'Did Moscow Play Fraud on Marx' by Professor Devendra Swarup
of 61
-
Upload
naveen-reddy-kamani -
Category
Documents
-
view
7 -
download
0
description
This small book is a compilation of a series of 28 articles published in the Organiser Weekly from June 10, 2007 to Dec 23, 2007. Communists every where are very well-noted to be adept at fabricating “ facts ‘to write history from their perspective. The Communist Party of India encouraged by their mentors in the Soviet Union through the former Marx Engels, Lenin, Stalin Institute wanted Indian readers to believe that Marx was a prescient and profound guru to the world and that he wrote about the Indian soldiers and rulers revolt against the British East India Company in 1857. They wanted the Indians to believe that Marx characterized the revolt as a national one. Earlier these Communists and their handlers in UK, Rajani Palme Dutt and Harry Pollitt used to characterize the 1857 events as the last attempts of the feudal order of India to re-establish itself by getting rid of the British rule.Prof. Devendra Swarup pains- taking research shows that some unsigned articles which appeared in a US newspaper on 1857 events in India were without any proof and contrary to all evidence attributed to Karl Marx. They have been plenty of manipulations in the texts in order to sell a doubtful author to Indians by Communists in India and former Soviet Union. Prof. Devendra Swarup research brings out the mendacity of Communist historians and propagandists professing the communist faith. People wanting to know the truth about Marx, the Communist Party here in India and elsewhere should read Prof. Devendra Swarup’s excellent tract.
Transcript of 'Did Moscow Play Fraud on Marx' by Professor Devendra Swarup
-
Current Issue
Organiser Home
Editorial
EXPOSE
Reports
Comment
The Moving Finger
Writes
Media Watch
Thinking Aloud
Bookmark
A PAGE FROM
HISTORY
RETROSPECT
Kids Org.
News Round-up
Readers Forum:
INTERESTING
PEOPLE
PERSPECTIVE
Kerala Newsletter
Previous Issues
September 04, 2011
August 28, 2011
August 21, 2011
August 14, 2011
August 07, 2011
July 31, 2011
July 24, 2011
July 17, 2011
July 10, 2011
July 03, 2011
June 26, 2011
June 19, 2011
June 12, 2011
June 05, 2011
May 29, 2011
May 22, 2011
May 15, 2011
May 08, 2011
May 01, 2011
April 24, 2011
April 17, 2011
April 10, 2011
April 03, 2011
March 27, 2011
March 20, 2011
March 13, 2011
March 06, 2011
February 27, 2011
February 20, 2011
February 13, 2011
February 06, 2011
January 30, 2011
January 23, 2011
January 16, 2011
June 10, 2007
Page: 26/32
Home > 2007 Issues > June 10, 2007
Did Moscow play fraud on Marx??I
Pre-1957 Left perspective on 1857By Prof. Devendra Swarup
Endorsing the Macaulayan policy in the field of education and employment, it says:?The failure of the Mutiny proved conclusively that the people of India were notunited by the old social institutions and religious traditions?that the future of Indiawas to be secured not by the impossible revival of the old order of things but by thebirth of a new force arising upon the ruins of the old? (p. 161).
?This objectively reactionary character was the reason of its failure. It could nothave been suppressed had it been a progressive national movement, led by thenative bourgeoisie with advanced social ideas and political programme. But such amovement was impossible in that epoch.?People?s Democracy, the mouthpiece of the CPI (M), has brought out a special number (May 07-13) with the title?Understanding 1857: The Left Perspective?. This issue carries four new articles currently written by Irfan Habib, PrabhatPatnaik, Prakash Karat and Sitaram Yechury. It also reproduces four old articles, two written by E.M.S. Namboodripadand B.T. Ranadive in 1987 and two by Hiren Mukherjee and P.C. Joshi in the year 1957. The two articles published in1857 in an American paper, New York Daily Tribune and attributed to Marx and Engels belong to a different genre whichwe intend to discuss separately. Here our immediate question is why should the Left perspective stop at 1957? Thebeginning of the Communist movement in India goes back to the year 1920. Why not this special number present ussome glimpse of the Left perspective on 1857 during its thirty-two years long pre-1957 journey? Do they want us tobelieve that the Left intellectuals had not formulated and expressed any views on the 1857 revolt, in that long duration oris it a case of deliberate omission and suppression to hide something?
Let me draw the readers attention to a book titled India in Transition written by M.N. Roy in collaboration with AbaniMukherji and published in the year 1922 from Geneva. According to an official biography of Abani Mukherji, ?Both Royand Abani were already Marxists and they, together with Roy?s wife Evelyn (Shanti) drafted the first-ever policystatement on behalf of Indian Communists. This was published under the title of ?The Indian Communist Manifesto? onJune 24, 1920, in the Glasgow Socialist.? (Gautam Chattopadhyay: Abani Mukherji, Peoples Publishing House, NewDelhi 1976, p.17.) ?Those days M.N. Roy was considered to be a blue-eyed boy of Lenin and was a member of theCommunist International. Roy and Abani both had attended the Second Congress of the Communist International inMoscow and had jointly founded the first Communist Party of India at Tashkent on October 17, 1920?. Soon afterwards,in 1921 an open manifesto in the name of the CPI was distributed at the Ahmedabad session of the Indian NationalCongress, bearing at the end the joint signatures of Manbendra Nath Roy and Abani Mukherji ?? This was soon followedby the much more serious book, India in Transition. Once again this bore the joint authorship seals of M.N. Roy andAbani Mukherji? (ibid, pp. 22-23). According to M.N. Roy?s Memoirs (New Delhi, 1964), India in Transition was writtenand published at the behest of the publication department of the Communist International (p. 553) and therefore, could betermed as the first official Marxist interpretation of Indian history and contemporary Indian society. (See also, Documentsof the History of the Communist Party of India, Vol-I (Ed. Gangadhar Adhikari, New Delhi, 1971, pp 140-198, 357-510).
What is the Marxist view of 1857 Revolt presented in this first authoritative publication India in Transition? It says: ?TheRevolution of 1857 was nothing but the last effort of the dethroned feudal potentates to regain their power. It was astruggle between the worn-out feudal system and the newly introduced commercial capitalism for political supremacy?and therefore ?the last vestiges of feudal power were shattered by the failure of the Revolution of 1857, which is knownas the Sepoy Mutiny.? (Reprint, Bombay, 1971, p 20). To be more explicit, it says, ?The revolt of 1857 was the firstserious attempt to overthrow the British domination; but by no means could it be looked upon as a national movement. Itwas nothing more than the last spasm of the dying feudalism? socially it was a reactionary movement because it wantedto replace British rule by revived feudal imperialism, either of the Moghals or the Marathas. This objectively reactionarycharacter was the reason of its failure. It could not have been suppressed had it been a progressive national movement,
Organiser - Content http://organiser.org/archives/historic/dynamic/modules160f.html?name...
1 of 2 3/12/2015 5:52 PM
-
January 09, 2011
January 02, 2011
December 26, 2010
December 19, 2010
December 12, 2010
December 05, 2010
November 28, 2010
November 21, 2010
November 14, 2010
November 7, 2010
October 31, 2010
October 24, 2010
October 17, 2010
October 10, 2010
October 03, 2010
2010 Issues
2009 Issues
2008 Issues
2007 Issues
2006 Issues
Organiser
About us
Advertisement
Circulation
Contact us
Subscribe
June 10, 2007
Organiser Home
Editorial
Realpolitik
Column
News Analysis
The Moving Finger
Writes
Media Watch
Worldwatch
Kids Org
Health Watch
Bookmark
Readers Forum
Think it Over
led by the native bourgeoisie with advanced social ideas and political programme. But such a movement was impossiblein that epoch.? (ibid, p.158 ).
Significantly the two Marxist intellectuals find themselves in agreement with the opinion of the imperialist historian Seeleyand quote him approvingly (p. 158-159). They go a step further and pronounce: ?The revolt of 1857 was predominantly amilitary mutiny brought about by the intrigues of the deposed and discontented feudal chiefs. The people at large hadvery little to do with it; the majority of them remained passive or helped the British government. The only powerful Indiancommunity with some sense of national solidarity, rendered valuable service to the British. The English system ofeducation introduced in the 30?s, had brought into existence a small class of modern intellectuals who could be lookedupon as the forerunners of the national movement of the subsequent epoch. The mutiny found all these intellectuals withmodern and progressive thoughts on the side of the British government.? (ibid, p.159).
Further it says ?The failure of the mutiny proved that the intrigues of a backward social force, doomed to death by history,could not realise a national unity in opposition to a foreign domination, which nevertheless, objectively embodied anadvanced political thought.? (ibid, p159) The Marxist duo concludes, ?The failure of the Mutiny proved conclusively thatthe people of India were not united by the old social institutions and religious traditions?that the future of India was to besecured not by the impossible revival of the old order of things but by the birth of a new force arising upon the ruins of theold (p. 161). Endorsing the Macaulayan policy in the field of education and employment, the authors say, ?The objectwas to foment the growth of a native element which would consciously support the British government as the mostbeneficial institution?. The wisdom of this policy was demonstrated by the part played by the modern intelligentsia duringthe revolt of 1857? (p.164).
(To be continued)
Previous Page (25/32) - Next Page (27/32)
Content
copyright 2004 Bharat Prakashan(Delhi) Ltd. All Rights Reserved
Designed and Hosted by KSHEERAJA Web Solutions Pvt Ltd
Organiser - Content http://organiser.org/archives/historic/dynamic/modules160f.html?name...
2 of 2 3/12/2015 5:52 PM
-
Current Issue
Organiser Home
Editorial
EXPOSE
Reports
Comment
The Moving Finger
Writes
Media Watch
Thinking Aloud
Bookmark
A PAGE FROM
HISTORY
RETROSPECT
Kids Org.
