Indian National Movement: Birth of Nationalism, Moderates, Extremists, Swadeshi, Surat Split, Revolutionary Extremism, Home Rule & Lucknow Pact
High-Yield Fact Sheet
📊 High-Yield Data & Statistical Fact Sheet
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| List chronological anchors, named actors, press titles, associations, Acts, social composition stats, Moderate/Extremist leaders, Drain theorists, Swadeshi/Surat markers, revolutionary extremism, Home Rule and Lucknow Pact markers, historiographical schools and quantitative markers for Birth of Nationalism through Lucknow Pact. | Birth of Nationalism — Causal Anchors:
Pre-Congress Associations Anchors:
INC Foundation & Early Congress Anchors:
Moderate Period Anchors (
Extremist / Swadeshi / Surat Anchors (
Revolutionary Extremism Anchors:
Home Rule Movement Anchors (
Lucknow Pact Anchors (
Historiography & Imperial Ideology Anchors:
|
Overview
Overview
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| What is the analytical arc of this master note on the birth of Indian nationalism through early Congress? | From Resentment and Associations through Moderates, Extremists, Surat, Revolutionary Extremism, Home Rule and Lucknow: As British power expanded, sullen resentment over economic hardship, racial contempt and blocked advancement produced sporadic lower-strata uprisings and, ultimately, the Revolt of `1857`. Failure of traditional aristocratic resistance shifted hope to an English-educated middle class and “neo-social classes,” whose patriotism found expression first in regional associations and then in the Indian National Congress (`1885`). Early Congress social composition was unmistakably narrow — presidency professionals, high-caste Hindus, rising but limited Muslim and women’s presence — yet claimed to represent the whole nation. Moderate politics (`1885–1905`) functioned as annual “three day tamashas,” used the 3P method (Petition, Prayer, Protest) and the British Committee of INC (`1889`), and constructed economic nationalism via the Drain Theory (Naoroji, Ranade, R.C. Dutt, Dinshaw Wacha), while remaining limited by faith in British justice and a propertied social base. Extremism (`1905–1920`) rose on dissatisfaction with the Indian Councils Act `1892`, Curzon’s reactionary policies, international events and the Partition of Bengal (`1905`), demanding *Swaraj* through boycott, Swadeshi and passive resistance under Lal-Bal-Pal and Aurobindo. The Swadeshi Movement widened mass methods, national education and cultural nationalism; the Surat Split (`1907`) weakened both wings, invited repression and Morley-Minto concessions, and was followed by revolutionary extremism (Sumit Sarkar’s fourth Swadeshi trend) from Maharashtra and Bengal into Ghadar-era wartime plots. The Home Rule Leagues of Tilak and Besant (`1916`) revived aggressive constitutional politics for Dominion status; the Lucknow Pact (`1916`) reunited Moderates and Extremists and aligned Congress with the Muslim League on a joint reform programme that simultaneously institutionalised separate electorates and communal weightage. Historiography and imperial ideology debates frame the whole arc from derivative discourse to subaltern “dominance without hegemony.” |
1. Resentment under British Expansion — Background to Nationalism
1. Resentment under British Expansion — Background to Nationalism
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| What popular perceptions underpinned sullen resentment against British rule? | Economic Hardship; Racial Contempt; Threatened Way of Life; Insufficient Opportunity: As the British extended their empire over India, there was a feeling of resentment amongst the people which was very sullen. It was based on their perception that the new rulers were responsible for their economic hardship. They also felt that they were being looked down upon in their own country and their way of life was being threatened; the opportunities available to them for advancement was insufficient. |
| How did lower social strata express discontent, and how does `1857` fit this frame? | Sporadic Uprisings vs Immediate Exploiters; Revolt as Accumulated Mass Discontent: The lower strata of social and economic hierarchy expressed their resentment by sporadic uprisings. These were often directed against the immediate exploiters — the zamindars, the *sabukars* and the tax collectors — but broadly speaking these were against the British system. The intensity of discontent against foreign rule became visible through these uprisings. In fact, the great revolt of `1857` itself in a way sprang up as an outburst of accumulated discontent of masses in different parts of the country. |
2. Failure of the Revolt (1857) and Emergence of the Middle Class
2. Failure of the Revolt (1857) and Emergence of the Middle Class
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| What did failure of `1857` reveal about traditional protest and aristocratic leadership? | Inadequacy of Traditional Method; Old Aristocracy Not Saviours; Middle Class as Hope: The failure of this revolt revealed the inadequacy of the traditional method of protest. It also showed the old aristocratic classes could not be the saviours of Indian society and therefore the English educated Indian middle class seemed to be the hope of the future. |
