NATIONAL MOVEMENT AND ITS IDEOLOGICAL DISCOURSE AND POLITICAL LEGACIES
The Indian national movement was undoubtedly one of the biggest mass
movements modern society has ever seen. It was a movement which galvanized
millions of people of all classes and ideologies into political action and
brought to its knees a mighty colonial empire consequently, along with
British, French, Russia, Chinese, Cuban, and Vietnamese revolutions, it is of
great relevance to those wishing to alter the existing political and
social structure.Various aspects of the Indian national movement, especially
Gandhian political strategy ,are particularly relevant to these movements
in societies that broadly function within the confines of the rule of law ,and
are characterized by a democratic and basically civil libertarian polity. But
it is also relevant to other societies .We know for a fact that
even Lech walesa consciously tried to incorporate elements of Gandhian strategy
in the Solidarity movement in Poland. The Indian national movement ,in fact,
provides the only actual historical example of a semi-democratic or democratic
type of political structure being successfully replaced and transformed .It is
the only movement where the broadly Gramscian theoretical perspective of a war
of position was practiced ; where state power was not seized in a single
historical movement of revolution ,but through prolonged popular struggle on a
moral ,political and ideological level; where reserve of counter –hegemony were
built up over the years through progressive stages ; where the phases of
struggle alternated with ‘passive’phases.The Indian national movement is also
an example of how the constitutional space offered by the existing structure
could be used without getting co-opted by it. It did not completely rejected
this space ,as such rejection in democratic societies entails heavy costs in
terms of hegemonic influence and often leads to isolation-but entered it and
used it effectively in combination with non-constitutional struggle to
overthrow the existing structure.The Indian national movement is perhaps one of
the best examples of the creation of an extremely wide movement with a common
aim in which diverse political and ideological currents could co-exist and work
–and simultaneously continue to contend for overall ideological and political
hegemony over it. While intense debate on all basic issues was allowed, the
diversity and tension did not weaken the cohesion and striking power of the
movement; on the contrary ,this diversity and atmosphere of freedom and debate
became a major source of its strength (Bipin Chandra : 1999).
Outstanding features of the freedom struggle
There are some outstanding features of the freedom struggle of India.
A major aspect is the values and modern ideals on which the movement itself was based and the broad socio-economic –and political vision of its leadership( this vision was that of a democratic ,civil libertarian and secular India ,based on a self –reliant, egalitarian social order and an independent foreign policy).The leadership popularized democratic ideas and institutions in India. The nationalists fought for the introduction of a representative government on the basis of popular eletios and demand that elections be based on a democratic basis and in the form of a parliament. It not only permitted but encouraged free expression of opinion within the party and the movement; some of the most important decisions in its history were taken after heated debates and on the basis of open voting. From the beginning, the nationalists fought against attacks by the state on the freedoms of the press, expression and association, and made the struggle for these freedoms an integral part of the national movement. The freedom struggle was also a struggle for economic development. In time an economic ideology developed which was to dominate the views of independent India. The national movement accepted ,with near unanimity, the need to develop India on the basis of industrialization which in turn was to be independent of foreign capital and was to rely on the indigenous capital goods sector. From the initial stages, the movement adopted a pro-poor orientation which was strengthened with the advent of Gandhi and the rise of the leftists who struggled to make the movement adopt a socialist outlook. The movement also increasingly moved towards a programme of radical agrarian reform. The national movement was, from its early days, fully committed to secularism. Its leadership fought hard to inculcate secular values among the people and opposed the growth of communalism. The INC was never inward looking. Since the day of Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Indian leaders had developed a broad international outlook. Over the year they evolved a policy of opposition to imperialism on a world –wide scale and solidarity with anti-colonial movements in other parts of the world.
Historical background of the British Conquest of India
In 31ST December, 1600 queen Elizabeth, the British Monarch, granted a charter to the East India Company, for the trade in East for fifteen years. Again in May 1609, a fresh charter was granted to the company for an indefinite time. Before the East India Company, John mildenhall, a merchant adventurer, was the first English man who arrived in India in 1599 by the overland route, ostensibly for the purpose of trade with Indian merchant .The Britishers faced stiff opposition from the Portuguese and Dutch. Captain Hawkins arrived at Jahangir’s court in 1609 to seek permission. In 1613, Jahangir, the Mugal Emperor issued a farman which granted trading rights to the Britishers in surat.Sir Thomas Roe came to India as ambassador of James 1 to Jahangirs court in 1615 to obtain the permission for trade and secured the rights for the company to settle at Agra, Ahmedabad, Surat and Broach. The Battle of plassey in 1757 was the first step of the Britishers to capture India and establish the colonial rule in India. The Battle of Buxar in 1764 demonstrated the superiority of the English army. In this perpetual process East India Company dominated India. The anti-Indian policies and aggressive administration of the British Government fueled for a major revolt against the British in 1857.There is still a debate as to whether this was a’ nationalistic’ effort or an attempt to preserve the old way of life that was threatened by the advent of the East India Company’s rule .The revolt of 1857 was conducted by the soldiers and soldiers with the popular support of the people. This revolt brought the Hindus, Muslims, Princes, Peoples, zamindars and farmers together. The great uprising inculcated nationalist feelings among the peoples. It was the first great challenge to British rule in India .Some historians termed the revolt as the first Indian war of Independence. This revolt helped to end the company rule in India .Company’s rule was transferred to the Govt. The company’s rule was terminated and the administration was taken over to be carried on in the name of the Crown.
