Marxist historians and subaltern studies scholars have both contributed to the study of Indian nationalist movements, but they have different perspectives on the subject.
Marxist historians view Indian nationalist movements as a product of class struggle. They argue that the rise of Indian nationalist movements was a response to the exploitation of the Indian working class by British colonial authorities and Indian capitalists. According to this perspective, the Indian nationalist movement was a movement of the oppressed classes against their oppressors. The Marxist historians argue that the Indian nationalist movement was led by the educated, urban-based middle class, who were more interested in achieving their own economic and social goals than in liberating the working class from oppression.
Subaltern studies scholars, on the other hand, view Indian nationalist movements from a different perspective. They argue that the Indian nationalist movement was not just a movement of the educated, urban-based middle class, but also a movement of the rural, lower-class subalterns. According to this perspective, the subalterns were actively involved in the Indian nationalist movement and played a crucial role in shaping it. The subaltern studies scholars argue that the Indian nationalist movement was a heterogeneous movement that included a wide range of social groups, including peasants, tribals, and women.
Both Marxist historians and subaltern studies scholars agree that the Indian nationalist movement was a response to British colonialism. However, they disagree on the nature of the movement and the social groups that led it. Marxist historians argue that the movement was led by the educated, urban-based middle class, while subaltern studies scholars argue that the movement was led by a diverse range of social groups, including the subalterns.
Marxist historians argue that the Indian National Congress, which was the main political organization leading the Indian nationalist movement, was dominated by the educated, urban-based middle class. They argue that the Congress was not representative of the Indian people as a whole and that it was primarily interested in achieving its own economic and social goals. On the other hand, Subaltern studies scholars argue that the Indian National Congress had a diverse membership base, including the subalterns, and that it represented a wide range of social groups. They argue that Congress was not just a political organization but also a social movement that aimed to mobilize the subalterns against British colonialism.
Marxist historians and subaltern studies scholars have different perspectives on Indian nationalist movements. Marxist historians view Indian nationalist movements as a product of class struggle led by the educated, urban-based middle class, while subaltern studies scholars view Indian nationalist movements as a heterogeneous movement led by a diverse range of social groups, including the subalterns. Both perspectives offer valuable insights into the Indian nationalist movement and its relationship to British colonialism.
@Compare The Views Of The Marxist Historians And Subaltern Studies On Indian Nationalism