| How did the middle class initially view British connection, and what shifted their outlook? | Positive Early Approach; Industrial Hope; Liberal Ideas; Pride in Past; Foreign Domination Opposed to Aspirations: This class was conscious of the benefits of the British connection. Initially, these groups adopted a very positive approach towards the colonial rule. They early realized that since India had come under the rule of the most advanced country in the world, she would be highly benefited with such connection. India would be turned into a major industrial power with its immense natural and human resources. It was also familiar with European liberal ideas of the period and at the same time it had the sense of pride in the country’s glorious past and gradually developed the conviction that foreign domination was inherently opposed to the fulfilment of legitimate hopes and aspirations of the Indian people. Hence, the foundations of the Indian national movement were laid by the emerging group of the modern intelligentsia. |
| What were the “neo-social classes,” and how did their consciousness institutionalise? | Traders, Landlords, Moneylenders, Lower-Post Educated Indians; Associations → INC Platform: “Neo-social classes” included the middle class like the Indian traders and business communities, landlords, money lenders, educated Indians recruited in lower posts etc. Each group though had different interest yet they realized that their interests could not be protected under the British rule. These groups had taken a leading role in developing a sense of patriotism among the people. The consciousness of this neo-social class found expression in the formation of a number of associations prior to the founding of All India National Congress. Ultimately the Indian National Congress emerged as a platform for the organisation of national movement. In the beginning, the middle class agitation was confined to ventilating of some specific political and economic grievances and demand because the educated Indians believed for some time that their grievances would be redressed by the benevolent rulers, if they could draw their attention to them. However, this stage was to be left behind after some time. |
3. Political and Administrative Unity
3. Political and Administrative Unity
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| How did British conquest create conditions for national consciousness through unification? | Centralized State; Uniform Law; Codified Laws; Tribunals; Public Services; Currency: One of the significant results of the British conquest of India was the establishment of a centralized state. It brought about a political and administrative unification of the country. The pre-British India was divided into numerous feudal states frequently struggling among themselves to extend their boundaries. The British authority established a centralized state structure in India with a uniform reign of law. They enacted and codified laws which were applicable to every citizen of the state. These laws were enforced by a hierarchically graded system of tribunals. The public services brought about the administrative unification of the country. The establishment of uniform currency system, common administration, common laws and judicial structure contributed to India’s unification which ultimately helped the rise of national consciousness. |
4. English Language and Western Education
4. English Language and Western Education
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| Which agencies spread modern education, and what motivated British dissemination? | Missionaries; British Government; Progressive Indians; Political-Administrative-Economic Needs: Introduction of western education was another important factor which paved the way for the growth of nationalism. Three main agencies were responsible for the spread of modern education in India: the foreign Christian missionaries, the British Government and the progressive Indians. The British Government was the principal agent of disseminating modern liberal and technical education in India. It established a network of schools and colleges in India which turned out a number of educated Indians well versed in modern knowledge. The introduction of modern education in India was primarily motivated by the political, administrative and economic needs of Britain in India. The British government assigned various key posts of the administrative machinery to the English and filled the subordinate posts with educated Indians. |
| How did English education reshape outlook, communication and leadership? | Scientific-Democratic Thought; National Medium; Western Political Ideas; Named Leaders: The old system of education was only perpetuating superstition and orthodoxy. English education was treated as the treasure of scientific and democratic thought of the west. English educated Indians like Raja Ram Mohan, Vivekananda, Gokhale, Dadabhai Naroji, Feroz Shah Mehta, Surendra Nath Banerjee etc. who led the social, religious and political movements in India were all English educated. English language became the medium of communication among the educated Indians by which they could develop close contacts with one another. They also came in contact with western ideas, culture and institutions through the medium of English language. It helped to build up a democratic and rationalist outlook. Ideas of nationalism, democracy, liberty, equality, socialism etc. could be infiltrated to India. The philosophical ideas of Milton, J.S. Mill, Thomas Paine, John Locke, Rousseau, Mazzini, Garibaldi etc. helped the growth of national consciousness. Exchange of views on different subjects of social, political and economic interest could be possible on a national scale. These educated Indians were instrumental in the political awakening and organisation of political movements in India. |
