A.R. Desai’s Marxist Approach to Indian Society: A Dialectical and Historical Materialist Analysis
A.R. Desai (1915–1994) was a pioneering Indian sociologist who applied a Marxist framework — rooted in dialectical and historical materialism — to analyze the structures of class, caste, and state in India. His work offered a radical critique of colonialism, capitalism, and class struggle.
1. Core Themes in Desai’s Marxist Approach
(A) Critique of Structural-Functionalism and Bourgeois Sociology
- Desai rejected M.N. Srinivas, S.C. Dube, and others for ignoring class contradictions and focusing on caste harmony.
- He argued Indian sociology was elitist and masked exploitation under capitalism and semi-feudalism.
(B) Colonialism and the Distortion of Indian Development
- In Social Background of Indian Nationalism (1948), Desai showed British colonialism created a semi-feudal, semi-colonial economy.
- Key impacts:
- Destruction of traditional industries
- Preservation of landlordism → agrarian exploitation
- Emergence of a comprador bourgeoisie → dependent on colonial capital
(C) Class Struggle and the Postcolonial State
- Desai viewed the Indian state post-1947 as serving the interests of bourgeoisie and landlords.
- He rejected Stalinist stage theory, arguing land reforms were incomplete and capital still relied on foreign investments.
- This aligns with Trotskyist critiques like permanent revolution.
(D) Peasant and Working-Class Movements
- Studied Telangana, Tebhaga and trade union struggles as class resistance.
- Movements were proto-revolutionary but lacked a revolutionary party (a key Trotskyist critique).
2. Dialectical and Historical Materialist Foundations
(A) Dialectical Contradictions in Indian Society
- Capitalism vs. Feudalism: Uneven development due to colonial preservation of feudal relations.
- Bourgeoisie vs. Proletariat: Weak bourgeoisie couldn’t fulfill democratic tasks.
- Contradictory State: Socialist in rhetoric, capitalist in function.
(B) Historical Materialism: Indian Development Stages
- Pre-colonial feudal society → caste hierarchy, self-sufficiency
- Colonialism → blocked full capitalist transformation
- Postcolonial bourgeois democracy → preserves exploitation
This diverges from Stalinist stageism and aligns with Trotsky’s permanent revolution.
3. Trotskyist Parallels
| Trotskyist Concept | Desai’s Equivalent |
|---|---|
| Permanent Revolution | Weak bourgeoisie; workers must lead democratic revolution |
| Uneven & Combined Development | Mixed colonial economy: feudal + modern traits |
| Critique of Bourgeois Nationalism | Congress preserved elite and landlord interests |
4. Criticisms
- Economic Reductionism: Underplayed caste, gender, and ethnicity.
- No Revolutionary Strategy: Didn’t chart path for socialist revolution.
- Eurocentric Marxism? → Limited contextual adaptation to Indian society.
5. Legacy
- Inspired Marxist sociology in India (e.g., Gail Omvedt, Sharad Patil).
- Laid groundwork for Subaltern and critical agrarian studies.
Conclusion: Desai as a Dialectical Marxist
A.R. Desai provided one of the most rigorous Marxist critiques of Indian society, showing how semi-feudalism, colonialism, and a weak bourgeoisie prevented genuine transformation. His analysis mirrors key Trotskyist themes, though without explicitly calling for a revolution—making his work a critical bridge between classical Marxism and postcolonial critique.
