India's Struggle for Independence

by Bipan Chandra, Mridula Mukherjee (Contributor), Aditya Mukherjee (Contributor)

This is the first major study to examine every one of the varied strands of the epic struggle individually and collectively and present it in a new and coherent narrative and analytical framework. Basing themselves on oral and other primary sources and years of research, the authors take the reader through every step of the independence struggle from the abortive Revolt of 1857 to the final victory of 1947. More important while incorporating existing historiographical advances, the book evolves a new and lucid view of the history of the period which will endure.

Genres: History, India, Nonfiction, Politics, Indian Literature, Historical, Academic

600 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1987

About the author

Bipan Chandra (born 1928) is an Indian historian, specialising in economic and political history of modern India. He has specialized on the national movement. He is considered an authority on Modern Indian History and is one of its most popular scholars.

Source for information : Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipan_Ch... ) and for the Author's photograph : Penguin ( http://www.penguinbooksindia.com/en/c... )

Reviews

[Santanu · Rating 3 out of 5]

Pros:
-Well researched.
-Good coverage.
-Fluid style of writing.

Cons:
-Biased to show congress and Nehru, Gandhi in good lights. Probably a politically sponsored account of Indian freedom struggle.
-Misses out on the contemporary global events that had influenced Indo-British politics at that time.
- Cultural and social aspects are touched but mostly to support the authors biased inferences.
Read it to know one side of the coin. No one book or may be any at all will ever completely articulate the other side of the coin. But if one follows the period deeply and analytically refusing to accept the opinionated inferences presented by the authors, it will be clear that freedom came to India when colonialism was anyway ending from everywhere in the world. Congress largely and Gandhi in particular served well to their British masters and led the unsuspecting nation to compromises that only helped to delay and diffuse the freedom struggle. Even an extremely biased and opinionated book like this cannot spin it well to lead the readers to the authors point of view.

[Ishan Nag · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book is quit intense , It's has 39 chapters and almost all catering to distinct events . After reading i am embarrassed to admit how less i knew about our freedom struggle . It's isn't a GK book with who when what sort of details ,though much more than it . It gives you the big picture and attempts to answer the obvious whys .Its sad that some of the fundamental ideas of the book will be limited to the audience of the book , i believe school kids should be exposed to some of the ideas albeit in a simpler form

As with history many parallels can be drawn with the present , now i more than ever despise the 'smart' media channels , most of the so-called experts,commentators know nothing about anything it seems.

The book starts with Tribal uprisings and Revolt of 1857 and ends with partition of India covering almost a century though not uniformly on time scale .Some reviews on Flipkart call it Congress centric i didn't find it so

If this is how History is supposed to be then i love it . Chapters on rise of communalism is a must read for everyone

[Ajay · Rating 1 out of 5]

Extremely Biased. Loyal towards Nehru and Congress party. This is the problem with leftist writers, they cant be rational, neutral and stick to reality. Even though writer is Bengali, he didnt even bothered to mentioned Subash Chandra Bose. This is how brainwashed is done from young age. Such a disappointment.

PS- I read this book 2 years back. I am adding my review now because i just joined goodreads. Lot more book to add and review.

[Suvendhu Patra · Rating 2 out of 5]

Good coverage, but more than history it sounded like an apology. It doesn't consider that Indian independence coincided with the weakening of the British Empire post WW II. Hence, independence is completely concluded to be a result of struggle of Indian leaders. At times the writers tend to extrapolate and give moral evaluations in place of a facts based analysis.

[Shubhra Jain · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the best history books I have read so far. Indian modern history has never been so interesting for me before.
It not only state facts but also gives a justified analysis of the same. Explains action of all the important leaders very clearly and tells the reader what exactly made them do it. You actually can picture the era frame-wise with this style of writing.
This is also a great book for understanding Mahatma Gandhi and finally justifying why he is “The father of our Nation”.
A must read for all the history enthusiasts.

[Toshali Gupta · Rating 2 out of 5]

Verdict: Not Recommended

- Biased! Authors wanted to answer the questions raised on the Congress and its participants and justify the Nehru and Gandhian Ideology. It lost its charm every time it brought up an allegation (out of nowhere) and justified it. Felt more like a FAQ section!

- No chronological order was maintained and this made the book very abstract. Further the repetitive nature of the writing (maybe because of multiple authors) made it even haphazard because historic narrations are expected to maintain the sanctity of the timeline unless you are showing a different context. For example - the same peasant movement was talked about in 5 different chapters spread out across the book.

- The style of writing is very 'textbooky' (for the lack of a better word). No flavor, no anecdotes, very very few comparisons with the rest of the world, it was well researched I give it to them but in its depth, not the breadth. Also, the representation of the depth would have hit off on a faster pace and a crispy style of writing, but no to both.