5. Development of Transport and Means of Communication
5. Development of Transport and Means of Communication
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| How did modern transport and communication forge national political life despite British motives? | Railways, Roads, Canals, Postal, Telegraph, Wireless; INC and All-India Bodies: Modern means of transport help in the consolidation of people into modern nations. In India too, the establishment of railways, construction of roads, canals and organisation of postal, telegraph and wireless services all over India contributed in forging the people into a nation. Of course, all these facilities were developed in the interest of the British industries and for political, administrative and military reasons. However, these modern means of communications helped the growth of political and cultural life on a national scale. It promoted the organisation and functioning of a number of political organisations like Indian National Congress, All India Kishan Sabha, Youth League, All India Trade Union Congress etc. Railways made it possible for the people of different towns, villages, districts and provinces to meet, to exchange views and to decide upon programmes for the nationalist movements. Without the modern means of transport, no national conferences could have been held. |
6. Emergence of Modern Press and Literature
6. Emergence of Modern Press and Literature
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| Why was the printing press revolutionary, and what were Raja Ram Mohan Roy’s pioneering publications? | Mass Exchange of Thought; *Sambad Kaumudi* `1821`; *Mirat-UL-Akbar* `1822`: As a powerful social institution, the press facilitates the exchange of thought on a mass scale within a short time. The introduction of the printing press in India was an event of revolutionary significance. Raja Ram Mohan Roy was the founder of nationalist press in India. His *Sambad Kaumudi* in Bengali published in `1821` and *Mirat-UL-Akbar* in Persian published in `1822` were the first publications with a distinct nationalist and democratic progressive orientation. |
| How did drama and novels articulate anti-colonial economic and patriotic themes? | *Nildarpan*; *Anandmath* & *Bande Mataram*; Harish Chandra; Marathi Journal Boom: British policies were blamed for deteriorating the economic conditions of the people. The need to use Swadeshi goods was also emphasized. These ideas found expression in some drama performances also and one of the well known plays which became popular around `1860` was titled *Nildarpan*, written by Dina Bandhu Mitra in Bengali, which highlighted the plight of the indigo peasants (the atrocities committed by Indigo planters). Another example is given by Bankim Chatterjee, who wrote historical novels highlighting the tyranny of colonial rule. His novel *Anandmath* released in `1882` contained his immortal song *Bande Mataram* (composed in `1875`). Similar patriotic feeling can also be seen in literature in other languages. Harish Chandra, who is regarded as the father of modern Hindi, in his plays, poems and journalistic writings put forward a plea for using swadeshi things. Similar trends were also seen in Marathi literature where there was tremendous increase in the journalistic publication from `3` (`1818–1827`) to `3,284` (`1885–1896`). |
| Which newspapers and agencies built nationalist public opinion, and how was press freedom defended? | Named English, Hindi and Regional Papers; Free Press News Service; Supreme Court Petition: The newspapers and journals played a creditable role in building up public opinion in favour of Indian national interest and against the inequalities of the colonial administration. Some of the well-known English language papers were Amrit Bazaar Patrika, Hindu Patriot and Som Prakash published from Calcutta; Indu Prakash and Native Opinion from Bombay; and The Hindu from Madras. Some important newspapers published in Hindi were Hinduatan, Bharat Mitra, Jagat Mitra and a lot of other publications in other languages like Urdu. Among others, The Bengali, The Bombay Chronicle, The Tribune, The Indian Mirror, The Pioneer, The Madras Mail, The Maratha, The Keshari etc. had played important role in exposing the failure of the British Government in providing welfare measures to the people. Among the news agencies, The Free Press News Service played the most important role in distributing news from the nationalist standpoint. The national movement was possible due to the facility of political education and propaganda provided by the press. With its help, the Indian nationalist groups were able to popularize among the people the ideas of representative government. The press also brought the news of the international world which made the people conscious of their own position in India. The Nationalists in India were very much eager to protect the independence of the press. Raja Ram Mohan Roy was the first fighter who filed a petition in the Supreme Court of Calcutta along with some enlightened nationalist Indians such as Dwarkanath Tagore, Harchandra Ghose, Chandra Kumar Tagore, Prasanna Kumar Tagore etc. for this purpose. The struggle for the freedom of the press has been an integral part of the national movement in India. |
7. Economic Exploitation and the Drain Critique
7. Economic Exploitation and the Drain Critique