Character of the National Movement
The freedom struggle of India was perhaps the greatest mass movement in world history.After,1919 it was built around the basic notion that the people had to and could play an active role in politics and in their own liberation, and succeeded in politicizing, and drawing into political action a large part of the Indian people. Gandhi, the leader who moved and mobilized millions into politics, all his life propagated the view that the people and not leaders created a mass movement, whether for the overthrow of the colonial regime or for social transformation. He added, though, that the success or failure of a movement depended a great deal on the quality of its leadership. Satyagraha, as a form of struggle, was based on the active participation of the people and on the sympathy and support of the non –participating millions. In fact, unlike a violent revolution, which could be waged by a minority of committed cadres and fighters, a non-violent revolution needed the political mobilization of millions and the passive support of the vast majority. It may be pointed out, parenthetically, that it was because of the long experience of this kind of political participation by common people that the founders of the Indian Republic, who also led the freedom struggle in its last phase, could repose full faith in their political capacity. The leaders unhesitatingly introduced adult franchise despite widespread poverty and illiteracy. The Indian National Movement was fully committed to a polity based on representative democracy and the full range of civil liberties for the individual. It provided the experience through which these two could became an integral part of Indian political thinking .From the very beginning the movement popularized democratic ideas and institutions among the people and struggled for the introduction of parliamentary institutions on the basis of popular elections. Starting from the turn of the twentieth century, the nationalists demanded the introduction of adult franchise. Much attention was also paid to the defense of the freedom of the press and speech against attacks by the colonial authorities besides the promotion of other political and economic policies. Throughout, the movement struggled to expand the semi-democratic political arena and prevent the rulers from limiting the existing space within which legal political activities and peaceful political agitations and mass struggle could be organized. Congress ministries, formed in 1937, visibly extended civil liberties to the resurgent peasants, workers and students movements as also to radical groups and parties such as Congress Socialist Party and Communist party. From its foundation in1885,the Indian National Congress ,the main political organ of the national movement ,was organized on democratic lines .It relied upon discussion at all levels as the chief mode for the formation of its policies and arriving at political discussions. Its policies and resolutions were publicly discussed and debated and then voted upon. Some of the most important decisions in its history were taken after rich and heated debates and on the basis of open voting .For example, the decision in 1920 to start the Non-cooperation movement was taken with 1336 voting for and 884 voting against Gandhiji’s resolution. Similarly, at the Lahore Congress in 1929, where Gandhiji was asked to take charge of the coming Civil Disobedience Movement, a resolution sponsored by him condemning the bomb attack on the Viceroy’s train by revolutionary terrorists was passed by a narrow majority of 942 to794.During the Second World War, Gandhiji’s stand on cooperation with the war effort was rejected by Congress in january1942.
Congress did not insist on an identity of viewpoints or policy approaches within its ranks. It allowed dissent and not only tolerated but encouraged different and minority opinions to be openly held and freely expressed. Infact, dissent became a part of its style .At independence, congress, thus, had the experience of democratic functioning was not peculiar to congress .Most other political organizations such as the congress socialist party, trade union and kisan sabha, students’ ,writers,’ and women’s, organizations ,and professional associations functioned in the manner of political democracies. The major leaders of the movement were committed wholeheartedly to civil liberties .It is worth quoting them. For example, Lokmaanya Tilak proclaimed that ‘liberty of the press and liberty of speech give birth to a nation and nourish it’. Gandhiji wrote in 1922:’we must first make good the right of free speech and free association. . . We must defend these elementary rights with our lives’. And again in 1939:’Civil liberty consistent with the observance of non-violence is the first step towards swaraj .It is the breath of political and social life .It is the foundation of freedom. There is no room there for dilution or compromise. It is the water of life. I have never heared of water being diluted. ‘It is thus becomes clear that Gandhi was fully committed to liberal, democratic values-only he also saw their deficiencies and believed that the existing liberal democratic structure ,as prevailing in the west ,was not adequate in enabling the people to control the wielders of political power. Jawaharlal Nehru wrote in 1936:If civil liberties are suppressed a nation loses all vitality and becomes impotent for anything substantial.’ Further, the resolution on fundamental rights, passed by the Karachi Congress in 1931, guaranteed the rights of free expression of opinion through speech or the press, and freedom of association. The consensus on the practice of non-violence during the national movement also contributed to the creation of a temper of democracy in the country. Discussion, debate and persuasion, backed by public opinion, was emphasized for bringing about political and social change as opposed to glorification of violence which lies at the heart of authoritarianism.
Nationalism: A Concept
Nationalism is a state of mind. The process of history can be analyzed as a succession of changes in communal psychology, in the attitude of man toward all manifestations of individual and social life. Such factors as language, territory, traditions -such sentiments as attachment to the native soil, the Heimat, and to one's kin and kind assume different positions in the scale of values as communal psychology changes. Nationalism is an idea, an idée force, which fills man's brain and heart with new thoughts and new sentiments, and drives him to translate his conscious- ness into deeds of organized action. Nationality is therefore not only a group held together and animated by common consciousness; but it is also a group seeking to find its expression in what it regards as the highest form of organized activity, a sovereign state. As long as a nationality is not able to attain this consummation, it satisfies itself with some form of autonomy or pre-state organization, which, however, always tends at a given moment, the moment of "liberation," to develop into a sovereign state. Nationalism demands the nation-state; the creation of the nation state strengthens nationalism. Here, as elsewhere in history, 'We find a continuous interdependence and interaction.
“Nationalism is a state of mind corresponding to a political fact,” or striving to correspond to a political fact, this definition reflects the genesis of nationalism and of modern nationality, which was born in the fusion of a certain state of mind with a given political form. The state of mind, the idea of nationalism, imbued the form with a new' content and meaning; the form provided the idea with implements for the organized expression of its manifestations and aspirations. Both the idea and the form of nationalism were developed before the age of nationalism, The idea goes back to the ancient Hebrews and Greeks, and was revived in Europe at the time of the Renaissance and the Reformation, During the period of the Renaissance, the literati rediscovered Greco-Roman patriotism; but this new attitude never penetrated to the masses, and its secularism was soon swept away by the retheologization of Europe through the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. But the Reformation, especially in its Calvinistic form, revived the nationalism of the Old Testament. Under the favorable circumstances which had developed in England, a new national consciousness of the English as the godly people penetrated the whole nation in the revolution of the seventeenth century. Meanwhile in Western Europe a new political power that of the absolute kings had developed a new political form, the modern centralized sovereign state; and this became the political form into which, during the French Revolution, the idea of nationalism was infused, filling it with a consciousness in which all citizens could share, and making possible the political and cultural integration of the masses into the nation. With the advent of nationalism, the masses were no longer the nation, but of the nation; They identified themselves with the nation, civilization with national civilization, their life and survival with the life and survival of the nationality. Nationalism thenceforward dominated the impulses and attitudes of the masses, and at the same time served as the justification for the authority of the state and the legitimating of its use of force, both against its own citizens and against other states, (Hutchinson & Smith : 2000).
