In this essay we will discuss about the national movement in India. After reading this essay you will learn about:- 1. Birth of Nationalism in India 2. Origin of Nationalism in India 3. Causes Responsible for the Birth of Nationalism in India 4. Birth of Indian National Congress 5. Liberal Nationalist Movement 6. Setback to Liberalism 7. Contribution of Liberalism 8. Freedom Struggle under the Extremists (1906-1919).
List of Essays on the National Movement in India
Essay Contents:
- Essay on the Birth of Nationalism in India
- Essay on the Origin of Nationalism in India
- Essay on the Causes Responsible for the Birth of Nationalism in India
- Essay on the Birth of Indian National Congress
- Essay on the Liberal Nationalist Movement
- Essay on the Setback to Liberalism
- Essay on the Contribution of Liberalism
- Essay on Freedom Struggle under the Extremists (1906-1919)
Essay # 1. Birth of Nationalism in India:
East India Company came to India as trading body but found a suitable atmosphere to have its foothold in the country. After the death of Aurangzeb in 1707 A.D., there was no central government in India and the whole country was parceled out in small states, each claiming to be independent of the other.
Each small state, though ill-equipped and quite incapable of defending itself, was engaged in constant wars with the other, thus, wasting its energies and resources in internal feuds and providing every greedy eye a temptation to take advantage of the situation. Out of this situation keen to take advantage were the Portuguese, the French and the East India Company.
In the struggle for supremacy that followed the East India Company could practically wipe out both other contenders for power, namely, the French and Portuguese and ultimately became supreme power in India. One after the other, the Company defeated weak princely states, got diwani and other rights and fortified its territories.
As the territories increased with that the revenues and trade too increased and both the high officers and petty servants of the Company began to mint money by illegal means and methods. British armies tried to suppress every rising in the country.
Unfortunately the Company had no means of knowing the aspirations and wishes of the people, who were deliberately not associated in law making process and running of administration of their own country.
There was brewing and growing discontentment among the masses who were being ruthlessly exploited and economically reduced to poverty. This found an organised expression in the Rising of India in 1857, though characterised by British rulers as a sepoy rising organised by disgruntled and discontented princes. It was, however, definitely an expression of disapproval of East India Company’s rule in India.
But unfortunately the rising had no leadership and no regular programme of action. Had there been an organised forum and well chalked out programme, perhaps there would have been different shape of the whole movement. But all the more it sowed the seeds of that great national movement, which followed after few decades.
It was as a result of this partially organised movement with deep seeded discontentment that Company had to wind up from India and India’s administration was transferred from Company to the Crown.
Take over from the Company:
There was much hope that after the transfer of power from the Company to the Crown, an era of liberal administration will start. Indians will be associated in the running of their own administration. The people of India will not be discriminated again on the basis of their colour and creed for joining administrative and other services and in holding offices.
For all practical purposes their ability will be the sole guiding criteria. But as the time passed it became amply clear that policy of discrimination and exploitation was not to be abandoned but going to stay as an integral part of Crown’s administration in India.
But Crown’s mind was filled with the horrors of 1857 and did not wish that those ugly events should again be repeated. It was, therefore, thought essential to have a system by which view points of Indians were amply known to the rulers. Since Crown was not prepared to directly associate Indians in high powered legislative and other official bodies, the other way out found was to create some unofficial forum, where Indians could ventilate their grievances, no matter whether these were redressed or not.
This forum was found in 1885 when with the help of a retired British civil servant Indian National Congress was founded. This body subsequently led national struggle and national movement in the country. It inculcated, promoted and prompted feelings of nationalism in India.
Nationalism – Definition and Meaning:
Nationalism is a very vague term and in fact it is very difficult to define it precisely and accurately. But in this there is close identification of individual with the State. The people who inhibit a territory love that as their mother land. They place the land of their birth above everything else and are prepared to make supreme sacrifice to defend and preserve its dignity.
According to Gooch, “Nationalism is an organism, a spiritual entity and all attempts to penetrate its secrets by the light of mechanical interpretations break down before the test of experience.”
Barker has, however, defined it by saying that, “A nation is a body of men inhabiting a definite territory who normally are drawn from different races but possess a common stock of thoughts and feelings acquired and transmitted during the course of a common history, but on the whole are the men though more in the past than in the present, include in that common stock, a common religious belief who generally and as a rule use a common language, as the vehicle of their thoughts and feelings, and who besides common thoughts and feelings also cherish a common will and accordingly form or try to form a separate State for the expression of that will.” Encyclopaedia Americana has defined nationalism by saying that nationalism is a condition of mind of the people who have homogeneous culture. These people live together in close association with each other on a territory and believe in common destiny. It helps in bringing people of the land closer and nearer to each other.
It compels them to exalt the state. “It strives to unite the members of one nation, politically and territorially in a less state organisation.” In India Aurbindo Ghosh gave a new interpretation to nationalism when he said, “Nationalism is a religion that has come from God. Nationalism is a creed in which you shall have to live. It is an attitude of heart, of the soul. What the intellect, could not do this mighty force of passionate conviction born out of the very faiths of national consciousness, will be able to accomplish. Thus, it will be safe to say that, on the whole, nationalism is a political sentiment whereas for the people of India during their freedom struggle it was both a religion and a creed.”
Nationalism has different meanings for a colonial or imperialist power, as compared with a subjugated country. From former point of view nationalism means promoting colonialism and imperialism and also ensuring that the interests of mother country are in no way either adversely made to suffer or in any way subordinated to the interests of any other power.
In other words, it will mean suppressing all anti-colonial agitations and movements by all means whatsoever. It also means expansion of territories, economic exploitation and reducing colonies to poverty and misery.
On the other hand, nationalism for a subjugated country means rising against imperial power and throwing away imperialist forces from the land. It also means relieving the peoples from miseries and poverty and to consolidate forces of agitations and demonstrations. In India nationalism was in the latter sense.
Whole nationalist movement in India revolved round one thing, namely, over throw of British colonial power from India and making the nation free from the clutches of British imperialism.
Both the Congress, Muslim League and other political parties wanted independence, though Congress was interested in strong and united India, whereas League wanted division of the country. But all in India were unanimous that Britain should leave India at the earliest.
