Schriften aus dem Karl-Marx-Haus (Trier. 12. Rao (ed. in: Joshi (ed. ‘‘Marx on Indian History’’.. 163 Ibid. No.S. 164 Karl Marx. 13. 165 Ibid.. Homage to Karl Marx : A Symposium (New Delhi.. pp. Socialist Digest. 1669 / 1723-24). 1817). 14. No. 34-39. 1983). Vol. pp. 95. 170 See: MECW. p. ‘‘The British Rule in India’’. l. Namboodiripad.. 1 (London. 151 Ibid. Joshi (ed. l. (n. 40. 12. ‘‘Marx on Indian History’’. p. p.
. repr. Sunil Sen. 1982). see p. p. 98. 157 Ibid. p. 167 Sarkar. 177 François Bernier.c.. ‘‘Marx on Pre-British Indian Society and Economy’’. Vol..c. 158 Ibid.. p. l. 1969). for instance: Irfan Habib. 67. Voyages. 102. 156 Ibid. pp. 95-96.. 108. p. Quoted by Marx in his article cited in n.). in : Joshi (ed. pp. 171 Sarkar. 126. (Amsterdam. 164 above. in: Science and Human Progress: Prof. 155).c. Vol. 175 Ibid. l. 162 Sarkar. 3. ‘‘Marx on Indian History’’. 59-60. p. C.). pp. contenant la description des Etats du Grand Mogol. 92-143. 2 vols. 153 Gangadhar Adhikari. 145). l. ‘‘Marx on Indian History’’. pp. 12.c. 166 Thomas Stamford Raffles. Vol. 93. Homage to Karl Marx : A Symposium. (n. 160 Ibid. (n. The Radical Review. The History of Java. (n. 58 therein. 131-132. B 140. Repr.c. 4). 169 Sarkar. 7. B. 1969).c. 173 E. Selected Writings..M. p.. March 1973. Homage to Karl Marx : A Symposium. 359 therein. ‘‘Marx on Indian Railways’’. 155). D.c. p. Marx and India (New Delhi.
‘‘Marx on Pre-British Indian Society and Economy’’. 878. 206 Ibid. 186 Ibid. in : Essays in Honour of Prof. 174). pp. p. Calcutta and. 199 Niharranjan Ray. l. pp. 195 Ibid.c. Marxism and Indology. Relations of Production (London.c.’’ in : Essays in Honour of Prof. p. 1669. (n. R. pp. Seddon (ed. Zhukovskij’’]. B 140. 188 Diptendra Banerjee. 34. Spencer. p. Yu. 32. Marks pered sudom g. 2. S. ‘‘La notion de ‘‘mode de production asiatique’’ et les schémas marxistes d’ évolution des sociétés. pp.. 844. Sarkar. (n.. 180 We learn from Marx-Nachlass.). p. 1-27. 877-78.
. 190 Ibid. pp. l. 9. in celebration of the 80th Birthday of Professor Walter Ruben (Calcutta. 184 Ibid. l. 201 Ibid.. Eng. 845-46. p. 361-62.. 47-100. 193 See: Marx. 1976). 5). p. 839. tr. (n. 849.. March 8. p. 196 Ibid.). S. 189 Ibid.179 Naqvi. 197 Ibid. S. Indo-GDR Friendship Society. 880-81. (n. 870. 191 See: Nikolai Konstantinovich Mikhailovskij.. 5. p. p.’’ Sur le ‘‘mode de production asiatique’’ (Paris. 1965). pp. 843-44. October 1877.c. C.. 10 and 5 above. 28. Vol. Pareto (London etc. 3. l. 1881. Sarkar (New Delhi... C.. Amsterdam. Western sociologists on Indian society: Marx.. ‘‘The Asiatic Mode of Production and India’s Foreign Trade in the 17th century: A Theoretical Exercise. 68: that Marx had at least read Kovalevskij on the Letter to Colbert adjoined to ‘‘Voyages de François Bernier’’. 1979). Weber. 181). pp. Madan.. Ch. Transactions of the Seminar on Marxism and Indology. pp... 203 Ibid. 32-33. ‘‘Marx and the Transformability of ‘Asiatic’ Societies’’. 1969). 204 Ibid. 183 Raychoudhuri.. 182 See: Maurice Godelier. ‘‘K. D. pp. 4. 198 Ibid. Selected Correspondence (Moscow. November 1877. C. Otechestvenniye Zapiski. 311-70. pp. ‘‘Marx and the Transformability of the ‘Asiatic’ Societies’’.. p.. 1978). in: Science and Human Progress etc. Ibid. West Bengal. Durkheim. S. p. in : Marx-Engels. p. Zhukovskovo’’ [‘‘Karl Marx before the Tribunal of Mr. 1 : Karl Marx (1818-83). jointly sponsored by Asiatic Society. 185 Ibid. end notes in pp. 181 Tapan Raychoudhuri. in D. l. 181). 839-40. 1981).. 200 Ibid. 854. ‘‘Indian Historiography and Marxist Thought’’. 91. C. p. in : Essays in Honour of Prof.c. [See n.] 205 Ibid. Letter to the Editorial Board of the Otechestvenniye Zapiski.c. 313. Sarkar. p. p. in : Essays in Honour of Prof. 202 G. 192 See: Marx. 181). in: Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya (ed.. 194 Banerjee. 187 See: MECW. ‘‘The Asiatic Mode of Production and India’s Foreign Trade in the 17th century : A Theoretical Exercise’’. 60-71. 418. 855. (n. 339-40. Sarkar. pp. p... Letter to Vera Ivanovna Zasulich.