News Round-up
Readers Forum:
INTERESTING
PEOPLE
PERSPECTIVE
Kerala Newsletter
Previous Issues
September 04, 2011
August 28, 2011
August 21, 2011
August 14, 2011
August 07, 2011
July 31, 2011
July 24, 2011
July 17, 2011
July 10, 2011
July 03, 2011
June 26, 2011
June 19, 2011
June 12, 2011
June 05, 2011
May 29, 2011
May 22, 2011
May 15, 2011
May 08, 2011
May 01, 2011
April 24, 2011
April 17, 2011
April 10, 2011
April 03, 2011
March 27, 2011
March 20, 2011
March 13, 2011
March 06, 2011
February 27, 2011
February 20, 2011
February 13, 2011
February 06, 2011
January 30, 2011
January 23, 2011
January 16, 2011
June 17, 2007
Page: 29/33
Home > 2007 Issues > June 17, 2007
SPECIAL ON 150 YEARS OF 1857
Pre-1957 Left perspective on 1857?II
1857: Reactionary and feudal outburstBy Prof. Devendra Swarup
?No Indian nationalist who stands for the social progress of his people and whostruggles for political independence as a step towards that goal, would be treadingthe right path by clanging to the sentiments that lay behind the revolt of 1857.??M.N. Roy
Who among the Left intellectuals and Communist leaders dare question theauthority of R.P. Dutt as a Marxist? What is the Left perspective on 1857 presentedby Rajni Palme Dutt in his classic India Today? (First published in 1940)
Why should Prof Habib use Nehru as the whipping boy and keep silent on M.N. Royand Rajni Palme Dutt?Obviously these Communist intellectuals considered the 1857 Revolt a reactionary movement without any popularsupport and national character. In their view, those who supported the British government represented the progressiveforerunners of nationalism. This view is the very antithesis of the present-day Left perspective on 1857. Theyemphatically state, ?Orthodox nationalists of a later period looked upon and interpreted the rebellion of 1857 as a greatstruggle for Independence. This tendency betrays the grave danger of reaction which is contained in the nationalism builton religious basis. No Indian nationalist who stands for the social progress of his people and who struggles for politicalindependence as a step towards that goal, would be treading the right path by clinging to the sentiments that lay behindthe revolt of 1857, which was not merely a military effort to overthrow the foreign domination. It was provoked by a fiercespirit of social reaction, being a revolt not against the British government in particular, but against the advance social andpolitical ideas it embodied?the ideas, which were hailed by the intellectual middle class of India?.? (M.N.Roy and AbaniMukherji, India in Transition p.p159-160).
In the light of these observations coming from the two pioneers of the Communist movement in India how do we describethe present-day Left perspective articulated by Prakash Karat, Sitaram Yechury, A.B. Bardhan and DipankarBhattacharya (CPI-ML)etc. ? if not as rabidly ?reactionary? ?anti-progressive? and to say the least, ?anti-national?? Inself-defence they could say who cares for the views of a man like M.N. Roy who drifted away, became a renegade andrevisionist and lost his credibility as a Marxist?
Leave aside M.N.Roy, but what about the celebrated Left intellectual Rajni Palme Dutt (1896-1974) popularly known asR.P.D. in the Communist circles? Who among the Left intellectuals and Communist leaders dare question the authority ofR.P. Dutt as a Marxist? Born, educated and settled in England R.P.D., as founder of the Communist Party of Britain, andas Editor of The Labour Monthly, was seen as the foremost Marxist intellectual of his time. For many decades he actedas the guide and philosopher of the Indian Communist Party as well as a bridge between the CPI and the CPSU. Hismagnum opus India Today published in 1940 was regarded as a reference work for an authentic Marxist interpretation ofIndian history and politics. Gangadhar Adhekari, a top Left theoretician acknowledged that India Today ?inspired andreared a whole generation of early Marxists.? (Marx and India, PPH, 1968, p.17)
What is the Left perspective on 1857 presented by Rajni Palme Dutt in his classic India Today? (First published in 1940)Unlike the present-day ?Left perspective?, Rajni Palme Dutt doesn?t see in 1857 a peasant revolt. He writes, ?It was thedecaying reactionary elements, the discontented princes and feudal forces, which led the opposition, whose leadershipculminated and floundered in the revolt of 1857. No force was then capable of leading and voicing the exploited andoppressed peasantry; and the revolt could only end in defeat.? (India Today, Manisha, Calcutta, 1997, p.195)
Organiser - Content http://organiser.org/archives/historic/dynamic/modules7f57.html?name...
1 of 2 3/12/2015 5:56 PM
-
January 09, 2011
January 02, 2011
December 26, 2010
December 19, 2010
December 12, 2010
December 05, 2010
November 28, 2010
November 21, 2010
November 14, 2010
November 7, 2010
October 31, 2010
October 24, 2010
October 17, 2010
October 10, 2010
October 03, 2010
2010 Issues
2009 Issues
2008 Issues
2007 Issues
2006 Issues
Organiser
About us
Advertisement
Circulation
Contact us
Subscribe
June 17, 2007
Organiser Home
Editorial
RESPONSE /
CONTROVERSY
REGIONAL
ROUND-UP
The Moving Finger
Writes
Think It Over
A West Bengal
Newsletter
Kids Org
Bookmark
News Analysis
Readers Forum
Controversy
Agenda
Elaborating it further Rajni Palme Dutt says, ?The rising of 1857 was in its essential character and dominant leadershipthe revolt of the old conservative and feudal forces and dethroned potentates for their rights and privileges which theysaw in process of destruction. This reactionary character of the rising prevented any wide measure of popular supportand doomed it to failure.? (ibid, p.306)
He reiterates, ?The Revolt of 1857 was the last attempt of the decaying feudal forces, of the former rulers of the country,to turn back the tide of foreign domination.? As has been already pointed out, the progressive forces of the time, of theeducated class representing the nascent bourgeoisie supported British rule against the Revolt. The Revolt was crushed,but the lesson was learned. From this point the feudal forces no longer represented the main potential menace and rivalto British rule. (ibid, p.440)
Obviously Rajni Palme Dutt?s views on 1857 are in no way different from the views held by M.N. Roy and Abani Mukherjiin 1922. He also considers 1857 a feudal outburst without any peasant participation and popular support. He also holds itreactionary and anti-progressive and therefore doomed to failure. In his view also, the section which supported the Britishgovernment against the Revolt represented the progressive patriots in Indian society.
Quite naturally, Jawaharlal Nehru was swayed away by the powerful propaganda and the first glimpse of the SovietUnion in 1927. According to EMS Namboodiripad (Nehru: Ideology and Practice, Delhi, 1988 pp. 20-24), he returned toIndia as fellow traveller and was very fond of using Marxist jargon. Nehru chose to depict the 1857 Revolt in his Glimpsesof World History (first published in 1934-35), as ?The last flicker of feudal India against a modern kind of industrialisedcapitalist state? Penguin Edition 2004, pp. 479-482), and later in his The Discovery of India (first published in 1946) hereiterated: ?Essentially it was a feudal outburst, headed by feudal chiefs and their followers and aided by the widespreadanti-foreign sentiment.? (Edition 1983, p. 323). Although he had moved away from his earlier position and opined that ?itwas much more than a military mutiny and it spread rapidly and assumed the character of a popular rebellion and a warof Indian independence.? (ibid, p. 323). Echoing the pre-1957 Marxist perception, Nehru wrote: ?There was hardly anyrational and unifying sentiment among the leaders?. It is clear however that there was a lack of nationalist feeling whichmight have bound the people of India together. (ibid, p. 324). Here we find a close similarity in the views of M.N.Roy andR.P. Dutt on one hand and Nehru on the other.
But why should Prof. Irfan Habib, who with his AMU team after the desertion of disillusioned Bengali intellectuals, seemsto have assumed the role of the official historian of the CPI(M) use Nehru as a whipping boy for his earlier views on 1857as a ?feudal outburst?? Interestingly Prof. Habib is maintaining a studied silence about the very detailed and explicitviews of the official Marxist intellectuals like M.N. Roy and R. Palme Dutt quoted above, whom Nehru was simplyechoing.
After having presented here two authoritative intellectual samples of pre-1957 Left perspective on 1857 we are faced withthe questions, ?Where are the roots of this earlier Left perspective, what brought about an abrupt reversal in thisperspective and when??
(To be continued)
Previous Page (28/33) - Next Page (30/33)
Content
copyright 2004 Bharat Prakashan(Delhi) Ltd. All Rights Reserved
Designed and Hosted by KSHEERAJA Web Solutions Pvt Ltd
Organiser - Content http://organiser.org/archives/historic/dynamic/modules7f57.html?name...
2 of 2 3/12/2015 5:56 PM
-
Current Issue
Organiser Home
Editorial
EXPOSE
Reports
Comment
The Moving Finger
Writes
Media Watch
Thinking Aloud
Bookmark
A PAGE FROM
HISTORY
RETROSPECT
Kids Org.
News Round-up
Readers Forum:
INTERESTING
PEOPLE
PERSPECTIVE
Kerala Newsletter
Previous Issues
September 04, 2011
August 28, 2011
August 21, 2011
August 14, 2011
August 07, 2011
July 31, 2011
July 24, 2011
July 17, 2011
July 10, 2011
July 03, 2011
June 26, 2011
June 19, 2011
June 12, 2011
June 05, 2011
May 29, 2011
May 22, 2011
May 15, 2011
May 08, 2011
May 01, 2011
April 24, 2011
April 17, 2011
April 10, 2011
April 03, 2011
March 27, 2011
March 20, 2011
March 13, 2011
March 06, 2011
February 27, 2011
February 20, 2011
February 13, 2011
February 06, 2011
January 30, 2011
January 23, 2011
January 16, 2011
June 24, 2007
Page: 25/28
Home > 2007 Issues > June 24, 2007
SPECIAL ON 150 YEARS OF 1857
Pre-1957 Left perspective on 1857?III
Marx?s perception of India in 1853By Prof. Devendra Swarup
?This passive sort of existence evoked the other part, in contradistinction wild,aimless, unbounded forces of destruction and rendered murder itself a religious ritein Hindostan.??Karl Marx
?I share not the opinion of those who believe in a golden age of Hindustan.??Karl Marx
Marx is to Indian Leftists what Jesus and Muhammad are to their devotees. Marxhas moulded the minds of Indian Leftists in the same way as the Bible or the Koranhas moulded the minds of their faithfuls.The early Left perspective on 1857, as articulated by M.N. Roy, Abani Mukherji and Rajni Palme Dutt may be summed upas follows:-
1857 was a feudal outburst to regain their lost potentates and privileges.
