Notes: Indian Nationalism | Political Science & International Relations: Mains Optional - UPSC PDF Download

 Page 2


                                            
Perspectives on the Indian Freedom Struggle 
• Liberal Interpretation 
• Marxist Interpretation  
• Subaltern/ Dalit Critique  
• Feminist Interpretation 
• J.S. Mill ‘History of British India’ (1818) 
• One of the main proponents of Scottish Enlightenment and Liberalism. Also worked 
for the East India Company for 17 years. 
• His idea of ‘Scale of Civilization’: Laid out a series of Civilization wherein the degree 
of civilization of any society could be measured with scientific precision. Division into 
“Civilized” and “Backward” societies. 
• Backward: “Savage, Barbaric”; “Paternal Despotism” 
• India like the other Oriental societies fell in the category of Paternal Despotism. For 
Mill, these Backward societies were in the state of ‘infancy’ (rather like Hobbes) that 
lacked the sources of self-regeneration. The luxury of non-intervention and 
representative governments were only available to the civilized societies. 
• Mill saw the colonial rule in India as “leading strings teaching them to walk alone” 
and prescribed good laws, education and taxes and effective tools. 
• However, categorical in his belief that the benevolent rule was to chart out India’s 
progress to freedom. “India will remain proudest monument of British 
benevolence.” this perspective is connotative of the Imperialist school of thought 
that saw no contradiction between colonialism and the aspirations of Indian masses. 
• The Liberal interpretation of the Indian Freedom struggle used these notions of 
“liberal justification” of colonialism while putting forth a critique of British 
imperialism and in the creation of Nationalism. They view the freedom struggle as a 
partial break from the traditional past, to pick up the best of Western modernity and 
liberal traditions for the creation of the “Idea of India”. “Especially fortunate in 
tradition of public arguments, with toleration of intellectual heterodoxy, 
independent India became the first Non-Western country to choose a resolutely 
democratic Constitution”- Amartya Sen (The Argumentative Indian). 
• For Perry Anderson, the touchstone of liberal tradition are four tropes: antiquity- 
continuity, diversity-unity, massivity- democracy, multi confessionality- secularity, 
all of which became part of the ‘Nehruvian Consensus’ (Rawlsian overlapping 
Page 3


                                            
Perspectives on the Indian Freedom Struggle 
• Liberal Interpretation 
• Marxist Interpretation  
• Subaltern/ Dalit Critique  
• Feminist Interpretation 
• J.S. Mill ‘History of British India’ (1818) 
• One of the main proponents of Scottish Enlightenment and Liberalism. Also worked 
for the East India Company for 17 years. 
• His idea of ‘Scale of Civilization’: Laid out a series of Civilization wherein the degree 
of civilization of any society could be measured with scientific precision. Division into 
“Civilized” and “Backward” societies. 
• Backward: “Savage, Barbaric”; “Paternal Despotism” 
• India like the other Oriental societies fell in the category of Paternal Despotism. For 
Mill, these Backward societies were in the state of ‘infancy’ (rather like Hobbes) that 
lacked the sources of self-regeneration. The luxury of non-intervention and 
representative governments were only available to the civilized societies. 
• Mill saw the colonial rule in India as “leading strings teaching them to walk alone” 
and prescribed good laws, education and taxes and effective tools. 
• However, categorical in his belief that the benevolent rule was to chart out India’s 
progress to freedom. “India will remain proudest monument of British 
benevolence.” this perspective is connotative of the Imperialist school of thought 
that saw no contradiction between colonialism and the aspirations of Indian masses. 
• The Liberal interpretation of the Indian Freedom struggle used these notions of 
“liberal justification” of colonialism while putting forth a critique of British 
imperialism and in the creation of Nationalism. They view the freedom struggle as a 
partial break from the traditional past, to pick up the best of Western modernity and 
liberal traditions for the creation of the “Idea of India”. “Especially fortunate in 
tradition of public arguments, with toleration of intellectual heterodoxy, 
independent India became the first Non-Western country to choose a resolutely 
democratic Constitution”- Amartya Sen (The Argumentative Indian). 
• For Perry Anderson, the touchstone of liberal tradition are four tropes: antiquity- 
continuity, diversity-unity, massivity- democracy, multi confessionality- secularity, 
all of which became part of the ‘Nehruvian Consensus’ (Rawlsian overlapping 
consensus) and Constitution. 
