PERSPECTIVES ON NATIONAL MOVEMENT

SYLLABUS: liberal, socialist, Marxist, Radical Humanist and Dalit

INTRODUCTION

Indian National Movement was a grand and prolonged struggle. It was the main ideological tool used
for:
A. Anti imperialist struggle
B. Establishing national unity

THEORITICAL EXPOSITIONS OF THE CONCEPT OF NATION AND NATIONALISM

“It is hard to think of any political phenomenon which remains so puzzling and about which there is
less analytic consensus. No widely accepted definition exists. No one has been able to demonstrate
decisively either its modernity or its antiquity....[any collection of writings on nationalism] finds the
authors more often with their backs to one another, staring out at different, obscure horizons”,
(Benedict Anderson, “Introduction” in Gopal Balakrishnan, Mapping the Nation)

Nationalism has been one of the most powerful political ideology, bringing different communities at
different times under the spell of nationalism.

ORIGIN OF THE IDEOLOGY OF NATIONALISM

Toward the beginning of modern age in Europe, small local communities started getting merged into
large homogenous communities. The basis of new communities was the new set of ties, new form of
solidarity which was anonymous, impersonal, unfamiliar started taking the shape as “new
imagination”.

Eric Hobsbawm used the concept of “Invented Traditions” and Benedict Anderson in his book titled
“Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism” calls nationalism as
“imagined communities”.

WHAT IS INVENTED TRADITION?

The idea of “Invented Tradition” carries the following connotation:

1) Nationalists tend to use and invoke the past and traditions as a legitimizing device to validate their
nationalist projects.
2) They also claim legitimacy for their nation by claiming its presence in the past, history and traditions,
or as a continuation from the past.

3) In such a projection, the tradition is not presented as it was, but rather it is invented or
manufactured. The invention of the tradition is done in such a manner to as to support nationalist
claims. For example - Jinnah could justify his Muslim nation, only by asserting that there had been no
interaction between Hindus and Muslims and hence a Muslim nation existed since a long time in Indian
history. In this way, antiquity and tradition were being used to provide legitimacy for a fully modern
‘Muslim nation’. The tradition was not being invoked as it was; it was being tailored and projected in a
manner so as to justify and legitimize the Muslim nation.

Ernest Gellner : “Nationalism is primarily a political principle, which holds that the political and the
national unit should be congruent. The nations laid the claims to have state of their own”.

DEFINING NATION

Gellner identified two attributes that could form part of generic definition of nation.

1. CULTURE – two persons think that they belong to same nation because they share the same culture

2. WILL- two persons belong to same nation if and only if they recognize each other as belonging to
same nation

In his book “NATIONS AND NATIONALISM”, Gellner suggested that nations are products of nationalism
and not the other way around. According to him, nationalism is the product of industrialization,
modernization.

Ernest Renan, a French scholar, rejected both the racial/biological as well as the natural definitions of
nation. Instead he put forward a voluntaristic definition of nation, based on ‘will, memory and
consciousnesses’. This definition had two major characteristics:

1) It did not see nations as an apriori reality, existing in a natural kind of way. Instead it saw nations as
being formed through the forces of history.

2) It also rejected the notion that nations were formed by natural boundaries such as rivers, mountains
and oceans. Instead they were formed by subjective factors such as will and consciousness.

In his famous speech on nations, delivered in 1882, Renan said: “Nations are not something eternal.
They have begun; they will end. They will be replaced in all probability, by a European confederation.
Stalin: “A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of, formed on the basis of a common
language, territory, economic life and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.” This
definition laid down five main features that would give us a clue to nations: historic continuity, common
language, territory, common grid of economic life and a common culture.

Tom Nairn, “The Break-up of Britain: Crisis and Neo- Nationalism”: Nationalism is not always the
product of endogenous factors; it can also be shaped by external or exogenous factors.

CULTURAL NATIONALISM
German nationalist of the eighteenth century, Johann Herder proclaimed that the nation transcends all
other elements of social differentiation. For Herder, nationality was of overriding political importance
when compared to narrow sectional interests. Recognizing that we are all in it together, Herder believed
that we should reject those ideologies based upon sectional appeal (notably socialism in relation to
social class). In his words “there is only one class in the state, the volk, and the King belongs to this
class as well as the peasant.”Johann Herder was impressed by the tribalism of the nation and asserted
that the cultural nation is the true basis of the community and identity. In doing so, he opposed the
Enlightenment view that the political community is a construct made up of all those who are subject to a
sovereign power arising from a social contract. An artificial construct between the state and the
individual was a false notion dreamt up by idealistic dreamers. As with all conservative figures, he was
strongly opposed to abstract notions.
Herder also claimed that a nation was characterized by elements such as tradition, education, language
and inclination. Along with Wilhelm von Humboldt, Johann Herder argued that language determines
thought and that language and cultural traditions are the ties that create a nation. This extends towards
folklore, dance, music and art. Herder’s ideas later inspired Nazis.

INDIAN NATIONALISM

WHETHER NATIONALISM IN COLONIES IS A DERIVATIVE DISCOURSE?

In a celebrated work, Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson, it has been argued that the idea of
the nation and nation-state in its modular form developed in France after the Revolution of 1789. It then
spread across the globe with the aid of print capitalism and elites promoting national languages and
sometimes creating national languages along the way.

Ashish Nandy : Indian nationalism as a response of western nationalism

C.A BAYLY : “Indian nationalism was built on preexisting sense of territoriality, a traditional patriotism
rationalized by indigenous ideas of public morality and ethical government.