Primordial, Functional and Narrative ApproachesPrimordial
The crudest form the primordial approach can take is that provided nationalists themselves. The basic idea is that their nation has existed for long time. One can trace back its history over centuries. There were earlier periods when the nation: knew greatness; earlier heroes and golden age which can inspire members of the nation in the present.
The problem with this approach is that it is so clearly at variance .wit the evidence. Nationalism as doctrine is very modem, even if perhaps Kedourie .goes too far when he claims that it was 'invented' at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Nationalism as politics is also very modern. Until the eighteenth century political action was justified in dynastic or religious, terms, although at times a subordinate reference to national identity can be discerned.
A more acceptable version of this approach has recently been pounded by Anthony Smith! Smith argues that etc identity is not a recent invention. Rather there Ethnics which can be traced back – at least for Europe and the Middle East – centuries, if not millennia. He defines Ethnic as ‘named human population with shared ancestry myths, histories and cultures'/having an association with a specific territory and a sense of solidarity'.
Smith argues against theorists such as Gellner, whose model of an agrarian empire had no place, or at best a marginal plate, for such senses of identity which compassed different estates within particular region. Instead he argues that the agrarian empire model does not comprehend all the features of agrarian societies. There are other kinds of societies (city-states, autonomous peasant communities). There are also more complex relations between different groups than can be allowed for in the agrarian model. He then goes on to classify different types of ethnic, for example distinguishing between lateral-aristocratic and vertical-demotic types. One can see how such a distinction could link, closely between that made, for central Europe, between ‘historic’ and 'non-historic' nations, between dominant culture groups such as Magyars and subordinate culture groups such as the Slavs.
Functional
There is an almost infinite variety of functions which can be attributed to nationalism.
First, there is psychological functions.17 It is often argued that people require 'identities'. Nationalism can provide for such a need. Such an argument is frequently linked to an account of identity crises, such as those caused by the decline in religious belief and in the erosion of tradition. People who are uprooted from their villages, separated from their families and, their priests, and moved to anonymous townships, can find some comfort in the identity offered by nationality. What is more, in this alien world, confronting a mixture of language and ethnic groups, they become sharply aware of their own identity in linguistic and ethnic terms. There are many problems for the historian with this approach. The idea of 'identity need' is itself problematic and liable to circular reasoning. (If people stress a particular identity, that shows they 'need' that identity, but that is the only way in which that need manifests itself.) It is not obvious that the kinds of ethnic conflicts associated with modern urban growth stand in any very direct relationship to the development of nationalism. In many cases, for example in the United States of America, they remain largely separate. Nationalism is often supported by groups and individuals who do not seem especially exposed to such upheavals. If one can find more limited explanations for the resort to arguments about Ethnic or language identity (for example, in order to exclude outsiders from scarce resources such as jobs or housing), then this will be preferable to the broad identity-need argument.18 That will mean there is a danger of resorting to such an argument only when more specific and testable explanations have failed.
Above all, the problem with this kind of argument is the need to historicize it. One has to link the identity crisis to some specifically modern change (religious decline, industrial-urban growth) in order to account for the fact that the commitment to national identity is peculiarly rr1odern. But accounts of this kind move beyond the limits of functional .explanation. For example, Gellner's argument that culture replaces social structure as the provider of identity is not so much an argument about the 'function' of culture under modern conditions, but rather about the different meaning that and identity come to have in a modern word. It may well be that there are then a series of more specific functions that national identity claim can serve, such as job reservation or political mobilization, but these are only possible given the overall character of modernity and the place of culture as a source of identity in modern conditions.
Narrative
Many historians take the rise of nationalism for granted. Given that, they can simply tell the story of this rise this can be done at the level of particular cases or more generally.
Thus a typical ‘national’ history begins with the traditional, pre national state of affairs. For example, histories of Germany will begin with the Holy Roman Empire of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The historian will point to the many weaknesses of the traditional, imperial institutions and of the multitude of small political units. Then he will turn his attention to news more dynamic groups and institutions-in this, case the territory states (especially Prussia) and the bearers of modern ideas and practices (entrepreneurs, educated officials) the story-line is how the traditional institutions more or less quickly crumble in the face of the modern forces; in turn the modern forces converge upon and reinforce each other. There are critical periods of rapid advance {1813-15, 1848,1866-71), interrupted by periods of stagnation or even steps back wards, although even during these periods the forces of the national movement are building up. Nationalists, of course, played a major role themselves in elaborating such stories. Elements of the story were already being composed before the denouement. Von Treitschke and von Sybel, for example, were already reinterpreting German history before Bismarck's unification, although those interpretations did not directly underpin the particular.forn10f unification. Analogies were drawn from earlier histories (for example, the interpretation by Droysen of Alexander the Great which clearly cast the crude Macedonian conqueror of the more civilized parts 0£ I Greece in the role of a Prussia).
Furthermore, the narrative form, with its assumption of a beginning, middle and end, could actually become an important component of the national movement, presenting it as a form of progress with the end still to be realized in the future. Later, more celebratory and conservative narratives might be written; thought equally critical forms of nationalism would continue to present the story as one still to be finished. In this way, the narrative mode could buttress liberal, conservative and radical forms of nationalism.
Finally, academic historians without any direct political interests would pare away the more obviously propagandist and partial features of the nationalist accounts. However, they frequently accepted the narrative as the proper form of an historical account, the national as providing the boundaries and identity of their' subject matter, and the emergence, expansion and success of national movements as the principal storey.