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| What features of British economic policy fuelled nationalist agitation? | Trader Motive; Raw Materials & Markets; Civil-Military Cost; De-industrialisation; Free Trade Asymmetry: The worst feature of the British rule in India was the economic exploitation of all classes. Britishers came to India as traders and their primary motive was how to gain financial benefit. The industrial revolution in Britain necessitated the import of raw materials from different foreign countries and to search extensive market for its goods outside. India provided both to them. The British government maintained its civil service and military force at the cost of India. Attempt was made to destroy the indigenous Indian industries to expand the public demand for British industrial goods. While heavy import duties were put on Indian goods to restrict their entry into British market, there was free trade policy for the transactions of the raw materials or British goods in India. |
| Which leaders analysed colonial economic impact and with what nationalist repercussion? | Dadabhai Naroji; Mahadev Gobinda Ranade; G.K. Gokhale: Leaders like Dadabhai Naroji, Mahadev Gobinda Ranade, G.K. Gokhale etc. analyzed the economic impact of colonial rule in India. Economic exploitation to such a high extent had great repercussion on the growth of Indian nationalism and the people agitated against the foreign government. |
8. Revival of Glorious Indian Heritage
8. Revival of Glorious Indian Heritage
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| Which western and Indian scholars revived India’s past glory, and with what political effect? | Max Muller, William Jones, Charles Wilkins; R.G. Bhandarkar, H.P. Shastri; Self-Confidence & Patriotism: When Indians were developing a sense of inferiority complex being exploited under the colonial rule, the glorious heritage of India was revived by some western scholars like Max Muller, William Jones, Charles Wilkins etc. They translated some Sanskrit texts into English and attempted to prove the supremacy of ancient Indian culture, its heritage and philosophy. Some Indian scholars like R.G. Bhandarkar, H.P. Shastri etc. also helped in reviving the past glory of India. All these helped in regenerating a sense of self confidence and patriotism among the people. |
9. Impact of International Events
9. Impact of International Events
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| Which world events inspired Indian confidence in self-determination? | USA `1776`; France `1789`; Italy & Germany `1870`; Japan vs Russia `1904`: Several movements and events in foreign countries also helped in awakening national consciousness. The Declaration of Independence by U.S.A. in `1776`, the French Revolution of `1789`, the unification of Italy and Germany in `1870`, defeat of Russia by Japan in `1904` etc. inspired the Indians. They became confident that it would be possible to fight against the mighty British authority for their right of self-determination. World events thus motivated Indians and promoted the rise of nationalism. |
10. Social and Religious Reform Movements as National Awakening
10. Social and Religious Reform Movements as National Awakening
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| How did socio-religious reform express rising national consciousness? | Arya Samaj, Brahmo Samaj, Ramakrishna Mission, Theosophical Society; Equality; Path to Home Rule & Independence: The various social and religious reform movements which took place in India during the British rule were nothing but expression of the rising national consciousness of the people. The new educated class who imbibed the liberal western culture recognized the need of reforming social institutions and religious outlooks as these were regarded as obstacles to national advance. A number of organisations like Arya Samaj, Brahmo Samaj, Rama Krishna Mission, Theosophical society etc. helped in bringing movements of reformation and renaissance in India. These movements aimed to eliminate privilege from the social and religious fields, to democratize social and religious institutions of the country and to promote individual liberty and social equality. They sought to establish equal rights of all individuals irrespective of their caste or sex. In this way, the national democratic awakening found expression in all fields of national life. In politics, it gave birth to the movement of administrative reform, self-government, Home Rule and finally independence. |
11. Repressive Policies and Racial Arrogance of the British
11. Repressive Policies and Racial Arrogance of the British
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| How did racial arrogance and exclusion from higher services strengthen nationalism? | Higher Posts Denied; ICS Age Cut; Curzon Partition; Swadeshi & Boycott: The racial arrogance and the rude behaviour of the Britishers towards the Indians had played a significant role in making them conscious of their condition. The British Government did not allow the educated Indians to avail any opportunity to serve in higher administrative posts. The age limit for Indian Civil Service examination was reduced from twenty one to nineteen years and the examination was held in Britain. This change actually intended to debar the Indians from entering the civil services. Enactment of a number of laws further created widespread discontent among the Indians. This amendment exposed the policy of racial discrimination of the British Government. Lord Curzon not only adopted certain unpleasant measures to hurt the self-respect of the Indians, he even ordered for the partition of Bengal to suppress the rising Indian nationalism. The partition order created widespread resentment among the people. The use of ‘Swadeshi’ goods and boycott of foreign goods were adopted as effective techniques for expressing the resentment of the people. The resentment of the Indians against the repressive policies and racial arrogance of the British authorities helped in strengthening Indian nationalism. |