• The liberal discourse found its footings in 19th century social reform, especially 
Rammohan Roy, Moderates like SN Bannerjee, Naroji and P. Mehta, in a limited way 
in Gandhi and its leading advocate Jawaharlal Nehru. (methodologies-liberal, 
different end products). 
• Many scholars like Partha Chatterjee point to the epistemological dilemma of 
nationalist thought (here we are excluding Gandhi). “It suffers from a dilemma in the 
sense that while it has a will to carve out for itself an autonomous epistemological 
space well outside the influence of western discourse, at the same time it is unable 
to escape the epistemological grip and gaze of the western discourse”. However at 
the same time, oddly enough, it’s the same nationalists who also indulged in the 
“rediscovery of India”. 
• The Liberal perspective on Indian Freedom Struggle views the National movement 
as an outpouring on part of the collective mass of the country, unified on the basis 
of the inherent contradiction between bureaucratic-rational, modern Colonial State 
and the Nationalist, patriotic Indian Nation. 
• The dominant leadership particularly the INC is seen as representative of all classes 
and groups of the Indian society, ignoring the underlying fault-lines on the basis of 
caste, class, gender and religion. 
• The Liberal perspective while accepting the tragic instances of communalism and the 
eventual partition, believes it to be a product of colonial divisive policy. It sees India’s 
cultural ethos as being tolerant and secular in nature, albeit a few hiccups that are a 
part of every country’s social history. 
• Political freedom was the main focus. The underdevelopment, misery and poverty 
are all seen as the consequences of an Imperialist regime. They celebrate the 
emphasis of the National movement on Constitutional Democracy, the ideals of 
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, Justice etc. and see the modern state of India as an 
extension of the values of its Freedom struggle. 
• While social and economic reform were a part of their agenda, Revolution in these 
spheres was actively avoided. Even J.L. Nehru, for all his socialist credentials was in 
favour of gradual transformation of the country to extend socio-economic rights to 
the general masses. The Freedom movement is given an all-encompassing character 
that submerges within its peasants and workers’ movements, tribal struggles, social 
reform movements etc. 
Page 4


                                            
Perspectives on the Indian Freedom Struggle 
• Liberal Interpretation 
• Marxist Interpretation  
• Subaltern/ Dalit Critique  
• Feminist Interpretation 
• J.S. Mill ‘History of British India’ (1818) 
• One of the main proponents of Scottish Enlightenment and Liberalism. Also worked 
for the East India Company for 17 years. 
• His idea of ‘Scale of Civilization’: Laid out a series of Civilization wherein the degree 
of civilization of any society could be measured with scientific precision. Division into 
“Civilized” and “Backward” societies. 
• Backward: “Savage, Barbaric”; “Paternal Despotism” 
• India like the other Oriental societies fell in the category of Paternal Despotism. For 
Mill, these Backward societies were in the state of ‘infancy’ (rather like Hobbes) that 
lacked the sources of self-regeneration. The luxury of non-intervention and 
representative governments were only available to the civilized societies. 
• Mill saw the colonial rule in India as “leading strings teaching them to walk alone” 
and prescribed good laws, education and taxes and effective tools. 
• However, categorical in his belief that the benevolent rule was to chart out India’s 
progress to freedom. “India will remain proudest monument of British 
benevolence.” this perspective is connotative of the Imperialist school of thought 
that saw no contradiction between colonialism and the aspirations of Indian masses. 
• The Liberal interpretation of the Indian Freedom struggle used these notions of 
“liberal justification” of colonialism while putting forth a critique of British 
imperialism and in the creation of Nationalism. They view the freedom struggle as a 
partial break from the traditional past, to pick up the best of Western modernity and 
liberal traditions for the creation of the “Idea of India”. “Especially fortunate in 
tradition of public arguments, with toleration of intellectual heterodoxy, 
independent India became the first Non-Western country to choose a resolutely 
democratic Constitution”- Amartya Sen (The Argumentative Indian). 
• For Perry Anderson, the touchstone of liberal tradition are four tropes: antiquity- 
continuity, diversity-unity, massivity- democracy, multi confessionality- secularity, 
all of which became part of the ‘Nehruvian Consensus’ (Rawlsian overlapping 
consensus) and Constitution. 
• The liberal discourse found its footings in 19th century social reform, especially 
Rammohan Roy, Moderates like SN Bannerjee, Naroji and P. Mehta, in a limited way 
in Gandhi and its leading advocate Jawaharlal Nehru. (methodologies-liberal, 
different end products). 
