Critics have attacked various ideas of the School.[1] In The New Imperial Histories Reader, Stephen Howe has assembled articles by critics who take aim especially at P. J. Marshall, D. K. Fieldhouse, Robinson and Gallagher, and A. G. Hopkins.[2]
Howard Spodek, for example, praises the school's regional and pluralist perspectives but criticizes their reliance on British (rather than Indian) documentation, sloppy use of social science models, downplaying of ideology, and their excessive emphasis on Indian self-seeking and the importance of British imperial initiatives in achieving modernization. He recommends a deeper appreciation of Indian initiatives, and more attention to the emerging importance of public life in many areas of society rather than just a concentration on politics.[3]
^See D.C.M. Platt, "The Imperialism of Free Trade: Some Reservations," Economic History Review, 21#2 (Aug., 1968), pp. 296–306
^Stephen Howe, ed. New Imperial Histories Reader (Routledge, 2009)
^Howard Spodek, "Pluralist Politics in British India: The Cambridge Cluster of Historians of Modern India," American Historical Review, (June 1979) 84#3 pp 688–707
Further reading
Ganachari, Aravind. "Studies in Indian Historiography: 'The Cambridge School,'" Indica, March 2010, 47#1, pp 70–93.
Hyam, Ronald. "The study of imperial and commonwealth history at Cambridge, 1881–1981: Founding fathers and pioneer research students." Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 29.3 (2001): 75–103.
Eugene F. Irschick, "Interpretations of Indian Political Development." Journal of Asian Studies (February 1975), 34(2): 461–72.
Spodek, Howard. "Pluralist Politics in British India: The Cambridge Cluster of Historians of Modern India," American Historical Review, (June 1979) 84#3 pp 688–707 in JSTOR