12. The Atrocities of Lord Lytton
12. The Atrocities of Lord Lytton
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| Which Lytton measures discharged ‘venom’ into Indian public mind? | Delhi Durbar `1877`; Cotton Import Tax Abolition; Afghan War Costs; Arms Act; Vernacular Press Act; ICS Age & Statutory Civil Service: The administration of Lord Lytton discharged venom in the minds of Indian people. In `1877`, he celebrated a ceremony at Delhi Durbar when Queen Victoria assumed the title Kaiser-e Hind (the Empress of India) when the country was famine-stricken. Abolition of import tax on foreign cotton cloth harmed the Indian textile industry. He imposed heavy tax on the people of India and spent a large chunk of money in the Afghan war. During his time, the Arms Act (`1878`) was passed which prohibited the Indians from keeping arms without licence. His Vernacular Press Act (`1878`) infuriated Indians. The Vernacular Press Act curbed the liberty of the Indian press. In `1879`, to discharge Indian middle classes from entering into the civil services, he reduced upper age limit from `21` to `19` and also introduced Statutory Civil Services (reserving `1/6` of total number of posts for Indian Princely Families and landed aristocracy). |
13. Liberal and Progressive Policies of Lord Ripon
13. Liberal and Progressive Policies of Lord Ripon
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| How did Ripon’s progressive policies raise Indian expectations? | Factory Act `1881`; Famine Code & Vernacular Press Repeal `1882`; Local Self-Government; Ilbert Bill `1883`: His progressive policies gave hope to Indians and they started expecting more. In `1881`, the first Indian Factory Act was passed regulating working hours for women and children. In `1882`, the Statutory Civil services were abolished and Indian Famine Code was introduced. (First Famine Commission was appointed under Sir Richard Stratchy in `1878`). In `1882`, Vernacular Press Act was abolished. In `1882`, he provided for compulsory grants to the autonomous bodies and so he is called father of modern self governance. In `1883`, he tried to give equality before law by introducing Ilbert Bill. |
14. The Ilbert Bill Controversy (1883–84)
14. The Ilbert Bill Controversy (1883–84)
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| What was the Ilbert Bill’s original intent under Ripon, and how was it diluted? | Indian Judges to Try Europeans; European Hue and Cry; European Witness / Jury Clause: During the period of Lord Ripon as Viceroy, the Ilbert Bill was passed. It empowered the Indian judges to try the Europeans. It created hue and cry among the Europeans and their pressure led to reform the bill inserting a clause that an Indian would try a European in the presence of an European witness. This clearly exposed the malafide intention of the British authority and clearly projected their racial antagonism. |
| What was the legal background of `1873` discrimination and the `2 February 1883` introduction? | No Indian Judge for European Criminal Accused; Sir Ilbert’s Bill; District Magistrates & Sessions Judges: In `1873`, the British government by an Act had proclaimed that in criminal matters no Indian judge could try a European accused. This discrimination between the Indians and the Europeans appeared to be inhuman and unjust to the liberal Viceroy Lord Ripon. Under his instruction Sir Ilbert, the Law Member of the Council, introduced a Bill which sought to abolish the discrimination between the Indians and the Europeans. On 2nd February `1883` a bill was introduced into the council of the viceroy of India to enable Indian district magistrates and sessions judges to try European settlers in country districts where before they had been amenable only to the jurisdiction of fellow Europeans. |
| Who led opposition, and what racist propaganda was deployed? | Indigo Farm Owners; Rape Rumours; Harem Propaganda; White Racial Superiority: This came as a huge resentment among the British regimes as they knew the judges from India would be inclined towards the Indians and the European convicts who were being prosecuted under the crime committed against an Indian would be punished according to law. There was also racism involved as many Europeans thought themselves as superior white race compared with Indians. The main resenters were the Indigo Farm owners in West Bengal region who were exploiting farmers and were forcing them to cultivate Indigo even though they did not want to do so. At the same time, rumors began circulating that an English female was raped by an Indian in Calcutta. In reference to the Indian Rebellion of `1857`, when it was alleged that English women and girls were raped by Indian Sepoy, many British colonialists expressed great concern over the humiliation English females would have to face appearing before Indian judges in the case of rape. The British press in India even spread wild rumors about how Indian judges would abuse their power to fill their harems with white English females. The propaganda that Indian judges cannot be trusted in dealing with cases involving English females helped raise considerable support against the bill. |