PARTHA CHATTERJEE belongs to the subaltern school of historiography. He considers nationalism in

colonies as “different yet derivative discourse”. In his book “Nationalist thought and colonial world; a
nationalist discourse” he suggests that the nationalist ethos in colonies have not only been heavily
influenced by the western notions but also reflect ambivalent approach. Nationalism shares thematic
similarities with the western form. It accepts hegemony of west. However, reflects problematic
approach also calling for practices to end colonialism.

According to him, nationalism has evolved in three stages:

1. Moment of Departure: Reflected in Bankim Chandra Chatterjee: it means nationalist consciousness
was constructed through the hegemonising the influence of post enlightenment rationalistic thought
2. Moment of Maneuver: Gandhian stage: Gandhi has mobilized masses in the support of his
movements.
3. Moment of Arrival: Nehruvian approach: when colonial state embraced the western model

In his other book “NATION AND ITS FRAGMENTS” he argues, that there were two domains:
1. Material domain: the outer world
2. Spiritual domain: the inner world

Intelligentsia used both domains. Thus according to him, Indian nationalism represents an ambivalent
character as it is indebted to both the western (materialistic/ scientific) tradition and the Indian
(spiritual) tradition.

Partha Chatterjee has critiqued this derivative discourse of nationalism. According to him, nationalist
ideas in India developed in the private and more spiritual domain shielded from the dominant western
discourse in the public sphere. The ‘construction’ of the imagined community has also been questioned.
Elements of ethnicity or race cannot be the products of shared imagination alone.

COLONIAL PERSPECTIVE

JOHN STRACHEY
John Strachey, wrote in his book, India: Its Administration and Progress (1888): “This is the first and
most essential thing to learn about India – that there is not and never was an India or even any country
of India, possessing according to European ideas, any sort of unity, physical, political, social or religious:
no Indian nation, no ‘people of India’, of which we hear so much.”

JOHN SEELEY
 John Seeley wrote in his book, The Expansion of England (1883): “The notion that India is a nationality
rests upon that vulgar error which political science principally aims at eradication. India is not a political
name, but only a geographical expression like Europe or Africa. It does not mark the territory of a nation
and a language, but the territories of many nations and many languages.”
It was broadly in these terms that the inherent impossibility of the Indian nation was highlighted. India
was referred to as “a mere geographical expression”.

The British colonial discourses on India emphasized India’s cultural, linguistic and religious diversity and
looked upon it as a barrier to the development of Indian nationhood.The colonialist paradigm on Indian
history was given a mature form during the nineteenth century. Beginning with James Mill’s History of
India, the colonialist view could be found in the works of many English historians. Mountstuart
Elphinstone, Henry Elliot and John Dowson, W.W. Hunter, and Vincent Smith were some important
historians who provided overarching interpretations of Indian history. The colonialist view rejected the
idea of India as a nation. The diversity and disunity of India were always emphasized by the colonialist
thinkers as justification for the colonial rule which was considered to have united it. Right since early
days of colonial rule, India was depicted as a land of hostile and warring units. W.W. Hunter, Herbert
Risley and many others emphatically attempted to prove it by segregating and classifying the country in
innumerable tribes and castes. When the Indian national movement began emerging in the late
nineteenth century and matured during the twentieth century, the famous British historians such a John
Strachey and John Seeley asserted that it was impossible to forge a nation in India because it has never
had the characteristics of a nation nor it could ever have it in future. According to them, India was a
conglomeration of different and often antagonistic religious, ethnic, linguistic and regional groups which
could never be welded into a nation.

With the rise of the nationalist movement and the nationalist assertion of the existence of an Indian
nation, it became even more necessary for the colonialist ideologues and historians to counter it. This
they did by downgrading it as an agitation by some selfish members of the middle classes or the Bengali
Babus. The strongest statement in this regard was provided by Valentine Chirol who, in his Indian
Unrest (1910), asserted that India was a ‘mere geographical expression’, and even this geography was
forged by the British. In his view, India was a ‘variegated jumble of races and peoples, castes and creeds’
which could never evolve into a nation, and which, in fact, is ‘an antithesis to all that the word
“national” implies’. In effect, India was ‘inhabited by a great variety of nation’, ‘there are far more
absolutely distinct languages spoken in India than in Europe’, and ‘there are far more profound racial
differences between the Maharatta and the Bengalee than between the German and the Portuguese’. It
was only the British rule which ‘prevents these ancient divisions from breaking out once more into open
and sanguinary strife’. Thus, for him, the term ‘India’ was no more than a geographic creation by the
British for administrative purposes.

NATIONALIST PERSPECTIVE
LIBERAL PERSPECTIVE

One way of reacting to these statements would have been to go back to the mythical unity of Indian
people in the past. But the majority of Indian intellectuals refrained from replying to the ‘no nation’
charge with an ‘always a nation’ assertion. They did not go over to the other extreme. Bipan Chandra
writes: “The initiators of the Indian National Movement, the 19th century intellectuals, did not deny the
British assertion that India was not yet a nation. They readily accepted that India was not yet a formed
nation despite common history, geography and the elements of a common culture. They also accepted
that nation and nationalism had not existed in India in the past. They acknowledged the incoherence of
India as also the existence of multiplicity of identities in it. They also accepted that nation was not a
natural or inevitable phenomenon but was a historical creation. But they denied that India could not
become a nation. They answered the imperialist taunts by claiming that historical forces were gradually
bringing the Indian people together and that India had now entered the process of becoming a nation.
India, they said, was a nation-in-the making, which was the title of Surendranath Banerjee’s
autobiography.” And so, one important feature of the thinking of the 19th century Indian thinkers was
to make a distinction between nation and civilization and highlight the novelty of the Indian nation. They
argued that India was old civilization, but a new nation. Even those leaders, who highlighted the
superiority of Indian civilization and glorified India’s past, recognized the modernity of the Indian nation.

