Institutional Nationalism | Maharashtra State PSC (MPSC): Preparation - MPSC (Maharastra) PDF Download

 Page 1


INSTITUTIONAL NATIONALISM
INTRODUCTION :
Maharashtra had been politically active since the seventeenth
century . The Deccan or “desh” (Poona, Pandharpur and Nasik) was both
the cultural and political nerve centre of the region. However. non-
availability of education to the masses of people, its limited range, and
its, emphasis on religious and philosophical learning, prevented the
spread of political knowledge to the common people. Consequently,
though the Brahmins were politically alert, the masses remained more
or less indifferent or inactive politically, even after the Maratha territories
passed under the British. It was only after the middle of the ninetieth
century that political activities began in Poona.
Page 2


INSTITUTIONAL NATIONALISM
INTRODUCTION :
Maharashtra had been politically active since the seventeenth
century . The Deccan or “desh” (Poona, Pandharpur and Nasik) was both
the cultural and political nerve centre of the region. However. non-
availability of education to the masses of people, its limited range, and
its, emphasis on religious and philosophical learning, prevented the
spread of political knowledge to the common people. Consequently,
though the Brahmins were politically alert, the masses remained more
or less indifferent or inactive politically, even after the Maratha territories
passed under the British. It was only after the middle of the ninetieth
century that political activities began in Poona.
In the City of Bombay, the political awakening may be traced to
the early nineteenth century. In 1841, Bhaskar Pandurang T arkhadkar
made a scathing attack on the British imperial policies. In 1848-49,
“Lokahitawadi” Gopal Hari Deshmukh also wrote articles in a well known
Marathi paper, the ‘Prabhakar’, severely criticising British imperialism.
These developments ultimately resulted in the foundation of the first
political association in Bombay City in 1852. It was called the Bombay
Association.
10.2  THE BOMBAY ASSOCIATION :
The first attempt at organized political activity in Bombay was
initiated by the merchants or “shetias”. Unlike the other classes, the
“shetias” were not bound by ties of caste but by ties of common interests,
life style and more generally, by common status. Men belonging to
different castes and religions had come together in the course of trading
ventures as partners. As their ventures prospered, they increasingly
identified themselves with one another as a distinct group - an elite group
with distinct economic and perhaps even class interests. They also had
a distinct sense of their own public position and considered themselves
as natural leaders of Indians in Bombay.
Their “early battles” were to gain access to local positions of power
for themselves within the British controlled administrative system. The
Government soon accepted them as representative of the people. They
constituted the pool from which the Government drew for service on a
variety of official and non-official public bodies.
By the 1840s, the City of Bombay also saw the emergence of a
new class of English educated young men, the products of Elphinstone
Institution. These young men had a sense of identity had a common
sense of purpose. They had command of some instruments with which
to express common view and work for common ends. Moreover by 1850,
they had begun to collaborate with the “shetias” to bring about social
reforms in their respective communities. More significant was their
collaboration in the movement for political reform. Known as the
“intelligentsia” the politically educated and conscious young men began
to work together with the “shetias” in secular causes.
By the 1850s, religious excitement, racial estrangement, economic
and political discontent was gripping different part of India. Besides, in
Bombay, Calcutta and Madras education was growing steadily and
enlightened public opinion was fast growing among a small but vocal
section of Indians.  Moverover, there was an increasing unification of
the country. It was under this scenario that the renewal of the East India
Company’s Charter was approaching provoking a flurry of political activity
Page 3


INSTITUTIONAL NATIONALISM
INTRODUCTION :
Maharashtra had been politically active since the seventeenth
century . The Deccan or “desh” (Poona, Pandharpur and Nasik) was both
the cultural and political nerve centre of the region. However. non-
availability of education to the masses of people, its limited range, and
its, emphasis on religious and philosophical learning, prevented the
spread of political knowledge to the common people. Consequently,
though the Brahmins were politically alert, the masses remained more
or less indifferent or inactive politically, even after the Maratha territories
passed under the British. It was only after the middle of the ninetieth
century that political activities began in Poona.