| What was the final compromise, and what two political messages did Indians draw? | CPCA `25 January 1884`; 50% European Jury Right; Racial Discrimination + Lesson of Unity; Ripon Resigned: Viceroy was not strong enough to stand against the discontentment and at first, as a result of popular disapproval of the Ilbert Bill by a majority of English women, Viceroy Ripon (who had introduced the Bill) passed an amendment, whereby a jury of `50%` Europeans was required if an Indian judge was to face a European on the dock. Finally, a solution was adopted by way of compromise: jurisdiction to try Europeans would be conferred on European and Indian District Magistrates and Sessions Judges alike. However, a defendant would in all cases have the right to claim trial by a jury of which at least half the members must be European. The bill was then passed on 25 January `1884` as the Criminal Procedure Code Amendment Act `1884`, coming into force on 1 May of that year. The bill which was passed at first got so many amendments and it became almost unrecognizable to the parent bill. If Lord Ilbert found it so inhuman at first that Indians didn’t have right to be judges in European’s case, he was not able to withstand wrath and succumbed to it to bring out almost the different inhuman bill. This gave two messages to Indians: Racial discrimination done by the Britishers and importance of unity — the unity by which Europeans pressurized the Viceroy to amend the bill gave them the results. Finally, Lord Ripon resigned; the power of Britishers in India proved to be stronger than the Viceroy. As the source comment puts it: “It was in this almost unrecognizable form that the Ilbert Bill was finally enacted….it was primarily a failure of the Viceroy.” |
15. Politics of Association before Congress — Character and Transition
15. Politics of Association before Congress — Character and Transition
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| What characterised early-half-nineteenth-century political associations? | Wealthy Aristocratic; Local/Regional; Petitions for Admin Reforms, Association with Administration, Education: The political associations in the early half of the nineteenth century were dominated by wealthy and aristocratic elements, local or regional in character, and through long petitions to the British Parliament demanded: Administrative reforms; Association of Indians with the administration; and Spread of education. |
| How did second-half-nineteenth-century associations differ in social base and agenda? | Modern Intelligentsia; Educated Middle Class — Lawyers, Journalists, Doctors, Teachers; Wider Agenda: The second half of the 19th century witnessed the growth of national political consciousness and foundation and growth of an organised national movement. During this period the modern Indian intelligentsia created political associations to spread political education and to initiate political work in the country. This work was to be based on new political ideas, new intellectual perception of reality, new social, economic and political objectives, new forces of struggle and resistance and new techniques of political organisation. The task was difficult as Indians were unfamiliar with modern political work. Even the notion that people could organise politically in opposition to their rulers was a novel one. Consequently the work of these early associations and of the early political workers proceeded rather slowly and it took more than half a century to bring the common people within the fold of modern politics. The political associations of the second half of the nineteenth century came to be increasingly dominated by the educated middle class — the lawyers, journalists, doctors, teachers, etc. and they had a wider perspective and a larger agenda. |
| How did `1857` failure and post-`1858` reaction reshape intelligentsia politics? | New Channel of Resistance; More Reactionary Raj; Critical Grasp of Exploitation; BIA Too Narrow; Lytton Accelerant: The failure of `1857` revolt made it clear that traditional political resistance to British rule under the leadership of the landed upper classes could no longer succeed and resistance to colonial rule must flow through different channel. On the other hand the character of British rule and policies underwent a major change after `1858`. It became more reactionary. Indian intellectuals gradually became more critical of British policies and began to grasp the exploitive character of British rule. Understanding of Indian intelligentsia took long time to develop but process once begun, based as it was on modern thought, probed deeper into the real nature of imperialism and was ultimately transformed into modern political activity. The political conscious Indians realised that existing political associations were too narrowly conceived to be useful in the changed circumstances. For example British Indian Association had increasingly identified itself with the interests of the Zamindars and consequently with the ruling power. The openly reactionary and anti-Indian measures introduced under Lytton’s viceroyalty from `1876` to `1880` quickened the pace of Indian nationalistic activity. |