Essay # 2. Origin of Nationalism in India:
Most of the Indian historians have spared no pains to establish that India’s struggle for freedom continued even during the darkest period of country’s slavery. There are many historical evidences to show that Indian moderates and revolutionaries struggled hard to tell their alien rulers that they had not been in a position to reconcile themselves to their rule.
The death of Harsha brought disintegration in Indian Empire and Muslim traditions dominated the Hindu civilization, but the basic concepts of Hindu civilization, namely, those of joint family system, panchayati raj or village autonomy and even caste system continued to be the basis of India’s civilization. It is usually believed that in India nationalism was a deep-rooted institution and it always inspired Indian masses, but Dr. R.C. Majumdar has given altogether a different view about our national struggle.
In his lectures delivered in 1960 he has tried to establish that, for long, India in the present sense was unknown. The people of India talked of Sikhs, Rajputs, Marathas and what not, but they never talked of India as a whole. He has said, “To a Bengali the Marathas were not only as much a foreigner as the English but they were hated foreigners. The Marathas tried to form an alliance with the English in order to ravage Bengalis. The Bengalis repaid it by offering prayer and thanks giving’s to God at each successive victory of the British against the Marathas and other Indian people.”
Continuing he further says, “The conception of India, as a whole, was to be found only in the literary works of past age, and still survived in theory but it had no application to actual politics till the sixties and seventies of the 19th century.” According to him even such like people as Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Prasanna Kumar Tagore went to the extent of praising British rule over the Mughal rule.
He has also tried to establish that the Indian national struggle of 1857 was not a national struggle and was also not fought with a sense of relieving India from British supremacy. He has said, “Thus, in the ultimate analysis the so-called Indian or national war of independence was neither Indian, nor national and not even a war to achieve independence of any particular region.”
According to him, therefore, up to 1857, nationalism in India did not exist altogether. Though it may be very much under-estimating our national sentiments but fact remains that for long, India’s struggle was not at national level.
The most unfortunate aspect was that whereas India had national leaders who could inspire the confidence of the masses, universities in India failed to produce any political philosopher of the calibre of either Laski, Dante, Hobbes or Burke who could expound a new national philosophy. India had, of course, thinkers but not philosophers and this was very unfortunate for consolidating nationalism in our country.
Political philosophy of a time must be responsive to the needs of the people. In 1857, India’s administration was transferred from the Company to the Crown. But even then main object of British administration in India was to deface Indian culture and civilisation so as to morally degrade the natives and to establish their own superiority in culture and civilization.
In the face of the policy Indian leadership resolved to revive glorious past with a sense of reminding the people of India of their ancient glory and to create in them a sense of confidence and pride and thus to prepare them to fight for their national struggle. There were various reasons which gave birth to nationalism in India.
Essay # 3. Causes Responsible for the Birth of Nationalism in India:
1. Sense of Unity:
For centuries India had not seen political unity and in fact, the people of India lost the very image of a strong and united India. Practically after the death of Aurangzeb India got divided and disintegrated among various tiny states and one province thought the other as enemy and so was the case with the communities. To quote Dr. R.C. Majumdar, “In spite of slogan of Hindu Padshahi the Marathas had ravaged without compunction territories of Sikhs and Rajputs on the West, Bengalis in the East, the Tamils and Kannads in the South and the Hindustanis in the North.”
According to him even Marathas and Bengalis treated themselves as foreigners. But it was under the British regime that whole of British India was united. The people of India now began to get the image of a united India. The rulers were in no mood to permanently settle in India and make her their home and these further strengthened bonds of unity.
Professor Moon says, “British Imperialism in India gave her a political unity under the third party in spite of the many discordant elements in Indian society.” It was under British imperialism that there was administrative integration in the country.
The people belonging to different castes and creeds began to feel that they belonged to one India. In the words of Punniah, “The whole of India from the Himalayas to the Cape Comrin was now brought under one government and this gave her people a new sense of political unity.”
2. Improvement in Means of Communication:
Then comes improvement in the means of transportation and communication. Throughout Mughal supremacy India could not get a quick and well connected system of communication and transportation. The Britishers, in their own interest, and in order to promote their trade interests developed quick means of transportation and communication and Indian masses came in close contact with each-other.
National leaders could express their ideas and convey their view point very easily.
In addition to this, shortening of distances made people of India realise that their country was one and they were not far away from each-other. Not only this, but the masses came very close to each-other and this promoted unity and strengthened feelings of nationalism. In the words of G.N. Singh, “Lines of communication knit up the vast country and turned geographical unity into a tangible reality.”
3. Economic Exploitation of India:
In national awakening in India British economic policy played a very big role. The Britishers came as traders with the object of improving their economic conditions. Therefore, gradually they followed policy of sacrificing India’s economic interests and preserving their own.
There was a regular drain on India’s economic resources and whereas India’s economic conditions deteriorated theirs own immensely improved. Both Gopal Krishna Gokhale and Dadabhai Naoroji in their writings pointed out economic drainage which was reducing India to poverty. Even Lord Salisbury and William Dighby also confessed that Britishers were bleeding Indians white.
Not only this, but due to this economic policy there was unemployment in the country and masses on the whole suffered. India’s handicrafts were practically ignored and those who sat behind the spinning wheel and hands which held needles came on the road. On the other hand, economic conditions of the people of England greatly improved.
There was increased employment in England and unemployment in India. In other words, the people of England enjoyed at the miseries of vast multitude of India. As it has been said that the most unfortunate aspect of the problem was that the Finance Minister of India looked after more the interests of Britishers rather than those of Indians and all this was bound to rebound in its reaction.
But India’s great disappointment was that the Britishers did not care to improve India’s economic conditions and followed a free trade policy which was only advantageous for well advanced nations of the world rather than the poor and developing industrial countries like India.
In the words of Dr. Tara Chand, “As population continued to grow and pressure on land increased, with that the Indian masses were exposed to mounting distress which became acute during the period of scarcity and famine.” Similarly G.N. Singh is of the view that, “It is undenial fact that deteriorating economic position of the country and anti-national economic policy followed by government together with the policy of excluding Indians from the higher rank of services were responsible to no small extent for arousing anti-British feelings and the national spirit among the people in India.”
4. British Sense of Superiority:
The attitude of the Britishers was also one of the leading factors for resentment among Indians. The Britishers always tried to establish their supremacy and stressed that they had come to rule and govern India.