Bipan Chandra argues, the ‘liberal nationalist writers tend on the whole to base themselves on the Whig
view of history and see the national movement as a result of the spread and realization of the idea or
spirit of nationalism’.

Liberals did not consider India as a formed nation in modern times. They, in line with Surendranath
Banerjea, regarded India as ‘a nation-in-the-making’. According to them, the task of the national
movement was to unite Indians from various regions and different walks of life into a single nation
based on their common grievances. R.C. Majumdar argued that ‘the conception of India as a common
motherland was still in the realm of fancy. There was no India as it is understood today. There were
Bengalis, Hindustanis, Marathas, Sikhs, etc. but no Indian, at the beginning of the nineteenth century’.
He thought that it was the movements launched by the Congress which ‘gave reality to the ideal of
Indian unity’. Tara Chand also thought that creation of an Indian nation was a recent phenomenon
which emerged due to ‘the combined economic and political change’

CULTURAL NATIONALISM

Radha Kumud Mookerji, in his Fundamental Unity of India (1914) and many other works, most
famously put forward the idea that India had been great and unified since ancient times. According to
him, there had existed a sense of geographical unity of India since early times, and even the idea of
nationalism was already present in early India. Har Bilas Sarda declared that ‘the ancient Hindus were
the greatest nation that has yet flourished in the earth’ . Lajpat Rai asserted in his Young India that
‘fundamentally India has been a nation for the last 2,000 years’

K.P. Jayaswal, in his Hindu Polity , stated that India possessed everything which modern Britain could
claim: big empires, enduring and successful republics, representative elective institutions, strong
parliaments, a constitutional monarchy, and supremacy of Law above the executive authority.

One of the prominent philosophers of cultural nationalist perspective was Aurobindo Ghosh who held
that India was always a nation. Nation has a spirit and spirit never dies.(Refer notes)

MARXIST INTERPRETATION

The Marxist paradigm is based on the analysis of the modes of production and classes. The Marxist
historians perceive that there was a basic contradiction between imperialism and the Indian society. But
they also do not ignore the class-contradiction within the Indian society. They try to explain these
processes with reference to the economic changes under colonialism. And finally, they believe that India
was not always a nation but rather a nation which was being created in modern times in which the
nationalist movement had an important role to play.

M N ROY In his book, India in Transition (1922), he argued that this movement had developed at a
certain juncture in the development of international capitalism. He was of the opinion that India was
moving towards capitalism and had already come within the ambit of global capitalism. Thus, the
dominant classes in India were not feudal lords but the bourgeoisie. In the context of feudal dominance,
the emerging national bourgeoisie is often revolutionary. However, in India, since feudalism was
approaching its end, the bourgeoisie had turned conservative in nature and wanted to preserve the
existing order. In this situation, only the workers would be revolutionary. On the issue of Indian
nationalism, Roy believed that it was the political ideology of native capitalism which developed in late
nineteenth and early twentieth century in the shadow of imperialism. It matured along with the growth
of native capital after the First World War. This period also witnessed the rise of the Indian National
Congress. Thus, for Roy, Indian national movement represented the ‘political ideology and aspiration of
a youthful bourgeoisie’.

R.P. Dutt formulated the most influential Marxist interpretation of Indian nationalism in his famous
book India Today (1947). Dutt held that the revolt of 1857 ‘was in its essential character and dominant
leadership the revolt of the old conservative and feudal forces and dethroned potentates’. Thus it is only
from the last quarter of the 19th century that Dutt traced the beginning of the Indian national
movement. The Indian National Congress, established in 1885, was the main organisation of this
movement. Dutt believed that although the previous activities of the Indian middle classes formed the
background, the Congress came into existence ‘through the initiative and under the guidance of direct
British governmental policy, on a plan secretly pre-arranged with the Viceroy as an intended weapon for
safeguarding British rule against the rising forces of popular unrest and anti-British feeling.’ However,
Dutt argues that, owing to pressure of popular nationalist feelings, the Congress slowly abandoned its
loyalist character and adopted a national role. Applying the Marxist class analysis to the study of Indian
nationalism, he argues that the class base of the Congress and the national movement changed over the
period. Thus, in the initial years, Indian nationalism represented ‘only big bourgeoisie – the progressive
elements among the landowners, the new industrial bourgeoisie and the well-to-do intellectual
elements’. Later, in the years preceding the First World War, the urban petty bourgeois class became
more influential. After the War, the Indian masses – peasantry and the industrial working classes – made
their presence felt.

