2004
DOI: 10.2307/3517995
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Imperialism, Nationalism and the Making of the Indian Capitalist Class 1920-1947

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Thus the Indian bourgeoisie, according to him, realized its class interests. On the other hand, Aditya Mukherjee (2002) argued that the Indian capitalist class, at the time of Indian political independence, had a mature nationalist stance, while also being economically entrepreneurial. The tactics of the industrialists in Bhilai show how their class and national interests were not contradictory.…”
Section: Findings and Implicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Thus the Indian bourgeoisie, according to him, realized its class interests. On the other hand, Aditya Mukherjee (2002) argued that the Indian capitalist class, at the time of Indian political independence, had a mature nationalist stance, while also being economically entrepreneurial. The tactics of the industrialists in Bhilai show how their class and national interests were not contradictory.…”
Section: Findings and Implicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The initial answer was the mixed economy model, where the nationalistic aspirations for self reliance, informed by the Soviet model, co‐existed with the promotion of indigenous private capital (Seth 1995; Chatterjee 1993, 1986; Chakaravarty 1987). Consequently, the Indian state entered into relationships with the Indian capitalist class (see Chibber 2003; Mukherjee 2002), and workers that were also the citizens of the newly constituted nation. The CMM's interactions with the state and industrialists that emerge through the repertoire, point at the limits of such citizenship and the effort of the informal workers to expand its boundaries.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, and as a compelling contrast to the lack of a capacity for autonomous mobilization from below, the coming of independence in India was marked by intense collective action among the elites. Mukherjee (2002: 19) notes the striking capacity of Indian capital to constitute itself as a “class‐for‐itself” on an all‐India basis after WWI (see also Markovits, 1985 and Kochanek 1971, 1987). Indeed, as Chibber (2003, 2005) has demonstrated, Indian capital effectively mustered up substantial resistance to an industrial policy centred on disciplinary planning and intervention.…”
Section: Social Movements From Above and Below In The Invention And Rmentioning
confidence: 99%
“… 35 A. Mukherjee, Imperialism, Nationalism and the Making of the Indian Capitalist Class: 1920–1947 (New Delhi, India: Sage, 2002). …”
mentioning
confidence: 99%