This can also be the form taken by broader histories of Europe or the modern world. It is quite likely to be reinforced by the current breakdown of the last multinational empire, the Soviet Union and its satellite states of Eastern Europe, and we will be bound to be regaled by many accounts which will insist on seeing the Soviet Union as an artificial barrier in modern history which held up the consummation of the national story in Eastern and Central Europe (Hutchinson & Smith: 2000).Growth of Indian
Nationalism
Nationalism is the political belief that some group of people represents a natural community which should live less than one political system, be independent of others, and, often, has the right to demand an equal standing in the world order with others. In other words, nationalism is a people’s sense of belonging to a nation. It also includes such feelings of as loyalty to the nation, pride in the culture and history, and in many cases- a desire for national independence. In the Indian or Asian (as well as African) context, nationalism came to mean independence from foreign rule and opposition to imperialism and colonial domination. The rise and growth of Indian nationalism has been traditionally explained in terms of the India response to stimulus generated by the British Raj through creation of new institutions, new opportunities, resources etc. In the other words, Indian nationalism grew partly as a reaction to colonial policies .In fact it would be more correct to see the Indian nationalism as a product of a mix of various factors:i)
Worldwide upsurge of the concepts of nationalism and right of self –determination initiated by the French Revolution.ii) Indian Renaissance.iii) Offshoot of modernization initiated by British in India.iv) Strong reaction to British imperialist policies in India.Several factors generated the spirit of revolt and struggle among the people. These were as follows:1) Establishment of political Unity:The British conquest of India brought about an unprecedented degree of political unification of the country. The former rulers of India were either eliminated or reduced to subservience. Areas containing in total about three-quarters of the country’s population were brought under direct British administration. In the rest of the country, the Indian ‘states’ remained but their rulers(called provinces)enjoyed little more than degree of autonomy in the internal administration of their territory .British power was supreme throughout the country. The continuous wars and conflicts that had earlier ravaged the country came to an end .The British rule that followed such a long period of turmoil provided security enforced a rule of law and heralded a long period of peace and stability. This situation created favorable conditions for the growth of national consciousness in India.2)
Effects of the first war of Independence
Though the British historians, who were imperialists to the core, have dubbed the freedom struggle of 1857 as the sepoy mutiny but the unparalleled sacrifice, the heroism of the people of our country could not go in vain and the prosperity always took inspiration from the martyrs of 1857 for the future freedom struggle of the country. According to R.C Majumdar ,’’The outbreak of 1857 would surely go down in history as the first an direct challenge to the British rule in India , on an extensive scale”.3)
Western Learning and English Language:
Lord Macaulay ,who was responsible for determining the British educational policy in India ,had thought that the imparting of western education would make available to the British Government in India a cheap supply of indigenous clerks to man the various offices .He had also thought that Western education would foster among the educated youths of India a sense of loyalty towards English rule and would bring the two communities ,the Indians and British – socially, politically and culturally nearer to each other. The English language as such played less important role in the development o f Indian nationalism. It cut across provincial barriers and served the purpose of lingua- franc common all India language for Indians living in distant parts of the country and speaking quite different dialects. It was largely through the medium of English that educated Indians began to meet each other to discuss their common problems and to feel a sentiment of oneness.4) Press and nationalist literature:The Indian press played a significant role in the promotion of nationalism in India. The press aroused a sense of patriotism among the Indian people by focusing attention on the drawbacks of the British rule and highlighting its exploitative character. Papers like amrit bazaar patrika, the Indian mirror, the patriot, the Hindu, the keshari and the Bengali did a lot in bringing such information to the notice and knowledge of masses, which was practically unknown or unrevealed at that time.5) Religious and social movements:Nationalism as a movement was preceded by cultural revivalism and a social reform movement. contact with the west through the British forced Indians, especially Hindu, to examine critically the structure of Hindu society. Through this process of self examination, Hindu elite became painfully aware of the deficiencies of Hindu society, which was permeated with social customs that could not be justified on rational or even religious grounds (Fadia : 2007).
Organisations before INC
The Indian National Congress was established in December,1885.Before its foundations there were many associations emerged in India .The Land Holders Society was earliest one .It was founded in 1837.It was an association of the landlords of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. The purpose of the organization was to promote the class interests of the landlords. Again in 1843, Bengal British Indian Society was born to protect and promote general public interest .These two organizations merged in 1851 to form the British Indian Association. In 1852, the madras Native Association and Bombay Associations were established. Similarly, scientific society was founded by sir Sayyid Ahmad khan, were established in different towns and parts of the country. All these associations were dominated by richest and aristocratic persons. The year of 1859 witnessed a gradual gap between the educated
Indians and the British Indian Administration.
The educated Indians realized the intention of the British rule and its adverse effects to the people of India .These organization felt the need of the political consciousness of the Indians. In 1866, Dadabhai Nairobi organized East India Association in London. The objective of the Association was to discuss the problems of Indian and to influence the British People to promote Indian Welfare. In 1881, justice Ranade organized Poona Sarvajanik Sabha.The Madras Mahajan Sabha was set up in 1881 and Bombay Presidency Association in 1885.
Resistance Movement before 1857 Rebellion
The series of sporadic popular outbursts before 1857 look the form of religion political violence, tribal movements, peasant uprisings and agrarian riots, and civil rebellions. They are discussed below with the exception of tribal and 1 peasant uprisings which are considered separately. Some of the uprisings such as the Wahabi and Kuka I movements continued even after the 1857 Revolt.
Sawantwadi Revolt
The revolt in 1844 was led by at Maratha chief, Phond Sawant of Sawantwadi with the support of other Sardars. The rebels captured forts in fighting the British but were finally forced to seek refuge in Goa. The rebellion came to end with the capture of the rebels.
Farazi or Fara’idi Movement
The Fara'idi movement was founded by Haji Shariatullah of East Bengal who stressed the oneness of God. He asked his followers to suspend some prayers as India under the foreigners became enemy territory. From 1840, the movement assumed a revolutionary form with Haji's son, Dudu Miyan organizing a hierarchical administrative structure for a government. The Fari 'idis set up their own paramilitary force as well. The movement lost its political clout after Dudu Miyan's death in 1862
TheSanyasi Revolt (1780-1800)
The disastrous famine of 1770 and the harsh economic order of the British compelled a group of Sanyasis in Eastern India to fight the British yoke. They raided Company factories, state treasuries and fought the Company's forces. It was only after a prolonged action that Warren Hastings could subdue the Sanyasis.