However, Dutt argues, the leadership remained in the hands of the propertied classes who remained
most influential in the Congress. These elements prevented any radicalisation of the movement which
could become dangerous to their own interests. He is particularly harsh on Gandhi whom he castigates
as the ‘the mascot of the bourgeoisie’. He asserts that the Non-cooperation Movement was withdrawn
because the masses were becoming too militant and a threat to the propertied classes within and
outside the Congress. The Civil Disobedience Movement met with a similar fate when it was ‘suddenly
and mysteriously called off at the moment when it was reaching its height’ in 1932. According to Dutt,
the Congress had a ‘twofold character’ which persisted throughout its history. It was because of the very
nature of the Indian bourgeoisie. On the one hand, its contradictions with imperialism prompted it to
lead the people’s movement against colonial government. But, on the other hand, its fear of a militant
movement, which could jeopardise its interests and privileges, drew it back into co-operation with
imperialism. It, therefore, played a vacillating role throughout the period of the national movement.
Dutt’s work proved to be a trendsetter in Marxist historiography on Indian national movement. The
latter works of the Marxist historians were in some measures influenced by it.

A.R. Desai’s Social Background of Indian Nationalism (1948) : It is another thoroughgoing account of
the colonial period and the rise of nationalism from a Marxist perspective. According to Desai, the Indian
national movement developed through five phases. Each phase was based on particular social classes
which supported and sustained it.

1. First phase, initiated by intelligentsia who was product of modern system of education. Eg., raja
rammohan roy

2. Second phase, formation of Indian national congress till 1905: it represent the interest of new
bourgeoisie (middle class, that was product was English education, Industries and trade)

3. Third phase, from Swadesi movement till 1918: relatively broader which includes lower middle class

4. Fourth phase: from Rowlatt satyagraha till civil disobedience movement: substantial increase in the
social base including the masses

By this time, the leadership of congress came under those who had strong influence of the capitalist
class. Eg., Gandhi
5. Fifth phase, disenchantment with Gandhi started, rise of congress socialist. Rise of peasants, workers,
depressed classes and various linguistic nationalities outside the congress

Bipan , in his very first book, The Rise and Growth of Economic Nationalism in India (1966), it is ‘sheer
crude mechanical materialism’ to define the intellectuals only on the basis of their origins in particular
classes or groups. Therefore, the Indian nationalist leaders, as intellectuals, were acting above the
interests of the narrow class or group they were born in. . By abandoning the instrumentalist approach
espoused by Dutt and Desai, Bipan Chandra began a major change in perspective in the Marxist
historiography of the Indian national movement. However, despite this change in perspective, Bipan
Chandra remained anchored to several points of the paradigm developed by R.P. Dutt. In an essay,
‘Elements of Continuity and Change in the Early Nationalist Activity’, there were many points where his
arguments resembled those of Dutt and Desai.

On the basis of his analysis of the social base, the ideology, and the strategy of political struggle, Bipan
Chandra concluded that the nationalist movement as represented by the Congress was ‘a bourgeois
democratic movement, that is, it represented the interests of all classes and segments of Indian society
vis-à-vis imperialism but under the hegemony of the industrial bourgeoisie’. This character remained
constant throughout its entire history from inception to 1947. Even during the Gandhian phase, there
was no change. In fact, according to Bipan Chandra, ‘the hegemony of the bourgeoisie over the national
movement was, if anything, even more firmly clamped down in the Gandhian era than before’.
However, in a later book, India’s Struggle for Independence, 1857-1947 (1988), Bipan Chandra has
decisively moved away from the views of Dutt and Desai on Indian national movement. Most of the
propositions regarding the Indian National Congress developed in the earlier quoted article are now
abandoned. The Congress strategy is no longer seen in terms of pressure-compromise-pressure. It is
now viewed in terms of Gramscian ‘war of position’ whereby a prolonged struggle is waged for the
attainment of goal. As Bipan Chandra puts it: ‘The Indian national movement … is the only movement
where the broadly Gramscian theoretical perspective of a war of position was successfully practised;
where state power was not seized in a single historical moment of revolution, but through prolonged
popular struggle on a moral, political and ideological level; where reserves of counter-hegemony were
built up over the years through progressive stages; where the phases of struggle alternated with
“passive” phases.’ This struggle was not violent because the nationalist leaders were concerned with
fighting against imperialism as well as welding India into a nation. In the course of a protracted struggle
fought at both intellectual and political levels, the nationalist leaders wished to show that the colonial
rule was not beneficial to the Indian people nor was it invincible. The Gandhian non-violence also is now
reinterpreted. Thus, it was not considered as ‘a mere dogma of Gandhiji nor was it dictated by the
interests of the propertied classes. It was an essential part of a movement whose strategy involved the
waging of a hegemonic struggle based on a mass movement which mobilized the people to the widest
possible extent.’ The national movement was now conceived as an all-class movement which provided
space and opportunity for any class to build its hegemony. Moreover, the main party, the Congress, is
now regarded not as a party but a movement. In this way, Bipan Chandra now makes a clear break from
the conventional Marxist interpretation of the Indian national movement.
Sumit Sarkar presents another famous Marxist interpretation of the national movement which is at
variance with and critical of Dutt-Desai view. In his first book, The Swadeshi Movement in Bengal, 1903-
1908 (1973), he terms it as a ‘simplistic version of the Marxian class-approach’.

According to him, the actions of the nationalist leaders could be better understood by using Trotsky’s
concept of ‘substitutism’ whereby the intelligentsia acts ‘repeatedly as a kind of proxy for as-yet passive
social forces with which it had little organic connection’. He also uses Gramscian categories of
‘traditional’ and ‘organic’ intellectuals. According to Antonio Gramsci, the famous Italian Marxist activist
and thinker, the ‘organic’ intellectuals participate directly in the production process and have direct links
with the people whom they lead. The ‘traditional’ intellectuals, on the other hand, are not directly
connected with either the production-process or the people. However, they become leaders of
particular classes by ideologically assuming the responsibility of those classes.