It was reactionary in nature as it aimed at the restoration of the old retrogressive social and religious order.
It lacked popular support and could not be called national in any sense of the term.
It was anti-progressive, because the future of the country lay in the process of modernisation introduced by theBritish government, which it opposed.
Therefore, the educated, enlightened, progressive elements of the society, who were the forerunners ofnationalism in India, were opposed to it and supported the British government.
It was doomed to failure.
Where can one look for the origin of this Left perception if not in the life and teachings of Karl Marx? If you read anyarticle, book or research paper written by any Indian Left intellectual you will find it overloaded with references to Marx?swritings and correspondence. If you happen to overhear any debate between different shades (because there are somany) of Indian Communists, you will be amused to find each side quoting Marx or Engels to support its own contention.In fact, Marx is to Indian Leftists what Jesus or Muhammad are to their devotees. Marx has moulded the minds of IndianLeftists in the same way as the Bible or the Koran has moulded the minds of their faithfuls. During the last one and a halfcentury, world Communism has passed through many vicissitudes, many prophesies and experiments of Marxism havefailed, big powerful Communist countries have crossed over to the Capitalist mode of market economy, science hasopened new frontiers in our knowledge of the nature and origin of man and universe, but for Indian Communists, Marxstill continues to be the only reference point. For them Marx?s every quote is an infallible gospel. Therefore if we want toreach the roots of the pre-1957 Leftist perspective on 1857, we must try to examine Marx?s perception of India. How didhe look at the economic, social and religious institutions of India? How did he compare Indian civilisation with western orEuropean civilisation? How did he view India?s journey in history? How did he react to the British conquest of India?What role did he visualise for British imperialism in India?
Answers to all these questions can be found in Marx?s two signed articles published in an American daily paper New
Organiser - Content http://organiser.org/archives/historic/dynamic/modulesbdbe.html?name...
1 of 2 3/12/2015 6:00 PM
-
January 09, 2011
January 02, 2011
December 26, 2010
December 19, 2010
December 12, 2010
December 05, 2010
November 28, 2010
November 21, 2010
November 14, 2010
November 7, 2010
October 31, 2010
October 24, 2010
October 17, 2010
October 10, 2010
October 03, 2010
2010 Issues
2009 Issues
2008 Issues
2007 Issues
2006 Issues
Organiser
About us
Advertisement
Circulation
Contact us
Subscribe
June 24, 2007
Organiser Home
Special Report
Editorial
A Report
Health Watch
Readers Forum
Media Watch
The Moving Finger
Writes
SPECIAL ON 150
YEARS OF 1857
Agenda
News Analysis
York Daily Tribune (henceforth NYDT) in the year 1853, i.e., only four years before the 1857 Revolt. First of thesearticles, ?The British Rule in India? carrying the London dateline, June 10, 1853 was published in NYDT on June 25,1853 and the second article ?The Future Results of the British Rule in India? with London dateline, July 22, 1853 waspublished on August 8, 1853. Those days British Parliament was debating the renewal of the Charter to E.I.C. for 20years beyond 1853. Marx, the London-based paid correspondent of the NYDT, wrote a series of eight newslettersbetween May 7 and July 22, 1853. Out of these eight letters the two articles, mentioned above have been accordedspecial importance in all the anthologies of Marx?s sporadic references to India. The first official collection of Karl Marx?shistorical writings prepared by the Institute of Marxism-Leninism, Moscow (founded in 1919) and published in the year1933 had included only two articles on India. All subsequent anthologies of Marx on India such as, edited and publishedby BPL Bedi (Lahore 1937), Mulk Raj Anand (Allahabad, 1938), CPI (Bombay 1943), On Britain (Moscow, 1953), OnColonialism (Moscow 1959), First Indian War of Independence (Moscow 1960) and lastly, Iqbal Hussain?s Karl Marx onIndia (Delhi, 2006) carry them. Only these articles present a comprehensive historical view of Marx on Indian society,civilisation and history.
These articles show that Marx had a very adverse opinion of Indian economic, social and religious institutions. At theoutset he declared, ?I share not the opinion of those who believe in a golden age of Hindustan?. (Karl Marx?s HistoricalWritings. Moscow 1933, Indian reprint, PPH Bombay 1944, p. 591). He says, ?That religion is at once a religion ofsensual exuberance, and a religion of self-torturing asceticism, a religion of the Lingam and of the juggernaut, the religionof the Monk and bayadare.? (Historical Writings Vol. I, Bombay 1944, p. 591).
Similarly, Marx was very critical of the village community system prevalent in India from times immemorial. Unlike otherforeign observers Marx did not consider these village communities as bedrock of grassroot democracy or republicanism,rather he dubbed them ?solid foundation of oriental despotism.? He wrote, ?Since the remotest times, a social system ofparticular features?the so-called village system, which gave to each of these small unions their independent organisationand distinct life. (ibid, p. 594)... These idyllic village communities, inoffensive though they may appear, had always beenthe solid foundation of oriental despotism, that they restrained the human mind within the smallest possible compass,making it the unresisting tool of superstition, enslaving it beneath traditional rules depriving it of all grandeur and historicalenergies.? (ibid, p. 596). Marx saw an organic relation between the village system and religion. He says, ?We must notforget that this undignified, stagnatory and vegetative life, that this passive sort of existence evoked the other part, incontradistinction wild, aimless, unbounded forces of destruction and rendered murder itself a religious rite in Hindostan?.(ibid, p. 596).
Denigrating further the Indian social system and religion he continues. ?We must not forget that these little communitieswere contaminated by distinction of caste and by slavery, that they subjugated man to external circumstances, instead ofelevating man the sovereign of circumstances, that they were transformed a self-developing social state into neverchanging natural destiny, and thus brought about a brutalising worship of nature, exhibiting its degradation is the fact thatman, the sovereign of nature, fell down on his knees in adoration of Hanuman, the monkey, and Sabbala, the cow.? (ibidp. 596-597).
(To be continued)
Previous Page (24/28) - Next Page (26/28)
Content
copyright 2004 Bharat Prakashan(Delhi) Ltd. All Rights Reserved
Designed and Hosted by KSHEERAJA Web Solutions Pvt Ltd
Organiser - Content http://organiser.org/archives/historic/dynamic/modulesbdbe.html?name...
2 of 2 3/12/2015 6:00 PM
-
Current Issue
Organiser Home
Editorial
EXPOSE
Reports
Comment
The Moving Finger
Writes
Media Watch
Thinking Aloud
Bookmark
A PAGE FROM
HISTORY
RETROSPECT
Kids Org.
News Round-up
Readers Forum:
INTERESTING
PEOPLE
PERSPECTIVE
Kerala Newsletter
Previous Issues
September 04, 2011
August 28, 2011
August 21, 2011
August 14, 2011
August 07, 2011
July 31, 2011
July 24, 2011
July 17, 2011
July 10, 2011
July 03, 2011
June 26, 2011
June 19, 2011
June 12, 2011
June 05, 2011
May 29, 2011
May 22, 2011
May 15, 2011
May 08, 2011
May 01, 2011
April 24, 2011
April 17, 2011
April 10, 2011
April 03, 2011
March 27, 2011
March 20, 2011
March 13, 2011
March 06, 2011
February 27, 2011
February 20, 2011
February 13, 2011
February 06, 2011
January 30, 2011
January 23, 2011
January 16, 2011
July 01, 2007
Page: 37/42
Home > 2007 Issues > July 01, 2007
SPECIAL ON 150 YEARS OF 1857
Did Moscow play fraud on Marx??IV
Marx welcomed British conquest of IndiaBy Devendra Swarup
QUITE naturally, with this adverse view of India?s social and religious systems, Marx was ready to welcome any effort tooverthrow them and he saw the British conquest of India in that light. In his view England was ?causing a socialrevolution in Hindustan, ?..Whatever may have been the crime of England she was the unconscious tool of history inbringing about that revolution? (Historical Writings, p. 597). He was happy that ?these small stereotype form of socialorganism have been to the greater part dissolved?? and in his view the dissolution of ?these small semi-barbarian,semi-civilised communities, by blowing up their economic basis? has ?produced the greatest, and, to speak the truth, theonly social revolution ever heard of in Asia.? (ibid, p. 596). He was overjoyed to see that ?England has broken down theentire framework of Indian society, without any symptoms of reconstruction yet appearing. This loss of his old world, withno gain of a new one, imparts of particular kind of melancholy to the present misery of the Hindu and separatesHindustan ruled by Britain from all its earlier traditions, and from the whole of its past history.? (ibid, pp. 592-93).
Quoting a poem of German poet Goethe, Marx expresses his conviction that any crumbling of an ancient world must beaccompanied by some torture and bloodshed. (p. 597).
Marx does not see in the British conquest of India a catastrophe or an act of imperialist exploitation, rather he welcomesit for two reasons. One, it is India?s destiny to be invaded and conquered. Marx is convinced that ??the whole of her pasthistory, if it be anything, is the history of successive conquests she has undergone. Indian society has no history at all, atleast, no known history. What we call its history is but the history of successive intruders, who founded their empires onthe passive basis of that unresisting and unchanging society, (ibid, p. 598). And for these foreign invasions andconquests, India has to blame herself not the invaders because, Marx believes, ?A country not only, divided between theMohammedan and Hindu, but between tribe and tribe, between caste and caste, a society whose framework was basedon a sort of equilibrium, resulting from a general repulsion and constitutional exclusiveness between all its members.Such a country and such a society, were they not the predestined prey of conquest?? (ibid, p. 598).