• Many scholars like Partha Chatterjee point to the epistemological dilemma of 
nationalist thought (here we are excluding Gandhi). “It suffers from a dilemma in the 
sense that while it has a will to carve out for itself an autonomous epistemological 
space well outside the influence of western discourse, at the same time it is unable 
to escape the epistemological grip and gaze of the western discourse”. However at 
the same time, oddly enough, it’s the same nationalists who also indulged in the 
“rediscovery of India”. 
• The Liberal perspective on Indian Freedom Struggle views the National movement 
as an outpouring on part of the collective mass of the country, unified on the basis 
of the inherent contradiction between bureaucratic-rational, modern Colonial State 
and the Nationalist, patriotic Indian Nation. 
• The dominant leadership particularly the INC is seen as representative of all classes 
and groups of the Indian society, ignoring the underlying fault-lines on the basis of 
caste, class, gender and religion. 
• The Liberal perspective while accepting the tragic instances of communalism and the 
eventual partition, believes it to be a product of colonial divisive policy. It sees India’s 
cultural ethos as being tolerant and secular in nature, albeit a few hiccups that are a 
part of every country’s social history. 
• Political freedom was the main focus. The underdevelopment, misery and poverty 
are all seen as the consequences of an Imperialist regime. They celebrate the 
emphasis of the National movement on Constitutional Democracy, the ideals of 
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, Justice etc. and see the modern state of India as an 
extension of the values of its Freedom struggle. 
• While social and economic reform were a part of their agenda, Revolution in these 
spheres was actively avoided. Even J.L. Nehru, for all his socialist credentials was in 
favour of gradual transformation of the country to extend socio-economic rights to 
the general masses. The Freedom movement is given an all-encompassing character 
that submerges within its peasants and workers’ movements, tribal struggles, social 
reform movements etc. 
• Anderson considers the ‘liberal mainstream of Indian intellectuals to be the carriers 
of Indian Ideology’. Liberalism has stood for the breaking of shackles of the 
individual. While the British used the ideological stance to legitimize their rule, the 
same came to be used by the Indian intellectuals to invigorate the Indian struggle. 
• Rammohan Roy was the pioneer of liberal tradition, the ‘modern man’ of India. A 
reformist, open to reinterpreting and revalidating traditions based on new 
experiences. Belief in interminable human progress. The very personality of Roy 
spoke of his thoughts on the intermingling of modernity and tradition. In dressing, 
Mughal; in mannerism, European; religious conformity, Hindu. 
• While his Brahmo Samaj sought to reform Hinduism of its social evils, his stress on 
anglicized education and policy of free trade showcased his trust in the Western 
mode of progress. It is important to note that Roy lived in a time when patriotic 
impulses were not incompatible with a genuine admiration for the social and 
political order. His internationalism is another important aspect. According to CA 
Bayly, Roy’s “idea of political progress was inherently international”. He especially 
emphasized on freedom of Press, independence of judiciary and representation of 
colonies in British Parliament. 
• “The central point is that Rammohan was attempting to build an Indian public and a 
civil society from the ground up, so that within a generation Indians would begin to 
share in power and legislative authority.” 
• By 1870’s the by the 1870s, Indian intellectuals were beginning to ask more directly 
for a stake in government and administration. Liberals such as Pherozeshah Mehta 
campaigned for Indians to have the municipal franchise and a share in city 
government. Two decades later, Dadabhai Naoroji, became the first Indian member 
of the House of Commons. 
• Naoroji was a pivotal figure in Indian liberalism as well as Indian nationalism whose 
works on the drain theory gave birth to a secular notion of economic nationalism. 
The Indian National Congress formed in 1885 came to embody many of these liberal 
ideals, with most of its western educated members being votaries of Enlightenment 
thought and ideals. The early decades of the 20th century was especially testing 
times, with conflict between Swadeshi and Liberal Idealism coming to the fore. 
• The INC always had a strand of constitutional Liberals and most of its ‘radical leaders’ 
too remained within the boundaries of the Centre-Left, never treading into deeper 
depths of Marxist class struggle and upheaval. The role of CR Das, Motilal Nehru, Tej 
Sapru is of critical importance here. The very formation of the Swarajist party lay in 
Page 5


                                            
Perspectives on the Indian Freedom Struggle 
• Liberal Interpretation 
• Marxist Interpretation  
• Subaltern/ Dalit Critique  
• Feminist Interpretation 
• J.S. Mill ‘History of British India’ (1818) 
• One of the main proponents of Scottish Enlightenment and Liberalism. Also worked 
for the East India Company for 17 years. 
