There are various approaches that comprise Indian historiography. Some of these approaches are the nationalist, imperialist, communalist, the Marxist, and the Cambridge school of thought. The ways in which these diverse schools share a ‘common elitist approach’ is due to the fact that historians of these schools consisted of the middle class that was educated by the British. This statement is supported by Sumit Sarkar, who says that “ The basic pattern was of an English-educated ‘ middle-class’ reared by British rule, engaging in various renaissance activities, and eventually turning against their masters and so giving birth to modern nationalism- out of frustrated selfish ambitions, ideals of patriotism, and democracy derived from Western culture, or natural revulsion against foreign rule, the imputed motive in each case depending on the viewpoint of the scholar” ( Sarkar, p. 4). As we will see in this essay, another way in which these schools share a common elitist approach is because all of them are targeting the common masses of the Indian population.

We will be looking at the approach of the Cambridge school of thought through the works of Anil Seal. He emphasized the notion that there were competition and collaboration among the Indian elite at the time. They were in competition amongst themselves as they all jockeyed for a higher position of authority, while at the same time they collaborated with the British in an effort to make that happen, thus creating vertical alliances rather than horizontal alliances. We get to know this as Anil Seal informs us that “What seems to have decided political choices in the localities was the race for influence, status, and resources. In the pursuit of these aims, patrons regimented their clients into factions which jockeyed for position. Rather than partnerships between fellows, these were usually associations of bigwigs and followers. In other words, they were vertical alliances, not horizontal alliances.” ( Seal 1973, p. 323) What Anil Seal is emphasizing when talking about vertical alliances over horizontal alliances is that alliances were not formed amongst the same class, such as landlord with the landlord, or educated with educated, but were instead formed across classes such as Brahmin with non-Brahmin, and educated with not educated. The Cambridge school also laid focus on the idea that the main motive behind the leader of the nationalist movement was not patriotism but were instead thoughts that were selfish and concerned only the elite themselves and not the masses. Sumit Sarkar clearly states that- “ The further assumption that patriotism was no more than a rationalization of extremely narrow and selfish motives like job frustration created a picture not to different really from that drawn by…..”( Sarkar, p. 5) and “ The leaders of the movement, that is to say the people who created it require a careful analysis, for in their ambitions must lie its causes.” ( Sarkar, p.7)

Valentine Chirol was a historian who wrote about Indian nationalism through the imperial perspective. According to him, imperialism in India brought about a transition in an attempt to shift the society from a traditional society to a more modern one.  He also mentions that the already educated class will readily accept that so that they could not fall back into their barbaric society.  We get to know this as Chirol says “ European science and literature flourished in the great cities of the East, where the educated classes willingly accepted and supported foreign rulership as their barrier against a relapse into barbarism” (       Chirol 1910, p.V11) Chirol also talks about how the imperial Raj found ‘its own principles perverted against its efforts’ in an attempt the show the betrayal of the English- educated middle class who turned against them and used their new found education and knowledge to influence the masses into turning against the British.

The imperialists also had a very negative view of the Indian National Congress who, according to them, represented only one class- the western educated middle, and not the entire Indian population which they claimed to represent. Also, they could not even be called national in the western democratic sense as there were millions of Indians whom they regarded as untouchables and thus there could not have been popular representation in India as long as the caste system still existed. The imperialists were also supportive of the depressed castes as, according to Chirol, “the depressed castes will probably find, as in the past, their truest friends and best qualified representatives among the European members of Council, who, just because they are aliens, are free from all the influences, whether of interest or of prejudice, which tend to divide Hindu society into so many water-tight compartments” ( Chirol 1910, p.177). Christian missionaries were also brought so that they couldn’t convert these people to Christianity. By doing so, it would have resulted in the benefit of both the sections. It would give the ‘untouchables’ a proper status and would find representation which they previously could not under the Indian National Congress. It would also benefit the British as converting millions into Christianity would give them an advantage over their Indian counterparts.

Indian Marxists historians have placed the blame for India’s backward economy during the 19^th century on the British.  The establishment of the East India company has been credited with the start of an era of mercantilism. The term mercantilism has been used here due to the exploitative nature of the British on the Indian handicraft industry. They developed a market for Indian goods and thus brought Indian handicrafts at throwaway prices and sold them at higher prices in order to spend their own capital interests. With the industrial revolution happening in the west, and with the introduction of the mill, this could also be interpreted as a way to introduce capitalism to India. This process is also known as ‘The Drain of Wealth’. Historians such as R.P Dutt and Ramesh Chandra Dutt realized this and thus popularized this notion of the Drain of Wealth to the educated circle. Thus the educated class and the already exploited artisans became more motivated and joined the nationalist movement. Thus the Indian Marxist historians took up a stance not so different from the nationalists.

One of the weaknesses of the nationalist movements was that it failed to attract the masses. This was because many of the Indian elites thought that every Indian thought of the British Raj as alien and thus wanted them gone. Even though the imperial Raj was exploitative, the local landlord and the regional elites were also quite exploitative of the lower strata of society. Thus the lower sections of the society were not only against the British but were also against the local landlords. Also, in the early 20^th century, the colored glass of communalism began to show its true colors. After noticing the communal divide between Hindus and Muslims, the British adopted the ‘ Divide and Rule’ policy and sought to deepen the already existing wound. Thus even they started supporting the minority Muslims.

Thus, what all these schools of modern historiography have in common and what the term ‘common elitism’ denotes is that all these schools comprised of influential and educated middle-class Indians who viewed the nationalistic movement and its historiography as ‘History from above’ more ‘History from below’.

REFERENCES

Sumit, Sarkar. Modern India: 1885-1947. Pearson

Seal, Anil. 1973. Imperialism and Nationalsim in India: Modern Asain Studies. 7: pp.321-347

Chirol, Valentine. 1910. Indian Unrest. London: MacMillan and Co., Limited