Overall I would not recommend this book to anyone you wishes to read about the Indian Struggle - someone studying it as a profession? sure! but you would have read 99% of the book elsewhere so, eh!

[Samrat · Rating 1 out of 5]

Its not a history of India's struggle for independence...but history of Congress masquerading as India sole mover for independence.......a good intro for a layperson not acquainted with the diversity called India and its struggle.

[Sourav Misra · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is a propaganda book for Gandhi and Neheru and his family owned private company, the Congress party and the cliche. This books talks nothing about Netaji and Indian National Army. It is a shame that more than one writers here, in spite of being Bengali, they never tried to mention Netaji. Probably, because they are the communists. It is so unfortunate and inauspicious. They bring shame to the community for being historians (Or may be not because most of the historians are used as pawns for propaganda). For authentic unbiased history we should go through R.C. Majumdar.

[Aamil Syed · Rating 4 out of 5]

In India, we are taught about our freedom struggle for almost 5 years as part of the high school curriculum. But the study is just a brief overview of the entire movement and does very little justice to this major event in the history of the sub-continent. It involved millions of people and had several leaders that spanned many generations. While writing textbooks for high school history, the authors tend to concentrate on a few of those leaders that came towards the end of the movement (mainly Gandhi and Nehru) and ignore the ones who laid the groundwork for the final showdown.

Even when they are mentioned, they are only paid lip-service with only a short description of their work. We just know that Justice Ranade, Dadabhai Naoroji, Pherozeshah Mehta, Gopal Krishna Gokhale and Bal Gangadhar Tilak played a crucial role in early stages of the freedom movement, but how exactly that happened is not touched upon at all!

This book by Bipan Chandra sheds light on all of these people and introduces us to many aspects of India's freedom struggle that we wouldn't come across otherwise. It is a very handy compilation of quotes, anecdotes and many, many cross references from different works on this subject. It is as detailed as it can be in 650 pages and spans the entire 200 odd years of British rule in India in just 39 chapters.

I loved how Bipan Chandra has touched upon almost every single contribution to the movement, right from the Northwest frontier to the Southern tip of India. There are also accusations about the writer being biased towards the Congress, but he specifies in detail the approach adopted by him and how it borrows from all major ideologies. The introduction is in fact just about how he (and his contributors) went about gathering the data for such a magisterial work on recent Indian history.

But despite being such a big work, it is not at all tedious. It is the quotes that make it so interesting. It is like being right there in the midst of things as they happened. And I was also really impressed by the amount of background stories that Chandra has included for each of the leaders, it made the book much more personal than the dreary historical tomes on Indian history that we read in school. The leaders have been portrayed as true heroes and their exploits have been described in a quite a legendary fashion. It was a real joy reading this book. This is not just a refresher on the Indian freedom struggle, but it is also a very refreshing experience. Go for it!

"Under the native despot the people keep and enjoy what they produce, though at times they suffer some violence on the back. Under the British Indian despot the man is at peace, there is no violence; his substance is drained away, unseen, peaceably and subtly — he starves in peace, and peaceably perishes in peace, with law and order."

- Bipan Chandra quotes Dadabhai Naoroji

Forty-eighth book reviewed as part of the 130 Challenge | Read on my blog

[Nishant Raj · Rating 2 out of 5]

Too much Nehru focuses and limited analysis, however having liberal, diplomatic and good analysis except some controversial aspects.

[Aditi Gupta · Rating 1 out of 5]

Such huge bias against the left. Disappointing how most youth till today reads this crap for their knowledge on Modern Indian history

[Gopal · Rating 2 out of 5]

I abandoned the book after reading the first 6 chapters diligently.

The oft heard dismissive claim that colonialism was anyway ending everywhere and hence Congress only reaped benefits due anyway, does hold some water. The two world wars had essentially drained Europe of all their military might. Britain was actually under a huge debt. And as such, the threat of Russia loomed ahead, foreboding of a third World War was strong. The colonial countries had to step back and muster strength. For Britain, it was a conscious call to get out of India, and count on it for its military support, in case of another war. As such, Britain owed India too much. The 1942 civil disobedience movement, in the middle of World War hurt British a lot.

All things considered, it's a valid point that colonialism was anyway on the verge of ending, and this fact has been ignored in history of India largely. Even in the First World war, the British had apparently promised India freedom, if the Indians sent troops to Europe to fight from the British side. The troops were sent. They fought. No freedom was granted. It was the failure of leadership at that time, to press forward and demand freedom. But perhaps, the void of leaders in India in 1920 meant that there were no able administrators either, who could take over from the British and manage a people of vastly unique identities. Indian national Congress was only 35 years old, and Muslim League was already looking forward to securing separate representation for Muslims (which was neglected by INC thus far). The politics in India was not mature enough to support a mass uprising. And I think that was what the intervening years achieved- uniting a diverse people under a common cause. And while Gandhi gave them identity, as the ahimsawadi bhartiya, Nehru gave them purpose.. that is Poorna Swaraj (although it may have emerged somewhere else, the popularization of the idea has to be credited to Nehru and his rallies). Nehru was the essential middleman who had the ears of the British and the trust of the Indian populace. And while it's very easy to hate him, for he was born in a wealthy household, and wasn't really in touch with the plight of the poorest of the Indians that he claimed to represent, he was perhaps the most suitable person required at that time. If not for Nehru, India would still have gotten independence, but it would have immediately gone into sectarian violence that started in Calcutta in 1946, and it would have eventually led to the army taking hold of the country (as happens with politically weakly represented countries).