In the City of Bombay, the political awakening may be traced to
the early nineteenth century. In 1841, Bhaskar Pandurang T arkhadkar
made a scathing attack on the British imperial policies. In 1848-49,
“Lokahitawadi” Gopal Hari Deshmukh also wrote articles in a well known
Marathi paper, the ‘Prabhakar’, severely criticising British imperialism.
These developments ultimately resulted in the foundation of the first
political association in Bombay City in 1852. It was called the Bombay
Association.
10.2  THE BOMBAY ASSOCIATION :
The first attempt at organized political activity in Bombay was
initiated by the merchants or “shetias”. Unlike the other classes, the
“shetias” were not bound by ties of caste but by ties of common interests,
life style and more generally, by common status. Men belonging to
different castes and religions had come together in the course of trading
ventures as partners. As their ventures prospered, they increasingly
identified themselves with one another as a distinct group - an elite group
with distinct economic and perhaps even class interests. They also had
a distinct sense of their own public position and considered themselves
as natural leaders of Indians in Bombay.
Their “early battles” were to gain access to local positions of power
for themselves within the British controlled administrative system. The
Government soon accepted them as representative of the people. They
constituted the pool from which the Government drew for service on a
variety of official and non-official public bodies.
By the 1840s, the City of Bombay also saw the emergence of a
new class of English educated young men, the products of Elphinstone
Institution. These young men had a sense of identity had a common
sense of purpose. They had command of some instruments with which
to express common view and work for common ends. Moreover by 1850,
they had begun to collaborate with the “shetias” to bring about social
reforms in their respective communities. More significant was their
collaboration in the movement for political reform. Known as the
“intelligentsia” the politically educated and conscious young men began
to work together with the “shetias” in secular causes.
By the 1850s, religious excitement, racial estrangement, economic
and political discontent was gripping different part of India. Besides, in
Bombay, Calcutta and Madras education was growing steadily and
enlightened public opinion was fast growing among a small but vocal
section of Indians.  Moverover, there was an increasing unification of
the country. It was under this scenario that the renewal of the East India
Company’s Charter was approaching provoking a flurry of political activity
in the country.  Already, in Calcutta the British India Association had
been formed (in 1851) and in Poona a society called the Deccan Sabha
had been established (in January 1852).  But leaders of the Bombay
city remained immersed in their own concerns.
It was left to a handful of the educated men to promote the idea
that Bombay required its own political associations to ensure that
Bombay’s interests were properly looked after. Naoroji Fardunji, Narayan
Dinanathji, Dr. Bhau Daji and Dadabhai Naoroji were among the most
active of the “intelligentsia”.  But it was obvious that nothing could be
done without the assistance of the shetias. Finally they succeeded in
enlisting the support of some leading shetias like Kharsetji Nasarvanji
Kama and Jagannath Shankarshet. Thus, on 26th August 1852, the
Bombay Association was inaugurated. Most of its members were
Bombay’s leading shetias or merchants. While Shankarshet became
its President, Bhau Dhaji and Vinayakrao Jagannathji took over as the
Secretaries of the Association.
Soon after its formation, the intelligentsia collected and
disseminated information which would enlighten the British rulers
concerning the real wants of the people of India.  The intelligentsia carried
out these activities behind the scene, allowing the shetias to act as the
leaders of the Association. The Association prepared a petition, drafted
by Bhau Daji, for presenting to the British Parliament.  Among other
things, it contained complaints against the Judicial administration of the
East India Company’s Indian rulers and its police force.  It also contained
suggestion regarding measures for the spread of vernacular education
and the development of Indian culture.
The first draft of the petition was not approved by some leading
shetias who feared that they might lose the favour of the British capitalists.
The second. modified petition, also did not find favour with them. Hence
Bhau Daji resigned his post of Secretary of the Association. This had
the effect of dividing the members of the Association between the
capitalists and the intelligentsia. In 1856 the Association  described
itself as comprising men “mostly possessed of considerable property,
and all deeply interested in the efficiency of those Departments of the
Government which are charged with the preservation of order, the
protection of life and property and the vindication of Law”.
In general, the attitude of the Association towards the British Raj
was one of subservience. Many of its members paid tributes to the ‘Raj
for the liberty and prosperity enjoyed by Indians under the British.