For Marx, ?the question, therefore, is not whether the English had a right to conquer India but whether we are to preferIndia conquered by the Turk, by the Persian, by the Russian, to India conquered by the Britain.? (p. 598). And, of course,Marx stands for conquest by Britain, because, he says, ?Arabs, Turks, Tartars, Moghuls, who had successively overrunIndia, soon became Hinduised, the barbarian conquerors being, by an eternal law of history, conquered themselves bythe superior civilization of their subjects.? (ibid, p. 599) (Here Marx is contradicting himself because earlier he hadpainted a very degenerate, stagnant picture of the Hindu society.) Exhibiting his Euro-centric approach Marx says: ?TheBritish were the first conquerors superior, and therefore, inaccessible to the Hindu civilization. They destroyed it bybreaking up the native communities, by uprooting the native industry, and by levelling all that was great and elevated inthe native society.? (ibid, p. 599).
In fact, in Marx?s view, ?England has to fulfill a double mission in India, one destructive, and the other regenerating?theannihilation of old Asiatic society and laying the material foundations of Western society in Asia.? (ibid, p. 599). For him,the introduction of steam had brought India into regular and rapid communication with Europe? and ?the day is not fardistant when ? that once fabulous country will thus be actually annexed to the Western world.? (p. 600)
Marx gives us a list of works of regeneration begun by the British rulers in India. They are:
a. political unity??Unity imposed by the British sword, will now be strengthened and perpetuated by the electrictelegraph.? (p. 599)
b. creation of the native army
c. the free press
Organiser - Content http://organiser.org/archives/historic/dynamic/modules8682.html?name...
1 of 2 3/12/2015 6:04 PM
-
January 09, 2011
January 02, 2011
December 26, 2010
December 19, 2010
December 12, 2010
December 05, 2010
November 28, 2010
November 21, 2010
November 14, 2010
November 7, 2010
October 31, 2010
October 24, 2010
October 17, 2010
October 10, 2010
October 03, 2010
2010 Issues
2009 Issues
2008 Issues
2007 Issues
2006 Issues
Organiser
About us
Advertisement
Circulation
Contact us
Subscribe
July 01, 2007
Organiser Home
Editorial
Regional Round-up
Realpolitik
News Analysis
Kids Org
Infotainment
World of Women
Bookmark
Agenda
INTERVIEW OF THE
WEEK
An essay on 1857-II
SPECIAL ON 150
YEARS OF 1857
Readers Forum
Media Watch
Think it Over
d. introduction of steam and railway, and above all,
e. emergence of an English educated class of Indians.
Describing this class, Marx writes: ?From the Indian natives, reluctantly and sparingly, educated at Calcutta, underEnglish superintendence, a fresh class is springing up endowed with the requirements for government and imbued withEuropean science (p. 600). Here, Macaulay is speaking through Marx. Sometimes it is difficult to separate an Europhileimperialist from a ?revolutionary? Marx. When Marx says: ?The introduction of rail roads? will afford the means ofdiminishing the amount and the cost of the military establishments.? (ibid, p. 601) is he not supporting the military rule ofBritain?
Perhaps, out of his intense hatred for Indian civilization and pride for Western civilisation, we find Marx?the ?rational?and ?revolutionary??speaking the language of a Christian missionary. Castigating the British government for notpropagating Christianity in India, Marx says: ?While they combated the French Revolution under the pretext of defending?our holy religion?, did they not forbid, at the same time, Christianity to be propagated in India and did they not, in orderto make money out of the pilgrims streaming into the temples of Orissa and Bengal, take up the trade in the murder andprostitution perpetrated in the temple of Juggernaut? These are the men of Property, Order, Family and Religion!? (ibid,p. 604).
Marx believed that ?the railway system will? become in India, truly, the fore runner of modern industry. (ibid, p. 602) and?Modern industry resulting from the railway system, will dissolve the hereditary divisions of labour, upon which rests theIndian castes, those decisive impediments to Indian progress and Indian power? (p. 602). Again, time has proved Marx afalse prophet, because expansion of railway network all over the country during the last one-and-a-half century, hasinstead of obliterating the institution of caste, only strengthened it.
To sum up, Marx?s perception of India in 1853, just before the 1857 Revolt, was:
* India?s social, economic and religious institutions based on village communities and caste are stagnant, semi-barbaricand decadent. They ought to be destroyed completely.
* India?s economic system resting on agriculture and cottage industry should be dissolved and give way to modernlarge-side industrialization.
* Inferior Asiatic civilization must be supplanted with the superior Western civilization. India should be annexed to theWestern world.
* British conquest of India is a blessing for India. Britain has double mission to fulfill, one, to destroy the old and second,to build new.
* Britain has started the process of regeneration by giving India (a) political unity (b) free press (c) introducing steam,electric telegraph and railway (d) building a native army, and finally (e) by creating a new English educated class imbuedwith Western science and administrative acumen. The process of regeneration has just begun, it should be carriedfurther and not reversed.
(To be continued)
?Indian society has no history at all, at least no known history. What we call itshistory is but the history of successive intruders, who founded their empires on thepassive basis of that unresisting and unchanging society.??Karl Marx
?England has to fulfil a double mission in India, one destructive, and the otherregenerating?the annihilation of old Asiatic society, and laying the materialfoundations of Western society in Asia.? ? Marx
Previous Page (36/42) - Next Page (38/42)
Content
copyright 2004 Bharat Prakashan(Delhi) Ltd. All Rights Reserved
Designed and Hosted by KSHEERAJA Web Solutions Pvt Ltd
Organiser - Content http://organiser.org/archives/historic/dynamic/modules8682.html?name...
2 of 2 3/12/2015 6:04 PM
-
Current Issue
Organiser Home
Editorial
EXPOSE
Reports
Comment
The Moving Finger
Writes
Media Watch
Thinking Aloud
Bookmark
A PAGE FROM
HISTORY
RETROSPECT
Kids Org.
News Round-up
Readers Forum:
INTERESTING
PEOPLE
PERSPECTIVE
Kerala Newsletter
Previous Issues
September 04, 2011
August 28, 2011
August 21, 2011
August 14, 2011
August 07, 2011
July 31, 2011
July 24, 2011
July 17, 2011
July 10, 2011
July 03, 2011
June 26, 2011
June 19, 2011
June 12, 2011
June 05, 2011
May 29, 2011
May 22, 2011
May 15, 2011
May 08, 2011
May 01, 2011
April 24, 2011
April 17, 2011
April 10, 2011
April 03, 2011
March 27, 2011
March 20, 2011
March 13, 2011
March 06, 2011
February 27, 2011
February 20, 2011
February 13, 2011
February 06, 2011
January 30, 2011
January 23, 2011
January 16, 2011
July 08, 2007
Page: 36/37
Home > 2007 Issues > July 08, 2007
SPECIAL ON 150 YEARS OF 1857
Did Moscow play fraud on Marx??V
Intellectual servility of Indian MarxistsBy Devendra Swarup
With this blind faith in the knowledge and vision of Marx, the image of 1857 Revoltcould not be different from what was presented by Rajni Palme Dutt and other earlyLeft intellectuals.
Instead of probing the sources of Marx?s knowledge about India and questioninghis sweeping pronouncements, the Leftists started lauding them as ?historic?,?prophetic?, ?original? and ?insightful?. What a pathetic example of blindhero-worship and intellectual servility!Any patriotic Indian would be shocked to read such a narrow Eurocentric, derogatory and insulting evaluation of hiscountry and civilisation, but not the Indian leftists. Instead of probing the sources of Marx?s knowledge about India andquestioning his sweeping pronouncements, they started lauding them as ?historic?, ?prophetic?, ?original? and?insightful?. That great litterateur Mulk Raj Anand in the preface to his edited work Marx and Engels on India (Allahabad,1938) showered phrases like ?The insight with which Marx analyses the changes in the form of Indian society broughtabout by the British conquest of India?, ?the uncanny foresight with which in 1853 he prophesied? and ?with theperspicacity of genius Marx describes how the coming of Britain to India broke up this slow-moving antiquated socialorder? (p. 5).
Rajni Palme Dutt in his India Today (written during the years 1936-1939 but published in 1940) devoted full thirteenpages (pp. 83-95) to discuss these articles of 1853 and some sporadic references to India in Marx?s Capital andCorrespondence. For R.P.D. these few references were sufficient to prove that ?Marx had continuously devoted some ofhis leading thought and work to India? (p. 83). An ecstatic R.P.D. wrote: ?In fact, the well known articles of Marx on India,written as a series in 1853, are among the most fertile of his writings and the starting point of modern thought on thequestions covered? (ibid).
Further he says, ?These taken in conjunction with Capital and the references in the Correspondence, give the kernel ofMarx?s thought on India.? (ibid p. 84). R.P.D. is in full agreement with every statement made by Marx. Posing thequestion, ?Does Marx shed tears over fall of the village system and the destruction of the old basis of Indian society??R.P.D. gives a readymade answer, ?But he saw also the deeply reactionary character of that village system, and theindispensable necessity of its destruction if mankind is to advance?. (p. 91). Very approvingly, R.P.D. recounts the?regenerating? role of the British rule in India, as presented by Marx. (pp. 92-94). Paying encomiums to the propheticvision of Marx, R.P.D. writes, ?More than ninety years have passed since Marx wrote on India. Far-reaching changeshave taken place. The main outlines of Marx?s historical analysis still stand, and his vision into the future of India (towhich no parallel can be found in any nineteenth century writer on India.)? (ibid, p. 94)
What a pathetic example of blind hero-worship and intellectual servility!
With this blind faith in the knowledge and vision of Marx, the image of 1857 Revolt could not be different from what waspresented by R.P.D. and other early Left intellectuals. If, according to Marx, the British conquest of India was to be seenas the victory of a superior civilisation over an inferior one and if England had a double mission to fulfill in India: (1) Thedestruction of the old stagnated, semi-barbarous social and economic order and (2) To initiate a process of regenerationby introducing steam, electric telegraph and railways, modern industrialisation, as well as the western education system,then, any sudden violent uprooting of the British rule, which the 1857 Revolt really aimed at, could be termed, nothing but?reactionary?, anti-progress and ?anti-people?. The success of such a violent outburst would have meant the disruptionof the process of regeneration leading to the restoration of the old order. Therefore, the pre-1957 Left perspective of the
Organiser - Content http://organiser.org/archives/historic/dynamic/modulese6d2-2.html?nam...