Having said this, the book is definitely not objective when it goes over the history of Congress. The chapters 4 and 5 are replete with empty arguments, and concessions of the earlier character of Congress where it failed to initiate any mass movement. These chapters are possibly also the worst written in style, for they are full of redundant sentences which come across as an appeal to believe an argument without substance. The authors are also not clarifying that their remarks are limited to Congress in its early years, and the chapters carry dubious statements like "Congress itself being an intensely secular party" (basis one or two unsubstantiated claims). Notice the lack of differentiation as to which timeperiod the comment is made for. Also, the evaluation of nearly all leaders is in laudatory terms like courageous, or intelligent, without showing any of their achievements.

While the authors argue that its intent was to politicize national consciousness and popularize the idea of being one nation, there are no examples given of the meetings or charters to this effect. It's perhaps fair to say that the authors are doing everything in their power to legitimize Congress' existence in the first 35 years, without even showing its achievements separate from or incremental to what the Bengali nationalists had achieved through Swadeshi movement.

In chapter 6, the author is trying to prove that Bankim and Raja Rammohun Roy weren't anti-Muslim despite saying Muslim yoke and Muslim tyranny, because when they used such words, the emohasis was on Tyranny and not Muslim. Also because even Syed Ahmed Khan said the pre colonial rule was neither Hindu nor Muslim. I have never read such utter bullshit in my life. How can you argue in such an irresponsible fashion? Do you really consider every reader an uninformed or illiterate simpleton?

Even later, the book has gone into defending against the claim that Congress didn't do any mass uprisings in more than 30 years of its founding. It is claimed that the congress was attempting, and limiting itself to, politicization of the masses. The 3-day meetings were annual, and in different cities everytime, where agenda was discussed and resolutions prepared. Then provincial meetings also took place. Without any evidence, we are expected to believe that policization of the country was taking place for first 33 years of Congress (1885-1918). Does it really take so many years to change consciousness of people? In Bengal, Indigo revolt started in 1859, and in 1872, the Pabna protests saw meetings as large as twenty thousand people (this same book quotes the data). It clearly wasn't a case of stubbornness of masses, Indian masses were clearly malleable, and moreover, had a reason to hate the British. The fact that there were no mass uprisings means Congress was ineffective and directionless in first three decades of its founding. It will be easy to prove or disprove it. Show the number of rallies, and the locations of those rallies. Show the content of newspapers. That will prove if Congress was making a credible effort. Otherwise this argument is just another needless genuflecting in the cult of Congress.

It's terribly unfortunate that such books are being peddled in the name of history in India.

[Shishir Chaudhary · Rating 5 out of 5]

The subject of this book might remind you of those boring history classes of secondary school. And still 5 stars! Partly because it makes reading the same things that you believe you know, interesting, more like a sweeping cinematic recreation of the eventful period of Indian history, only lacking the audio-visual element which can be extremely well substituted by your imagination facilitated by authors' amazing narration. Highly recommended for anyone interested in History and a must-read for those preparing for the Indian Civil Services' examination.

(While some may argue that it's biased towards Congress, and it could very well be for some, but then INC was indeed an extremely active and popular body during the freedom struggle, and most of the events of the struggle were directly or indirectly associated with INC.)

[Manas · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is basically Gandhiji was an expert strategist, the Congress did nothing wrong and I will disregard any other source that opposes this, couched in academic lingo to appear credible. Tedious read.

[Harsh Chauhan · Rating 1 out of 5]

I want the writer to apologize for brazening Indian history.

[Zanna · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating and heartening history. The discussion of the origins of communalism is especially useful.

[Ashok Krishna · Rating 3 out of 5]

It is said that history is written by the victors, which means that the facts are often twisted to suit the needs and to the advantage of the writer. While Bipan Chandra does nothing to twist the facts, he has managed to take a partial view of the facts, as always. This is the second book by this same set of authors that I have read and just like the first one – ‘India Since Independence’ – this book also stands as a glaring testimony to the author’s/authors’ parochial attitude towards Congress.

While I am not one of those growing majority who take special pleasure in bashing Gandhi, Nehru and innumerable Congressmen who had given their all for the freedom struggle, what I cannot accept is projecting Congress as the one and only organization that brought freedom to the country. Never!