They were not organic intellectuals who generally come from the same class they lead, rather they were
traditional intellectuals. i.e., it was not directly linked to production process or people.

He held that Gandhi was ‘no mere bourgeois tool in any simplistic or mechanical sense’ and that he can
hardly be considered as ‘a puppet’ in the hands of the capitalists. He, however, insists that the Gandhian
leadership had ‘a certain coincidence of aims with Indian business interests at specific points’ and ‘an
occasional significant coincidence of subjective attitudes and inhibitions with bourgeois interests’.

Conclusion :

The Marxist perspective on Indian nationalism is, therefore, is informed by a class approach
related to politics and ideology. They were critical of both colonialist as well as nationalists.

CAMBRIDGE SCHOOL

The ‘Cambridge view’ was offered as an alternative explanation of the Indian nationalism. It sought to
completely debunk the Indian national movement against the colonial rule led by leaders who had put
their faith in the nationalist ideology. While both the nationalist and Marxist historians argued that
Indian nationalism evolved as a result of the contradiction between Indian people and imperialism, the
historians associated with the Cambridge School asserted that there was no real contradiction between
imperialism and the Indian people and the central contradiction lay among the Indians themselves. The
Cambridge School had its precursor in the writings of John Gallagher and Ronald Robinson .

Anil Seal, in his early work on India titled The Emergence of Indian Nationalism (1968), argued that it
was the English education which created a new middle class which clamoured for political
representation. The British obliged them by offering posts in various institutions, such as universities,
and seats in municipal councils and later in provincial assemblies. However, the claimants were many
while the posts were few. This led to intense rivalry among the elite, particularly at regional levels
because that is where the new avenues were open. Seal asserted that there was no conflict between the
British and the Indians or between imperialist rule and the Indian people. Instead, the main
contradiction was among the Indians.

In opposition to the Marxist historians, Seal argued that Indian nationalism was not the product of ‘any
class demand or as the consequence of any sharp changes in the structure of the economy’. He asserted
that the emergence and growth of Indian nationalism can be comprehended by ‘a conceptual system
based on elites, rather than on classes’. During the colonial era, there was intense competition among
the elites for posts and positions offered by colonial regime. But such rivalries took place ‘between caste
and caste, community and community, not between class and class’. Most of these mobilisations were
horizontal, based on prescriptive identities such as caste and religion. In this sense, the Indian
nationalism ‘did not square with…the genuine nationalisms of nineteenth-century Europe’.

Conclusion

According to the Cambridge historians, the British colonial government was the first and the most
important motor of change in Indian subcontinent. The emergence and growth of Indian nationalist
movement took place within the constitutional, administrative and political matrix created by it.

SUBALTERN SCHOOL

In his essay ‘The Prose of Counter-Insurgency’, Ranajit Guha launched a scathing attack on the existing
peasant and tribal histories in India for considering the peasant rebellions as ‘purely spontaneous and
unpremediated affairs’ and for ignoring the consciousness of the rebels themselves.

According to Guha, they all failed to acknowledge that there existed a parallel subaltern domain of
politics which was not influenced by the elite politics and which possessed an independent, self-
generating dynamics.

Gyanendra Pandey, in ‘Peasant Revolt and Indian Nationalism’, argues that peasant movement in
Awadh arose before and independently of the Non-cooperation movement.

Shahid Amin has criticized the presentation of Gandhi as a mahatma possessing magical powers by
congress.

Sumit Sarkar, in ‘The Conditions and Nature of Subaltern Militancy’, argues that the Non-cooperation
movement in Bengal ‘revealed a picture of masses outstripping leaders…and the popular initiative
eventually alarmed leaders into calling for a halt’.

Partha Chatterjee further carries the subaltern tradition forward.

DALIT PERSPECTIVE
The challenge before the leadership of national movement was to integrate the divergent interests of
different social groups in India in a united movement against the colonial rule.

Dalit intelligentsia at the regional as well as national levels tried to mobilize people belonging to their
social groups in order to assert their social and political rights. Liberation from internal oppression
rather than liberation from the British rule was the desired goal of Dalit intelligentsia.

CONTEXTUALISING DALIT PERSPECTIVE

Dalit in India faced different forms of oppression in the name of caste system irrespective of the
province they belonged. The great revolt of 1857 shook the foundation of the colonial rule and the
British bureaucracy was seriously engaged in devising strategy to prevent any form of discontent in the
local society which may become a threat to the empire. Analyzing the complexities of indigenous
society the colonial authority decided to make use of internal oppression within local society in the
name of caste hierarchy. Along with identification and legitimisation of caste division through official
documentation the colonial government adopted specific measures for the benefit of the socially
oppressed groups.The policy of colonial government to protect the interests of Dalits and the values of
liberty, equality and justice that educated Dalits had learnt from western education gave birth to a new
consciousness among Dalits.