1 of 2 3/12/2015 6:09 PM
-
January 09, 2011
January 02, 2011
December 26, 2010
December 19, 2010
December 12, 2010
December 05, 2010
November 28, 2010
November 21, 2010
November 14, 2010
November 7, 2010
October 31, 2010
October 24, 2010
October 17, 2010
October 10, 2010
October 03, 2010
2010 Issues
2009 Issues
2008 Issues
2007 Issues
2006 Issues
Organiser
About us
Advertisement
Circulation
Contact us
Subscribe
July 08, 2007
Organiser Home
Editorial
New Analysis
Essay
Regional Round-up
Kerala Newsletter
Insight
NEIGHBOUR WATCH
Kids Org
Neighbour Watch
Bookmark
Indias Scientific
Heritage-XIV
Readers Forum
Agenda
The Moving Finger
Writes
Think It Over
Media Watch
Opinion
1857 Revolt reflected truly Marx?s perception of India in 1853.
Here it may be useful to examine the sources of Marx?s knowledge and perception of India. Interestingly, Marx?s viewson India were not known in India and Europe till 1930s. Rajni Palme Dutt was shocked when in 1927 the leading EnglishSocialist leader Harold Laski put out the view, ?The effort to read the problem of India in the set terms of Marxism israther an exercise in ingenuity than a serious intellectual contribution to socialist advance.? (Communism, London 1927,p. 124, cf. R.P. Dutt, India Today 1940/1997, p. 83). Soon after, the archives of Marx-Engels, set up in 1919 at Moscowby D. Ryazanov, started compilation and publication of the collected works of Marx and Engels. After the suddendemotion and exile of Ryazanov by Stalin, this work was carried further by V. Adaratsky, who in 1933 published in twovolumes the Historical Writings of Marx and Engels wherein the two signed articles by Marx, discussed above, wereincluded. But, much before that a section of Indian intellectuals and activists, swayed away by the powerful propagandaunleashed by the Russian Bolshevik Party and the 1919 Communist International led by Vladimir Lenin, under theslogan, ?Way to London goes via Peking and Calcutta? had come to believe that the coup which brought Lenin to powerin October 1917 was a great ideological revolution and its driving ideology was Marxism. They had become Marxistswithout having read Marx. Prof D.P. Mukherji of Lucknow University could pronounce in 1945 that ?Karl Marx?s place asa historian is of the highest order.? (On Indian History: A Study in Method, Chap. 2, Indian History and the MarxistMethod; pp. 9-48; Bombay, 1945, p. 18). Defending Lenin?s coup, Mukherji wrote: ? Recent researches have demolishedthe dishonest conclusion that according to Marx, Russia should have been the last country to achieve a revolution and itwas all Lenin?s doing without reference to the Marxian methodology? (ibid, p. 42). He fervently pleaded that ?the Marxistapproach may be given a trial by our historians.? (ibid. 47)
(To be continued...)
Previous Page (35/37) - Next Page (37/37)
Content
copyright 2004 Bharat Prakashan(Delhi) Ltd. All Rights Reserved
Designed and Hosted by KSHEERAJA Web Solutions Pvt Ltd
Organiser - Content http://organiser.org/archives/historic/dynamic/modulese6d2-2.html?nam...
2 of 2 3/12/2015 6:09 PM
-
Current Issue
Organiser Home
Editorial
EXPOSE
Reports
Comment
The Moving Finger
Writes
Media Watch
Thinking Aloud
Bookmark
A PAGE FROM
HISTORY
RETROSPECT
Kids Org.
News Round-up
Readers Forum:
INTERESTING
PEOPLE
PERSPECTIVE
Kerala Newsletter
Previous Issues
September 04, 2011
August 28, 2011
August 21, 2011
August 14, 2011
August 07, 2011
July 31, 2011
July 24, 2011
July 17, 2011
July 10, 2011
July 03, 2011
June 26, 2011
June 19, 2011
June 12, 2011
June 05, 2011
May 29, 2011
May 22, 2011
May 15, 2011
May 08, 2011
May 01, 2011
April 24, 2011
April 17, 2011
April 10, 2011
April 03, 2011
March 27, 2011
March 20, 2011
March 13, 2011
March 06, 2011
February 27, 2011
February 20, 2011
February 13, 2011
February 06, 2011
January 30, 2011
January 23, 2011
January 16, 2011
July 15, 2007
Page: 18/29
Home > 2007 Issues > July 15, 2007
SPECIAL ON 150 YEARS OF 1857
Did Moscow play fraud on Marx??VI
Marx had inadequate knowledge about IndiaBy Devendra Swarup
Kosambi was of the view that: ?The adoption of Marx?s thesis does not mean blindrepetition of all his conclusions (and even less, those of the official party line.'Marxists' at all times).?
Referring to Marx?s chronological notes on Indian history Prof. Sarkar laments,?The most serious omission here is the passing over of the entire Hindu epoch ofour history, though it was being recovered by the European scholars of Marx?sdays?.When serious scholars like D.D. Kosambi tried to apply Marxian approach to Indian history, they found themselves ingreat difficulty. In 1951, Kosambi tried to examine Marxist approach to Indian chronology (Annals of Bhandarkar OrientalResearch Institute, Vol. 31 pp. 258-66) as presented by a Russian scholar D.A. Suleiken in 1949 and found it?dangerously misleading? (Kosambi?s Omnibus, OUP 2005, p. 49). In his seminal work, An Introduction to the Study ofIndian History (first published in 1956, sixth reprint 1993) Kosambi rejected many of Marx?s statements about India.Kosambi wrote: ?India had never a classical slave economy in the same sense as Greece or Rome? (p. 11). Kosambiwas at a loss what to make of Marx?s famous theory of the ?Asiatic Mode of Production?. He says, ?What Marx himselfsaid about India cannot be taken as it stands.? Kosambi, who is considered to be the father of Marxist historiography onIndia, emphatically rejects Marx?s view of Indian history. He writes: ?We cannot let pass without challenge Marx?sstatement, ?Indian society has no history at all? unchanging (village) society.? Kosambi says, ?In fact, the greatestperiods of Indian history, the Mauryans, the Satavahanas, the Guptas owed nothing to intruders, they mark precisely theformation and spread of the basic village society, or the development of new trade centers? (ibid, pp 11-12). Kosambiwas of firm view, that: ?The adoption of Marx?s thesis does not mean blind repetition of all his conclusions (and evenless, those of the official party line Marxists at all times)? (p. 10). That is why Kosambi wrote a ruthlessly critical review ofS.A. Dange?s India from Primitive Communism to Slavery, People?s Publishing House (PPH), Bombay 1949).
Irfan Habib in his well documented essay, Marx?s Perception of India, [written on the occasion of Marx?s deathcentenary in the year 1983 and published in the inaugural issue of The Marxist, an official journal of the CPI(M), reprintedin his ?Essays in Indian History, Tulika, Delhi, 1995), reproduced again in Iqbal Hussan (ed); Karl Marx on India, (Tulika,2006)] holds the view that ?In 1853 he seems to have taken up his starting point the (1830) descriptive elements inHegel?s interpretation of Indian civilization? (ibid, p. 58). Marx almost echoes Hegel?s words: ?The Hindoos have nohistory, no growth expanding into a veritable political condition?. Marx blindly repeated Hegel?s view that the admitteddiffusion of Indian culture has been ?a dumb, deedless expansion? and ?the people of India have achieved no foreignconquests but on every occasion were vanquished themselves.? Similarly, he repeated Hegel?s description of Indianvillage community. Habib points out that Marx?s knowledge of India in 1853 was mostly confined to Bernier, Fifth Reportand current British Parliamentary debates. He says that after 1867, references to India became relatively infrequent inMarx?s published writings.
In fact, Marx?s much advertised ?Notes on Indian History?, (posthumously published from Moscow in 1947 on the basisof some handwritten manuscripts found among Marx?s papers,) were prepared in the last years of his life about the year1880. These Notes are based on two books?one, Elphinstone?s History of India first published in 1841, but Marx got itsreprint of 1874 and the second one was Robert Sewell?s The Analytical History of the British Conquest of India. (London,1870). The notes begin at the year 664 AD, i.e. coming of the Muslims and close at Queen Victoria?s Proclamation ofAugust 1858. There is no evidence that Marx was ever able to use these notes. Marxist historian, Prof Sushobhan Sarkarin an article ?Marx on Indian History?, (written on the occasion of Marx?s 150th birth anniversary in the year 1968) wasconstrained to admit that ?Marx did not leave behind any systematic presentation of the history of India, that was never
Organiser - Content http://organiser.org/archives/historic/dynamic/modules4bc0.html?name...
1 of 2 3/12/2015 6:11 PM
-
January 09, 2011
January 02, 2011
December 26, 2010
December 19, 2010
December 12, 2010
December 05, 2010
November 28, 2010
November 21, 2010
November 14, 2010
November 7, 2010
October 31, 2010
October 24, 2010
October 17, 2010
October 10, 2010
October 03, 2010
2010 Issues
2009 Issues
2008 Issues
2007 Issues
2006 Issues
Organiser
About us
Advertisement
Circulation
Contact us
Subscribe
July 15, 2007
Organiser Home
Editorial
Opinion
Worldwatch
Media Watch
The Moving Finger
Writes
Kids Org
Special Report
SPECIAL ON 150
YEARS OF 1857
Bookmark
Think It Over
AGENDA
Readers Forum
Sangh Samachar
his main preoccupation. He set down his observations on certain current Indian questions, which attracted publicattention.? (P.C. Joshi (ed), Homage to Karl Marx, (PPH 1968, p. 93).