They felt that culturally, economically and socially Indians were backward. Indians were not allowed to travel in a first class railway compartment. Even the Indian Princes were asked to unlace the shoes of British hunters.
They were not allowed to act as jurors. Not only was this, but life of a British gentleman considered far more valuable than that of many Indians.
The Britishers worked under the notion that the Indians knew only fear. In the words of Sir Theodore Morrison the Britishers worked under certain notions namely, “The first was that the life of one European was worth those of many Indians.
The second was that the only thing that an oriental understands was fear. The third was that England had been forced to lose many lives and spend many millions to hold India and did she not merit some more substantial recompense than the privilege of governing India in a spirit of wisdom and unselfishness.”
This attitude became more revengeful after the rising of 1857. Even those British officers who did not suffer from superiority complex began to develop a rough complex attitude after the rising of 1857 was crushed. Now the attitude of the Britishers was not only that of superiority but superiority with revenge. One finds that most of the Viceroys posted in India did not care for feelings and sentiments of Indians.
Lord Lytton arranged Delhi Darbar when there was a serious famine in the South. Similarly, the same Governor-General waged Second Afghan War when the nation was passing through economic crisis. Against all sentiments he passed his most condemned Vernacular Press Act in 1878. This attitude of Britishers was very sharply reacted to by all sections of public opinion who moulded their philosophy to respond to this attitude.
5. English Educational System:
English educational system in no less way contributed to the rise of nationalism in India. Indians were accustomed to study their religious books and as such before the coming of the Britishers they had no knowledge about the literature in other languages contained.
As the English became the lingua franca and many Indian youth gradually studied English language with care they were very much influenced by that. Not only this, but Indian youth had an opportunity to go to England and live there.
Thus, these youth of India could get what was contained in English literature. Fortunately, it was a literature which contained much about liberalism, which pleaded rights for the people and which gave them the spirit of struggle with which the people of England fought against their monarchs in order to get their rights.
They also had an opportunity to see the British political institutions at work and found that whereas the people of England demand rights and liberty for themselves, they deny the same to the people of India. This was an eye opener for Indians who also demanded similar rights for themselves.
6. Contacts with the West:
Indians by now seriously studied political theories and ideas of thinkers like Mill, Milton and Burke and were enthusiased by then philosophy. Some of them went abroad. In the words of G.N Singh, “Stay in England gave them intimate knowledge of working of free political institutions and taught them the value of freedom and independence and dispelled from their mind the clinging slavish mentally.”
Similarly, Datta and Sarkar say, “Our minds chastened by reborn religion and literature, the growing acquaintance through the medium of western education with developing political ideas of the west and stirring history of western nationalistic movements impressed the love of civic liberty and national freedom.”
Gradually Indians came in contact with other western countries and studied their national, social and political movements.
They found that there was a wave of liberal reforms in many of European countries and felt that the people of those countries were struggling hard to get their rights from their governments. Perhaps there was no western country in the fifties of 18th century which was not fomenting liberalism.
Indians also could not remain uninfluenced by all this. Many Indians who studied western literature, met the people and saw how they were greatly inspired by their ideas, sense of sacrifice and devotion to a cause. As the contacts increased with that their spirits also received new vigour and this took them on a long way towards national awakening.
7. Ilbert Bill Controversy:
Next then came Ilbert Bill controversy. It was during the regime of Lord Ripon, who was otherwise a sympathiser of India, that the most important Ilbert Bill controversy arose. By this Bill an anomaly was tried to be removed that European and Anglo-Indian offenders could not be tried by an Indian magistrate.
This Bill so much annoyed the people of both the above mentioned communities that they decided to socially boycott the Governor-General. They held demonstrations against the government and openly declared that Indian judges were unfit to try them. No doubt, the Britishers who were in very superior position won their point but at a great cost. It was there after that India lost faith in British sense of justice and impartiality.
Deep faith which had been rooted after centuries, was rudely shaken and as Surendra Nath Banerjece remarked, “No self-respecting Indian could sit idle under the fierce light of that revelation. It was a call to the high patriotic duty to those who understood its significance.” It was now increasingly felt that Indians would not have self-respect unless they became master of their own destiny and had increasingly more share in the running of their own administration. In fact, according to some thinkers this became even a cause for the formation of Indian National Congress. It has been said that, “The folly of Anglo-Indian agitation and the exhibition of petty minded selfishness, racial bitterness and pride and vanity of ruling race over the Ilbert Bill was needed to bring about the foundation of India’s past.”
8. Role of Socio-Cultural Reformers:
It was period during which socio-cultural reformers tried to reform the society. They tried to reform the society and infused sense of patriotism among the people of India. They also made the people conscious about country’s rich past cultural heritage. Raja Ram Mohan Roy awakened the people of Bengal.
His Brahamao Samaj did commendable work in reforming society. Mrs. Annie Besant sowed the seeds of freedom by courageously facing the forces of Hindu orthodoxy. Similarly Swami Dayanand Saraswati, the founder of Arya Samaj, raised his forceful voice against religious and social evils of Hindu society and tried to revive Vedic philosophy.
He also laid stress on the importance of self rule and freedom. Because of his stress on Swaraj it was called as religion and also a national movement. Swami Vivekananda and his Rama Krishna Mission laid stress on past glory of India and the bright future which laid before it.
Annie Besant and her Theosophical society established a link between religion and nationalism. These reformers and their institutions went a long way in developing feelings of patriotism in the minds of people of India. Swami Vivekananda said, “We must go out and conquer the whole world through our spirituality and philosophy.”
9. Revival of India’s Past Glory:
With the passage of time India’s past glory was revived and Indians came to know about their heritage. In 1803, a teacher at Fort William College wrote a History of India which depicted poor knowledge of Britishers about India’s past but gradually persons like Sir William Johns, and Alexander Cunnigham and Max Muller gave a very glorious and vivid account of India’s past cultural heritage.
Max Muller went to the extent of saying, “If I were asked under what sky the human mind has most fully developed some of the choicest gifts, has most deeply pondered on the greatest problems of life, and has found solutions of some of them which will deserve the attention even of those who have studied Plato and Kant I should point to India.”