Ramosi Revolt (1822, 1825-26)
In 1822, the Ramosis revolted in Satara under Chittur Singh to oppose heavy land revenue assessment and revenue collection methods. Famine and scarcity drove them to a rebellion in 1825-26, this time under Umaji. The Ramosis' uprising, which continued for 3 years, was finally ended when people were given land grants and admitted in the ranks of the Hill Police.
Ganjam Revolt
A rebellion led by Gumsur Zamindar, Dhananjaya Bhanja erupted in 1835 in Ganjam district.
The 1840-41 Mysore Rebellion
A revolt was organized by Dhondji Wagh after Tipu Sultan's death in Mysore. With the death of Dhondji in the battlefield against the British, the revolt subsided.
The Gadkari Revolt
Gadkaris were the hereditary servants of the Marathas who became most displeased with the British regime for its arbitrary system of land revenue collection. Many Gadkaris were forced to give up their service and mamalatdars were asked to oversee the lands. So the Gadkaris rebelled in 1844 in Kolhapur. They cost the British much of material loss before they were finally subdued.
Velu Thampi The Dewan of Travancore (Kerala), Velu Thampi revolted in 1808-9 after the British tried to take away his Dewanship and forced the state to conform with the conditions of the Subsidiary Alliance system.
Bunds Rebellion of 1840-41 Raja Pratap Singh of Satara was stripped of his title and banished and this led to a revolt by the Bunds in 1840-41. Dhar Rao of Karad was the popular leader of the uprising.
Surat Salt Agitation The salt duty was raised from 50 paise to one rupee in 1844 causing disturbance that compelled the government to withdraw the salt duty.
Bundela Uprising The disgust of the Bundela land- lords of Sagar (Madhya Pradesh) against the British administration was expressed with great violence. Police- men were killed and towns were destroyed in their revolt.
Kutch and Waghera Rebellions The struggle between the Kutch ruler Rao Bharmal and the pro-jhareya chiefs was the Kutch rebellion. The Waghera chief was driven to wage a war against the British by the undue exactions of the Gaekwad of Baroda, who was supported by the rulers.
Vishakhapatnam Uprisings From 1827 to 1830, there were many uprisings in Vishakhapatnam, some of them led by Zamindars as a protest against the harsh conditions laid on them for non-payment of revenue. The one in Palkonda in 1832 was among the most serious revolts.
The Poligar Uprising When the Poligar Narsimha Reddi of Kurnool was denied his lapsed pension, he organized an armed uprising in 1846-47.
The Kittur Rebellion The British prevented the adopted son of the chief of Kittur (in Karnataka) from assuming power by taking over the administration. What resulted was the Kittur uprisings of 1924-29 led by Chennamma, the widow of the chief. The rebels declared Kittur an independent state before being crushed by the British.
The Kuka Revolt The Kuka movement started as a religious movement though it later began to acquire political overtones. The movement was began in 1840 by Bhagat Jawahar Mal or Sian Saheb in West Punjab. The movement aimed to purge Sikhism of its ills by preaching abolition of castes and similar discriminations and discouraging the eating of meat and taking of drugs. Women were encouraged to step out of seclusion. After the British conquered the Punjab, the movement began to focus on achieving Sikh sovereignty. The British followed extremely repressive measures from 1862 to 1872 to suppress the movement.
The Wahabi Movement Emerging as a religious reform movement within Islam, the Wahabi movement named after Adbul Wahab, the founder-began to exert political influence under Saiyid Ahmad (1786-1831) of Rai Bareilly. The aim was to restore Muslim power by fighting against the British, the main enemy, and the Sikhs. The military strength of the movement helped Saiyid Ahmed to capture Peshawar in 1830. He, however, was killed in the battlefield in 1831. His work was carried on by the four khalifas (spiritual vice-regents) appointed by him who traveled across the country. The movement spread in Kabul, NWFP, Bengal and the central provinces. Patna became its new centre. The Wahabi movement was not anti- Hindu though it aimed at restoring Muslim rule. The British government's concerted operation against the Wahabis led to their imprisonment and execution by 1870.
Sepoy Mutinies The Indian sepoys rose in mutiny several times before the 1857 revolt. The Vellore mutiny in 1806 was to protest against the British interference in the sepoys' social and religious matters. The 47th Native Infantry revolted in 1824, refusing to proceed to Burma without adequate overseas allowance. There were mutinies in 1825 (Assam), l38 (Sholapur), 1844 (Sind) and 1849-59 (Punjab) as well.
Bhuyan and Juang Rebellion The revolt in Kheonjhar (Orissa) of the Bhuyans who were joined by the Juangs and Kals was to protest against the installation of a British protégé on the throne after the death of their raja in 1867. The first uprising of 1867-68 was under the leadership of Ratna Nayak. The second uprising of 1891-93 under Dharni Dhar Nayak forced the king to take protection in Cuttack.
Paik Rebellion 1818 The Paik rebellion of 1817 was ostensibly a revolt of these ex-militia men (Paiks) of the deposed raja of Khurda under the leadership of his commander, Bakshi Jagabandhu Bidyadhar Mahapatra Bhramarabar Ray. Though the rebellion had its origin in the grievance of Bakshi Jagabandhu in particular, and the Paiks in general, yet the true nature of the rebellion cannot be understood without a probe into the failings and defects of the early English administration in Orissa and general disconnected against the British rule.
Khurda Rebellion of 1804 The raja of Khurda, Mukundadeva –II, rebelled against british in 1804, as the British refused to fulfill his demand for the restoration of four Mahals which had been taken away from him during the Maratha period. The rebellion was easily suppressed; the raja was deposed and kept in confinement for some time, and Khurda became a Government estate. Afterwards the raja was pardoned, but his minister Jayi Rajguru hanged as the raja in his petition to the Government held the minister responsible for the rebellion of 1804.
Banaras Rebellion 1778 Perhaps the first major rebellion was led by Raja Chait Singh of Banaras during 1778-81, which was followed by the revolt of the deposed Awadh Nawab Vizier Ali in 1799. The local Zamindars of Awadh continued this tradition of revolt during the early part of the nineteenth century.
