Post-Independence Indian Historiography: Decolonization, Nationalism, and Marxist Transformations

The end of British colonial rule in 1947 marked a definitive turning point for Indian historical writing, initiating its professionalization as a modern discipline. This process was driven by state-sponsored institutions tasked with crafting a coherent national narrative essential for nation-building. The political imperative to forge a national consciousness through historical recapture, a pre-independence nationalist theme, gained even greater urgency after freedom was achieved. A central aim was to establish an autonomous Indian perspective, systematically challenging the colonial historiography that had portrayed India as stagnant and backward to legitimize imperial rule. This postcolonial endeavor was deeply indebted to earlier nationalist historiography, though it also involved scrutinizing and moving beyond its frameworks, while alternative nativist views advocated for an authentic historical sensibility rooted in oral traditions and myths.

In the first two decades after independence, three main trajectories emerged: a secular official nationalist historiography, a cultural nationalist historiography with Hindu religious overtones, and a critical Marxist historiography focused on social formations. State initiatives launched large projects like the multi-volume History of the Freedom Movement in India (1961), a national collaborative effort aimed at highlighting popular agency. Concurrently, the privately published eleven-volume The History and Culture of the Indian People (1951-77), commissioned by the Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan, promoted a communal interpretation. Under editor Romesh Chandra Majumdar, this series presented India as primarily Hindu, depicted the Muslim period as a ‘dark age’, and implicitly endorsed the Two-Nation theory, influencing public common sense and later Hindu supremacist groups.

A defining binary developed between these ‘communal’ historians and ‘secular’ scholars, the latter often leaning left and representing a third, Marxist trajectory. The landmark 1956 work of D. D. Kosambi, Introduction to the Study of History, instigated a paradigm shift by applying Marxist methodology to ancient India, focusing on social formations, class conflict, and material life rather than dynastic narratives. Kosambi’s flexible, non-dogmatic use of Marxism sparked seminal debates, such as the nature of Indian feudalism, explored by scholars like R. S. Sharma and Harbans Mukhia. This Marxist turn enriched economic and social history, defused communal preoccupations by linking rulers’ actions to material pressures, and began questioning the colonial tripartite periodization of Indian history.

Marxist perspectives also informed critical histories of colonialism, analyzing its economically exploitative nature, as seen in the work of Bipan Chandra. However, Chandra and others cautioned against disregarding the role of ideas and human agency within the nationalist movement. While the freedom struggle dominated modern historical research, other areas flourished, including rigorous economic history (e.g., Dharma Kumar’s work) and regional studies that corrected homogenizing national narratives, though some, like certain Maratha histories, took on chauvinistic tones.

By the 1970s, new political developments—the 1971 war, the Naxalite movement, the Emergency—and institutional changes prompted fresh investigations. Exposure to Western universities and theories, such as American historical anthropology and the French Annales School, introduced new methodologies. Historians began probing subaltern groups—pastoralists, tribals, peasants, artisans—and exploring themes of mentalities, environmental change, and comparative social systems like caste. This period saw Indian historiography mature into a sophisticated, multi-faceted field, moving beyond anti-colonial polemics to engage with global theoretical debates while rigorously interrogating the complex layers of India’s past.