It is really a good work by the authors. Documenting the history of the freedom struggle of our country spanning a period of almost a century is no easy task. The authors deserve appreciation for even taking up such a big task. But what is not good about the book is the way in which the history is presented.

The efforts of anyone other than Congress is puffed away as puny or not paid as much attention as it deserves. Bhagat Singh, Bismil, Azad and other such daredevil youngsters have all got tagged as ‘terrorists’. Truth it might be, for their having taken up the violent methods to attain freedom, but something is not right about the way in which he belittles the efforts of even people like Bose. To prove my point, the entire episode of INA is given only one page with the overall part of Subhas Chandra Bose being reduced to just another also-ran!

The book should be renamed as ‘Congress’s Struggle for Independence’, because that is all you will ever read in this book. The author’s having a special liking to Nehru is quite apparent from his way of writing.

I would suggest that one can go for much better books than this, if one wants to read about the struggle for Indian independence in an unbiased manner.

[Pramod Biligiri · Rating 5 out of 5]

It feels presumptuous to be reviewing what is practically a textbook, and that too one authored by a group of reputed historians! But hey… readers be readers :)

This book was totally worth the time I spent on it. Even though we're all aware of the broad outline of the freedom struggle, it's likely to be remnants of what we were taught as schoolchildren, and the odd nuggets we pick up later from popular cinema or culture. A book like this is worthwhile because not only does it cover the movement in its entirety, it also avoids gross simplifications that are inevitable in both those contexts. To cite just one example, in the Introduction the authors contextualize their own approach to understanding that period, and contrast it with other schools which downplay it as different native elite groups trying to grab power, or deny that economic and democratic ideals were under contestation at all!

On the contrary, the precise joy of this book is in watching a brand new, gargantuan democratic formation emerge from the ruins and contradictions of late-stage monarchism and colonial arrogance. What starts out as intense-but-localized misgivings about political economy in the 1850's acquires broader theoretical structure through the work of intellectuals like Dadabhai Naoroji, M.G. Ranade, Gokhale and Surendranath Banerjee (to name a few). As per this book, theirs were pioneering critiques of colonialism anywhere in the world. It was this foundation that the next generation of leaders like Gandhi, Tilak and Nehru built upon as they went about popularizing the need for a political alternative. They not only had to grapple with conceptualizing this new entity (what we take for granted as today's India), but innovate in terms of mass political action and mass communication - innovations which movements elsewhere in the world have adopted since then. Imagine the vitality and integrity of a cause which drew to it organically people of the calibre of Subhas Chandra Bose, Vallabhbhai Patel and Rajagopalachari. No resort stays or ministries in the offing! Just decades of struggle and possible jail time. Even the harsh criticism of Gandhi and Congress by Ambedkar can be interpreted as they were not going far enough or fast enough, not that they were headed in the wrong direction. No wonder he was the one at the helm of a Constitution which is filled with grand dreams for future generations to realize.

Apart from descriptions of well known events like the Jallianwallah Bagh massacre or the Salt Satyagraha, other incidents that made an impression on me: frequent farmer revolts and famines that pointed to deeper problems, Naoroji's explanation of how wealth was being drained out of India, the relentless speechifying and constitutional approach of Gokhale, Pherozeshah Mehta and others, the coalescing of regional socio-political organizations into an annual "Congress" event, the intensity of protests against the partition of Bengal and the massive "Swadeshi" movement, the long-running advocacy through literature and music in Bengal, the extraordinary courage of Tilak, Gandhi's first stab at resisting the British in Champaran, the factious but fairly transparent and big-tent nature of the Congress, the Ghadar movement, the Gurdwara reforms after Jallianwallah Bagh, the founding of many newspapers by nationalists, Patel's phenomenal groundwork in Gujarat, the long debates on whether to withdraw from colonial institutions or overpower them from the inside, the Marxist turns Nehru took the Congress into, how big capitalists eventually threw their weight behind the freedom struggle, Jinnah's tragic decision to make a career out of communalism, the strategizing around the Vaikom Satyagraha, protestors with the new flag in their hands being bludgeoned by police, the Navy revolts … and too many more to list.

Personally, when reading this book I felt the tide turned in the 1930's. When the all-British Simon Commission had to shamefacedly scamper around the country and the subsequent elections swept the Congress to power almost everywhere, the morale of the colonists was crushed. Two to three generations of political activism had revitalized Indian society across its length and breadth. The cultural renaissance that had begun in Bengal in the 19th Century had washed all over the subcontinent. Political sentiment bled into poems, plays and even religion. The few British people who still fancied India as their dominion had to pay heed when this large country started yelling at them with every ounce of its civilizational heritage: Quit India.

