Indian Nationalism - 3 | PSIR Optional for UPSC (Notes) PDF Download

Introduction

• In earlier units, you explored the rise and growth of nationalism in different parts of the world, including Europe, Africa, and Asia.
• In this unit and the next, we will focus on different approaches to studying nationalism in India.
• These approaches span over a century and have both agreements and disagreements with each other.
• We will examine the colonialist, nationalist, and Marxist perspectives on Indian nationalism.

Colonialist Perspective

Colonialist Paradigm on Indian History:

• In the nineteenth century, the colonialist view of Indian history was shaped by historians like James Mill, Mountstuart Elphinstone, Henry Elliot, John Dowson, W.W. Hunter, and Vincent Smith.
• This perspective rejected the idea of India as a unified nation and emphasized its diversity and disunity, arguing that colonial rule brought unity.
• Early colonial narratives depicted India as a land of hostile and warring units, with historians like W.W. Hunter and Herbert Risley classifying the country into various tribes and castes.
• As the Indian national movement emerged, British historians like John Strachey and John Seeley claimed that India could never form a nation due to its fragmented religious, ethnic, linguistic, and regional groups.
• In response to the rising nationalist movement, colonialist ideologues downplayed it as a movement by self-interested middle-class individuals.
• Valentine Chirol, in his book Indian Unrest (1910), described India as a ‘mere geographical expression’, a jumble of races and peoples that could never become a nation. He argued that British rule was necessary to prevent ancient divisions from causing conflict.
• Vincent Smith also emphasized the lack of unity among Indians, claiming that India was made up of ‘mutually repellent molecules’ and that central authority, like British rule, was necessary to maintain cohesion.
• Even when the national movement gained momentum after World War I, colonialist historians questioned its national character by highlighting religious, caste, and linguistic divisions.

Nationalist Views

Nationalist Views on Indian Nationalism and National Movement:

• Nationalist perspectives on Indian nationalism and the national movement were shaped in response to colonialist views. While accepting some colonialist ideas, nationalist writers strongly opposed the negative portrayal of India and its people by colonial historians.
• Nationalist historians adopted an idea-centric approach, contrasting with the instrumentalist approach of colonialist historians. There are two primary views among nationalist historians regarding the origins of nationalist ideas:
• Western Influence: Some historians believe that nationalist ideas were adopted under the influence of Western thought, particularly through Western education and ideas of liberty. This perspective was prominent among Moderate nationalists in the early phase of the national movement.
• Ancient Presence: Others argue that these ideas have been present in India since ancient times. This view gained traction as the national movement intensified.

Formation of Nationalist Consciousness:

• The spread of Western ideas prepared the English-educated middle classes in India to form a nationalist consciousness. Their desire for liberty and freedom fueled their patriotic feelings. The Indian National Congress emerged as a platform for self-expression and self-assertion.
• The loss of freedom and the threat of domination by foreign powers deeply affected the Indian populace, leading to numerous revolts since the establishment of British rule, culminating in the Great Revolt of 1857.
• The later Extremist phase of the national movement was attributed by writers like R.G. Pradhan, B. Prasad, R.C. Majumdar, and Lajpat Rai to better ideas, stronger leadership, and greater zeal among nationalists.

Nation-in-the-Making:

• Many Indian nationalists and historians viewed India as a nation-in-the-making rather than a fully formed nation. They believed that the national movement aimed to unite diverse Indians into a single nation based on common grievances. R.C. Majumdar argued that the idea of India as a common motherland was still a fancy at the beginning of the nineteenth century.
• Tara Chand also saw the creation of an Indian nation as a recent phenomenon emerging from economic and political changes.

Ancient Unity:

• In contrast, some historians, like Radha Kumud Mookerji, argued that India had been a unified nation since ancient times. Mookerji believed in the early geographical unity of India and the presence of nationalism in early India.
• Others, like Har Bilas Sarda and Lajpat Rai, asserted that India had been a nation for thousands of years. K.P. Jayaswal highlighted India's ancient achievements comparable to modern Britain.