• His idea of ‘Scale of Civilization’: Laid out a series of Civilization wherein the degree 
of civilization of any society could be measured with scientific precision. Division into 
“Civilized” and “Backward” societies. 
• Backward: “Savage, Barbaric”; “Paternal Despotism” 
• India like the other Oriental societies fell in the category of Paternal Despotism. For 
Mill, these Backward societies were in the state of ‘infancy’ (rather like Hobbes) that 
lacked the sources of self-regeneration. The luxury of non-intervention and 
representative governments were only available to the civilized societies. 
• Mill saw the colonial rule in India as “leading strings teaching them to walk alone” 
and prescribed good laws, education and taxes and effective tools. 
• However, categorical in his belief that the benevolent rule was to chart out India’s 
progress to freedom. “India will remain proudest monument of British 
benevolence.” this perspective is connotative of the Imperialist school of thought 
that saw no contradiction between colonialism and the aspirations of Indian masses. 
• The Liberal interpretation of the Indian Freedom struggle used these notions of 
“liberal justification” of colonialism while putting forth a critique of British 
imperialism and in the creation of Nationalism. They view the freedom struggle as a 
partial break from the traditional past, to pick up the best of Western modernity and 
liberal traditions for the creation of the “Idea of India”. “Especially fortunate in 
tradition of public arguments, with toleration of intellectual heterodoxy, 
independent India became the first Non-Western country to choose a resolutely 
democratic Constitution”- Amartya Sen (The Argumentative Indian). 
• For Perry Anderson, the touchstone of liberal tradition are four tropes: antiquity- 
continuity, diversity-unity, massivity- democracy, multi confessionality- secularity, 
all of which became part of the ‘Nehruvian Consensus’ (Rawlsian overlapping 
consensus) and Constitution. 
• The liberal discourse found its footings in 19th century social reform, especially 
Rammohan Roy, Moderates like SN Bannerjee, Naroji and P. Mehta, in a limited way 
in Gandhi and its leading advocate Jawaharlal Nehru. (methodologies-liberal, 
different end products). 
• Many scholars like Partha Chatterjee point to the epistemological dilemma of 
nationalist thought (here we are excluding Gandhi). “It suffers from a dilemma in the 
sense that while it has a will to carve out for itself an autonomous epistemological 
space well outside the influence of western discourse, at the same time it is unable 
to escape the epistemological grip and gaze of the western discourse”. However at 
the same time, oddly enough, it’s the same nationalists who also indulged in the 
“rediscovery of India”. 
• The Liberal perspective on Indian Freedom Struggle views the National movement 
as an outpouring on part of the collective mass of the country, unified on the basis 
of the inherent contradiction between bureaucratic-rational, modern Colonial State 
and the Nationalist, patriotic Indian Nation. 
• The dominant leadership particularly the INC is seen as representative of all classes 
and groups of the Indian society, ignoring the underlying fault-lines on the basis of 
caste, class, gender and religion. 
• The Liberal perspective while accepting the tragic instances of communalism and the 
eventual partition, believes it to be a product of colonial divisive policy. It sees India’s 
cultural ethos as being tolerant and secular in nature, albeit a few hiccups that are a 
part of every country’s social history. 
• Political freedom was the main focus. The underdevelopment, misery and poverty 
are all seen as the consequences of an Imperialist regime. They celebrate the 
emphasis of the National movement on Constitutional Democracy, the ideals of 
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, Justice etc. and see the modern state of India as an 
extension of the values of its Freedom struggle. 
• While social and economic reform were a part of their agenda, Revolution in these 
spheres was actively avoided. Even J.L. Nehru, for all his socialist credentials was in 
favour of gradual transformation of the country to extend socio-economic rights to 
the general masses. The Freedom movement is given an all-encompassing character 
that submerges within its peasants and workers’ movements, tribal struggles, social 
reform movements etc. 
• Anderson considers the ‘liberal mainstream of Indian intellectuals to be the carriers 
of Indian Ideology’. Liberalism has stood for the breaking of shackles of the 
individual. While the British used the ideological stance to legitimize their rule, the 
same came to be used by the Indian intellectuals to invigorate the Indian struggle. 