Lest you think this book is only a long cavalcade of events, there are two great chapters at the end that locate a larger political strategy - albeit emergent - in the freedom struggle. What's significant about the strategy is that it was adapted to the specific type of the colonial regime: what the authors call "legal authoritarianism". In order to be profitable and sustainable, British rule had to appear to be in Indians' best interests, and appear to provide civil liberties and rule of law. Over time the leaders of the freedom movement learnt to leverage its strengths and prey on its weaknesses. I've summarized these chapters on strategy in the next couple of sections, as they're worth pondering over.

Strategy across people
1. There is going to be a battle of ideas. Convince people that British rule is neither benevolent nor invincible. This necessarily starts with the elite.
2. Politicize the masses: farmers, students, youth and workers.
3. Convince British people and public opinion in England
4. Strengthen and expand whatever democratic space is already available.
5. Win over the British state apparatus in India like the police and the courts. Results of these were evident during the 1942 Quit India movement and the revolts after the end of World War Two in 1945.

Strategy across the time dimension
Across time, the strategy had the following pattern: Struggle - Truce - Struggle (S - T - S’)
Mass agitations can only last for a short while. So call a truce at some point and prepare for the next one (Gandhi believed that it’s better to retreat with dignity than appear to be routed). Use every win to delegitimize British rule and make more demands. The periods between mass agitations are full of ideological work and constructive work. Speeches and tours by leaders, organizing farmers and workers, or working on setting up schools, developing village industries, spinning Khadi etc. The net effect is to create a spiraling movement, where every new agitation is more intense and wider than the previous one, with everyone being aware that the eventual goal is Independence.

Non-violence
Non-violence was a sensible and effective tactic. It lessened the severity of backlash by the government, allowed more people (esp. women) to participate, prevented British from demonizing the freedom movement and it reinforced that the issue at stake is a moral and ideological one, and not one of brute force. Indians would never have sufficient military firepower as long as the British controlled the police and the army.

Conclusion
As I reached the end of this book, I could see how each important thread and theme of the freedom struggle left an imprint on the new Constitution and the first few decades of policies that followed. Be it universal adult franchise, secularism, civil liberties and freedom of the Press, poverty alleviation, land reforms, equity for lower castes, socialist industrialization, a scientific temper, marriage and inheritance laws … there's probably a story going back to the first half of the 20th Century or beyond. I consider it a remarkable accomplishment of that movement that some of us didn't feel a compelling need to substantially dive into its history or wonder if the project needs more hands on deck. Until now.

[Sean · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is the closest thing I could find to a narrative total-picture or Gesamtdarstellung of the Indian independence movement. It’s decent, insofar as it covers the rise, retreat, and resurgence of various waves of mass struggle, as well as the major protagonists and their strategic debates. However, there are important periods that are just glossed over, some sections read a bit like apologetics (especially for Gandhi’s tactical choices), and It’s all somehow more surface-level and less analytically incisive than it could have been.

For these reasons, I found it indispensable to read this literally alongside Sumit Sarkar’s “Modern India 1885-1947” to clarify the actual stakes. Sarkar’s book, on which the Chandra et al volume relies partially, draws crucial connections to the political economy of colonialism and international developments, traces the historical narrative in a theoretically informed way, and consistently covers all the controversies honestly within the Indian movement. After reading the Chandra section on a given historical period, I would then have to read the Sarkar to find out what really happened. Unfortunately, the approach of Sarkar’s book is a bit academic and doesn’t provide the narrative flow of the Chandra et al book, so I don’t think it can be read alone as fruitfully.

The penultimate chapter of Chandra et al on “The Long-Term Strategy of the National Movement” was quite a compelling summary for those looking for strategic lessons of the movement, even if I didn’t necessarily agree with all of the conclusions.

[E.T. · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book is actually 'Congress' (or Gandhi's) struggle for independence. But, having said that, it is a superb work that covers almost all aspects of the struggle. If i may say so, in this regard, he may be even better than Guha.
Also the chapter on Jinnah is a gem. For the first time an author could explain to me Jinnah's political trajectory.
PS:- 'Raj' by Lawrence James is another superb book that gives British POV. Also, a balanced political view is in MJ Akbar's Nehru which is also very well-written.

[Hirdesh · Rating 5 out of 5]

Its a lovely with all the details has been mentioned so nicely. I had been enticing while reading.
It posses all the events took place since 1857 revolt to Independence.
Amazing ! ! !

[Jyotsna · Rating 3 out of 5]

Rating - 3.5 Stars
NPS - 9 (Promoter)

Secularism was from the beginning made a basic constituent of the nationalist ideology and a strong emphasis was laid on Hindu-Muslim unity. Although the national movement failed to eradicate communalism and prevent the partition of the country, this was due not to its deviance from a secular ideology but to weaknesses in its strategy for fighting communalism and its failure to fully grasp the socio-economic and ideological roots of communalism.

