Listen to this article:

There are historians whose books we read, historians whose arguments we admire, and historians whose scholarship quietly becomes part of our own intellectual lives.

For me, Sumit Sarkar belonged to the last category. I never had the privilege of meeting him, attending one of his seminars, or listening to one of his lectures. Yet, in a rather unusual way, Sarkar became one of the teachers of my intellectual life. 

When I first developed an intellectual fascination with History as a discipline and chose it as my subject for undergraduate study, I was curious to know about the historians who had mastered the discipline. I would often ask my father about them.

He had studied for his MA in Modern History at the University of Delhi between 1977 and 1979, and he would speak of Sarkar, who was then teaching at Delhi University, with considerable respect.

What impressed my father was not merely Sarkar’s command over modern Indian history, but particularly his historiographical approach. At that age, I did not fully understand what he meant by that. Years later, I would.

I pursued my BA Honours in History at Hans Raj College, University of Delhi, between 2016 and 2019. It was during these undergraduate years that Sarkar’s scholarship became an important part of my own intellectual formation. One of my professors, Sharmila Srivastava, introduced us to Sarkar’s seminal work, Modern India, 1885–1947.

Her notes were often deeply informed by his scholarship, and she repeatedly encouraged us to read Sarkar alongside the other prescribed literature. I became curious and purchased Modern India myself. I also borrowed another of his major works, Modern Times: India 1880s–1950s, from our college library.

Also read: Sumit Sarkar Taught Generations to Take History Seriously

The latter offered a later and substantially reconceived treatment of the period covered in his earlier work. With these two books in my possession, I decided that they would form the intellectual foundation of my preparation for my modern Indian history papers.

Almost all my classmates were using Sekhar Bandyopadhyay as their principal text for modern Indian history, supplemented by articles recommended by our professors. Their choice was entirely understandable. Bandyopadhyay is an outstanding historian, and his work offers a comprehensive and analytical engagement with the major historiographical traditions of modern India.

It brings together nationalist, Cambridge, Marxist, subaltern and other perspectives, and provides students with a nuanced understanding of the debates surrounding modern Indian history. It is therefore unsurprising that his work became useful not only to university students but also to generations of civil services aspirants who wanted a balanced and analytical account of the subject.

My own choice was different. To be honest, I largely skipped Bandyopadhyay and chose to rely primarily on Sarkar. It was certainly a gamble. What drew me towards Sarkar was, in part, precisely what some readers might regard as a limitation in his work.

His historical writing did not always give me the impression of an artificially detached and perfectly balanced account in which every historiographical position was presented........

© The Wire