• Rammohan Roy was the pioneer of liberal tradition, the ‘modern man’ of India. A 
reformist, open to reinterpreting and revalidating traditions based on new 
experiences. Belief in interminable human progress. The very personality of Roy 
spoke of his thoughts on the intermingling of modernity and tradition. In dressing, 
Mughal; in mannerism, European; religious conformity, Hindu. 
• While his Brahmo Samaj sought to reform Hinduism of its social evils, his stress on 
anglicized education and policy of free trade showcased his trust in the Western 
mode of progress. It is important to note that Roy lived in a time when patriotic 
impulses were not incompatible with a genuine admiration for the social and 
political order. His internationalism is another important aspect. According to CA 
Bayly, Roy’s “idea of political progress was inherently international”. He especially 
emphasized on freedom of Press, independence of judiciary and representation of 
colonies in British Parliament. 
• “The central point is that Rammohan was attempting to build an Indian public and a 
civil society from the ground up, so that within a generation Indians would begin to 
share in power and legislative authority.” 
• By 1870’s the by the 1870s, Indian intellectuals were beginning to ask more directly 
for a stake in government and administration. Liberals such as Pherozeshah Mehta 
campaigned for Indians to have the municipal franchise and a share in city 
government. Two decades later, Dadabhai Naoroji, became the first Indian member 
of the House of Commons. 
• Naoroji was a pivotal figure in Indian liberalism as well as Indian nationalism whose 
works on the drain theory gave birth to a secular notion of economic nationalism. 
The Indian National Congress formed in 1885 came to embody many of these liberal 
ideals, with most of its western educated members being votaries of Enlightenment 
thought and ideals. The early decades of the 20th century was especially testing 
times, with conflict between Swadeshi and Liberal Idealism coming to the fore. 
• The INC always had a strand of constitutional Liberals and most of its ‘radical leaders’ 
too remained within the boundaries of the Centre-Left, never treading into deeper 
depths of Marxist class struggle and upheaval. The role of CR Das, Motilal Nehru, Tej 
Sapru is of critical importance here. The very formation of the Swarajist party lay in 
their form belief in participation in State institutions and the 1929 Nehru Report can 
be regarded as the materialization of their vision of an Indian State based on 
Constitutional rights, Parliamentary sovereignty and the ideals of liberty, equality 
and justice. 
• The role of Jawaharlal Nehru in the Liberal tradition is pivotal. Despite being inspired 
by the philosophy and practice of Soviet Union, his radicalism remained limited to 
the ideals of social Democracy or Fabianism. With regard to his emphasis on 
Democracy, Rights, Parliamentary system etc., he emerges as the stalwart of the 
liberal-democratic tradition in India. 
• Nehru’s analysis and thoughts on the Nationalist movement can enumerated 
through his work, ‘The Discovery of India’. As Sunil Khilnani notes, “Nehru 
produced…an Epic of India’s past that was neither a meaningless dust-storm nor a 
glorified Hindu nation, but moved by a logic of acceptance and accommodation.” 
Isiah Berlin wrote of Tagore, “he never showed his wisdom more clearly than in 
choosing the difficult middle path, drifting neither to the Scylla of radical modernism, 
nor to the Charybdis of proud and gloomy traditionalism.” Nehru too depicted that 
centrism in aligning his English layer with the Indian one. 
• While emphasizing on the role of Freedom Struggle in creating a spirit of 
Nationalism, bringing about a coherence in national identity among various groups, 
exposing the exploitative character of Colonial rulers, the leaders derived from the 
Western civilizational experience concepts and ideologies, yet adapted them to 
peculiar Indian traditions and myths to further the nationalist struggle for 
independence. 
• It is the mass-based struggle of Gandhi that gives fodder to the Liberal school for 
espousing the all-encompassing nature of the Indian National Struggle. However, 
the position of Gandhi in the liberal school doesn’t sit easily. 
• Despite being the leader of masses, Gandhi was not an advocate of a Parliamentary 
system of government as well other symbols of modernity which most other leaders 
were champions of. Most of his ideas can be garnered through his work Hind Swaraj. 
Gandhi inaugurated the most far-reaching critique of modernity that one can 
imagine in the same. Throughout, Gandhi remains clear that the replacement of 
white rulers by brown rulers would be of little consequence to the people if the new 
set of rulers governed by the same principles, with the same objectives, and with a 
similar commitment to principles of modern civilization. In Hind Swaraj, Gandhi 
launched into a ferocious critique of the "parasitic" professionals who staff modern