| What early organised political activity and charter petitions signalled political awakening? | Land Holder’s Society `1837`; Bengal British India Society `1843`; Bombay & Madras Associations `1852`; Charter Suggestions: Signs of political awakening and feeling of oneness was growing day by day and the beginning of organized political activities in India can be dated back to the days of Land Holder’s Society in `1837`. It was an association of land holders of Bengal, Orissa and Bihar. Its principle objective was to guard class interest. In `1843`, another society was formed known as ‘Bengal British India Society’. Its objective was wider, i.e., to protect general public interest. Other association such as ‘The Land Holders Society’, represented the aristocracy of wealth and the Bengal British India Society, represented the aristocracy of intelligence. In `1852`, other associations such as ‘Bombay Association’ and ‘Madras Association’ were formed. All these associations had one thing in common. They were dominated by wealthy landed aristocracy or gentry. The three presidency associations sent political suggestions seeking changes in EIC Charter. The petitioners wanted that Indians should be appointed to the legislative bodies. The second one was that Company’s monopoly of salt and indigo should be abolished and the state should give aid to indigenous industries. It was also stated that the local government should have greater power and that Indians have bigger share in the administration of their own country. Improvement of the condition of the peasants was also suggested. |
16. Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Bangabhasha Prakasika Sabha
16. Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Bangabhasha Prakasika Sabha
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| What political reforms did Raja Ram Mohan Roy agitate for, and what organisation did his associates form? | Press Freedom; Jury Trial; Separation of Powers; Higher Offices; Ryots; Trade; Bangabhasha `1836`: Raja Ram Mohan Roy was one of the first Indian leaders to start an agitation for political reforms. He fought for the freedom of press, trial by jury, separation of executive and judiciary, appointment of Indians to higher offices, protection of ryots from Zamindari oppression and development of Indian trade and industry. He took keen interest in International affairs and supported cause of liberty, democracy and nationalism. The Bangabhasha Prakasika Sabha was formed in `1836` by associates of Raja Rammohan Roy. Bengal’s first political activist was Raja Ram Mohan Roy; western ideas shaped him; the British first noticed Indian issues because of him. |
17. Landholders’ Society, British India Society and British Indian Association
17. Landholders’ Society, British India Society and British Indian Association
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| What was the Zamindari / Landholders’ Society and its constitutional significance? | Dwarkanath Tagore, Prasanna Kumar Tagore, Radhakanta Deb `1836`; First Organised Constitutional Agitation: The Zamindari Association, more popularly known as the ‘Bengal Landholders’ Society’, was founded in `1836` by Dwarkanath Tagore, Prasanna Kumar Tagore, Radhakanta Deb to safeguard the interests of the landlords. Although limited in its objectives, the Landholders’ Society marked the beginning of an organised political activity and use of methods of constitutional agitation for the redressal of grievances. |
| What was the British India Society (`1843`) and its objective under William Adam? | England; Collection & Dissemination of Information; Peaceful Lawful Means for Welfare: The British India Society was set up in `1843` in England primarily as a result of the efforts of William Adam, who had come to India and befriended Ram Mohan Roy. On his return to England he took up India’s cause. Its objective was “the collection and dissemination of information relating to the actual condition of the people of British India and to employ such other means of peaceful and lawful character as may appear calculated to secure the welfare, extend the just rights and advance the interests of all classes of our fellow subjects”. |
| What demands did the British Indian Association (`1851`) put in its Charter petition, and what was accepted? | Popular Legislature; Separation of Executive/Judicial; Salary Cut; Abolition of Salt/*Abkari*/Stamp; Charter Act `1853` +6 Members: In `1851`, both the Landholders’ Society and the Bengal British India Society merged into the British Indian Association. It sent a petition to the British Parliament demanding inclusion of some of its suggestions in the renewed Charter of the Company, such as: Establishment of a separate legislature of a popular character; Separation of executive from judicial functions; Reduction in salaries of higher officers; Abolition of salt duty, *abkari* and stamp duties. These were partially accepted when the Charter Act of `1853` provided for the addition of six members to the governor-general’s council for legislative purposes. |
| What were the limits and political character of the British Indian Association? | Petitions & Trust in Rulers; Landed Aristocracy Bias; No Constructive Programme; Supported EIC in `1857`: During the early years the activities of the association consisted mainly of submissions of petitions to the Government and to the British Parliament on grievances. There was an inherent trust in the good intentions of the rulers. The association sought to take up issues on behalf of all sections of society but occasionally it made conscious efforts to protect the right of the landed aristocracy. Constructive policy they had none and seldom, if ever, they laid down any programme of systematic action for the political advancement of the country. It had failed to cover the country with a network of branches. In `1857` the Association supported the East India Company in the Sepoy Mutiny, calling for stern punishment for the rebels. |
18. East India Association (London)
18. East India Association (London)