Continuing he said, “And if I were to ask myself from what literature we, here in Europe, we who have been nurtured almost exclusively on the thoughts of Greeks and Romans and of one Semitic race, the Jewish may draw that corrective which is most wanted in order to make our inner life more perfect, more comprehensive, more universal, in fact, more truly human, a life, not for this life only, but transfigured an eternal life—again I should point to India.”
In the Indian society persons like Ranade, R.G. Bhandarkar, Rajindra Lal Mitra and Har Prasad Shastri revived Indian glory and aroused national feelings among the people of India. In the words of Majumdar, “The Indians also learnt that Buddhism which arose in India was the only one of three really great world religions founded by an Aryan and even today followed by one-fifth of the entire human race.” Not only this but present day religious and social reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar, Swami Daya Nand Saraswati, Rama Krishan Parmhans and Vivekananda claimed that native rule in its worst form was far better than the best rule of a foreign government. These thinkers pointed out to the depth of knowledge and philosophy which Vedas, Shastras and our rich religious treatises had and which inspired the whole world.
10. Imperial System of British Government:
Each imperial power follows policy of exploitation of the people of the colony. The roots of nationalism can go back to this policy and system which resulted to poverty and unemployment on a large scale. It was resented by regenerating forces which were getting roots in India.
Thus, the operation of the system over a period of time produced a product which was its own enemy and subsequently organised itself in the form of a movement which aimed at destroying the system itself. The victims of the system demanded not only justice but also freedom from the alien government which was operating it.
11. Role of Indian Press:
Indian Press considerably helped in consolidating national movement. Papers like Amrit Bazar Patrika, The Indian Mirror, The Patriot, The Hindu, The Kesri, and the Bengalee did a lot in bringing such information to the notice and knowledge of masses, which was practically unknown or unrevealed at that time. Credit goes to these newspapers for exposing the weaknesses and exploitation of the Britishers in India.
These made the people feel that Britishers were staying in India to impose their culture and to economically, exploit Indians so that they themselves could become rich. For quite some time, there were feelings of somewhat understanding between the Britishers and Indians.
Some of Indian leaders even created an impression that British stay in India was for the good of Indians because the former were more civilised and cultured as compared with the latter.
It was also felt that whereas Indians had nothing to give to Britain, they had to take everything from her. But as the time passed with that this understanding also disappeared and on the other hand antagonism developed. Indians began to feel that they were culturally and socially more advanced than the Britishers.
The Britishers as rulers, not only in India but in many parts of world, stood for their racial superiority. They felt that Indians were definitely inferior to them. In this way racial antagonism developed, which ultimately became a good cause for national awakening in India.
12. Lord Lytton’s Repressive Policy:
In national awakening Lord Lytton’s repressive policy went a long way. It was during his period that age for entry to civil services was lowered from 21 years to 19 years and Vernacular Press Act was passed which put many restrictions on the freedom of expression by these papers. He was not satisfied with that alone. It was during his period that a beginning was made of the policy of making Indians fight with each other.
He abolished certain duties on import of cotton to the disadvantage of Indian cotton growers and textile workers engaged in these industries.. He also passed a law by which whereas Europeans could carry arms without licences, Indians could not. Not only this, but he arranged a costly darbar at Delhi at a time when the country was faced with serious famines and needed relief.
He started costly Second Afghan war at the cost of ruining Indian economy. For him Indians were no better than parcel of black heathen natives who worshipped stocks and stones. His repressive policies were resented by the people of India, who realised that their subordination was the sole cause of their misery and humiliation.
13. Impact of International Events:
It was also a time when several important events took place in different parts of the world which had a bearing on the people of India. At the end of the century Italy was defeated by Abesynia and in the beginning of century Russia was defeated by tiny Japan. There were also freedom struggles in many parts of the world, particularly in Africa. All these happenings provided moral boosting to freedom-fighters in India, who shed away their inferiority complex and felt assured that if Japan could defeat Russia, why could they not end British rule in India.
Lokmanya Tilak in his Kesari wrote on 16th February, 1904 that, “Japan’s success proves that independent Asiatic nations have the grit and courage to defeat European powers when equipped with modem long ranged weapons and missiles or have men of war of modern type.”
14. British Racial Arrogance:
English education and policy of the British government largely helped in awakening and bringing the people of India close to each-other. There can be no denial today that in the task of national awakening India got much inspiration from the West. Their struggle against Their monarchs for demanding rights inspired the people of India.
Similarly the desire of the British people to establish their cultural and spiritual supremacy made the Indians study their cultural heritage. The work of Asiatic Society of Bengal founded in 1784 by Sir Jones and the work done in the Society by persons of repute like Sir Charles Wilkies and H.T. Colebrook proved a source of great inspiration for Indians. These inspirations coupled with economic discontentment and racial arrogance went a long way to touch the feelings of many awakened Indians who felt that the only solution to the problem was that Indians should awake, arise and stop not till the goal was achieved.
Essay # 4. Birth of Indian National Congress:
There was sufficient discontentment among Indians who were really much awakened and wanted to present their view point convincingly before the rulers. But unfortunately the British government, even after rising of 1857 did not learn a simple lesson that unless Indians were associated in the running of their own administration they could not express their grievances and the government would not be able to appreciate their view point and problems.
In spite of the fact that at the time of transfer of power from the Company to the Crown much had been said about the association of Indians in the running of their own administration, but nothing came out of that. On the other hand, top British leaders of public opinion always claimed that they had the difficult task of training Indians in different walks of life and that they alone were making Indians more civilised and cultured. They tried to portray an image all over the world that Indians were not at all a nation.
They exploited India’s unity in diversity, and talked of diversity alone, putting unity altogether in the background. One finds that as early as in 1883 Sir John Seetey said, “The notion that India is a nationality rests upon that vulgar error which Political Science principally aims at eradicating. India is not a political name but geographical expression like Europe or Africa. It does not mark territory of a nation and a language, but the territory of many nations and many languages.” Not much after him Starchey also said, “This is the first and most essential thing to learn about India that there is not and never was an India”.
Then another thing which the Britishers always had in mind was that the people of India knew only one thing and that was fear. Under fear they could do each and everything. They could never be treated at par with the Britishers, who knew no fear. They were bold and faced every situation willingly and smilingly.