The above rating does not represent a dislike of this book, but a dislike of the history textbook narrative the authors decided to undertake.

Written in a matter-of-fact manner, the book dwells into the history of the Indian freedom struggle. It helps bridge many gaps that our school history textbooks miss, and the consequence of all the cumulative events that led to the British leaving their most precious colony.

The book also acts as a myth-buster, some that need to be taken with a pinch of salt, giving you a perspective you might have never thought of before.

But, I have two major problems with this book -

1. The book is a textbook, there is no effort to make it interesting or an effort to capture the reader.

2. There is no mention of Ambedkar and his contributions.

Other than the above 2, many say that this book looks biased to the Congress and their leaders, however, I think the revised version includes a lot of comments on the secularism that the first Indian government had declared; a subtle warning to all Indians that communalism will create a ruckus if it’s not kept in check.

A really good, highly recommended read if you are a history buff.

[Prajjwal · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book does a mammoth task of encapsulating the 100 years of independence struggle post the Revolt of 1857, and boy! that it does brilliantly. Although the pace of the book rises and dries up syncing with the active and passive phases of the struggle.

One of the key feature of this book is that it presents to the reader a systematic and holistic point of view of the struggle. We know most of the dates and facts as kids but often miss the rationale and the big picture behind the incidents and actions. One can often relate them to the present and see the cues of history repeating itself.

This book also opened my eyes to various issues which were unexplored hitherto:
-> The economic analysis of colonialism as the root cause of all grievances
-> The 'Divide and Rule' strategy on ideology, religion, castes, linguistics and class
-> The roles of industrialists, left wing and the socialists,
-> The class divide between the zamindars and peasants
-> The importance of media and propaganda in arousing action
-> The theory of rise of communalism (the best 3 chapters!)
-> The pros and cons of the Extremists, Moderates and the Gandhian way of struggle.
-> Character analysis of Bhagat Singh, Jinnah, Gandhi and Nehru (brilliant and well balanced!)

One of the most cited critique of this book is that it is biased towards the centre-left. I find it unfair as most of us are looking it through the lens of current power dynamics of the ideologies. However the author do have a defensive stance on many shortcomings of the INC and Gandhi.

I have redacted 1 star due to the lack of energy in the passive and stagnating phases of the Independence struggle and the rush up during the end years.

TL;DR: A long, informative and transformative read !

[Rithik · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book gives a detailed account of various movements happened from 1857 to 1947. It introduces various characters, political developments, changes in government and laws, etc. For someone, who wants to know about the Independence struggle for the first time, it is a great read. It starts with Sipoy mutiny of 1857 to Home movement, social reforms, to Non-cooperation movement, the Civil disobedience movement, the Khilafat movement, the emergence of communism and communalism too, status of Princely states, how British government used to divide and rule mechanism, and ends at Quit India movement.

Review from Political angle: As mentioned by a few reviewers already, it is extremely sidelined towards Congress. It justified all the acts of Gandhiji and Nehru. Some reviews even claim that the publisher's book house was owned by Nehru's family members which I am not aware of. The author takes the point of view of anti-congress historians and justifies in terms of congress' perspective, which I felt is a bit too much for a textbook.

Taking political angle into consideration, I feel sad that such a single viewed book is recommended for the UPSC/ CSE(Indian civil service) exam of India.

If you want to have a glance of summary of the book, please use the below link:
https://rithikmanthugari.wixsite.com/...

[Abby Varghese · Rating 4 out of 5]

A brilliant book, probably the best in it's category especially because of the approach adopted by the author. This book does not merely state bare facts but throws in a detailed analysis of various events even though it may seem bit biased to INC. I really enjoyed a portion which deeply analysed how a person who started as the 'Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity' ended up by demanding Pakistan which I felt worth special mention.
A must read book.

[Nisha Vidhyarthi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bipin Chandra is a very avid and precise writer. The book has presented the history of India in a coherent and analytical manner which provides enough thought to comprehend the timeline and roles of various parties involved. It takes the reader from the independence revolt of 1857 to the final victory of 1947. In sum, this book gathers a mature perspective of Indian freedom movement.

[Sugan · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author seems more biased towards INC. Other than that the book was a masterpiece.

[Archana Kumari · Rating 3 out of 5]

At times, it gives the impression of being a Congress mouthpiece. Could be read to know important facts related to the independence struggle.

[Preetam Chatterjee · Rating 2 out of 5]

Bipan Chandra’s India’s Struggle for Independence is that massive, brick-thick “definitive” history of the freedom movement which has been haunting UPSC aspirants’ bedside tables for decades — part revered scripture, part masochistic endurance test.

On paper, it’s a one-stop, 600+ page chronicle of India’s anti-colonial movement from the Revolt of 1857 to 1947, written by Bipan Chandra and his collective of co-authors. In execution, it’s a curious mix of genuinely solid scholarship, Marxist-inflected interpretation, and prose that sometimes reads like it was designed to be photocopied in a dusty coaching centre for the next fifty years.