Referring to Marx?s chronological notes on Indian history Prof. Sarkar laments, ?The most serious omission here is thepassing over of the entire Hindu epoch of our history, though it was being recovered by the European scholars of Marx?sdays? (ibid p. 98). Gangadhar Adhikari, one of the top theoreticians of the CPI, in his essay ?Marx and India? (ACommunist Party Publication, 1968) says, ?Writing to Engels in those days (1853-59) Marx had somewhere said that hisknowledge of India was inadequate.? (p. 17). Adhikari may be referring to a letter from Marx to Engels dated August 8,1858, where Marx writes: ?I have written a lot for the Tribune of late so as to replenish my account a bit but I am gettingdamnably short of material. India isn?t my department.? (Karl Marx and F. Engels, Collected Works Vol. 40 ProgressPublishers Moscow, 1983 p. 335). This letter shows that Marx had no interest in India and whatever he wrote was writtennot out of conviction but in a mercenary spirit to meet his financial needs. Therefore, one is inclined to agree with theopinion of the noted historian A.K. Warder that ?Marx here is embedded in the ordinary European outlook of his daywhich had been codified by Hegel? according to which ?Asians are barbarians and the ancient Greeks miraculouslycreated civilization, inherited by the later peoples of Europe?, that ?the real history and social progress, along with thephilosophy, art, etc, begin with the Greeks and is essentially the history of Europe.? (R.S. Sharma and Vivekananda Jha(eds) Indian Society Historical Probings: Essays in Memory of D.D. Kosambi, ICHR, New Delhi, 1974, p. 159).
In the light of the above, is it not pathetic that Indian Leftists should still place their blind faith in Marx?s inadequate,borrowed and now outdated knowledge about India?
(To be continued)
Previous Page (17/29) - Next Page (19/29)
Content
copyright 2004 Bharat Prakashan(Delhi) Ltd. All Rights Reserved
Designed and Hosted by KSHEERAJA Web Solutions Pvt Ltd
Organiser - Content http://organiser.org/archives/historic/dynamic/modules4bc0.html?name...
2 of 2 3/12/2015 6:11 PM
-
Current Issue
Organiser Home
Editorial
EXPOSE
Reports
Comment
The Moving Finger
Writes
Media Watch
Thinking Aloud
Bookmark
A PAGE FROM
HISTORY
RETROSPECT
Kids Org.
News Round-up
Readers Forum:
INTERESTING
PEOPLE
PERSPECTIVE
Kerala Newsletter
Previous Issues
September 04, 2011
August 28, 2011
August 21, 2011
August 14, 2011
August 07, 2011
July 31, 2011
July 24, 2011
July 17, 2011
July 10, 2011
July 03, 2011
June 26, 2011
June 19, 2011
June 12, 2011
June 05, 2011
May 29, 2011
May 22, 2011
May 15, 2011
May 08, 2011
May 01, 2011
April 24, 2011
April 17, 2011
April 10, 2011
April 03, 2011
March 27, 2011
March 20, 2011
March 13, 2011
March 06, 2011
February 27, 2011
February 20, 2011
February 13, 2011
February 06, 2011
January 30, 2011
January 23, 2011
January 16, 2011
July 22, 2007
Page: 35/41
Home > 2007 Issues > July 22, 2007
SPECIAL ON 150 YEARS OF 1857
Did Moscow play fraud on Marx??VII
1957: Left turns RightBy Devendra Swarup
?The past anti-Hindu record of the Muslim rulers and the anti-feudal maturation ofsociety which expressed itself in the form of an opposition to the existing Muslimregime, spread apathy about the rebellion among the Hindus.??Baren Ray
?Far too long had our national revolution been denied the status of a revolution. Ithad become fashionable to deride it, especially by Marxist historians who followedthe lead of M.N. Roy and Rajni Palme Dutt.??Mohit Sen1957, the centenary year of the Great Revolt, became a turning point for the Indian Communists. The popular sentimentand enthusiasm displayed during the centenary celebrations all over the country was an eye opener to them. Eminenthistorians like R.C. Majumdar, S.N. Sen, S.B. Chowdhury and others brought out well-researched works on 1857. Newdocumentary material was dug out from the state archives. S.A.A. Rizvi and M.L. Bhargava, at the behest of UPgovernment, brought out a multi-volume compilation of rare documents on 1857. Thus, fifty years after Savarkar?spath-breaking work on 1857 titled Indian War of Independence, 1857 was once again presented from Indian point of viewin its myriad colours.
Inaugurating the centenary celebrations on May 10, 1957, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru delivered a long inspiringspeech at the Ramlila Maidan. All this made the Communists re-examine their own perspective on 1857. Mohit Sen, aprominent Communist intellectual and activist, lamented, ?Far too long had our national revolution been denied the statusof a revolution. It had become fashionable to deride it, especially by Marxist historians who followed the lead of M.N. Royand Rajni Palme Dutt.? (Mohit Sen, A Traveller and the Road: The Journey of an Indian Communist, Delhi, 2003 p. 154).
The CPI took out the August 1957 special issue of its political monthly New Age, edited by its General Secretary, AjoyGhosh with Mohit Sen and P. Govind Pillai as his editorial assistants. At the same time veteran Communist leader P.C.Joshi, who after having led the party as its General Secretary for 13 years (1935-1948) was disgraced and expelled fromthe party but was rehabilitated in 1956, was requested to organise a collection of articles reflecting various approaches toall the facets of the 1857 Revolt. This collection was officially published by the People?s Publishing House in July 1957and was titled Rebellion 1857: A Symposium which showed lack of unanimity in the party. Joshi in his preface admitted,?It remains, unfortunately enough, one of the unresolved controversies of Indian history. This volume, therefore, is in thenature of a symposium and the views of each contributor are his own.? (Preface, p. vii)
A perusal of these two official publications of the CPI is enough to show that Left intellectuals were still divided about thenature of 1857 Revolt or Rebellion. In the New Age special Hiren Mukherji and Baren Ray take positions, which if notdirectly opposed, radically differ from each other. Prof Mukherji rejecting the earlier Left perspective on 1857, thoughpresenting it under the garb of British views, says, ?This is a view which is wrong and perverse and an unmerited slur onour people.? (ibid p. 2) Further, he says, ?A proposition has been mooted even in quarters known as progressives,namely, that the Indian intelligentsia especially in Bengal? disapproved of and kept deliberately away from the mutiny asa feudal and reactionary phenomenon.? (ibid p. 13)
Baran Ray?s article ?Economic Transformation and the Revolt?, couched in abstruse Marxist jargon, sees the Revolt asa handiwork of the Muslims, and justifies the apathy, rather opposition by the Hindu middle class, ?which had received anew education, the benefits of a rule of law as against the former insecurity and employment opportunities to a certain
Organiser - Content http://organiser.org/archives/historic/dynamic/modules5aaa.html?name...
1 of 2 3/12/2015 6:13 PM
-
January 09, 2011
January 02, 2011
December 26, 2010
December 19, 2010
December 12, 2010
December 05, 2010
November 28, 2010
November 21, 2010
November 14, 2010
November 7, 2010
October 31, 2010
October 24, 2010
October 17, 2010
October 10, 2010
October 03, 2010
2010 Issues
2009 Issues
2008 Issues
2007 Issues
2006 Issues
Organiser
About us
Advertisement
Circulation
Contact us
Subscribe
July 22, 2007
Organiser Home
Editorial
Obituary
Realpolitik
Agri View
The Moving Finger
Writes
Media Watch
Kids Org
Health Watch
Bookmark
Indias Scientific
Heritage-XVI
Readers Forum
Sangh Samachar
Think It Over
SPECIAL ON 150
YEARS OF 1857
Feedback
Agenda
extent (p. 48) and ?it had no inclination to accept a Muslim feudal leadership for opposing the foreigners.? (p.50)Reiterating this view Ray further writes, ?Even achievement of Hindu-Muslim unity was not easy, the past anti-Hindurecord of the Muslim rulers and the anti-feudal maturation of society which expressed itself in the form of an opposition tothe existing Muslim regime, spread apathy about the rebellion among the Hindus.? (p. 52)
Prof. Sushobhan Sarkar, who under the pseudonym Amit Sen, contributed a review article on S.N. Sen?s Eighteen FiftySeven and R.C. Majumdar?s Sepoy Mutiny. He also underlines the fact of Hindu-Muslim divide. Criticising the forewordby the then Education Minister, Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad in S.N. Sen?s Eighteen Fifty Seven, for its lack of?objectivity?, Prof Sarkar writes, ?It proclaims that in 1857 he cannot find a single instance when there was a clash on acommunal basis.? This is, of course, belied by the communal fracas at Bijnore, Moradabad, Sirsa etc. (Majumdar, pp. 60,65)? (New Age Special. p. 69)
P.C. Joshi in his article, ?1857 Heritage?, in unequivocal words presents it as ?the first chapter of the history of Indiannational movement against British imperialism? (p. 55) and calls it ?national uprising? (p. 57). Quoting London TimesJoshi underlines the all India unity reflected in this uprising. Praising the role of mutinous sepoys, he writes, ?Indian armywent against the ?British salt? and proved their loyalty to the ?Indian soil? from which they had risen.? (p. 59)
The other publication Rebellion 1857: A Symposium carries a 103-page-long article with 213 references under the title?1857 in Our History?, which speaks high of the author P.C. Joshi?s erudition. Similarly, a Leftist journalist SatinderSingh, under the pseudonym Talmiz Khaldun, contributed 70-page-long research article based upon his archival studies.
A very seminal article in this volume was contributed by the late Dr K.M. Ashraf, a Leftist historian known for hisideological commitment, under the title ?Muslim Revivalists and the Revolt of 1857?, wherein Dr Ashraf has underlinedthe active role of Wahabi ideology and organisational network in the 1857 Revolt. Recently, William Dalrymple in his LastMughal has also marshalled enough contemporary evidence in support of this opinion. But this view is not palatable toProf Irfan Habib, who seems to have emerged these days as the main spokesman of the CPI(M) on matters of history. Inhis foreword to the second edition of the Rebellion 1857 (published by the National Book Trust, New Delhi, 2007) Prof.Habib, in a way, rejecting Ashraf?s view says, ?It seems to me that the identification of mujahids or non-sepoy Muslimvolunteers, exclusively with Wahabis, lacks convincing substantiation, so also do such statements as that the sepoygeneral, Bakht Khan, was a conformed and fanatical Wahabi.? (Foreword, p. x). Evidently, Prof Habib and his AMU teamare trying on one hand to highlight the Muslim contribution in 1857 as on the other, to delink it with the Wahabi ideology.
This approach of Prof. Habib calls for a critical examination.