The aspirations of Dalits, independent of mainstream Indian polity, found expression in the writings of
Mahatma Jotiba Phule (1827-1890) who in modern India first raised voice for the liberation of Dalits.
Phule is considered the first ideologue of anti-caste movement in modern India. Re-interpreting Indian
history and mythology he tried to demolish the ideological foundation of Brahmanism which he
considered the key of upper caste hegemony. The journey towards nation building can not be possible
so long the oppression continues in the name of caste hierarchy. In his book Gulamgiri (1873) he
described Brahmans as Aryans who came from outside and subdued the indigenous people who were
Shudras and he gave a call to discard caste. Through his writings and speeches Phule tried to construct
a new history with the help of symbols and local stories situating Dalits in a powerful position delinking
them from the past depicted in the Dharmashastras and itihasa-purana tradition. Given his
understanding of history Phule was a natural critic of nationalism which he equated with another form
of Brahmanism. He made it clear: ‘There cannot be a ‘nation’ worth the name until and unless all the
people of the land of King Bali – such as Shudras and AtiShudras, Bhils (tribals) and fishermen etc.,
become truly educated, and are able to think independently for themselves and are uniformly unified
and emotionally integrated. If a tiny section of the population like the upstart Aryan Brahmins alone
were to found in the ‘National Congress’ who will take any notice of it?’ Phule was critical of the reform
initiatives taken by Brahmo Samaj, Prarthana Samaj, Arya Samaj and others to rationalise Brahmanical
system and strongly argued that without emancipating the oppressed the reform initiatives ensured
National Movement and the Dalits domination of upper castes in other forms. Phule wanted to unite the
‘bahujan samaj’, the Shudras and the Ati-Shudras. Nationalism was seen by him an ideology created by
upper castes to downplay the internal divisions within Indian society.
Phule and Ambedkar in Maharashtra, E. V. Ramaswami Naicker and M. C. Rajah in Tamil Nadu,
Narayana Guru in Kerala, Bhagyareddy Varma in Andhra, Mangu Ram in Punjab, Acchutanand in Uttar
Pradesh, Panchanan Barma, Rasiklal Biswas, Jogen Mandal and others in Bengal challenged the caste-
based discrimination and domination and were critics of the anti-colonial struggle by the upper caste
elites without abolishing internal oppression in Indian society. The new political awakening of Dalits is
reflected in the writings and activities of Dalit intelligentsia of that period. Emancipation and
empowerment of Dalits became the major concern of Dalit intelligentsia which was not in the
immediate agenda of mainstream political leaders whose immediate concern was political liberation
from colonial rule.

NATIONAL MOVEMENT AND INTEGRATION OF DALIT ISSUES

1. In its annual session at Calcutta in 1917 for the first time Indian National Congress passed the
resolution for abolition of untouchability and appealed to the people for removing all disabilities
imposed by custom upon Dalits.
2. Emergence of Gandhi brought a significant change by bringing masses in the mainstream national
movement. Gandhi was particularly concerned of the sufferings of Dalits and made the removal of
untouchability an integral part for national liberation. It is because of Gandhi in the Nagpur Session
(1920), abolition of untouchability was included in the resolution .
3. As president of the Belgaum session of the Congress in 1924 Gandhi said that Hindu Congressmen in
particular should devote greater attention to anti-untouchability movement because the British
government was exploiting Dalits for a political end. In 1924, Gandhi supported the Vaikom
Satyagraha movement organised by the Kerala Congress Committee to secure the rights of
untouchables for using the forbidden roads to the temple.
4. The Congress Working Committee in its meeting at Delhi in 1929 appointed an Anti-untouchability
sub-committee with Madan Mohan Malaviya as its president and Jamnalal Bajaj as the secretary to
ensure Dalits’ rights to enter temples.

POLITICS OF REPRESENTATION

1. M C Rajah And B R Ambedkar demanded separate electorate

2. Britishers choose Ambedkar as a representative
3. M C RAJAH was persuaded by congress and Hindu mahasabha and he agreed for reservation rather
than separate electorate
4. Gandhi kept fast unto death
5. Poona pact- Ambedkar got better deal than what Britishers were offering (Britishers were offering
71 seats to dalits whereas congress offered 148 seats)

VIEWS OF AMBEDKAR

Ambedkar’s book which he wrote in 1945, titled ‘What Congress and Gandhi had done to
Untouchables’, Ambedkar was so much concerned about oppression and exploitation faced by Dalits
that any form of struggle without referring to the abolition of internal oppression had no importance to
him. To Ambedkar, without ensuring equal rights of Dalits political freedom had no meaning. Gaining
political freedom from the British was not adequate to him unless the struggle for freedom ensured the
dignity of life and equal rights to all its citizens. Ambedkar said, ‘the freedom which the governing class
in India was struggling for is freedom that rules the servile classes in India’. He wrote: ‘Words such as
society, nation and country are just amorphous, if not ambiguous, terms….Nation though one word
means many classes. Philosophically it may be possible to consider a nation as a unit but sociologically it
cannot but be regarded as consisting of many classes and the freedom of the nation if it is to be a reality
must vouchsafe the freedom of the different classes comprised in it, particularly those who are treated
as the servile classes.’

‘I am sure, many have felt that if there was any class which deserved to be given special political rights in
order to protect itself against the tyranny of National Movement and the majority under the Swaraj
Constitution it was the Depressed Classes. Dalits Here is a class which is undoubtedly not in a position to
sustain itself in the struggle for existence. The religion, to which they are tied, instead of providing for
them an honourable place, brands them as lepers, not fit for ordinary intercourse. Economically, it is a
class entirely dependent upon the high-caste-Hindus for earning its daily bread with no independent
way of living open to it. Nor are all ways closed by reason of the social prejudices of the Hindus but
there is a definite attempt all throughout the Hindu society to bolt every possible door so as not to allow
the Depressed Classes any opportunity to rise in the scale of life. Indeed it would not be an exaggeration
to say that in every village the caste-Hindus, however divided among themselves, are always in a
standing conspiracy to put down in a merciless manner any attempt on the part of the Depressed
Classes who form a small and scattered body of an ordinary Indian citizen.’