The book’s chief strength is its breadth. Few works try to knit together as many strands: early nationalist moderation, extremists and the Swadeshi movement, peasant uprisings, tribal revolts, labour unrest, Gandhian mass mobilisation, socialist currents, revolutionary terrorism, communal politics, and the INA’s role.

Bipan Chandra’s Marxist training ensures that class, economic exploitation, and imperialist structures are given serious weight, countering the old “great men” narrative. You get a sense of anti-colonialism as a mass, multi-layered, often messy process, not just the story of Congress resolutions.

Narratively, though, this is not Guha-level literary history. The prose is functional at best, clunky at worst. Chapters often open with clear thematic statements but then descend into a paragraph-by-paragraph march of events, dates, and organisations. It’s perfectly fine for exam prep, but it rarely soars as storytelling. You can tell the authors value ideological framing over dramatic pacing.

On that ideological framing — here comes the roast — this is Marxist historiography from the 1980s, and it wears that badge without irony. The economic critique of colonialism is sharp and well-founded, but the insistence on seeing every shift in nationalist politics primarily through the lens of class struggle and imperialist economic policy can feel flattening. Cultural, psychological, and even personal dimensions of politics get downplayed. Gandhi, for instance, is analysed as a mass mobiliser whose genius lay in bringing broad social classes into anti-colonial struggle, but the inner contradictions of his philosophy, or his deeply personal moral experiments, get less attention.

Similarly, the book’s handling of communalism is double-edged. It rightly locates the British role in fostering communal divisions, but it can be hesitant to fully confront the agency of Indian political actors (including the Congress) in deepening those divides. Partition feels explained, but not fully felt.

Compared to other big histories — say, Sumit Sarkar’s Modern India or Sekhar Bandyopadhyay’s From Plassey to Partition — Bipan Chandra’s text is broader but less elegant. Sarkar’s writing is denser but sharper in analysis; Bandyopadhyay balances narrative and interpretation more gracefully. If you’re comparing with something like Ramachandra Guha’s India After Gandhi, the contrast is even starker: Guha writes for the general reader, and Bipan Chandra writes for the committed (or coerced) student.

Still, for all its stylistic dryness, India’s Struggle for Independence endures because it is comprehensive without being a mere chronology, and because it firmly resists the temptation to reduce the freedom movement to a Congress hagiography. You come away understanding the structural brutality of colonialism and the multi-pronged resistance it provoked. You just might not be entertained along the way.

It’s the kind of book that will never trend on Instagram, but will continue to be highlighted, underlined, and dog-eared in competitive exam hostels for decades to come.

Of course, with Bipan Chandra, Mridula Mukherjee, Aditya Mukherjee, K.N. Panikkar, and Sucheta Mahajan in the contributors’ gallery, it’s not exactly a mystery which way the ideological wind is blowing.

The book doesn’t just sit left of centre — it’s got a lifetime membership card, a front-row seat at the CPI study circle, and a well-worn thesaurus for “bourgeois”. It’s history as interpreted through a lens polished by decades of leftist scholarship: meticulous, critical of power, allergic to capitalist triumphalism, and occasionally so committed to the dialectic you can almost hear Marx clearing his throat in the background.

In short, if you want a study of “time” that also functions as a subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) reaffirmation of the Left’s favourite narratives, this is your stop. If you’re hoping for an apolitical stroll through the past — well, comrade, you might want to check the timetable for another bus.

[शरद श्रीवास्तव · Rating 5 out of 5]