The task before the Britishers was, therefore, complex and complicated, i.e. to remove this fear psychology from their mind. It was not possible to follow any uniform policy in this regard because of India’s vastness. Culturally and socially the people of India were not one. They spoke different languages and materially and educationally as well as morally they had no uniformity, was their main plan of argument before the world.
Channey wrote as early as in 1894 in his Indian Polity that, “In material respects, India as compared with any previous state is now extraordinarily prosperous.” J.D. Rees, once Additional Member of the Executive Council of Governor-General also said that, “India in the present century had a higher standard of comfort prevailing with better clothes, better houses and brass instead of earthen pots”.
Not only this, but the British government always claimed that in spite of the fact that the Indians were still not capable enough to participate in the task of running their own administration, yet the government was taking India on the path of material prosperity and economic advancement.
While discussing the achievements of British government in India Hobson once said, “Roads, railways and network of canals have facilitated communication and transport, and extensive system of scientific irrigation have improved the productiveness of the soil.” He also very proudly said that the British government was taking steps by which many religions and social superstitions could be broken as these retarded progress.
But in spite of its tall claims before the world, the British government in England fully well knew that Indians were not happy with their administration and administrative system. The government also realised that it has in no way been possible for it to reduce poverty or increase employment or even to bring indigenous industries on some sound footings. Even the intelligentsia in India felt that British government in India was not ruling in the interest of people of India. As the news of discontent reached British ears, the government wanted to have an agency or a forum through Indians could ventilate their grievances, but that should be short of their introducing elected element or giving much demanded representation to the people of India in the legislative bodies.
This problem was solved when A.O. Hume, a retired civil servant, came forward and offered to organise educated Indians and consolidate them. He mooted the idea of having a party which could voice demands on behalf of India and negotiate with the British government, but without any teeth to bite. It should be a forum for discussion and not for action. In the opinion of R.P. Dutt the idea of creation of such an organisation was that a sane and constructive Indian nationalism will cease to regard imperialism as its enemy. It will regard it as its guide and tutor.
It was in 1883 that Hume convened a national conference. He also addressed an open letter to the graduates of Calcutta University in which he appealed them to produce at least fifty graduates who were prepared to make every sacrifice for ending present miseries of people of India and improve their lot.
This move was very much appreciated by the government because it felt that at least a forum would be provided by which it would be possible to have authoritative statement of views and wishes of educated and intelligent classes throughout the country, without any obligation on the government to act on that.
It was on 28th December, 1885, that first session of Indian National Congress was held at Bombay. It was presided over by W.C. Banerjee. This organisation, which subsequently became the representative body of India, at its birth was simply to act as the eyes and ears of the British government and voice grievances of Indians. It was neither the desire of British government nor that of the founders of the organization that in any way it should become a revolutionary body or challenge British authority or supremacy in India.
The main aim of organising this body was to save imperialism in India. Towards the close of Lord Lytton’s Viceroyalty Mr. Hume was convinced that some definite action was called for to counter act the growing unrest because government had received warnings from different parts of the country’ about danger to it because of economic sufferings of the people and alienation of the intellectuals.
Early Stages of Development:
Indian National Congress which started as a small body to express and not to press the demands of Indians for more rights started as a small body. But as the time passed at its every session more and more people began to participate in its deliberations. Its character became quite representative. In the words of G.N. Singh, “The Congress was a national organisation and represented all the people of the country.”
In the initial stages of its development the Congress took up such matters which were more or less non-controversial e.g., holding of ICS Examination simultaneously in India and England, separation of executive from judiciary, establishment of military training college for Indians, etc. It also demanded repeal of Arms Act, expansion of Legislative Councils and inclusion of more elected representatives in these councils.
It was not at all an organisation which in any way wanted radical reforms and changes. All that it wanted was that its view point should be heard patiently but the government was in a mood to do that. But in spite of all this, the Congress did a lot of spade work in awakening the people of India. It did that basic ground work without which construction of basic and supper structure would have been impossible.
Since in its initial stages Indian National Congress was not a militant or aggressive organisation and had been founded with the blessing of a retired British civil servant, with the specific approval of Lord Duferin, the government was quite sympathetic towards it. Lord Duferin himself said about the necessity of this organisation that, “He found the greatest difficulty in ascertaining the zeal and wishes of the people and that it would be a public benefit if there existed some responsible organisation through which the government might be kept informed regarding the best Indian public opinion.” Since this organisation was created with this specific object in view, therefore, it could rightly expect government’s co-operation.
The members of second and third Congress were invited by the Governors and Governor-General at garden parties and there was no ban on government officials for attending the deliberations of the Congress. With the help of this organisation government wanted to pacify Indians so that they forgot what had happened during the reign of Lord Lytton.
The Liberals very clearly stated that they were not in favour of sudden changes. Congress President in 1899 said that, “The people of India are not fond of sudden changes and revolutions. They do not ask for new constitutions…. They prefer to work on lines already laid down. They desire to strengthen present government and to bring it more in touch with the people……. They seek that the administration of the empire and its great provinces should be conducted with the co-operation of the people.”
In 1886, while presiding over the session of the Congress he also said, “The educated classes are not the foes of England but her natural and necessary allies in the great work that lies before.” In 1892, Surendra Nath Banerjee while delivering his Presidential address as Congress President also said, “We are the citizens of a great and free empire and live under the protecting shadow of one of the noblest nations.” Thus, these Liberals were all praise for British rule over India.
But this understanding and co-operation lasted for few years. As the Congress became more and more popular and educated Indians began to join it in more numbers, the organisation increased its activities and demanded that its programmes and demands should be met immediately. The government began to adopt a hostile attitude towards this organisation. First open criticism came in 1888 from Lord Auckland and soon after the same Lord Dufferin who had very forcefully pleaded the need of founding this organisation said at dinner meeting at Calcutta, “How could any reasonable man imagine that the British government would be content to allow this microscopic minority to control the administration of that majestic and multiform empire for whose safety and welfare, they were responsible in the eyes of God and before the face of civilisation?” But as the time passed with that Congress began to challenge the authority of government and thus hostility began to increase.
In 1890, an official notification was issued by the government by which all government officials were banned from attending the meetings of the Congress. Whereas the Congress was adopting a hostile attitude and challenging the government on the one hand, it was becoming more popular among the people on the other. But Lord Curzon prophesied and had a wishful aim of his own when he said in 1890, “The Congress is tottering to its fall, and one of my greatest ambition while in India is to assist to its peaceful demise.” A wish which to his great dismay did in no way materialise.