Indien und Europa (Basel. 228 For a bibliographic exploration into Marx’s encyclopedic study of general. Altekar.. 220 Sudipta Kaviraj. Bhupendranath Dutta Memorial Lecture of The Asiatic Society (Calcutta. 1981). (5 Books) (Chicago. l. 4-5. Dr. Id. 1931). 224 Debesh Roy Chowdhury.207 Ibid. Bd.. September 1983). 1985). pp. pp. (n. 24. pp. Oriental Enlightenment: The Encounter between Asian and Western Thought (London and New York.c. 1950). political science. 26-46. 173-98. ‘‘O vlijanii Indii na zarozhdenie kontseptsii istorizma v sochinenijakh rannikh nemetskikh romantikov’’. (Calcutta.. pp. 1988). 1997). Social Alienation and the Asiatic Mode of Production) (Calcutta. Id. 217 Ibid. 1839). 15-17. 1987). C. K. 120). Wilhelm Halbfass.. F. 221 Sunil Mitra. The Origin and Growth of Village Communities in India (London. 218 Ibid. 211 M. ‘‘Marxism. related disciplines like historical geography.. p. Famines in India (London. No. V. Spencer. 225 Dipesh Chakrabarty. pp. Marx and His Legacy : A Centennial Appraisal (Calcutta etc.. ‘‘From Pre-Capitalist to Capitalist Societies : Re-Examination of some Issues’’. Mazhokina (Red. 1994). 141-66. ethnology and. 53-67. 226 See: Raymond Schwab.
CATEGORY: MARX-ENGELS-STUDIES KEY WORDS: INDIA / MARX / ENGELS / MARXISTS / MARX-ENGELS-RECEPTION 30
. II (London. Pradip Baksi ‘‘India. 13-20). 1989). Vol. 1993). No. in : Deb Kumar Banerjee (ed.. Western sociologists on Indian society : Marx. Caste and Class in Indian Society. XXVIII. 227 Kurt Gödel. p. The History of India (London. Pareto. Ja. The Economic History of India. Mukherjee..c. see : Harstick (Hrsg. pp. Weber. 215 Madan. l. XI. 100-119.’’ Social Scientist. 9 (New Delhi..). The Economic History of India : 1600-1800. 1965-77).’’ Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik. (n. constitutional and cultural history of the various regions of the world. 118-40. 208 Ibid. ‘‘Marx after Marxism : A Subaltern Historian’s Perspective. str. 223 André Béteille. S. Literatury Indii (Moskva. H. 1-10). Baden-Powell. 14-15. (n. 1902). 21. 209 A. S. 2 Vols. pp. ‘‘Über formal unentscheidbare Satze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I. 210 B. 11 (pp. Village Communities in the East and West etc. Vol. 38 (Leipzig. Vol.’’ Economic and Political Weekly. Durkheim. 1927). l. 1900). ‘‘Ashiya Utpadan Paddhati’’ (‘‘The Asiatic Mode of Production’’). political. 219 Asok Mitra. 1904). 22 (Bombay. No. 1983). Marxism and the World Today’’. La Renaissance Orientale (Paris. Elphinstone. Samajik Bichchhinnata O Ashiya Utpadan Paddhati (Marxist Philosophy. May 29. A History of Village Communities in Western India (Bombay. 25. XXVII (New Delhi. pp. Vol. 202). Ivbulis. 10 (pp.. 212 Maine. p. ‘‘On the Status of Marx’s Writings on India. 222 Debi Chaterjee. social philosophy and philosophy of law and state. 213 R.). Party Life. 26. Lach. v R. 214 R. 1946). S.). legal. 216 Ibid.c. Pluralism and Orthodoxy’’ and ‘‘Is there a Marxist Anthropology?’’ in his Essays in Comparative Sociology (Delhi. 1899). 1874). 1094-96). Vol. Dutt. 1991). The Peasantry of Bengal (Calcutta and London. I (London. in his Marxiya Darshan. Asia in the Making of Europe. Donald F. Karl Marx über Formen vorkapitalistischer Produktion. p.. Marxist Thought in India (Calcutta.. John James Clarke. No. 9). 231-263. 4-16.