From a Marxist perspective, the Indian National Movement is primarily analyzed through the lens of class struggle and economic determinism, rather than solely as a unified struggle against colonial rule. Marxists argue that the movement, particularly in its later phases, was largely led and shaped by the nascent Indian bourgeoisie (comprising industrialists, merchants, and educated professionals) whose economic interests were increasingly at odds with British imperialism.

Key aspects of the Marxist analysis include:

1. Bourgeois Leadership: The Indian National Congress, the primary vehicle of the movement, is seen as representing the interests of the Indian capitalist class. While it mobilized the masses, its ultimate goal was to secure political power to further its own economic agenda, such as gaining control over the domestic market and resources, which were previously dominated by British capital.
2. Limited Radicalism: While peasant uprisings and workers' movements (e.g., in the 1920s and 30s) were significant, the bourgeois leadership often sought to contain or co-opt these more radical elements. Their fear was that a full-blown social revolution would not only overthrow the British but also challenge their own emerging class dominance.
3. Compromise with Imperialism: The transfer of power in 1947 is often viewed as a negotiated settlement or a 'compromise' between the departing British imperialists and the rising Indian bourgeoisie. This arrangement ensured the continuation of capitalist structures and prevented a radical restructuring of Indian society, which would have threatened the interests of both the British (in terms of continued economic ties) and the Indian elite.
4. 'False Consciousness' of Nationalism: Nationalism, while a powerful unifying force, is sometimes seen as a form of 'false consciousness' that obscured underlying class contradictions. It united different classes against a common external enemy, diverting attention from internal class exploitation.

In essence, the Marxist perspective views the Indian National Movement as a bourgeois-democratic revolution, incomplete in its social transformation, primarily serving to replace foreign capitalist exploitation with indigenous capitalist control, rather than achieving a truly egalitarian or socialist society.