Essay # 5. Liberal Nationalist Movement:
National movement in India passed through several phases. In its first phase which started from 1885 to 1905 the organisation was controlled by the Liberals. By and large, the leaders of the movement were armed chair educated persons who had their own convictions about British rule in India. These people had founded the organisation not with the object of creating any hostility with the government.
They wanted to have legislative reforms by making representations and petitions. About these leaders Pradhan makes us believe that, “The organisers and promoters of the Congress were not idealists who had built then habitation on the horizon; they were practical reformers and imbued with the spirit, principles and methods of Victorian liberalism and bent on winning freedom by gradual stages, bordering from step to step.”
Liberal Philosophy:
On the whole, the Liberals in India were great scholars and had a clear approach towards India’s political problems. For them, religion was no hindrance or bar in solving country’s national problems and that the people of various communities without any caste, colour or creed could meet at a platform for the noble cause of taking India on the path of progress and advancement.
They, therefore, pleaded that the people of all communities in India should use this forum and platform for their national struggle against British imperialism. These people had deep love for representative institutions and wanted to introduce them in India. In their philosophy the only feasible solution to India’s political problems was increasing share of Indians in the legislatures. Elected representatives should have increasingly more and more powers, so that they could plead for the people.
The Liberals were opposed to violence or use of force for getting their political problems solved. They had faith in non-violence and making prayers and representations. In their opinion the vast majority of Britishers were not aware of our problems and in case we could enlighten and educate the British masses and authorities, there was every possibility of our having more and more rights.
They had faith in British sense of justice and fair play, and believed that our delegations should go to England to enlighten British public opiniou. The Liberals on the whole believed that if at times the Britishers acted in an un-British manner that was peculiar to bureaucracy in India and not a reflection on British national character.
The Liberals did not wish to sever their connections with the Britishers. They wanted to have Swaraj but by stages and by remaining within the British empire. Even Raja Ram Mohan Roy believed that the Britishers should not leave India all of sudden because there will be chaos behind. M.G. Ranade was convinced that association of Britain and India was fortunate one for both the peoples. In the words of M.A. Buch the Moderates used to say, “The British connection meant slow but sure emancipation of the Indian mind from its blind attachment to an un-measuring past. They wanted the people only in India to be westernised, not merely in form but also in spirit; and they saw the salvation of India in complete assimilation of the best Western ideals. They pinned for the ideal of a free man in a free state, a free church in a free state, a free woman in a free society.
The Liberals quite well knew that India was industrially backward and as such they believed that the theory of laissez faire would ruin Indian industry and increase its poverty. The Liberals quite well stood for the protection of industries by the state and desired that these should be subsidised so that these flourished and came up to market standard.
The Liberals quite well understood that rights could be demanded by a nation which was strong and powerful enough to get these if otherwise denied. Conditions in India, however, were such that Indians could demand constitutional development not as a matter of right but as a privilege or concession.
According to them, politically Indians have been so much degenerated that the people of India have now fallen on the mercy of the British rulers and could get a share in administration only after touching the conscience of those in authority. Therefore, in their opinion there was no idea in demanding something as a matter of right.
Very many Liberals were also religious minded. Gokhale, who was an orthodox Brahmin wanted to spiritualise politics and so was the case with Surendra Nath Banerjee. According to these Liberals, in politics one should not be hesitant to accept the mistake which one had committed during the course of experimentation. The politicians should be morally strong enough to confess their wrongs. R
aja Ram Mohan Roy and M.G. Ranade were also religious minded people but true politicians of their times. In other words, these politicians wanted to spiritualise politics and also to establish close affinity between the two.
The Liberals believed that without social advancement India could not dream of political advancement. It was in a healthy and socially developed society that the sermons of independence, freedom and swaraj could be listened to by millions of Indians.
Therefore, they absolutely realised the need and necessity of social and political developments going hand-in-hand. The Liberals saw no objection in states intervening in society to check India’s social degradation. According to these Liberals, aid and assistance of state, if sought to check this social backwardness was to our national advantage. If necessary, the state should help in introducing social reforms.
The Liberals, with the passage of time, fearlessly and frankly criticised the government for its acts of omissions and commissions. They felt that the nation had an inherent right of criticising the government and also that of demanding rights which were being deliberately denied to the people and for which the nation was ready after putting in long and arduous labour. Dadabhai Naoroji, one of the foremost Liberals of India, criticised the government, both in India and England, both as a member of House of Commons and President of Indian National Congress. Pherozeshah Mehta and Gopal Krishna Gokhale were other important Liberals who criticised the policies of the government in the Imperial Legislative Council as well as from the forum of Indian National Congress.
Gopal Krishan Gokhale while criticising Government’s decision about partition of Bengal said, “For a parallel to such administration we must, I think, go back to the period of Aurangzeb in the history of our country.” S.N. Banerjee criticised the government for denying to the people of India right of personal liberty. In other words, these Liberals did not spare any opportunity to criticise the government but what they pleaded was that after having criticised the government it should not be discarded or boycotted or left alone but should be extended the hands of co-operation and goodwill. In their opinion such an attitude alone could help India in getting some positive results.
The Liberals believed that gradually civil services should be Indianised and Indians should be associated with bureaucracy. In their opinion an increasing share in administration, both civil and military, was advantageous to Indians as well as the Britishers. They did not fail to tell the government that their present policy of dissociating Indians from Indian administration was not based on very wise and sound principles.
Essay # 6. Setback to Liberalism:
The Liberals had among them very brilliant sons and persons of all India repute and fame. Among these mention might be made of Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Dadabhai Naoroji, Sir Pherozeshah Mehta, Surendra Nath Banerjee and M.G. Ranade but even then liberalism in India could not resist the severe blow of extremists under the leadership of Bal Gangadhar Tilak and his close contemporaries and associates like Lala Lajpat Rai, Bipin Chandra Pal and Aurbindo Ghosh. It was because with the passage of time the people refused to believe that British rule in India was an act of Providence and that it was in the interest of the Indians and also that the Britishers should continue to stay in India.
