Science and sentiment

YET another blow has been struck in the campaign to rewrite Indian history, with the recall by the Indian Council for Historical Research (ICHR) of two volumes of the Towards Freedom project (written by "Marxist historians") that had earlier been entrusted for publication to the Oxford University Press (OUP). I do not know what exactly the new chairman of the ICHR (who is "neither a Marxist nor a historian") found objectionable about these two books, but presumably the objections had something to do with the way the authors allegedly dealt with, or failed to deal with, specific sins of omission or commission of the predecessors of today's communists and/or nationalists in regard to the furtherance of the freedom struggle.

It is, however, worth stepping back a bit to take a look at the attitude of the two camps towards the writing of history; stepping back quite a bit actually, until one is no longer dealing with the integrity and/or competence of any particular historian, or even with the portrayal of any particular society or period. Looking at things from that distance, the most striking thing that comes to mind about Marxist historiography is that it is squarely anchored in reality. Or, to put it in another way, good Marxist historians (by which I mean those rare souls who are not too strongly committed to 'the propaganda function of the social sciences') are realistic rather than idealistic.

By this I do not mean that Marxist history is accurate or true and Hindutva history false. What I mean is, rather, that Marxist history at its best takes the level of development of productive forces at any given point of time as its starting point for the study of any given society. It studies the historical evolution of societies in relation to various stages in the development of the productive forces. The level of development of technology, property rights, and the organisation of the economy and society, are the "base"; and on this is built the corresponding "superstructure", consisting of culture, norms, ideas about what is fair and so on; all of which are geared to real world conditions as they then exist.

It is very easy to see that, were someone to attempt, instead, a purely cultural understanding of history, he or she could easily get carried very far astray. Studies made by historians of Indian culture, for instance, have carefully documented the fact that women held a very high place in ancient India. They were respected, purdah was unknown, some women became great scholars and so on. Now, this is all very well, but the fact of the matter is that, thanks to the "level of development of the productive forces" at that time, thanks to the way that the economy and society were organised, most women must necessarily have found themselves very much subordinated to their menfolk, both in and outside their homes. This position, indeed, continued for so many thousands of years, that women long ago grew accustomed to their fetters. So much so, indeed, that many of them continue to be deeply attached to their fetters today, even though the justification or real basis, for these fetters now no longer exists.

This business of "getting emotionally attached" to one's fetters forms a very important part of Marxist historiography.

It plays the critical role of reconciling people to their lot; of legitimating the "division of labour", not only in the home but in society as well. It is because of this that life goes on comparatively smoothly despite gross inequalities in the distribution of costs and benefits. Generally speaking, disadvantaged sections of society tend to be less than critical about those on whom they are hopelessly dependant. Indeed, they develop a strong sense of loyalty towards them, and a touching sense of gratitude for the crumbs that come their way.

In other words, people who are too preoccupied with culture tend, at times, to draw unwarranted conclusions from the "noble tradition of self sacrifice" among, say, Indian women. Of course, this cuts both ways. And it is just as foolish for Marxist historians to damn ancient India because of Manu's statement that women must "on no account be allowed to be free": they must at all times be dependent; first on their fathers, then on their husbands, and, in the end, on their sons. The fact is, of course, simply that, thanks to the level of development of the productive forces at that time, women were simply not ready for being "set free". Indeed, the very thought would surely have filled them with alarm.

SUDHANSHU RANADE

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Features
Previous : Brokering culture
Next     : The politics of 'Hey! Ram'