A.O Hume and Indian National Congress British Govt’s discriminative and aggressive rule and exploitation made the ground for the formation of all India Organisation. The existing organization could not organize the people in all India level because of their narrow scope and functioning. These organizations dealt with the local problems and their membership and leadership were confined to a few people to a single province or region. Even Indian Association could not success to be an all India organization. The idea for the establishment of an all India organization was given by a retired English civil servant, A.O. Hume, who mobilized leading intellectuals of the time and with their cooperation organized the first session of the Indian National Congress at Bombay in December 1885.As a prelude to this, two sessions of the INC had been held in 1883and 1885,which had representatives drawn from all major towns of India. Surendra Nath Banerjee and Ananda Mohan Bose were the main architects of the INC .
The first session of the INC was attended by 72 delegates and presided over by womesh Chandra Banerjee .Hereafter, Congress met every year in December, in a different part of the country each time. INC was the first organized expression of Indian nationalism on an all India scale. The INC was founded in December,1885 during the period of Viceroy, Lord Dufferin. Apart from the INC, nationalist activity was carried out through provincial conferences and associations, newspaper and literature.
Character of the inc from1885-1905 INC was established in 1885.The congress followed a moderate programme during the first few years of its coming into existence .The sessions of the congress in the early years was conducted in a normal way. There was no revolutionary spirit in the resolution or the speeches. Moderation was their keynote. The presidential addresses recounted the benefits of British rule, contained assurances India’s loyalty to the crown and reiterated India’s desire to remain within the British Empire. The congress affirmed its loyalty to the queen. The Indian liberals who dominated the congress from 1885 to 1905 had an almost unlimited faith in British democracy. The early congress leadership believed that a direct struggle for the political emancipation of the country was not yet on the agenda of history .In the early period ,the congress was an organization of the educated middle class .It could not reach at the masses and its demands were primarily the demands of the educated middle class and rising Indian industrialists .Instead of all these things ,it played an important role in the early stages of the growth of the Indian nationalist movement .Its emphasis on national unity .Criticism of the drain of Indian wealth ,its demand for representative institutions, its opposition to repressive measure like the Arms Act and its constant underscoring of people’s poverty as the basic factor of Indian politics helped to put the nationalist movement on sound foundations.
Objective of Indian National Congress (1885-1905) The objectives of the congress in its early phase were outlined within the framework of the ideas and attitude of those who formed the new organization. These were enunciated by W.C. Banerjee in 1885 under the following leads:a) The promotion of personal intimacy and friendship amongst all the more earnest workers in our country’s cause in various parts of the empire.b) The eradication of all possible race, creed or provincial … and the fuller development and consolidation of sentiments of national unity…c) The authoritative record …of the matured opinions of the educated classes in India on some of the more important and pressing of the social questions of the day.d) The determination of the lines upon, and methods by which, during the twelve months, it is desirable for native politicians to labour in the public interest.
The very first congress prayed for the expansion of the supreme and local legislatures, admission into them of a considerable proportion of elected members and the enlargement of their functions. It was in effect a proposal for a change from an irresponsible system of government to one based on consultation with the representatives of the people. This resolution was repeated in subsequent sessions. The early congress resolution dealt with financial matters like the unfair burden of military expenditure, manipulation of foreign exchange to the detriment of the Indian economy ,high expenses of administration ,heavy taxation, the tariff policy and the excise duties .These last were intended to protect the interests of the Indian business classes. The early congress laid much stress on the neglect of the education of the masses, suggested improvements in the administration of law and justice ,especially recommending the separation of the judicial and executive functions and drew attention to the defects in the laws of local self Government.
Indian National Movement (1885 -1905)
a) The first session of the Indian National Congress The first session of the INC was chaired by W.C.Banerjee at Bombay.This session was attended by 72 delegates .These delegates were come from different parts of India. It was attended by such eminent men as Dadabhai Naroji, Badruddin Tyabji, G. Subramanya Iyer, Vijiyaraghavachariar, Dinesh Wacha,Behramji Malbari,and Chandavarkar. A.O. Hume formed the congress with the idea that it would prove to be a ‘safety valve’ for releasing the growing discontent of the Indians. In 1879, WasudeoBalwany phadke had gathered a bond of Ramoshi peasants and started armed uprising in maharastra.With the foundation of INC ,the struggle for Indian freedom was launched in an organized manner. The aims and objectives of the congress as declared by its first president in his presidential address were-i) To grow fraternity among the people of the country and to establish intimate relationship among them.ii) To study the different problems of the country, formulation of popular demands and their presentation before the government.iii) To remove the narrow ideas of casteism, regionalism and communalism from the mind of Indians and to grow the feeling of national integration.iv) The most important of all, the training and organization of public opinion.
(b) Second Session of the Congress The second session of the INC was held in 1886 at Calcutta. Dadabhai Naoroji was presiding over the meeting. Surendra Nath Banerjee and other leaders of Bengal merged their forces with the INC in this session. From this session congress emerged as an All India organization. INC elected 436 delegates different local organizations and groups. Its delegates consisted mostly of lawyers, journalist, traders, industrialists, teachers and landlords.
(c) Third and others session of the INC The third session of INC was held at Madras. In December 1887. From this session the friendly attitude of the government was sent because the congress leader started strong propaganda among the masses against the British Government. A.O. Hume appealed to the people of England to help the starving Indians. He attempted to propagate the problems of Indian through the press in England. As a result, he got the support of a few members of the British parliament. The fourth session of the INC was held at Allahabad in 1888 and the fifth session was held at Bombay in 1889 where Charles Bradlaugh, a member of British Parliament was attended the session. The sixth session of the INC was held in 1890 at Calcutta under the presidentship of Ferozeshah Mehta. In this session, Kadambini Ganguly, the first women graduate of Calcutta university, addressed the congress session, which symbolised the commitment of the freedom struggle to give the women of India their due status national life.
Demands of the INC from 1885-1905: The national movement from 1885-1905 is regarded as the moderate national movement. The leaders during this period are called moderate because they, were staunch believers in 'liberalism' and 'moderate' politics. The object of the congress was not separation from Great Britain but continued association with it; the views of the congress were presented in moderate terms and they were confined largely to request for administrative reforms and for the greater participation of Indian in the British controlled administration and local and national elective bodies. The early phase of national movement known as the phase of moderate nationalism lasted from 1885 to 1905. Their main demands were-1.