Ever increasing poverty, lowering standards of morality, constant and regular drainage of Indian financial and material resources deliberate policy of non-industrialisation of India along with that of sacrificing Indian interests for British interests and denial of superior posts to Indians of intelligence and calibre shocked most of the educated and enlightened Indian masses who began to feel that continued stay of Britishers in India was bound to adversely effect Indian social, economic and political life.
In addition, the Liberals could not maintain active contacts with the masses. No doubt they themselves were intellectuals and patriots and also had deep affection for India but at the same time they were only leaders and not the followers. They remained out of touch with the masses. Thus, under their control the Congress remained only a class organisation which subsequently led to failure of Liberals in India.
The Liberals could not appreciate the significance of ancient Indian culture and civilisation. Most of them were under the influence of western culture and civilisation. They saw before their own eyes the evils of Indian society, namely, that of child marriage, caste system, denial of widow re-marriage and superstitions which appeared to them quite unscientific. Gradually as the people awakened and they began to appreciate their past, natural reaction was that they discarded Liberals in India. For them, now India was much superior to Britain, both culturally and socially.
They now realised that it was the duty of our social reformers to reform the society and to save it from degradation. It was none of the business of the Western people to come and reform our society, more particularly when they were inferior to Indians in every respect. They began to take pride in country’s past cultural heritage.
India is traditionally a land of religious people. It was through religion that masses could easily be approached but the Liberals failed to exploit this important point of India’s national life. The result was that they could not touch the minds of the people and when subsequently religious reformers like Swami Daya Nand Sarswati, Swami Vivekananda, Swami Ram Tirath and for that matter Aurobindo Ghosh and Lala Lajpat Rai came to the front, their views had a mass appeal and people were more attracted by them than by the Liberals.
India had the privilege of producing great liberals including persons like Dadabhai Naoroji, M.G. Ranade, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Surendra Nath Banerjee and Pherozeshah Mehta but unfortunately none of them had any philosophy of his own. Each Liberal tried to develop his ideas in the way he liked with the basic principle that British stay in India should be supported and Western culture and civilisation should be imposed on the people of India. In the words of S.N. Dubey, “For full three decades these Liberals remained the masters of political movement in India but they were a miserable failure in producing a philosopher of any calibre or a philosophy of any standing. It has perhaps rightly been said that India had no political philosophers. We had only political thinkers.”
The Liberals were very clear in their mind that India could get rights by making petitions and representations. Violence was unknown to them and in fact, they did not hesitate to condemn violent actions. During their long stay on the political scene of India they could get a few constitutional reforms here and there which, it is said, were not exclusively due to their efforts. But death blow to Liberal political thought in India was struck by the policy of the government of the time. Congress was a forum which came into being to express the grievances of the people and make these know to the government.
The founders of the Congress perhaps, thought that the government would be willing to oblige them by listening to their prayers and petitions and accepting these. But as the time passed it became amply clear that the government accepted only those demands which suited its convenience and left the other parts of the resolutions remain untouched. Regardless of the resolutions and opinions expressed by the forum, the government continued to act in the way it liked.
The bureaucracy remained as inelastic and rigid as it used to be. Various Acts were pressed by the government without caring for the sentiments and feelings of these Liberals and even against the wishes of Indian public opinion. More particularly, the government of Lord Curzon was most hypocratic and inelastic and devoid of respect for public opinion in India.
The partition of Bengal was perhaps the most clear example of such disregard of Indian public opinion. These acts of the government proved the futility of liberal methods and it became very clear to the people of India that the Liberals cannot deliver the goods to them and that some alternative methods will have to be found out to reach our ultimate goal of national freedom.
Above all, the tragedy was that the educated Indians had begun iv, love western culture and civilization rather than taking pride in their own cultural heritage. In the circumstances the difficulty of the Liberals was to unite the people of India and to bring before them an image of one united India ready to struggle for getting their political rights. Unless that climate was created no demand could be effective.
The plea that the Liberals could not put forward an exhaustive list of country’s political rights, if judged in this background, gives an answer in itself. The critics have gone to the extent of saying that Liberal leaders lacked the essentials of a national movement. They depended on the goodwill of very class against whom the struggle was directed. They encouraged opportunism in the name of patriotism.
Essay # 7. Contribution of Liberalism:
But even then the Liberals played a very significant part during their own times in India’s national movement. It was due to their efforts that image of a united India was portrayed and a forum was created where the people from all over the country belonging to different provinces, castes and religions could come together and put their heads together in solving India’s political problems. In other words, it can be said that these people helped the nation in providing a national forum, the significance of which in no way can be under-estimated.
Not only this, but it goes to their credit that they created a sense and spirit of public service in the minds of Indian people. No doubt, some have criticised them by saying that they made Indian National Congress a very big source of entertainment where the people met once in a year to pass resolutions which subsequently took their own care.
It has also been said that these people were not willing to make sacrifices but only preached nationalism and patriotism to the extent to which it did not involve their personal sacrifices. But all the more these prominent leaders of public life and opinion created a sense and spirit of public service and many young educated Indians were inspired for serving the nation and to devote their time and energies for the public service.
Thus, Liberals deserve credit for creating favourable climate in India whereby the demands could be put before the government for political advancement. Before that there was no such national forum and organisation for demanding rights and as such could not draw the attention of the British government. At least the Liberals created a sense of consciousness among die millions of India who were politically backward and it was most obligatory for Indians to demand political rights. No matter the Liberals could not come up to the expectations of the extremists but that should not be the criteria in judging significance of their role in creating a climate for demanding political rights for Indians.
Credit goes to them that all of them drew the attention of the government to the poverty of teeming millions of India toiling and working under most unfavourable and difficult circumstances. It was due to the labour of these Liberals that the educated masses came to know that Indian poverty was due to a deliberate attempts of the Britishers in not industrialising India and putting heavy drainage of Indian economic and financial resources. It was also due to the efforts of these Liberals that an awakening cam whereby the people began to feel that the richness of the Britishers was at the cost of increasing poverty of the Indian people. Perhaps no Liberal failed to draw the attention of the government in this regard and no one ever hesitated to criticise the government in this regard. In the words of G.N. Singh, “With all its professions of loyalty …. moderation and appealing, nay, begging tone, the early Congress did in these days, great amount of spade work “national awakening, political education and in uniting Indians and increasing in them consciousness of a common nationality.” They really did pioneering work for India’s regeneration and championed the cause of people of India against powerful bureaucracy.
