The Marginalization of Leftist Historiography and the Rise of Revisionist Scholarship in Thailand

While former People’s Party members and Pridi Phanomyong produced memoirs, their left-liberal historiography was virtually eradicated by the early 1950s, mirroring their political fate. The primary challenge to royalist hegemony subsequently emerged from the radical left, notably the Communist Party of Thailand (CPT). The seminal Marxist work was Thai Kueng Mueang Khuen (Thailand: A Semicolony) (1950) by Udom Sisuwan (pen name Aran Phromchomphu). From a Marxist historical materialist framework, Udom argued economic forces, not kings, drove Thai history. He characterized Thailand as a ‘semicolonial, semifeudal’ state after the 1855 Bowring Treaty, where European capital dominated alongside the feudal elite. Crucially, he dismissed the 1932 change as a mere “coup,” not a revolution, for failing to dismantle feudal or imperialist economic control.

Another cornerstone of Thai Marxist historiography was Jit Phumisak’s Chomna Khong Sakdina Thai Nai Patchuban (The Real Face of Thai Feudalism Today) (1957). Jit delivered a withering critique of sakdina, the Thai feudal system, unmasking dynastic glories as a backward system of exploitation. After his arrest and subsequent death in 1966, Jit became a martyred icon for the left. His works, republished after the 14 October 1973 uprising, inspired a new generation. The subsequent period of liberalization saw the rise of the “Political Economy” school led by Chatthip Natsupha, who used empirical studies to analyze the development of capitalism and Thailand’s economic backwardness, securing a place for Marxist economic history in academia.

However, Chatthip’s work later took a nativist turn. His influential 1984 theory of the economically “self-sufficient Thai village” inspired the “community culture” school, which blended anti-capitalism and anti-Westernism. His later interest in Tai racial nationalism, including reintroducing Luang Wichit’s racial theories, signified a broader shift. As scholar Thongchai Winichakul notes, this transformed elements of the defeated left into inadvertent allies of royalist anti-Westernism and nativism.

The scholar who moved historiography beyond this entrenched divide was Nidhi Eoseewong, the dominant historian of the late 20th century. A professionally trained historian, Nidhi critiqued the uncritical adoption of Prince Damrong’s work and highlighted the politics underlying official history. His revolutionary approach used premodern sources innovatively, as seen in his essay demonstrating that Ayutthaya chronicles revealed more about the Bangkok era politics of their editors than about Ayutthaya itself. His work actively desacralized the monarchy, portraying kings like Narai as political figures rather than sacred beings.

Nidhi’s magnum opus, Pen and Sail (1984), revolutionized understanding of the early Bangkok period (1782-1851). He argued that Thai modernity began not with Western contact post-1855 but indigenously, fueled by a pre-existing thriving export economy. He portrayed early Bangkok kings as leaders of an emerging bourgeoisie, challenging both royalist (kings as Bodhisattvas) and Marxist (kings as feudal lords) orthodoxies. He further argued that the celebrated Fourth and Fifth Reigns were periods of cultural stagnation and slavish Western imitation, not enlightenment. His positive reassessment of the controversial King Taksin in 1986 was similarly provocative. By the 1990s, however, Nidhi’s influential revisionism itself faced new critiques as nationalism and the monarchy re-emerged as central, contested topics of historical inquiry, underscoring the ongoing political nature of Thai historiography in the reign of King Bhumibol and the post-Cold War era.