Assimilative Civilization:

• Rabindranath Tagore depicted India as a civilization where various invaders were assimilated into its ethos, creating a broad cultural and civilizational unity rather than just a territorial one. This inclusive spirit differentiated India from European nationalism.
• Gandhi and other leaders also envisioned India as a unified yet diverse civilization, with a fundamental unity amidst diversity.

Factors for the Rise of National Movement:

• Nationalist historians emphasized various factors for the rise of the national movement, including the unfriendly attitude of colonial rulers, reactionary policies, modern education, the printing press, literature, and the partition of Bengal.
• The feeling of racial superiority exhibited by the British and their policy of racial discrimination created bitterness among Indians.

Economic Exploitation:

• Economic factors such as exploitation of peasants, high land revenue, forced cultivation of cash crops, drain of wealth, and wasteful expenditure on a large military force contributed to disaffection among the Indian populace.
• Nationalist historians portrayed the national movement as a pan-Indian anti-imperialist front, downplaying class, caste, linguistic, regional, and religious contradictions.

Mobilization by Middle Class Leaders:

• Nationalist historians believed that the masses were not capable of independent action and needed to be mobilized by middle-class leaders. Surendranath Banerjea and Lajpat Rai highlighted the role of the middle class in leading movements for political independence or progress.
• C.F. Andrews and Girija Mukerji emphasized that the strength of the All-India movement lay in the newly educated middle classes.

Dedication of Nationalist Leaders:

• Nationalist leaders were viewed as dedicated idealists driven by patriotism and the welfare of the country. Despite coming from the middle class, they were seen as selfless spokespersons of the silent majority, representing all classes and communities.
• These leaders were believed to pursue national, secular, and progressive politics, acting in the best interest of the nation and its people.

Marxist Approaches

Marxist Historians' Critique of Nationalism:

• Marxist historians criticize both colonialist and nationalist views on Indian nationalism.
• They argue that colonialists have a biased perspective on India, while nationalists wrongly trace nationalism back to ancient times.
• Both perspectives, according to Marxists, overlook the significance of economic factors and class differences in understanding nationalism.

Marxist Perspective on Nationalism:

• Marxist analysis focuses on modes of production and class struggles.
• Historians see a conflict between imperialism and Indian society but also recognize class conflicts within India.
• They explain these dynamics through the economic changes brought by colonialism.
• Marxists believe India was not always a nation but was in the process of becoming one, with the nationalist movement playing a crucial role.

M.N. Roy's Contribution:

• M.N. Roy, a key figure in the communist movement in the 1920s, used Marxist concepts to place the Indian nationalist movement in a broader context.
• In his book India in Transition(1922), he argued that the movement emerged during a specific phase of global capitalism.
• Roy suggested that India was transitioning towards capitalism and was already part of the global capitalist system.
• He contended that the dominant class in India was not feudal lords but the bourgeoisie.
• Despite feudal dominance, the emerging national bourgeoisie was often revolutionary. However, in India, as feudalism waned, the bourgeoisie became conservative, wanting to maintain the status quo. In this context, only the workers were truly revolutionary.

R.P. Dutt's Interpretation:

• About 25 years later, R.P. Dutt presented a significant Marxist interpretation of Indian nationalism in his book India Today(1947).
• Dutt argued that the 1857 revolt was primarily led by conservative and feudal forces.
• He traced the beginning of the Indian national movement to the late 19th century, with the Indian National Congress (established in 1885) as its main organization.
• Dutt believed that the Congress was initially created under British governmental policy to safeguard British rule against rising anti-British sentiments.
• However, due to popular nationalist pressure, the Congress transformed into a strong anti-colonial force.

Class Base of Nationalism:

• Dutt applied Marxist class analysis to the study of Indian nationalism, noting that the class base of the Congress and the national movement changed over time.
• Initially, Indian nationalism represented only the big bourgeoisie, including progressive landowners, new industrialists, and well-to-do intellectuals.
• Before World War I, the urban petty bourgeois class gained influence, and after the War, the Indian masses, including peasants and industrial workers, became prominent.