Constitutional Reforms: The liberals had keen weakness for the representative institutions. They wanted to introduce it in India. They demanded for the increasing share of Indians in the legislature. They sought the widening powers of the councils and an increase in the powers of the members to discuss the budget and to question and criticize the day to day administration.2.
Economic Reforms: The liberals were the strong critics of the British economic Policy. They realized the forms of contemporary form of contemporary economic exploitation through trade, industry and Finance. They vehemently apposed the British attempt to develop in India, the basic characteristics of a colonial economy, namely, the transformation of India into a supplier of raw materials, a Market for British manufacturer and a field of investment for foreign capital. They organized a powerful agitation against nearby all the impartial official economic policies based on this colonial structure.
3. Agrarian Reforms: The liberals carried on a persistent agitation for the reduction of the heavy land revenue demand. They urged the government to provide cheap credit to the peasantry through state-sponsored agricultural banks and to made available large-scale irrigation facilities.
4. Taxation and Expenditure Reforms: The liberals demanded a radical change in the existing pattern of taxation and expenditure. They pointed out that the existing system of taxation put heavy burden on the poor, while leaving the rich, especially the foreigner, with a very light load. They, therefore, demanded abolition of the salt tax and other taxes that hit the poor and the lower middle classes hard.
5. Administrative Reforms: The most important administrative reform for which they agitated was the Indianisation of the higher grades of the administrative services. The demanded the separation of the judiciary from the executive so that the people might gate some protection from the arbitrary acts of the police and bureaucracy. They criticized the delays of law and the high cost of the judicial process (Fadia; 2007).
Political LegaciesThe Imperialist School This school of thought is as old as the British rule in India itself. Initially, it was built-up by the protagonists of the British rule in India, including a number of Viceroys and British administrators. They underlined the providential and benevolent nature of the colonial rule and rubbished all talks of colonial exploitation resulting in the immense sufferings of the Indian people. Subsequently, its liberal academic variant was developed by Reginald Coupland and Percival Spear who argued that the British proved their bonafides of benevolence by ultimately handing over the reign of power to the Indians. However, today there are no takers for this line of thinking. Hence, it has gone barren. But there is a band of neo traditionalists connected with the Cambridge school, led by Ani1 Seal, JA. Callaghar, Judith Brown and others who had picked up the old gauntlet of contestation. Their main formulation is that India was not even a 'nation-in-making' what to talk of a real nation. In their view, India was nothing more than conglomerations of castes, communities and religious and linguistic groups, which, in fact, provided the social bases for varied political organizations. In their view, the Indian people could never develop a common national identity: they continued to be governed more by their primordial loyalties. Thus, the organic growth of Indian nationalism was ruled out They further avert that the national movement was nothing more than a cover or forum for these diverse competing groups, particularly their elite sections, to pursue their group or personal, interests. If people were mobilized, it was for the promotion of group interest and not for national common well. Some of these scholars even varying to the extent of saying that these competing elite groups were even vying with each other for the British favour to promote their group interests. They further argue that the people were mobilized on the basis of patron-client relationship and even the national leaders like Gandhiji, Nehru and Patel played the role of national brokers. They also argue that whatever mobilization of the people took place, it was triggered by the British initiatives in the field of western education and legislative institutions. Some of these scholars have done field studies on regional and local politics to support their contention that it was not the national common well but the regional group-interests that was the motive force behind mass mobilization It is not surprising that such a blatant neo-colonialist approach has attracted severe criticism at the hands of Indian scholars. Tapan Ray Chaudhuri sarcastically commented that such a neo-colonialist's view, of the Indian National Movement reduced it to 'animal politics'. More harsh and stinging was the comment of noted historian S. Gopal who wrote 'the School has taken not only mind but also decency, character, integrity and selfless commitment out of the Indian National Movement'. One can only say that this is a most cynical and Machiavellian view of politics, which totally rules out any space for higher human values in politics except naked pursuit of power politics. For shorn of all its verbiage and mass of collected data, all that the school is trying to emphasize is that it was not the exploitative nature of British colonial rule, resulting in the mass pauperization of people and in the process, raising it to the level of the enemy symbol, which triggered the nationalist feelings, but the mutual jealousies of competing elite groups for the picking of the crumbs fallen from the British master's table. Such a cynical view of politics does not leave any space for the role of ideology, high ideal and ideas which have moved man since time immemorial. Thus, cynicism behind such a banal view of politics is only matched by it’s a historicity (Pradhan : 2008).
The Nationalist School Totally opposed to the views of the imperialist school were those of the nationalist school. It not only emerged out of the national movement but even had a hand in its emergence as well. In any case, it strengthened and enriched the various streams of national movement. Among its early protagonists were: Surendranath Banerjee, Lokmanya Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal, Lala Lajpat Rai, Swami Dayanand, Swami Vivekanand, Aurobindo and a host of others. Subsequently, it was enriched by the academic contributions of R C Majumdar, Tarachand, Bisheshwar Prasad, B R Nanda, B N Pandey and others scholars and academicians. Their main formulations are as follows:(i) They underlined the exploitative character of the British colonial structure. They were firmly of the opinion that in the course of their rule, the British tried to transform India into a captive market for the British industrial goods as well as a reliable supplier of raw materials for the British industries. They further asserted that the British not only destroyed the traditional base of Indian agriculture and handicrafts, but also thwarted its industrial development by subordinating Indian economy to the British economy.(ii) They also believed that it was the pride of India, its cultural and intellectual heritage which has sown the seeds of Indian nationalism. Subsequently, the ideals of nationalism and human liberty also contributed to the growth of Indian nationalism. Some of them even asserted that India, as a cultural and national entity always existed, while others took it as a nation in making.(iii) They firmly believed that the Indian national movement represented the collective will as well as the commonweal of our people, and in no case it was a class movement. As a people's movement it went on encompassing all sections of the Indian society and their interests, particularly after the advent of Gandhiji on the national scene. They also believed that the Indian National Congress was a representative of all sections of the Indian people. Marxist scholars have criticized the nationalist school on the ground that they ignored the class- cleavages present in the Indian society and concentrated more on elite-led movements (Pradhan : 2008).
