Sumit Sarkar, 87, Dies
Renowned Indian historian and founding member of the Subaltern Studies Collective passes away in Delhi due to age-related ailments, leaving behind a legacy of influential works on modern Indian history
Sumit Sarkar, a prominent Indian historian and scholar of modern Indian history, died at the age of 87 in Delhi due to age-related ailments. He was a key voice in modern Indian history and a founding member of the Subaltern Studies Collective.
Sarkar was born in 1939 to historian Sushobhan Sarkar and studied History at Presidency College, Calcutta, and the University of Calcutta. He later taught as a lecturer at the University of Calcutta and as a reader at the University of Burdwan, and later as a professor of history at the University of Delhi.
Throughout his career, Sarkar received several awards for his work, including the Sarit Chatterjee Memorial Award from the Indian History and Culture Society in 2003 for his work on the Indian freedom movement. However, in 2007, he returned his 2004 Rabindra Puraskar to protest farmer treatment in Bengal, demonstrating his commitment to social justice.
Sarkar is survived by his wife, historian Tanika Sarkar, and son Aditya Sarkar, associate professor of South Asian History at the University of Warwick. His last rites are likely to be performed on Saturday, though the family is yet to announce the confirmed date and time.
## Why it matters Sarkar's passing is a significant loss to the field of Indian history, as he was widely regarded as an important voice in modern Indian history. His works, such as The Swadeshi Movement in Bengal, Modern India: 1885-1947, and Writing Social History, have been influential in shaping the understanding of Indian nationalism and the freedom movement. His legacy will continue to be felt through his writings and the generations of historians he has inspired.
Sarkar's approach to history was characterized by his emphasis on the experiences of different social groups, classes, and popular movements. As a Marxist historian, he was known for questioning leader-centred accounts of Indian nationalism and examining colonialism, nationalism, and the freedom movement through the lens of social history. His commitment to intellectual discomfort and revising positions he had once endorsed has left a lasting impact on the field of Indian history.