Leadership and Radicalization:

• Dutt argued that the leadership of the movement remained with the propertied classes, who prevented any radicalization that could threaten their interests.
• He criticized Gandhi as the "mascot of the bourgeoisie" and claimed that the Non-cooperation and Civil Disobedience Movements were curtailed when they became too militant.

Twofold Character of Congress:

• Dutt described the Congress as having a "twofold character" throughout its history.
• On one hand, its contradictions with imperialism led it to lead the people's movement against colonial rule.
• On the other hand, its fear of a militant movement that could jeopardize its interests made it cooperate with imperialism.
• This vacillating role was a hallmark of the Congress during the national movement.

Influence on Marxist Historiography:

• Dutt's work set a precedent in Marxist historiography regarding the Indian national movement.
• Subsequent works by Marxist historians were influenced by his interpretations.

The Indian national movement, as examined by historians like A.R. Desai, evolved through distinct phases, each shaped by different social classes and their interests.

Phases of Indian National Movement according to A.R. Desai:

• First Phase (Early 19th Century - 1885): The movement was led by the intelligentsia educated under the modern English system. Key figures included Rammohan Roy and his followers.
• Second Phase (1885 - 1905): This phase saw the rise of the new bourgeoisie, including the educated middle class, merchant class, and industrialists. The focus was on demands like Indianisation of Services and economic issues.
• Third Phase (1905 - 1918): Initiated by the Swadeshi Movement, this phase broadened the movement's base to include sections of the lower-middle class.
• Fourth Phase (1919 - 1934): The movement expanded significantly to include various mass sections, although leadership remained with the upper and middle classes. The industrial bourgeoisie gained influence during this period.
• Fifth Phase (1934 - 1939): Marked by discontent with Gandhian ideology and the rise of Congress Socialists, this phase saw the emergence of peasant, worker, and depressed class movements. However, the Gandhian Congress still dominated.

Marxist Perspectives on the National Movement:

• Historian N.M. Goldberg distinguished between the ‘Moderate’ and ‘Extremist’ wings of the early national movement, linking their social bases to different bourgeois strata.
• V.I. Pavlov correlated various bourgeois strata with stages of the national movement, highlighting the comprador big bourgeoisie and industrial bourgeoisie.

Bipan Chandra's Critique:

• Chandra criticized the restrictive Marxist view, stressing the role of ideas in shaping actions and changes within the national movement.
• He argued for the autonomy of ideas, emphasizing that intellectuals often act beyond their class interests and that the Indian nationalist leaders represented broader ideological concerns.

Bipan Chandra's Analysis of Early Nationalist Economic Thinking:

• Bipan Chandra, analyzing the economic perspectives of early nationalist leaders, both moderates and extremists, concludes that their overall economic outlook was fundamentally capitalist.
• By this, Chandra means that they generally championed capitalist growth and the interests of industrial capitalists.
• However, this does not imply that they were serving the individual interests of capitalists. In fact, early capitalist support for the Congress was minimal.
• Nationalist support for industrial capitalism stemmed from the belief that industrial development along capitalist lines was the only way to regenerate the country economically.
• Chandra's perspective marks a significant shift in Marxist historiography of the Indian national movement, moving away from the instrumentalist approach of Dutt and Desai.

Continuities with R.P. Dutt's Paradigm:

• Despite his shift in perspective, Bipan Chandra retains several aspects of R.P. Dutt's paradigm.
• He interprets the nationalist leadership's non-violent approach as a guarantee to propertied classes that their interests would not be jeopardized.
• Chandra argues that the relationship between Indian masses and nationalists was always problematic, with the masses not playing a significant role until the Gandhian period.
• Even then, when mobilized, the masses remained outside the decision-making process.
• He emphasizes that the nationalist leaders throughout the movement stressed an evolutionary process for achieving national freedom, not a revolutionary one.
• The strategy was based on pressure and compromise, where agitations and political work would exert pressure on colonial rulers, followed by compromises when concessions were offered.
• Through this phased, non-violent approach, various political concessions were extracted from the British, eventually leading to India's liberation.