‘We feel that nobody can remove our grievances as well as we can, and we cannot remove them unless
we get political power in our own hands. No share of this political power can evidently come to us so
long as the British government remains as it is. It is only in a Swaraj constitution that we stand any
chance of getting the political power in our own hands, without which we cannot bring salvation to our
people.

Gail Omvedt, [Dalits and the Democratic Revolution]

She has observed that ‘…the Dalit movement and the overall radical anti-caste movements were a
crucial expression of the democratic revolution in India, more consistently democratic – and in the end
more consistently “nationalistic” – than the elite controlled Indian National Congress.

Valerian Rodrigues, [Dalit-Bahujan Discourse]

He argued that ‘irrespective of their other differences, dalit bahujan thinkers conceive the nation as a
good society where its members, considered as individuals or collectivities, respect one another, protect
mutual rights and show concern and solidarity. Self-respecters, therefore, felt that as long as there is the
existence of untouchability, all talk of freedom and self-rule is empty. Periyar argued that the liberation
of the Shudra was contingent on, and would be complete only with the liberation of the Panchama’.

CONCLUSION
To conclude what is important to note in this context is that strong advocacy of Dalit intelligentsia for
giving primacy to their socio-economic and political rights and not to anti-colonial struggle was primarily
rooted in their experiences of living in an unjust society. Their notion of nationhood was based on
abolition of existing inequalities and also having equal rights in every sphere of life. To the mainstream
nationalist leaders uniting Indians against the atrocities of the colonial rule and to compel the British to
leave India was the major goal before the nation.

SOCIALIST PERSPECTIVE
Socialist perspective was inspired by Karl Marx. Initially, the leaders like ACHARYA NARENDRA DEV and
JAYA PRAKASH NARAYAN were more critical of Gandhi, but gradually their approach changed. They
realised that opposition to Gandhi is like a political suicide. They realised that SWARAJ is a loosely
defined concept. It can be moulded towards socialistic orientations. Congress program is open to
include the concerns of the poor’s. There has been a section of leaders within Congress, who had
socialist orientations. Aurobindo Ghosh himself was the first person to question the middle class
character or Indian National Congress. Lala Lajpati Roy was active in worker’s movement. He was the
founding member of All India Trade Union Congress. The young leaders like Nehru, Subhash Chandra
Bose, Pattabhi Sitaramayya has socialist inclinations. Beside above the leaders like Ashok Mehta, Jaya
Prakash Narayan, Ram Manohar Lohia, Achyut Patwardhan were influenced by the Gandhian vision of
SARVODAYA. To understand the socialist perspective, we can give reference to the verse of Acharya
Narendra Dev in his book titled – “Socialism and National Revolution”. He was extremely critical of
Gandhi. He believed that Gandhi’s approach of reconciliation between classes is impractical. He did not
like Gandhi’s overtly religious approach, he did not accept Gandhi’s sharp criticism of modern
civilisation. He did not approve Non-violence as a viable option. Jaya Prakash Narayan: Book: “Why
Socialism?” (1935). He was also more influenced by Marx. He found Gandhian programme utopian. He
alleged that Gandhi is purposefully ignoring the contradictions present in India society. He was
convinced that India needs socialist revolution. Any freedom can be realised only in the atmosphere of
economic equality. However later on his approach towards Gandhi changed. He realised there is no
fundamental opposition between Gandhi and masses. He preferred that socialist should prioritise the
goal of freedom movement, maintain organic links with Indian National Congress, except the leadership
of Gandhi and maintain the ideological difference. Socialists has shown practical wisdom. They were
closer to Lenin’s line of thought rather than M N Roy’s line of thought.

Genesis of the CSP

The first preliminary conference of CSP was held in Patna in May 1934.

Among the voluminous material on the birth and development of the Congress Socialist Party, a
prominent place should be given to a book written by Jaya Prakash Narayan under the title, Why
Socialism. That opened the eyes of a large number of young Congressmen and women who were
grouping towards a new path since they had become frustrated with the utter futility of the
programmes and practices adopted by the rightwing leaders of the Indian National Congress.

“Why Socialism?” became the textbook .

The crux of j P’s book consisted not so much of its advocacy of socialism as the ultimate objective
towards which India should move after attaining freedom, as of its assertion that the ideology of
socialism enables the radical Congressmen to rally the mass of working people in the struggle for
freedom. In other words, socialism was not desirable as the final objective but also the effective method
for the country’s attainment of independence.

The Meerut Thesis

The Congress Socialist Party grew out of the experiences of the last two national struggles. It was
formed at the end of the last civil disobedience movement by such Congressmen as came to believe that
a new orientation of the national movement had become necessary; a redefinition of its objectives and
a revision of its methods. The initiative in this direction could be taken only by those had theoretical
grasp of the forces of our present society. These naturally were those Congressmen who had cone under
the influence of, and had accepted, Marxism socialism. It was natural, therefore, that the organisation
that sprang up to meet the needs of the situation took the description: ‘socialist’. The word ‘Congress’
prefixed to ‘socialist’ only signified the organic relationship –past, present and future- of the
organisation with the national movement.

“The socialist forces that were already inexistence in the country were completely out of touch with
congress and had no influence on the national movement. Therefore, there did not take place, as
otherwise there would have, a fusion of the emerging Congress Socialist Party with the groups
previously existing. Giving the adoption of correct and sensible tactics by all the parties concerned, there
is every-likelihood of such a fusion-taking place at a later stage.