Therefore, there was no question of the Association working against or
in opposition to the British Government they would, as Christirre Dobbin
observes, ‘‘rather mediate, tender advice to the Government based on
Page 4


INSTITUTIONAL NATIONALISM
INTRODUCTION :
Maharashtra had been politically active since the seventeenth
century . The Deccan or “desh” (Poona, Pandharpur and Nasik) was both
the cultural and political nerve centre of the region. However. non-
availability of education to the masses of people, its limited range, and
its, emphasis on religious and philosophical learning, prevented the
spread of political knowledge to the common people. Consequently,
though the Brahmins were politically alert, the masses remained more
or less indifferent or inactive politically, even after the Maratha territories
passed under the British. It was only after the middle of the ninetieth
century that political activities began in Poona.
In the City of Bombay, the political awakening may be traced to
the early nineteenth century. In 1841, Bhaskar Pandurang T arkhadkar
made a scathing attack on the British imperial policies. In 1848-49,
“Lokahitawadi” Gopal Hari Deshmukh also wrote articles in a well known
Marathi paper, the ‘Prabhakar’, severely criticising British imperialism.
These developments ultimately resulted in the foundation of the first
political association in Bombay City in 1852. It was called the Bombay
Association.
10.2  THE BOMBAY ASSOCIATION :
The first attempt at organized political activity in Bombay was
initiated by the merchants or “shetias”. Unlike the other classes, the
“shetias” were not bound by ties of caste but by ties of common interests,
life style and more generally, by common status. Men belonging to
different castes and religions had come together in the course of trading
ventures as partners. As their ventures prospered, they increasingly
identified themselves with one another as a distinct group - an elite group
with distinct economic and perhaps even class interests. They also had
a distinct sense of their own public position and considered themselves
as natural leaders of Indians in Bombay.
Their “early battles” were to gain access to local positions of power
for themselves within the British controlled administrative system. The
Government soon accepted them as representative of the people. They
constituted the pool from which the Government drew for service on a
variety of official and non-official public bodies.
By the 1840s, the City of Bombay also saw the emergence of a
new class of English educated young men, the products of Elphinstone
Institution. These young men had a sense of identity had a common
sense of purpose. They had command of some instruments with which
to express common view and work for common ends. Moreover by 1850,
they had begun to collaborate with the “shetias” to bring about social
reforms in their respective communities. More significant was their
collaboration in the movement for political reform. Known as the
“intelligentsia” the politically educated and conscious young men began
to work together with the “shetias” in secular causes.
By the 1850s, religious excitement, racial estrangement, economic
and political discontent was gripping different part of India. Besides, in
Bombay, Calcutta and Madras education was growing steadily and
enlightened public opinion was fast growing among a small but vocal
section of Indians.  Moverover, there was an increasing unification of
the country. It was under this scenario that the renewal of the East India
Company’s Charter was approaching provoking a flurry of political activity
in the country.  Already, in Calcutta the British India Association had
been formed (in 1851) and in Poona a society called the Deccan Sabha
had been established (in January 1852).  But leaders of the Bombay
city remained immersed in their own concerns.
It was left to a handful of the educated men to promote the idea
that Bombay required its own political associations to ensure that
Bombay’s interests were properly looked after. Naoroji Fardunji, Narayan
Dinanathji, Dr. Bhau Daji and Dadabhai Naoroji were among the most
active of the “intelligentsia”.  But it was obvious that nothing could be
done without the assistance of the shetias. Finally they succeeded in
enlisting the support of some leading shetias like Kharsetji Nasarvanji
Kama and Jagannath Shankarshet. Thus, on 26th August 1852, the
Bombay Association was inaugurated. Most of its members were
Bombay’s leading shetias or merchants. While Shankarshet became
its President, Bhau Dhaji and Vinayakrao Jagannathji took over as the
Secretaries of the Association.
Soon after its formation, the intelligentsia collected and
disseminated information which would enlighten the British rulers
concerning the real wants of the people of India.  The intelligentsia carried
out these activities behind the scene, allowing the shetias to act as the
leaders of the Association. The Association prepared a petition, drafted
by Bhau Daji, for presenting to the British Parliament.  Among other
things, it contained complaints against the Judicial administration of the
East India Company’s Indian rulers and its police force.  It also contained
suggestion regarding measures for the spread of vernacular education
and the development of Indian culture.