The Nationalist Movement as a Bourgeois Democratic Movement:

• Bipan Chandra concludes that the nationalist movement, as represented by the Congress, was a bourgeois democratic movement.
• This movement represented the interests of all classes and segments of Indian society against imperialism but was under the hegemony of the industrial bourgeoisie.
• This character remained constant from the inception of the movement until 1947.
• Even during the Gandhian phase, the hegemony of the bourgeoisie was strong, if not stronger.
• In his later work, "India's Struggle for Independence, 1857-1947," Bipan Chandra moves away from Dutt and Desai's views.
• The Congress strategy is now seen in terms of a Gramscian 'war of position', involving a prolonged struggle for goal attainment.
• Chandra emphasizes that the Indian national movement was unique in its prolonged popular struggle on moral, political, and ideological levels, rather than a single moment of revolution.
• The Gandhian non-violence is reinterpreted as an integral part of a hegemonic struggle based on a mass movement.
• The Congress is regarded not merely as a party but as a movement, marking a clear break from conventional Marxist interpretations.

Sumit Sarkar's Critique and Alternative Perspective:

• Sumit Sarkar offers a different Marxist interpretation of the national movement, critiquing the Dutt-Desai view.
• In his book "The Swadeshi Movement in Bengal, 1903-1908," he criticizes the simplistic class approach of Dutt and Desai.
• Sarkar argues against the clear class differentiation between moderates and extremists, suggesting that such distinctions are difficult to establish at the leadership level.
• He believes that the actions of nationalist leaders are better understood through Trotsky's concept of 'substitutism', where the intelligentsia acts on behalf of passive social forces.
• Sarkar employs Gramscian categories of 'traditional' and 'organic' intellectuals', arguing that the Swadeshi movement's leaders were more of the traditional intelligentsia, not directly linked to commerce or industry.
• He posits that although early nationalist leaders were not bourgeoisie, they paved the way for independent capitalist development.
• In another article, "The Logic of Gandhian Nationalism," Sarkar discusses the role of bourgeois groups in the Civil Disobedience Movement and the Gandhi-Irwin pact.
• He acknowledges Gandhi's role but emphasizes the coincidence of aims between Gandhian leadership and bourgeois interests at specific points.
• The Marxist perspective on Indian nationalism is thus informed by a class approach related to politics and ideology, suggesting that the nationalist leadership and ideology represented the Indian bourgeoisie and aimed for independent capitalist development.

Nationalist Interpretation

Rejection of Imperial Discourse by Nationalist Leaders and Scholars:
Early nationalists like Surendranath Banerjee acknowledged that India was not yet a complete nation. However, he believed that India was a “nation in the making.”

• Cultural nationalists, such as Aurobindo Ghosh, were dissatisfied with the early nationalists' defensive approach. Aurobindo argued that India was not just a nation in the making but had always been a nation. He blended nationalism and patriotism to counter the British narrative.
• Nationalist historians like Dr. Tarachand and R.C. Majumdar presented several arguments:
• It is incorrect to claim that the Congress-led movement was solely a nationalist movement.
• It is also incorrect to argue that the Congress agenda was exclusive.
• Furthermore, it is wrong to suggest that there was no grand idea inspiring political leaders at the time.

There was a clear desire among Indians to emerge as a nation. The Congress was a national party with nationalist leadership. The survival of India as a nation despite numerous internal and external challenges indicates that we cannot dismiss the existence of India as a nation.

Marxist Interpretation

According to Benedict Anderson, nationalism is an 'invented tradition' and serves as a tool for the bourgeois class.

• Marx analyzed the Revolt of 1857 and, unlike Savarkar who called it the 'first war of independence,' viewed it as a revolt by feudal elements.

MN Roy's Analysis of Congress and Gandhi:

• In his book India in Transition, MN Roy examined the political roles of Congress and Gandhi, portraying Congress as a bourgeois party and Gandhi as a bourgeois leader.
• Similar views were expressed by AR Desai in Social Background of Indian Nationalism and RD Dutt in India Today.