The Marxist School The Marxist school has primarily relied on the writings and commentaries of Karl Marx, on the nature and role of the British colonial rule in India. Initially, this school of thought was promoted by R P Dutt, S A Dange, PC Joshi, and a host of other Marxist intellectuals. Along with the writings of Karl Marx, R P Dutt and A R Desai's Social Background of Indian Nationalism became the bible of this school in analyzing the nature and structure of the British colonial rule as well as those of the Indian nationalism. Their main formulations were as follows:
Borrowing the basic ideological framework from Karl Marx and Lenin, they have subjected the British colonial policy to a critical analysis. They discussed three phases of the British colonial policy, viz., mercantile, industrial and finance capital and submitted that in all three phases different policies were pursued to promote the interests of the British bourgeois classes.
They agreed with the nationalist school that the British rule has resulted in the mass poverty of our people by destroying the traditional base of the Indian agriculture and handicraft industries. But following Karl Marx, they made a distinction between the destructive and positive role of the British rule. They were in unison with the nationalists so far as the destructive side of the British rule was concerned. However, they also underlined the fact that it had a positive side as it brought about a structural transformation of the Indian society , taking it up from feudal mode to the capitalist mode of production, even though an 'imperfect and distorted' one. Thus, it gave a mortal blow to the feudal hierarchies and created a new basis for the emergence of the new classes in the Indian society. It also created a new state structure with its concomitant bureaucratic and administrative set-up. Not only that, it also introduced modern means of transport and communication along with a system of modern education. They agreed with the nationalists that all this was being done to promote the British interests. But they were of the opinion that whatever might be the British motive, the structural transformation of the Indian society heralded a new progressive era in India.
The school conceded that this structural transformation led to a primary contradiction between the interests of the Indian people and those of the British colonial rule. And the roots of the emergence of Indian nationalism lay in this primary contradiction between the two.
The school was divided and confused about the nature and role of the Indian national movement in general and that of Mahatma Gandhi in particular. This confusi
on arose primarily because of their being deeply rooted in the theory of class and class-struggle as a tool of social analysis. Besides, they had to take into accounts the conclusions drawn by the international communist movement about the class-character of the Indian National Movement. Most of the times, they were confused about the identification of their main class enemy. Thus they could not decide whether their priority was to oppose international bourgeois-led British imperialism or the national bourgeois-Ied Indian struggle. Hence, they went on taking contradictory stands on different stages of the Indian struggle. Their opposition to the Quit India Movement is a case in point.
The basic methodological difficulty of the Marxist school is rooted in its lack of independence from the international communist movement. Its insistence on the universality of class centric approach to the study of historiography is faulty in the sense that it neglects the social matrix, historical moorings and cultural conditioning of a society. Their basic approach to the study of colonialism and nationalism, and rational movement in India is methodologically determinist and reductionist in nature (Pradhan : 2008).
The Subaltern School The Subaltern school is the latest school to join the rank of Indian historiography. Its chief ideologue is Ranajit Guha who had been primarily inspired by the ideas of an Italian leader, Gramsci. Subsequently, a number of other scholars have joined the group and have brought out a number of volumes on subaltern studies. For them the only correct and intellectually fruitful approach to study modern Indian history is the subaltern approach. In plain language, the school Stands for the study of modern Indian history from the viewpoint of Subordinate masses, mostly comprising poor peasants, tribal, women, untouchables and a host of other dispossessed sections of the Indian Society .They are firmly of the opinion that Indian society is divided into two distinct groups: the elite and subaltern and there exists a primary contradiction between their interests. They point out that the study of the Indian history has been dominated by the elitist's historiography. They further believe that there was no real conflict between the Indian elite and the British elite which ruled India. In fact, hey were on the same side of the battle lines drawn between the people and the elite. They argue that the national movement led by the Indian National Congress was nothing but a cover under which the deal battle for power was being fought among the elites. They further contend that it is the subaltern groups that became the worst victims of the British rule. Hence, the real national movement was one in which the subaltern groups were involved. It is the subalterns who really fought against the British by launching rebellions in different parts and different occasions. And it is these political and social eruptions and rebellions that need to be studied and explored.
On close scrutiny, however, several infinities appear in the basic formulations of this school. In the first place, they take into consideration a sectional and even a sectarian approach which wants to turn a part into a whole. Second, and ironically enough, there is some common ground between the imperialist school and the subaltern school as both look at the Indian elite as the chief villain of the piece (Pradhan : 2008).
Semi Marxist Nationalist School Bipan Chandra and his co-scholars have tried to reconcile the basic formulations of the nationalist school with those of the Marxist school. Hence, it can be characterized as semi- Marxist nationalist school. Their basic formulations could be summed up as follows:
There was a primary contradiction between interests of the British colonial rule and those of the Indian people, and it is this which led to the emergence of the Indian National Movement. They do concede that there are secondary contradictions among different sections of the Indian society but it never overshadowed the primary contradiction between the Indian people as a whole and the British colonial rule. The Indian national movement was never a single class movement, rather it always remained a multi-class movement. Hence, it can be really characterized as the people's movement.
The national movement, in the process of its growth, greatly contributed to the emergence of India as a nation but it never tried to obliterate all other narrower identities of the people.
The Indian intelligentsia did play a leading role in the national movement but it tried to reconcile the conflicting interests of the different sections of the Indian society.
The transfer of power in 1947 was not a compromise but it was the culmination of the war of position' in which the national movement was involved for many years.
In the light of our study and on the basis of this brief survey of different approaches to the historiography of colonialism and nationalism in India, only one conclusion becomes inescapable: most of these approaches, even at their best, are nothing more than sectional at least segmented in their nature. One cannot grasp the entire gamut of the issues involved by using anyone of them singularly. They might even remind us of the six blind men and the elephant they tried to visualize. Hence, the best ways to deal with the complex phenomena of colonialism and nationalism is to have a multi-pronged approach and this is what we have tried to do in the course of our present study (R.C Pradhan : 2008).