(To be concluded)
Previous Page (34/41) - Next Page (36/41)
Content
copyright 2004 Bharat Prakashan(Delhi) Ltd. All Rights Reserved
Designed and Hosted by KSHEERAJA Web Solutions Pvt Ltd
Organiser - Content http://organiser.org/archives/historic/dynamic/modules5aaa.html?name...
2 of 2 3/12/2015 6:13 PM
-
Current Issue
Organiser Home
Editorial
EXPOSE
Reports
Comment
The Moving Finger
Writes
Media Watch
Thinking Aloud
Bookmark
A PAGE FROM
HISTORY
RETROSPECT
Kids Org.
News Round-up
Readers Forum:
INTERESTING
PEOPLE
PERSPECTIVE
Kerala Newsletter
Previous Issues
September 04, 2011
August 28, 2011
August 21, 2011
August 14, 2011
August 07, 2011
July 31, 2011
July 24, 2011
July 17, 2011
July 10, 2011
July 03, 2011
June 26, 2011
June 19, 2011
June 12, 2011
June 05, 2011
May 29, 2011
May 22, 2011
May 15, 2011
May 08, 2011
May 01, 2011
April 24, 2011
April 17, 2011
April 10, 2011
April 03, 2011
March 27, 2011
March 20, 2011
March 13, 2011
March 06, 2011
February 27, 2011
February 20, 2011
February 13, 2011
February 06, 2011
January 30, 2011
January 23, 2011
January 16, 2011
July 29, 2007
Page: 31/35
Home > 2007 Issues > July 29, 2007
SPECIAL ON 150 YEARS OF 1857
Did Moscow play fraud on Marx??VIII
Marx of 1857, discovered in 1957By Devendra Swarup
The most startling feature of the two official publications of the CPI on 1857 Revolt,happened to be that there, for the first time after a gap of one century, theauthorship of nine unsigned articles or newsletters, which were published in alargely-circulated American newspaper the New York Daily Tribune (1841-1924) wereattributed to Karl Marx.The most startling feature of the two official publications of the CPI on 1857 Revolt, happened to be that there, for the firsttime after a gap of one century, the authorship of nine unsigned articles or newsletters, which were published in a largely-circulated American newspaper the New York Daily Tribune (1841-1924) (henceforth NYDT) was attributed to Karl Marx.New Age, the political monthly of the CPI edited by its General Secretary Ajoy Ghosh, in its Centenary Special (August1957) published four articles dated June 15, 1858; June 26, 1858; July 21, 1858 and October 18, 1858 under a neutralheading ?Articles on 1857 Revolt? and attributed their authorship to Karl Marx. At the end of the articles a note said,?Four of a number of unassigned articles by Marx published in the New York Daily Tribune. Photostat copies were sentby the Marx-Lenin Institute, Berlin? (pp. 23-27).
In the same issue of New Age, senior Marxist historian Prof. Sushobhan Sarkar in his review article, written under thepseudonym Amit Sen, accepting the authorship of Marx as a settled fact, writes, ?Unconsciously, Dr Majumdar?s chapterthoroughly vindicates Marx?s celebrated letter on the ?mutiny? atrocities written as early as September 4, 1857.? He wasso overwhelmed by this ?new discovery? of Marx?s authorship for the unsigned articles in NYDT, that he rushed torecord his unhappiness about S.N. Sen and R.C. Majumdar for not having included in their bibliographies ?even thepublished notes and letters of Marx bearing on the subject?. (p. 67).
In the second publication Rebellion-1857: A Symposium its editor P.C. Joshi in his long article ?1857 in Our History? (pp.119-222) refers to another set of four unsigned articles from the NYDT attributing their authorship to Marx. The articledated July 15, 1857 is referred to four times (fn. 23, 129, 149, 210); dated August 14, 1857 two times (fn. 3 & 20); articlesdated September 10, 1857 and fn. July 25, 1858 only once (fn. 91 and 25 respectively). Joshi also claims to havereceived the photocopies of these articles from the Institute for Marxism-Leninism, Berlin. (henceforth IML). He is awarethat these articles were published unsigned in the NYDT.
Joshi does not care to throw any light on how the unsigned articles published a century ago, had been suddenlyattributed to Karl Marx.
Interestingly, in his article ?1857 Heritage? included in the Special Number of the New Age, Joshi does not make anymention of these 1857-58 articles, rather refers, at least eight times, to the 1853 signed articles by Marx published in theNYDT.
Prima facie, one gets an impression that, perhaps, the Institute of Marxism-Leninism, Berlin had embarked upon thediscovery of the authorship of the unsigned articles on 1857 Revolt, published in the NYDT independently on its own. Buta little investigation would show that this process of ?discovery? was started in Moscow itself. In the year 1953, Moscowpublished a collection of articles by Marx and Engels under the title ?On Britain?. This compilation for the first time,included articles on 1857 Revolt published in the NYDT on September 16, 1857, attributing its authorship to Karl Marxand even fixed the date of its writing as September 4, 1857. The editors of this volume nowhere explain how they coulddetermine Marx as its author after a gap of almost a century. Before 1953, nobody in the world was aware that Marx hadwritten any article on the 1857 Revolt. In the vast Marxian literature including biographies, reminiscences,
Organiser - Content http://organiser.org/archives/historic/dynamic/modulesfee2.html?name=...
1 of 3 3/12/2015 6:17 PM
-
January 09, 2011
January 02, 2011
December 26, 2010
December 19, 2010
December 12, 2010
December 05, 2010
November 28, 2010
November 21, 2010
November 14, 2010
November 7, 2010
October 31, 2010
October 24, 2010
October 17, 2010
October 10, 2010
October 03, 2010
2010 Issues
2009 Issues
2008 Issues
2007 Issues
2006 Issues
Organiser
About us
Advertisement
Circulation
Contact us
Subscribe
July 29, 2007
Organiser Home
Editorial
Opinion
The Moving Finger
Writes
News Analysis
Media Watch
Bookmark
Sangh Samachar
Readers Forum
SPECIAL ON 150
YEARS OF 1857
Think it over
Agenda
Kids Org
correspondence and collection of articles etc., published before 1957, no mention is found of Marx?s writings on the 1857Revolt.
But, our Indian Marxists were so thrilled by this new discovery that P.C. Joshi in his monthly paper India Today (started inMay 1951) published this novel discovery under the title, ?Marx on Revolt of 1857? (India Today, Vol. II no. 3, p. 23 c.f.?Rebellion 1857? (ed. P.C. Joshi, 1957, fn. 351). This was followed by its inclusion in the offical publication of the CPI,?Marx on India? which was originally published in November 1943 as Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin Series No. 16 by thePeoples Publishing House, Bombay. That edition did not carry this article of September 4, 1857; which was included inthe reprint of January 1954, Hindi translation April 1954.
Any alert critical mind would have raised many questions about this new ?discovery? but for Indian Marxists anythingdished out by Moscow in the name of Marx was highly sacrosanct and final. Emboldened by this intellectual docility andlack of critical inquiry on the part of Indian Marxists, the spinmasters in Moscow and Berlin centres of the IML rushed toappropriate many unsigned articles on 1857 Revolt published in the NYDT and to attribute their authorship to Marx andEngels. To put a stamp of official sanction this material was first included in the multivolume Russian second edition ofThe Collected Works of Marx and Engels, which was launched in 1955 at Moscow.
As the next step Moscow published in 1959 an English edition of a collection of the articles by Marx and Engels under thetitle ?On Colonialism?. In this official publication as many as thirteen articles from the NYDT on 1857 Indian Revolt wereincluded with Marx and Engels as their authors.
Again, the publishers of this anthology don?t bother to explain how the authorship of these unsigned articles wasdetermined. The Publishers?s Note simply says, ?When a national revolt against British rule broke out in India in 1857,Marx and Engels ... came out with a series of articles in the NYDT. Some of these articles have also been included in thiscollection ?It further says, ?The articles from the NYDT are reproduced in this collection in accordance with thenewspaper texts... Articles which appeared in the NYDT without a heading have been supplied titles by the ILM of the CCof CPSU. In all cases where the NYDT editors inserted their own passages into the text of Marx and Engels articles,these were deleted since they do not belong to the authors.?
On what basis did the editors identify the interpolated passages? Did they have the original texts written by Marx andEngels with them? If so, where was the need of reproducing the articles. ?in accordance with the newspaper texts?? NoMarxist intellectual cared to raise such questions. So the process of ?discovery? galloped further.
In 1959, a separate collection of Marx and Engel?s writings on India was published from Moscow in Russian, and wasimmediately followed by an English edition under the attractive title ?The First Indian War of Independence, 1857-59.While the earlier title ?On Colonialism, carried only 13 articles on 1857 from the NYDT, this number in this newpublication got inflated to 28 articles published in the NYDT between July 15, 1857 and October 1, 1858. In addition tothese articles six letters exchanged between Marx and Engels are also included in this anthology. Here also thePublishers? Note asserts, ?Certain sentences inserted by the edtiors of the daily Tribune and obvious misprints havebeen eliminated?. How was it done? No answer. Interestingly, this book gives the date of publication of every article inthe NYDT as well as the date on which that articles was written by Marx or Engels in England e.g. the article publishedon July 15, 1857 was written as June 30, the one published on August 4, 1857 was written on July 17, 1857. Obviously, itwas easy to get the date of publication from the NYDT files but from where did they find the dates of the writting of thearticles?
The process of discovery does not stop here. In 1968, Shlomo Avineri, a communist of Jew origin, edited and publishedin America, a new anthology under the title, ?Karl Marx on Colonialism and Modernization (Doubleday and Company,New York 1968). He added two more unsigned articles from the NYDT (dated April 5 and 26, 1858) to the list of articlesattributed to Marx. Avineri claims in his Preface, ?all the material included in this volume has been printed accordingly tothe photostats of Marx?s original articles as published.? (p. ii) Did he have the photostats of Marx?s original articles ordid he strictly follow the next printed in the NYDT? We leave it so be discussed later.
As the next step in this journey of ?discovery? we need to consider a recent publication ?Karl Marx on India? edited byIqbal Hussain of Aligarh Muslim University and financed by the ICHR with a hefty publication grant of Rs. 75000 receivedby Prof. Irfan Habib himself. It conceive to introduction by Irfan Habib a 23 years old article by Prof Habib titled ?Marx?sPerception India? an Appreciation by Prabhat Patnaik the two of prominent CPM intellectuals.