Sumit Sarkar's Caution to Marxist Scholars:

• In MODERN INDIA, Sumit Sarkar cautioned Marxist scholars against a casual approach, acknowledging that while Congress's program and struggles did not benefit the masses, there was no deliberate strategy against them.
• Sarkar also noted that Indians were not so divided that unity was impossible.

Bipin Chandra's Perspective:

• Bipin Chandra, despite his Marxist views, acknowledged the Congress-led movement as a national movement.
• He described it as the most remarkable mass movement, whose impact is still felt today.

Radical Humanist Perspective by MN Roy:

• MN Roy, under the philosophy of Radical Humanism, argued that Congress and Gandhi represented bourgeois interests.
• He believed that nationalism suppresses individuals and called for a cosmopolitan union of liberated individuals.

Socialist Perspective

Influence of the Russian Revolution on Socialist Perspectives in India
Bhagat Singh and the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association:

• Bhagat Singh played a pivotal role in transforming the Hindustan Republic Association into the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association, reflecting a shift towards socialist ideologies.

Socialism in the Indian National Congress:

• Leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhas Chandra Bose were instrumental in introducing socialist ideas within the Indian National Congress.

Foundation of the Congress Socialist Party:

• Radical members of the Congress, known as the Young Turks, including J.P. Narayan,Acharya Narendra Dev, and Minna Masani, founded the Congress Socialist Party in 1934.
• Their aim was not to oppose the Congress but to radicalize its program, ensuring a more progressive agenda.

Influence of Gandhi:

• Despite their radical approach, these young leaders were also influenced by Mahatma Gandhi and his principles.

Dalit Perspective of Indian National Movement

Jyotirao Phule

Jyotirao Phule's Views on British Raj and Peshwa Raj:

• Jyotirao Phule believed that the British Raj was better than the Peshwa Raj.
• He appreciated the British for introducing equality before the law and rule of law.

Critique of Congress Nationalism and Brahmanism:

• Phule was critical of Congress nationalism.
• He was also against Brahmanism.

Critique of British Rule:

• Despite his appreciation for certain aspects of British rule, Phule also highlighted the flaws of British rule.

Periyar

Periyar and the Self-Respect Movement:

• Periyar, initially a member of the Indian National Congress (INC), became disillusioned with the Brahminical attitude of the INC leaders.
• In response, he founded the 'self-respect' movement, which rejected Brahmanism and Hinduism.

B R Ambedkar

Criticism of Upper Caste Leaders by Dalit Leaders:

• Most Dalit leaders criticized upper caste leaders for their lack of commitment to sharing power and achieving social equality with Dalits.
• Ambedkar's book,'What Congress and Gandhi had done to Untouchables,' details this criticism.

Ambedkar's Influence and Views on Nationalism:

• Ambedkar was inspired by the principles of the French Revolution: liberty, equality, and fraternity.
• In his work 'Bahishkrit Bharat,' he suggested that if Bal Gangadhar Tilak had been born a Dalit, he would have demanded the abolition of caste as his birthright.
• For Dalits in India, the concept of Swaraj (self-rule) without the eradication of caste is meaningless.
• Ambedkar described nationalism as a consciousness of kinship and the existence of familial ties(fraternity).

Ambedkar on India
Ambedkar's View on Dalits and Indian Unity:

• Ambedkar believed that any struggle or movement that did not address the issues faced by Dalits was not significant. His focus was primarily on the problems and injustices faced by the Dalit community.
• He viewed Hindus as being divided into segmented communities, which led him to conclude that India is not a single nation but rather a large collection of communities.
• According to Ambedkar, without fraternity, political unity would be impossible. He argued that without this political unity, India would remain just a state and not evolve into a true nation.

Ambedkar on Nationalism
Nationalism and Freedom:

• The freedom of a nation is deeply connected to the freedom of its people.
• Nationalism represents inner unity and a desire to live as a nation. It opposes casteism and communism, and is rooted in humanism.

