The Cambridge School of history writing emerged in the 1960s and 1970s as an influential approach to the study of modern Indian history. It was particularly associated with historians working at the University of Cambridge, most notably Anil Seal, Gordon Johnson, John Gallagher, David A. Washbrook, Christopher Bayly and, in related ways, Judith Brown. The school challenged several established interpretations of Indian nationalism, especially the nationalist and Marxist approaches. Its central concern was to explain Indian political developments through local social structures, regional political networks, patronage, competition for resources and the activities of local elites rather than primarily through ideology, nationalism or class conflict. One of the most important features of the Cambridge School was its criticism of nationalist historiography. Earlier nationalist historians often presented the Indian freedom struggle as a unified and progressive movement led by the Indian National Congress under the leadership of figures such as Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Bal Gangadhar Tilak. In this interpretation, Indian nationalism gradually developed as a response to colonial exploitation and culminated in the achievement of independence. Cambridge historians questioned this teleological interpretation. They argued that nationalism should not automatically be understood as a coherent movement with a predetermined objective of independence. Instead, they examined the immediate political interests and calculations of individuals and groups participating in politics. The Cambridge School also challenged the Marxist interpretation of Indian history. Marxist historians generally emphasized economic exploitation, class relations, agrarian structures and the contradictions of colonial capitalism. While Cambridge historians did not completely ignore economic and social conditions, they placed greater emphasis on political relationships and the competition among elites. They argued that political behaviour could not always be explained through class interests or nationalist ideology. Local circumstances, personal ambitions, caste affiliations, kinship relations and access to patronage often played a significant role in shaping political action. A major characteristic of Cambridge historiography was therefore its emphasis on local and regional politics. Instead of treating Indian nationalism as a uniform, all-India phenomenon, Cambridge historians examined how politics actually operated at the district, provincial and local levels. Anil Seal's work, especially *The Emergence of Indian Nationalism*, argued that political mobilization in colonial India was strongly influenced by competition among local elites. Provincial and local leaders sought influence, government positions, educational opportunities and other resources, and they frequently used political organizations to advance these interests. The concept of patronage was particularly important to the Cambridge interpretation. Colonial government created a system in which access to administrative positions, contracts, education, honours and other opportunities could become politically valuable resources. Local elites competed to control these resources. Political leaders developed networks through which they