HISTORIOGRAPHY AND THE PEASANT 67
history can only be dealt with mono graphically^ and eac-h monograph requires an immense quantity of material which is often hard to collect ^^
Thus, we can agree that while his work is a monograph, a form particularly suited to an understanding of the peasant question, we must see whether his outlook, reflected both in his approach to the peasant revolt in general as well as his analysis of the colonial state, is conducive to a genuine understanding of the peasant revolts, and how far he has been able to piece together the facts so vital to the understanding of such movements.
Attitude to Peasant Movements
As for his attitude, it is clear when he states that "the patronage of politics from above helped agrarian discontent to get organised. It was^ in that sense, a child of the politics of Indian nationalism."3 Thus, where Gramsci notes that "politics from above" disorganizes peasant movements, Siddiqui implies it organises them. Moreover, he couples this understanding with a far more sweeping attempt to belittle the leadership of the peasantry, when, after referring to "peasant boredom5 and the Chinese revolution—a "brilliant survey" in his view—he states that "in colonial India, similarly, notwithstanding individual heroism of many leaders, neither Swami Sahajanand'js movement in Bihar, nor the Tebhaga movement in Bengal, nor the vast experience of the Telengana uprising could produce a lasting ideological impact on the countryside."4
That is his academic conclusion. But what are the facts? Not only did the Bihar movement of Swami Sahajanand gain enough ground so as to make him acceptable as the general secretary of the All India Kisan Sabha from December 1936 to 1944,6 but, "when the Bakasht movement in Bihar assumed serious proportions as a class struggle directed against the oppressive landlords the Congress Ministry of the province thought it was a real challenge to their class interests. So it entered into an agreement with the zamindar class and openly sided with it in its gangster methods, backed by police atrocities, against the fighting Kisa ns."
"However, in order'to create disunity among the toiling and fighting Kisans and disrupt the Kisan Sabha and its struggle the Congress leaders, guided by Baba Rajendra Prasad, a staunch Gan-dhite leader of the Congress in Bihar, started an organization nominally representing agricultural labour, the Khetihar Mazdoor Union, and set it against the Kisan Sabha."6 This sort of organization by the leaders of the national movement appears to be more on the lines that Gramsci indicated than the rose-tinted picture Siddiqui paints. Moreover, not only did Swami Sahajanand's movement