Critique of the Indian National Congress (INC):

• Some critics argue that the INC was not only against Dalits but also workers.
• When the INC formed governments in 1937, they allegedly introduced conservative measures, like amending the Industrial Disputes Act to make strikes illegal in Bombay.

Dalit Support for British Rule:

• During India’s struggle for independence, some Dalit intellectuals supported the British government.
• They believed that upper-caste Hindu leaders were unwilling to share power with Dalits.
• These Dalits felt that without a social revolution to ensure equality, merely changing political leaders would reinforce upper-caste dominance over Dalits.

Criticism of Dalit Perspective

• Criticism of Dalit Perspective: The Dalit perspective has faced criticism from nationalists and right-wing historians, such as Arun Shourie, who label it as anti-national.

• Political Motivation: Prof. Gopal Guru argues that Shourie's criticism is driven by political motives. He emphasizes the importance of understanding Ambedkar's viewpoint in a more objective and scientific manner.

Gandhi and the Dalit perspective

Differences Between Subaltern Perspective and Gandhian Notion of Social Change:

• The subaltern perspective differs from the Gandhian notion of social change and reform in its approach to addressing social issues.
• While Gandhi emphasized moral aspects such as service, compassion, and care, aiming to dissolve contradictions and eliminate oppositional imagination, Dalit leaders from the subaltern perspective preferred struggle and self-help.

Social mobility
Gandhi's Social and Caste Status:

• Gandhi's position in society allowed him to move freely between different castes, from upper to lower.

National Movement's View on Dalits:

• The leadership of the national movement saw the issue of Dalits as a religious concern and wanted to avoid division within the Hindu community.
• Despite this, Gandhi was genuinely concerned about the plight of Dalits.
• He believed that the honor of Hinduism could only be preserved by completely eliminating untouchability.

Poona Pact
Gandhi's Resistance to the Communal Award:

• Gandhi opposed the British government's Communal Award, which proposed separate electorates for Dalits, as he saw it as a way to divide Indian society.
• While Gandhi and mainstream nationalists aimed to unite Indians against British rule, the Dalit intelligentsia believed that empowering Dalits was essential for any political progress.

Nationalist Efforts and Dalit Empowerment:

• Despite differences, the efforts of nationalist leaders to raise awareness about Dalit suffering and initiatives like the anti-untouchability movement,constructive programs, and temple entry movements contributed to the empowerment of Dalits.

Perspectives of Contemporary Scholars

Gail Omvedt's Analysis of Dalit Movements:

• Gail Omvedt, an American-Indian sociologist, analyzed Dalit movements in Maharashtra, Andhra, and Karnataka.
• She argued that these movements were a crucial part of India's democratic revolution.
• Omvedt believed that the Dalit and anti-caste movements were more consistently democratic and nationalist than the elite-controlled Indian National Congress.

Valerian Rodrigues on Dalit Bahujan Thinkers:

• Valerian Rodrigues noted that despite their differences, Dalit Bahujan thinkers see the nation as a good society.
• In this society, individuals and groups respect each other, protect mutual rights, and show concern and solidarity.
• Rodrigues emphasized that for self-respecters, the existence of untouchability renders discussions of freedom and self-rule meaningless.

Ranjit Guha and Subaltern Studies:

• Ranjit Guha, in his work on Subaltern Studies, criticized the historiography of Indian nationalism for its elitism.
• He pointed out that both colonialist elitism and bourgeois-nationalist elitism have dominated this historiography.
• Guha argued that there has been a lack of understanding regarding how the subaltern view and practice their politics.
• He proposed that a parallel subaltern domain of politics existed independently of elite politics, with its own self-generating dynamic.

S.N. Gaikwad on Ambedkar and Elite Hegemony:

• S.N. Gaikwad acknowledged that while Ambedkar might be seen as anti-national, he was right in rejecting elite hegemony.
• Gaikwad believed that Ambedkar forced the Indian National Congress(INC) to pay more attention to Dalit concerns.
• Ambedkar criticized the Gandhian theory of patriotism, viewing it as submission to local tyrants.
• He also rejected intolerance and hypocrisy in political discourse.