Its copyright is with Aligarh Historians Society, a creation of Irfan Habib and is published by Tulika Books Delhi, 2006) acommercial venture run by the same nexus. Its high priced Rs 495 in the light of a liberal grant of Rs 75000 from theICHR, is clear courageous. What a curious mix of ideology and communication. According to the Editor, Iqbal Hussain,?Prof. Irfan Habib suggested the project and has vetted the entire final text. The Indo-US Education Foundation (with thecollaboration of the UGC) made possible a trip to the US in 1990 and so enabled me to use the NYDT files.?(Acknowledgement, p. xi). In preparing this compilation, the editor has made use of the latest enlarged edition of theCollected Works of Marx and English (Moscow 1975-2005). In the Appendices, (pp. 235-253) he reproduces four newunsigned articles published in the NYDT as leading articles?one in 1853 and three in 1857-58. Though the editorsuppresses his temptation of attributing them also to Marx, but who knows about the future? This only suggests thatthere still remains much unsigned material on the 1857 Revolt published in the NYDT waiting to be appropriated by futurecommunist spinmasters. What a leap forward from article in 1953, to 9 in 1957, to 13 in 1959, to 28 in 1968, to 30 in1969, 34 in 2006 and possibly to many more in the coming years.
Organiser - Content http://organiser.org/archives/historic/dynamic/modulesfee2.html?name=...
2 of 3 3/12/2015 6:17 PM
-
Previous Page (30/35) - Next Page (32/35)
Content
copyright 2004 Bharat Prakashan(Delhi) Ltd. All Rights Reserved
Designed and Hosted by KSHEERAJA Web Solutions Pvt Ltd
Organiser - Content http://organiser.org/archives/historic/dynamic/modulesfee2.html?name=...
3 of 3 3/12/2015 6:17 PM
-
Current Issue
Organiser Home
Editorial
EXPOSE
Reports
Comment
The Moving Finger
Writes
Media Watch
Thinking Aloud
Bookmark
A PAGE FROM
HISTORY
RETROSPECT
Kids Org.
News Round-up
Readers Forum:
INTERESTING
PEOPLE
PERSPECTIVE
Kerala Newsletter
Previous Issues
September 04, 2011
August 28, 2011
August 21, 2011
August 14, 2011
August 07, 2011
July 31, 2011
July 24, 2011
July 17, 2011
July 10, 2011
July 03, 2011
June 26, 2011
June 19, 2011
June 12, 2011
June 05, 2011
May 29, 2011
May 22, 2011
May 15, 2011
May 08, 2011
May 01, 2011
April 24, 2011
April 17, 2011
April 10, 2011
April 03, 2011
March 27, 2011
March 20, 2011
March 13, 2011
March 06, 2011
February 27, 2011
February 20, 2011
February 13, 2011
February 06, 2011
January 30, 2011
January 23, 2011
January 16, 2011
August 05, 2007
Page: 39/44
Home > 2007 Issues > August 05, 2007
SPECIAL ON 150 YEARS OF 1857
Did Moscow play fraud on Marx??IX
SPIN MASTERS AT WORKBy Devendra Swarup
There still remains much unsigned material on the 1857 Revolt published in theNYDT waiting to be appropriated by future communist spin masters. What a leapforward from one article in 1953, to nine in 1957, to 13 in 1959, to 28 in 1960, to 30 in1969 and to 34 in 2006 and possibly to many more in the coming years.After that publication, as the next step Moscow published in 1959 an English edition of a collection of the articles by Marxand Engels under the title On Colonialism. In this official publication as many as 13 articles from the NYDT on 1857Revolt were included with Marx and Engels as their authors.
Again, the publishers of this anthology didn?t bother to explain how the authorship of these unsigned articles wasdetermined. The publishers? note simply says, ?When a national revolt against British rule broke out in India in 1857,Marx and Engels came out with a series of articles in the NYDT. Some of these articles have also been included in thiscollection.? It further says, ?The articles from the NYDT are reproduced in this collection in accordance with thenewspaper texts... Articles which appeared in the NYDT without a heading have been supplied titles by the Institute ofMarxism Leninism (IML) of the CC of CPSU. In all cases where the NYDT editors inserted their own passages into thetext of Marx and Engels articles, these were deleted since they do not belong to the authors.?
On what basis did the editors identify the interpolated passages? Did they have the original texts written by Marx andEngels with them? If so, where was the need of reproducing the article. ?in accordance with the newspaper texts?? NoMarxist intellectual cared to raise such questions. So the process of ?discovery? galloped further.
In 1959, a separate collection of Marx and Engel?s writings on India was published from Moscow in Russian, and wasimmediately followed by an English edition under the attractive title The First Indian War of Independence, 1857-59.While the earlier title, On Colonialism, carried only 13 articles on 1857 from the NYDT, this number in this new publicationgot inflated to 28 articles published in the NYDT between July 15, 1857 and October 1, 1858. In addition to these articles,six letters exchanged between Marx and Engels are also included in this anthology. Here also the publishers? noteasserts, ?Certain sentences inserted by the editors of the daily Tribune and obvious misprints have been eliminated.?How was it done? No answer. Interestingly, this book gives the date of publication of every article in the NYDT as well asthe date on which that article was written by Marx or Engels in England e.g. the article published on July 15, 1857 waswritten on June 30, the one published on August 4, 1857 was written on July 17, 1857. Obviously, it was easy to get thedate of publication from the NYDT files but from where did they find the dates of the writing of the articles?
The process of discovery did not stop here. In 1968, Shlomo Avineri, a communist of Jew origin, edited and published inAmerica, a new anthology under the title, Karl Marx on Colonialism and Modernization (Doubleday and Company, NewYork 1968). He added two more unsigned articles from the NYDT (dated April 5 and 26, 1858) to the list of articlesattributed to Marx. Avineri claims in his preface, ?All the material included in this volume has been printed accordingly tothe photostats of Marx?s original articles as published.? (p. ii) Did he have the photostats of Marx?s original articles ordid he strictly follow the text printed in the NYDT? We leave it to be discussed later.
As a next step in this journey of ?discovery? we need to consider a recent publication Karl Marx on India edited by IqbalHussain of Aligarh Muslim University and financed by the ICHR with a hefty publication grant of Rs. 75,000 received byProf. Irfan Habib himself. It carries an introduction by Irfan Habib which is a 23-year-old article titled ?Marx?s Perceptionof India? first published in the inaugural issue of the CPM journal The Marxist in the year 1983. This book also carries anappreciation by Prabhat Patnaik, a prominent CPM intellectual.
Its copyright is with Aligarh Historians Society, a creation of Irfan Habib and is published by Tulika Books Delhi, 2006, a
Organiser - Content http://organiser.org/archives/historic/dynamic/modules73a6.html?name...
1 of 2 3/12/2015 6:21 PM
-
January 09, 2011
January 02, 2011
December 26, 2010
December 19, 2010
December 12, 2010
December 05, 2010
November 28, 2010
November 21, 2010
November 14, 2010
November 7, 2010
October 31, 2010
October 24, 2010
October 17, 2010
October 10, 2010
October 03, 2010
2010 Issues
2009 Issues
2008 Issues
2007 Issues
2006 Issues
Organiser
About us
Advertisement
Circulation
Contact us
Subscribe
August 05, 2007
Organiser Home
Editorial
Kokatta Newsletter
World Watch
The Moving Finger
Writes
World of Women
Book Reviews
Readers Forum
Sangh Samachar
News Analysis
Media Watch
SPECIAL ON 150
YEARS OF 1857
Think It Over
Essay
commercial venture run by the same nexus. Its high price of Rs 495 in the light of a liberal grant of Rs 75,000 from theICHR, is clearly incongruous. What a curious mix of ideology and commercialism! According to the Editor, Iqbal Hussain,?Prof. Irfan Habib suggested the project and has vetted the entire final text. The Indo-US Education Foundation (with thecollaboration of the UGC) made possible a trip to the US in 1990 and so enabled me to use the NYDT files.? (Karl Marxand India, Acknowledgement, p. xi). In preparing this compilation, the editor has made use of the latest enlarged editionof the Collected Works of Marx and Engels (Moscow 1975-2005). In the appendices, (pp. 235-253) he reproduces fournew unsigned articles published in the NYDT as leading articles?one in 1853 and three in 1857-58. Though the editorseems to have suppressed his temptation of attributing them also to Marx, who knows about the future? This onlysuggests that there still remains much unsigned material on the 1857 Revolt published in the NYDT waiting to beappropriated by future communist spin masters. What a leap forward from one article in 1953, to nine in 1957, to 13 in1959, to 28 in 1960, to 30 in 1969 and to 34 in 2006 and possibly to many more in the coming years.
.....(To be continued)
Previous Page (38/44) - Next Page (40/44)
Content
copyright 2004 Bharat Prakashan(Delhi) Ltd. All Rights Reserved
Designed and Hosted by KSHEERAJA Web Solutions Pvt Ltd
Organiser - Content http://organiser.org/archives/historic/dynamic/modules73a6.html?name...
2 of 2 3/12/2015 6:21 PM
-
Current Issue
Organiser Home
Editorial
EXPOSE
Reports
Comment
The Moving Finger
Writes
Media Watch
Thinking Aloud
Bookmark
A PAGE FROM
HISTORY
RETROSPECT
Kids Org.
News Round-up
Readers Forum:
INTERESTING
PEOPLE
PERSPECTIVE
Kerala Newsletter
Previous Issues
September 04, 2011
August 28, 2011
August 21, 2011
August 14, 2011
August 07, 2011
July 31, 2011
July 24, 2011
July 17, 2011
July 10, 2011
July 03, 2011
June 26, 2011
June 19, 2011
June 12, 2011
June 05, 2011
May 29, 2011
May 22, 2011
May 15, 2011
May 08, 2011
May 01, 2011
April 24, 2011
April 17, 2011
April 10, 2011
April 03, 2011
March 27, 2011
March 20, 2011