India's struggle for independence by Bipan Chandra - सरकारी इतिहास
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
इतिहास लिखना आसान काम नहीं। खासतौर पर भारत की आजादी की लड़ाई का। यूं तो बहुत से लेखको ने भारत के स्वाधीनता संग्राम पर लिखा है। लेकिन उनमे सबसे ज्यादा ख्याति बिपन चन्द्र जी ने ही पायी है। आज ये किताब इस विषय पर सबसे प्रामाणिक मानी जाती है। सरकारी पैसे या सभ्य शब्दो मे गवरमेंट फंडस की मदद से बिपन जी एवं उनके साथियों ने सालों रिसर्च, ढेर सारे साक्षात्कार, यात्राएं, पुरानी किताबों से पढ़कर इसे लिखा है। बिपन जी जेएनयू मे प्रोफेसर रहे हैं, पिछले साल ही उनकी मृत्यु हो गयी थी। उनके द्वारा लिखित ये किताब सरकारी परीक्षा देने वाले नौजवानो के लिए मस्ट है। इतिहास का विषय लेकर आईएएस, आईपीएस या कोई भी बड़ी सरकारी सेवा के लिए लोग इसे ही पढ़ते हैं।
और शायद इस किताब का उद्देश्य भी यही है। सरकारी नौकरी करने वाले युवकों को सरकारी इतिहास पढ़ाना। उन्हें वही बताना जो सरकार चाहती है। उनकी मानसिकता को प्रभावित करना। उन्हें वही पट्टी पढ़ाना जैसा सरकार के हित मे है। सरकार जो आजादी के बाद सालों इस देश मे रही।
बिपन जी ने इस किताब को घटना प्रधान रखा है। यूं तो आजादी के इतिहास को कुछ लेखको ने पलासी के युद्ध से शुरू किया है। कुछ ने 1885 मे कांग्रेस की स्थापना से, बिपन जी ने 1857 से शुरू किया है। और 1947 तक ले जाकर लिखा है। अधिकांश चेप्टर बिपन जी ने एवं कुछ उनके सहयोगियों ने लिखे हैं।
इस किताब की खास बात ये है की ये आजादी के आंदोलन को कांग्रेस के साथ साथ लेकर चलती है। और आजादी के आंदोलन को कांग्रेस के साथ आगे बढ़ते कामयाब होते देखती है। इस किताब मे गांधी और कांग्रेस अलग अलग हैं। यही इस किताब की खास और दुर्भाग्य पूर्ण बात है कि ये किताब कांग्रेस का विभिन्न आरोपों के लिए स्पष्टीकरण ज्यादा लगती है बजाय एक इतिहास के। कांग्रेस के खिलाफ लगे हर आरोप हर विवाद का उत्तर देने कि कोशिश है इसमे। शुरुआत ही कांग्रेस के जन्म लेने के विवाद से है। कि कांग्रेस को अंग्रेज़ो ने एक सेफ़्टी वाल्व कि तरह खुद पैदा किया था या वो उस समय के नेशनलिस्ट लोगों कि सोच से जन्मी थी। उसके बाद से आजादी मिलने तक जीतने भी विवाद रहे, उनके जवाब ये किताब बखूबी देती है। बिना पाठक को पता चले देती है। हर शक, हर आरोप का खंडन करते चलती है। फिर चाहे वो बड़े देसी पूँजीपतियों द्वारा कांग्रेस को चलाने, उसके आंदोलन को शुरू कराने, या उसे बंद कराने का आरोप हो, नेता जी सुभाष और गांधी जी के बीच हुआ विवाद हो, विभाजन का आरोप हो कि कांग्रेस ने विभाजन क्यों स्वीकार किया, गांधी जी द्वारा असहयोग और सविनय अवज्ञा आंदोलन को बीच मे वापस ले लेने का आरोप हो, आजादी की लड़ाई के धीमे धीमे चलने का आरोप हो, अहिंसा का रास्ता हो, सबका स्पष्टीकरण ये किताब देती है, बखूबी देती है। कांग्रेस को हर तरह से क्लीन चिट देते हुए ये किताब आगे बढ़ती जाती है।
लेकिन इस किताब की सबसे बड़ी खूबी सांप्रदायिकता के ऊपर बिपन जी द्वारा लिखे गए चेप्टर हैं। और बहुत ही बेहतरीन तरीके से भारत मे सांप्रदायिकता के उभार, उसके रोकथाम के प्रयासों की असफलता की व्याख्या की गयी है। ये तीन चेप्टर इस किताब की जान हैं।
इस किताब की अगली खासियत नेहरू जी का इस किताब का हीरो होना है। 1930 मे राजनीति मे पैराशूट की तरह से उतरने के बाद, कांग्रेस का गांधी जी द्वारा अध्यक्ष मनोनीत किए जाने के बाद ( जब बाकी सभी लोगों ने गांधी जी का विरोध किया था) बिपन जी कांग्रेस से ज्यादा नेहरू जी को फोकस मे रखते हैं। लगभग उसके बाद घटी हर घटना मे नेहरू जी के विचार, उनकी टिप्पणी शामिल है। नेहरू जी वाकई बहुत ही महान थे, ये किताब उनके महानता के सफर की भी दस्तावेज़ है। हालांकि गांधी जी की तरह नेहरू जी संघर्ष करते, आंदोलन करते नहीं दिखते, लेकिन उनके विचार हर जगह नजर आने लगते हैं। आजादी मिलने तक आप उन्हें कांग्रेस का पीएम, गांधी जी का उत्तराधिकारी मान चुके होते हैं। आईएएस, आईएफ़एस, पीसीएस के एक्जाम मे कांग्रेस की वीरगाथा गाने के लिए तैयार हो चुके होते हैं।
बहुत सी घटनाएँ जो इतिहास को जरूरी तौर पर प्रभावित करती हैं वो एक लाइन मे सर्र से गुजर जाती हैं, इसलिए किताब को मन से पढ़ने की बहुत ध्यान से पढ़ने की जरूरत है। वरना बहुत सा इतिहास आप मिस कर जाएंगे।