The first draft of the petition was not approved by some leading
shetias who feared that they might lose the favour of the British capitalists.
The second. modified petition, also did not find favour with them. Hence
Bhau Daji resigned his post of Secretary of the Association. This had
the effect of dividing the members of the Association between the
capitalists and the intelligentsia. In 1856 the Association  described
itself as comprising men “mostly possessed of considerable property,
and all deeply interested in the efficiency of those Departments of the
Government which are charged with the preservation of order, the
protection of life and property and the vindication of Law”.
In general, the attitude of the Association towards the British Raj
was one of subservience. Many of its members paid tributes to the ‘Raj
for the liberty and prosperity enjoyed by Indians under the British.
Therefore, there was no question of the Association working against or
in opposition to the British Government they would, as Christirre Dobbin
observes, ‘‘rather mediate, tender advice to the Government based on
real knowledge of the feelings of the people and explain to them the
Government’s point of view, based on their understanding of the
mysterious ways of the new rulers. Their aim was to cooperate with the
British bureaucracy in promoting mutual interests; their purpose was to
supplement the governmental channel of information to help efficient
and just administration. One of the Ieading Shetias even contended that
Indians deserved no greater degree of government patronage and
privileges than those they already possessed’’ .
Undeterred by the position of leading shetias to the wording of the
Association’s petition to Parliament, Bhau Dhaji, along Naoroji Furdunji,
in their capacity as Secretaries of the Association, were determined to
express their views on political needs of India in plain, unmistakable
Language. Hence, they sent a petition to the Parliament, more or less
on the lines of the Association of Calcutta and Madras in 1853. The
major points covered in the petition were :
a) The difficulty experienced by Indians on account of the dual
control and the extreme centralisation of the Government of India. As a
result, the petition pointed out, both the Government of the Presidencies
and the Government of the Governor General of India, were “unequal to
the efficient discharge of its (their) duties and that nothing but the
impenetrable veil of secrecy with which even its most trivial acts are
covered.
b) The administration was very costly; most members of the Council
were selected by patronage rather than on grounds of merit. The
members “have no specific duties to discharge and little or no
responsibility as things may always be outvoted by the Governor.
c) The petition drew the Parliament attention to the fact that extreme
secrecy under which the Government functioned was engendering and
perpetuating “amongst the young servant of the Government an illiberal
and despotic tone.”  Moreover, the existing system of Government was
prompting tendencies of racial prejudices and carelessness towards
the welfare of all by discouraging all schemes of improvement emanating
from independent’ and disinterested sources.
Hence, the Association’s petition suggested reform of the Indian
Civil Service, of the Courts of the East India Company of the Legal
system, and of the Executive Government, by associating” some
prominent persons, trained and experienced in the public offices of
England who can bring to the consideration of public affairs a more
extended knowledge and wider views than are to be expected from the
European gentlemen who have passed all their days from boyhood in
the bad system of the country and know no other by which to compare
and improve them.
Page 5


INSTITUTIONAL NATIONALISM
INTRODUCTION :
Maharashtra had been politically active since the seventeenth
century . The Deccan or “desh” (Poona, Pandharpur and Nasik) was both
the cultural and political nerve centre of the region. However. non-
availability of education to the masses of people, its limited range, and
its, emphasis on religious and philosophical learning, prevented the
spread of political knowledge to the common people. Consequently,
though the Brahmins were politically alert, the masses remained more
or less indifferent or inactive politically, even after the Maratha territories
passed under the British. It was only after the middle of the ninetieth
century that political activities began in Poona.
In the City of Bombay, the political awakening may be traced to
the early nineteenth century. In 1841, Bhaskar Pandurang T arkhadkar
made a scathing attack on the British imperial policies. In 1848-49,
“Lokahitawadi” Gopal Hari Deshmukh also wrote articles in a well known
Marathi paper, the ‘Prabhakar’, severely criticising British imperialism.
These developments ultimately resulted in the foundation of the first
political association in Bombay City in 1852. It was called the Bombay
Association.