Then their another significant contribution was that they avoided the hostility of the alien rulers to the continuance of an organisation which was proving gradually a national forum for demanding rights for the people of India. Any aggressive attitude at the formative stages of such a national body would have been strongly reacted by the government and no such organisation would even have been allowed to exist.
Essay # 8. Freedom Struggle under the Extremists (1906-1919):
Second stage in India’s freedom straggle started under the extremists. They believed that freedom never comes by making representations and requests. They were opposed to the idea that the Britishers were in any way superior to Indians and that their stay in the country was in any way to the advantage of people of India.
They believed that the Britishers were exploiting Indians and reducing them to poverty. During their stay in India they deliberately followed a policy by which India’s image in the world was tarnished. They had done nothing to take India on the path of unity and prosperity. They, therefore, very vehemently opposed the Liberals. They characterised them as armed chaired intellectuals.
They wanted that freedom movement should be made mass based. Unless every Indian in every nook and comer of the country realised that he was being exploited and that British rule in India was not to their advantage, it shall not be possible to throw the Britishers out of India. They were not in favour of violence, but felt that if that became unavoidable, there should be no hesitation in its use. Thus, for them non-violence was not a creed. Efforts should be made to follow nonviolent means but violence can be used if unavoidable.
In order to make struggle a popular movement, these leaders used popular occasions to propagate their views. Festivals were very appropriate occasion for Lokmanya Tilak to propagate his view point. They also started vernacular newspapers in which they narrated the stories of horror of the British rule and psychologically prepared the people that the Britishers were in no way a superior race. They had come to occupy India because Indians could not unitedly face them. The leaders of the movement at that time were Bal-Lal-Pal (Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Lala Lajpat Rai and Bipin Chandra Pal).
1. The Aim of Struggle:
The extremists, unlike the Liberals, did not praise western culture and civilisation. They openly said that their aim of straggle was not merely to get legislative reforms in piece meal, but to have Swaraj in which the people of India will have full share in running of their own administration and propagate glory of their ancient culture and civilisation. They made it very clear that they had no faith in British sense of justice and fair play and in fact British government in India had not proved itself worthy of that. Sir Valentine Chirol says about the views of B.C. Pal that he openly declared, “Our programme is that we shall so work in the country, so combine the resources of the people, so organise the forces of the nation, develop instincts of freedom in the country, that by this means we shall, in the imperative, compel the submission to our will of any power that may get itself against us.”
They widened the basis of national movement by involving lower middle classes in freedom struggle. They set reactionary trends against westernisation in country’s freedom straggle and strengthened moral base of the participants of national movement by glorifying cultural heritage of India’s past. They prepared the people to boycott everything which was foreign and accept what was swadeshi.
M.A. Buch in his, ‘Rise and Growth of Militant Nationalism.” has said about Lokmanya Tilak’s views about the nature of their struggle that, “Political rights will have to be fought for. The Moderates think that these rights can be won by persuation we think that these can only be got by strong pressure.”
2. Split in the Congress:
As the time passed it became clear that the extremists were not going to pull on well with the Moderates. First signs of split were seen in 1905 at Benaras Session of Congress. But rift came on the surface in 1906 and the organisation would have divided itself in that year had Dada Bhai Naoroji not intervened and declared that Swaraj was ultimate goal of India’s freedom struggle. It was in that year that Aurobindo Ghosh also joined the Congress which gave the extremists a greater strength.
The extremists, however, had parting ways in 1907 at Surat Session of-the Congress. There was complete disorder in this session due to which the meeting had to be adjourned. After the session the Liberals held a separate meeting whereas the others decided to follow a separate course of action for freeing India from British yoke, irrespective of the consideration, whether the Liberals liked that or not.
3. Repressive Measures of Government:
Meanwhile freedom struggle was becoming mass struggle and spreading rapidly among the people. The British government took advantage of the situation created by split in the Congress and thus tried to check the tide which was flowing against them.
On 9th May, 1907, Lala Lajpat Rai and Sardar Ajit Singh were deported to Mandalay without any trial. In 1908, News Paper Act was passed with the object of gagging the press. In the same year Criminal Law Amendment Act was passed to prescribe a special form of trial for special offences.
It was again in the same year that Lokmanya Tilak was sentenced to 6 years rigorous imprisonment for his publishing an article in his newspaper Kesari. In order to ban meetings to be addressed by Indian national leaders, ‘The Seditious Meeting Act’ was passed which empowered authorities to ban any meeting without assigning any reason. Several editors, printers and publishers of the newspapers were arrested and put behind the bars.
The Moderates in India who took initiative of leading the struggle were mature leaders. They were an educated lot and it was accepted even by the British officers and political leaders that they could challenge status and authority of British government in India, but in spite of this they failed and extremists and revolutionaries got an opportunity to come forward. For this blame solely lies with the British bureaucracy in India. British government did not take the Moderate leaders seriously and also did not take any effective steps to introduce elected elements in legislative bodies and no efforts wore made to expand these bodies as well. In addition, nothing was done to improve economic conditions of the masses. Unfortunately, Lord Curzon fallowed a policy of suppression.
At the same time the extremists did a lot of work for freedom struggle. They made the people realise that swarajya was their birth right and if they were, demanding that, they were performing their most pious duty. Then again credit goes to them for involving a man in the street in the freedom struggle. By setting their own example they removed fear psychology from the minds of the people.
They made them bold and courageous and prepared them to face each and every hardship. These leaders created immense following and masses began to respond to their calls for sacrifices most willingly and spontaneously. They even made the Moderates think about the methods of struggle on the one hand and ultimate objectives to be achieved in national struggle on the other.
The extremists received a serious setback when Gandhiji appeared on the scene. His approach was both non-violent and that of absolute non-co-operation. That appealed to the people much and as the time passed with that Gandhian method became much more popular than the extremist method.
When the bomb cult, which also developed during their period, was going on and the Indians were getting more awakened, the British rulers not only used suppression and repression but also the device of dividing major Indian communities, namely, the Hindus and the Muslims against each-other, so that they could not unitedly fight against colonialism. Morley-Minto Reforms (1909) were a step in this direction and the seeds sown by these reforms ultimately resulted in the partition of India in 1947.