Tirthankar Mitra
Historian extraordinary, Sumit Sarkar, whose focus extended beyond nationalist icons, is no more. He felt it was more important to explore the limits of mainstream nationalism.
He was only too aware that the shining promise of the dawn of independence began to fade by the late ’60s and the early ’70s. A new wave of popular struggles had begun in various forms and needs to be looked into closely.
That is why he explored the textures of the lives of farmers, workers and class communities. He entered the arena of historical studies at a time when modern Indian history was largely framed through the binary of colonial oppression versus Indian resistance.
His first major work was The Swadeshi Movement in Bengal. In it he demonstrated how the ordinary people could be both hierarchical and democratic.
Son of Sushovan Sarkar, an eminent historian and a stalwart of the Bengali intellectual Left, Sumit remained a Marxist throughout his life. A growing unpopularity of this school of thought in India and elsewhere did not sway him.
Inarguably his commitment to history found its most eloquent expression in Modern India be penned. It helped make him one of the founding figures of subaltern studies. But he would eventually distance himself from this group. He found it increasingly turn towards cultural theory. He believed that a historian should take communalism head-on. Sumit Sarkar stood up to be counted.
Here was a historian who refused to be separated from the public intellectual. He refused to submit to doctrine. His classes at the Delhi University brought about the possibilities of Marxist social history. But it would be wrong to assume that he bowed to a doctrine
Returning the Rabindra Puraskar to protest against the West Bengal Left Front government’s treatment of Nandigram peasants is a case in point. He was never caught in an ideological dilemma when he knew in his head and heart that something was wrong.
Talking to him on any subject whether history, politics or literature was always enlightening. For he had a vast store of knowledge on a variety of topics. And he was never boring.
Unlike many other academics, Sarkar did not take himself too seriously. Even the most serious questions received a good dose of his brand of humour. He believed that some sort of “history from below” was a feasible project. He continued to stick to his belief.
The collapse of the socialist bloc was painful to him. But he did not take refuge in nostalgia. He retained a hope that things would correct themselves at a point. But it did not.
Sarkar was alarmed at the growth of Hindutva brand of Hindu nationalism. He felt that it posed a threat to Indian democracy and society. His apprehension found expression in a series of write-ups. They were polemical but lucid and did not become invectives. These pieces reveal the man Sumit Sarkar was. Here was an erudite man who could laugh at the absurdities of the world.