10.2  THE BOMBAY ASSOCIATION :
The first attempt at organized political activity in Bombay was
initiated by the merchants or “shetias”. Unlike the other classes, the
“shetias” were not bound by ties of caste but by ties of common interests,
life style and more generally, by common status. Men belonging to
different castes and religions had come together in the course of trading
ventures as partners. As their ventures prospered, they increasingly
identified themselves with one another as a distinct group - an elite group
with distinct economic and perhaps even class interests. They also had
a distinct sense of their own public position and considered themselves
as natural leaders of Indians in Bombay.
Their “early battles” were to gain access to local positions of power
for themselves within the British controlled administrative system. The
Government soon accepted them as representative of the people. They
constituted the pool from which the Government drew for service on a
variety of official and non-official public bodies.
By the 1840s, the City of Bombay also saw the emergence of a
new class of English educated young men, the products of Elphinstone
Institution. These young men had a sense of identity had a common
sense of purpose. They had command of some instruments with which
to express common view and work for common ends. Moreover by 1850,
they had begun to collaborate with the “shetias” to bring about social
reforms in their respective communities. More significant was their
collaboration in the movement for political reform. Known as the
“intelligentsia” the politically educated and conscious young men began
to work together with the “shetias” in secular causes.
By the 1850s, religious excitement, racial estrangement, economic
and political discontent was gripping different part of India. Besides, in
Bombay, Calcutta and Madras education was growing steadily and
enlightened public opinion was fast growing among a small but vocal
section of Indians.  Moverover, there was an increasing unification of
the country. It was under this scenario that the renewal of the East India
Company’s Charter was approaching provoking a flurry of political activity
in the country.  Already, in Calcutta the British India Association had
been formed (in 1851) and in Poona a society called the Deccan Sabha
had been established (in January 1852).  But leaders of the Bombay
city remained immersed in their own concerns.
It was left to a handful of the educated men to promote the idea
that Bombay required its own political associations to ensure that
Bombay’s interests were properly looked after. Naoroji Fardunji, Narayan
Dinanathji, Dr. Bhau Daji and Dadabhai Naoroji were among the most
active of the “intelligentsia”.  But it was obvious that nothing could be
done without the assistance of the shetias. Finally they succeeded in
enlisting the support of some leading shetias like Kharsetji Nasarvanji
Kama and Jagannath Shankarshet. Thus, on 26th August 1852, the
Bombay Association was inaugurated. Most of its members were
Bombay’s leading shetias or merchants. While Shankarshet became
its President, Bhau Dhaji and Vinayakrao Jagannathji took over as the
Secretaries of the Association.
Soon after its formation, the intelligentsia collected and
disseminated information which would enlighten the British rulers
concerning the real wants of the people of India.  The intelligentsia carried
out these activities behind the scene, allowing the shetias to act as the
leaders of the Association. The Association prepared a petition, drafted
by Bhau Daji, for presenting to the British Parliament.  Among other
things, it contained complaints against the Judicial administration of the
East India Company’s Indian rulers and its police force.  It also contained
suggestion regarding measures for the spread of vernacular education
and the development of Indian culture.
The first draft of the petition was not approved by some leading
shetias who feared that they might lose the favour of the British capitalists.
The second. modified petition, also did not find favour with them. Hence
Bhau Daji resigned his post of Secretary of the Association. This had
the effect of dividing the members of the Association between the
capitalists and the intelligentsia. In 1856 the Association  described
itself as comprising men “mostly possessed of considerable property,
and all deeply interested in the efficiency of those Departments of the
Government which are charged with the preservation of order, the
protection of life and property and the vindication of Law”.
In general, the attitude of the Association towards the British Raj
was one of subservience. Many of its members paid tributes to the ‘Raj
for the liberty and prosperity enjoyed by Indians under the British.
Therefore, there was no question of the Association working against or
in opposition to the British Government they would, as Christirre Dobbin
observes, ‘‘rather mediate, tender advice to the Government based on
real knowledge of the feelings of the people and explain to them the
Government’s point of view, based on their understanding of the
mysterious ways of the new rulers. Their aim was to cooperate with the
British bureaucracy in promoting mutual interests; their purpose was to
supplement the governmental channel of information to help efficient
and just administration. One of the Ieading Shetias even contended that
Indians deserved no greater degree of government patronage and
privileges than those they already possessed’’ .