“The immediate task before us is to develop the national movement into a real anti-imperialist
movement-a movement aiming at freedom from the foreign power and the native system of
exploitation. For this it is necessary away its present bourgeois leadership and to bring them under the
leadership of revolutionary socialism. This task can be accomplished only if there is within the Congress
an organised body of Marxian socialists. In other words, our party alone can, in the present conditions,
perform this task. The strengthening and clarification of the anti-imperialist forces in the Congress
depends largely on the strength and activity of our party. For fulfilling the party’s task it will also be
necessary to coordinate all other anti-imperialist forces in the country.

“Consistent with its task, the party should take only an anti-imperialist stand on congress platforms. We
should not in this connection make the mistake of placing a full socialist programme before the
Congress. An anti-imperialist programme should be evolved for this purpose suiting the needs of
workers, peasants and the lower middle classes.
“It being the task of the party to bring the anti-imperialist elements under its ideological influence, it is
necessary for us to be as tactful as possible. We should on no account alienate these elements by
intolerance and impatience. The Congress constructive programme should not be obstructed or
interfered with. It should, be scientifically criticised and exposed.

“In Congress elections, “we should not show keenness to ‘capture’ committees and offices nor should
we form alliances with politically undesirable groups for the purpose.

“This does not mean that the party shall not carry on socialist propaganda from its own platform. It must
continue to do so-and do it more systematically and vigorously.

“It follows that the party’s own programme must be a Marxist one: otherwise, the party will to fulfill its
task and leadership. Marxism alone can guide the anti-imperialist forces to their ultimate destiny. Party
members must, therefore, fully understand the technique of revolution, the theory and practice of the
class struggle the nature of the state and the processes leading the socialist society.” (Emphasis added)

Conference in Faispur

A year after The Meerut Thesis was adopted, the third conference of the CSP was held in Faispur. It
developed some of the ideas contained above and said:

“It is the Congress that we must take as the basis and starting point, and we must attempt to make it an
all-embracing united front against imperialism. The Congress has already succeeded to a extent in
uniting wide forces in the Indian people for the national struggle and remains today the principal
existing mass organisations of diverse elements seeking national liberation…. While the Congress is a
mass organisation, its leadership is predominantly bourgeois. This leadership is unable to develop, while
the framework of its conception and interests, the struggle of the masses to a higher level. At the same
time it should be kept in view that the Congress leadership is no longer undivided. Recently a conscious
left has been forming within the Congress and this development is reflecting itself in the leadership
also…. Our task within the Congress is not only to wean away the anti-imperialist elements from the
bourgeois leadership but also to develop and broaden the Congress so as to transform it into a powerful
anti-imperialist front.”

Such a transformation of the Congress, the Faispur Thesis went on to consolidate the socialist forces.
“These forces are unfortunately still divided. The party from the beginning has stood for unity in the
socialist ranks… Apart from unity or agreement among socialist ranks, it is necessary that the forces of
the left are also consolidated and an under standing developed within its leadership.”

Radical Humanist Perspective

It is associated with M N Roy .M N Roy in his book “India in transition” held that Congress was a
bourgeoisie party . Later on he developed his radical humanist perspective . Radical Humanism as a
perspective is against the idea of nation. It is a cosmopolitan vision . The goal of the mass movement
should be attainment of freedom in the widest sense. He founded radical democratic party . To pursue
the radical humanist vision, he pursued radical humanist movement. Radical humanist movement aimed
at establishing radical democracy. It means party less democracy and moral policies . His radical
democracy stood for
 Abolition of feudalism
 Nationalisation of land
 Nationalisation of industries Protection of rights of minorities
 Compulsory education
 Purification of politics

In 1942, the Radical Democratic Party (RDP) published a book comprised of M.N. Roy’s articles relating
to the Indian freedom movement, India’s role in World War II, and Britain’s policies on India titled
Nationalism, Democracy and Freedom. In a series of articles, which were written over a year, Roy
explicated his views on the formation of a National Government and the need for democratization. He
maintained that although the cause of India’s freedom was very dear to him, it was necessary to support
the Allied powers in the war against fascism.

About the Congress party leaders, he wrote, “Narrow-minded nationalism and spitefulness, born of
impotence and frustration are driving them towards the betrayal of the ideals they are believed to
cherish.” Although Roy supported a national government, he did not want it to be led by the Congress
party. For him it no longer represented the interests of the Indian masses. He advocated for the
formation of a war cabinet composed of men chosen based on individual merit. This body would work
towards concentrating all resources for winning the war. He claimed that the defeat of fascism was a
concern for the welfare of all mankind, which included India. India, too, therefore had to play its role in
the war, and a national government free from party control would be able to take the necessary
decisions in that direction.

Hindu Mahasabha’s perspective :

V. D. Savarkar – Concept of Hindutva

The three essentials of Hindutva in Savarkar's definition were the common nation (rashtra), common
race (jati), and common culture or civilisation (sanskriti).

Muslim League’s perspective :

Jinnah :

Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literary
traditions. They neither intermarry nor eat together, and indeed they belong to two different
civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions……Heroes of one are villains of
other.

TERRITORIAL, PLURALISTIC, NON COERCIVE AND CIVIL

Indian nationalism is seen as territorial rather than ethnic. Anyone living on Indian soil was
considered as a member of the national community.
Indian nationalism is plural as it accommodates the great Indian diversity without treating it as an
obstacle.
It is non coercive because it doesn’t make attempts for homogenization. It is based on idea of
consciousness.