Undeterred by the position of leading shetias to the wording of the
Association’s petition to Parliament, Bhau Dhaji, along Naoroji Furdunji,
in their capacity as Secretaries of the Association, were determined to
express their views on political needs of India in plain, unmistakable
Language. Hence, they sent a petition to the Parliament, more or less
on the lines of the Association of Calcutta and Madras in 1853. The
major points covered in the petition were :
a) The difficulty experienced by Indians on account of the dual
control and the extreme centralisation of the Government of India. As a
result, the petition pointed out, both the Government of the Presidencies
and the Government of the Governor General of India, were “unequal to
the efficient discharge of its (their) duties and that nothing but the
impenetrable veil of secrecy with which even its most trivial acts are
covered.
b) The administration was very costly; most members of the Council
were selected by patronage rather than on grounds of merit. The
members “have no specific duties to discharge and little or no
responsibility as things may always be outvoted by the Governor.
c) The petition drew the Parliament attention to the fact that extreme
secrecy under which the Government functioned was engendering and
perpetuating “amongst the young servant of the Government an illiberal
and despotic tone.”  Moreover, the existing system of Government was
prompting tendencies of racial prejudices and carelessness towards
the welfare of all by discouraging all schemes of improvement emanating
from independent’ and disinterested sources.
Hence, the Association’s petition suggested reform of the Indian
Civil Service, of the Courts of the East India Company of the Legal
system, and of the Executive Government, by associating” some
prominent persons, trained and experienced in the public offices of
England who can bring to the consideration of public affairs a more
extended knowledge and wider views than are to be expected from the
European gentlemen who have passed all their days from boyhood in
the bad system of the country and know no other by which to compare
and improve them.
The petition demanded, among other things, an improved system
of education and more facilities to get education in India. It asked for the
extension of public work to encourage production. It also asked for the
association of Indians with the legislation concerning India. In another
petition. the Bombay Association delay with the desirability of appointing
Indians to the Governor’s Councils and of abolishing the distinction
between the Covenanted and Uncovenanted Civil services.
However, it is worth remembering that the leaders of the
Association had full faith in the British Government particularly in the
Parliament. Even Dadabhai Naoroji and Naoroji Furdunji had no
hesitation in calling the British Government as an “enlightened and liberal
Government.” Dadabhai Naoroji even felt that the British rule had
conferred many benefits of India and therefore he wished for the
permanence of that rule.
The Association did not air any specific interest of the intelligentsia,
and after the resignation of Bhau Daji, it became an exclusively Shetia
affair. Since they were not prepared to do or say anything that might
antagonize the Englishmen in the Government and outside of it, the
Association’s meeting became infrequent. Therefore, in 1861 Naoroji
Furdunji resigned from the Association in sheer disgust. Thereafter, the
Association became politically inactive. The Bombay Share Market
Crash of early 1865 brought almost all political activities in the city to a
halt.
In 1867, the Bombay Association was revived with Naoroji Furdunji
as its Secretary. A majority of its 87 members were Shetias. The revived
association carried on its activities by holding public meetings. In its
first public meeting held in March 1868, the Bombay Association
demanded holding of examinations of the Civil Services simultaneously
in England and India and urged the Government to raise the age limit of
Indians to participate in such competitive examinations.
In 1869, Dr. R.G.Bhandarkar, M.G.Ranade and some other
prominent public personalities of Bombay joined the Association. The
unsatisfactory state of India’s financial affairs since the “Great Revolt” of
1857 provided a general platform on which a variety of interests could
converge. The Income Tax Act of 1870 brought the intelligentsia and
shetias  together on a common platform against the Act. The meeting
was attended by more than two thousand shetias, stock-brokers, besides
the members of the Association. In the course of the meeting the leading
shetias like Sir Jamshedji Jijibboy and V. Shankarshet advised the
Government to consult public opinion before pushing through important
measures like the Income T ax Bill. Others like N.V . Dabholkar attacked
the Government for its excessive military spending. Dabholkar went to
the extent of questioning the “wisdom of English institutions of India”