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| Who founded the East India Association, when, where, and with what purpose? | Dadabhai Naoroji (Grand Old Man of India); London `1866`/`1866–67`/`1867`; Influence British Public; Counter Ethnological Society: The East India Association was organised by Dadabhai Naoroji (Grand Old Man of India) in `1867` in London to discuss the Indian question and influence public men in England to promote Indian welfare. Later, branches of the association were started in prominent Indian cities. It was one of the predecessor organizations of the Indian National Congress. The idea was to present the correct information about India to the British Public and voice Indian Grievances. (Source also states organisation by Indian students like Feroz Shah Mehta, Dadabhai Naroji, Bhadruddin in December `1866`; and “Dadabhai Naoroji in `1866–67` in London.”) The Association was instrumental in counter-acting the propaganda by the Ethnological Society of London which, in its session in `1866`, had tried to prove the inferiority of the Asians to the Europeans. This Association soon won the support of eminent Englishmen and was able to exercise considerable influence in the British Parliament. In `1869`, this organization opened branches in Bombay, Kolkata and Madras. It became defunct in `1880s`. |
19. Indian League and Indian Association of Calcutta
19. Indian League and Indian Association of Calcutta
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| What was the Indian League (`1875`) and who founded it? | Sisir Kumar Ghosh; Stimulate Nationalism; Political Education; *Amrita Bazar Patrika* `1868`: The Indian League was started in `1875` by Sisir Kumar Ghosh with the object of “stimulating the sense of nationalism amongst the people” and of encouraging political education. Sisir Kumar Ghosh (`1840–1911`) was a noted Indian journalist, founder of the *Amrita Bazar Patrika*, a noted Bengali language newspaper in `1868`. He lived most of the time in Santiniketan, West Bengal, where he was a Professor of English. |
| Why was the Indian Association of Calcutta founded (`1876`), and what were its aims? | Surendranath Banerjee & Ananda Mohan Bose; Superseded League; Civil Service Agitation; All-India Popularity: The Indian Association of Calcutta (Indian National Association) superseded the Indian League and was founded in `1876` by younger nationalists of Bengal led by Surendranath Banerjee and Ananda Mohan Bose, who were getting discontented with the conservative and pro-landlord policies of the British Indian Association. Ananda Mohan Bose was a member of Brahmo Dharma. The young members of Brahmo Samaj differed with Keshab Chandra Sen regarding matters like child marriage, running of the organisation and various other matters. As a result, on May 15, `1878` he, along with Shibnath Shastri, Sib Chandra Deb, Umesh Chandra Dutta and others founded the Sadharan Brahmo Samaj. He was elected its first president. The Indian Association of Calcutta was the most important of pre-Congress associations and aimed to: Reform in Civil Services Examinations (the Association sent Surendranath Banerjee as a special delegate to other parts of the country for support of this agitation and he became first Indian to gain all India popularity); Create a strong public opinion on political questions; Unify Indian people on a common political programme; Promoting by every legitimate means the political, intellectual and material advancement of the people. Its aims also included developing a strong public opinion to promote Hindu-Muslim friendship, establishing contacts with masses and generating wider awareness amongst the Indian people — ingredients for a broad based nationalist movement based on a conception of united India. Branches of the association were opened in other towns and cities of Bengal and even outside Bengal. The membership fee was kept low in order to attract the poorer sections to the association. The Indian National Association was the first avowed nationalist organization founded in British India. The Association attracted educated Indians and civic leaders from all parts of the country. It later merged with the Indian National Congress. It rose to prominence when it took a forceful stand in the Ilbert Bill Controversy (`1883`) and was envisioned as an ‘All India National Conference’ meeting in Calcutta in `1883`. |
20. Political Associations in Bombay and Madras
20. Political Associations in Bombay and Madras
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| What associations developed in Bombay Presidency? | Bombay Native Association `1852`; Poona Sarvajanik Sabha `1870`; Bombay Presidency Association `1885`: In `1852` the Bombay Native Association was founded by Jagannath Shankar Seth as the first political party. The Poona Sarvajanik Sabha was founded in `1870` by Mahadeo Govind Ranade, G.V. Joshi and others (also listed with S.H. Chiphankar and associates), with the object of serving as a bridge between the government and the people. The Sabha carried active political education for the next `30` years. This sabha brought out a journal from `1878` which did a lot for arousing political consciousness and political propaganda in England. The Bombay Presidency Association was started by Badruddin Tyabji, Pherozshah Mehta and K.T. Telang in `1885`. Among older associations only the Poona Sarvajanik Sabha carried on as before — already in the hands of nationalist intellectuals. In Bombay, the more militant intellectuals like K.T. Telang and Pherozeshah Mehta broke away from older leaders like Dadabhai Framji and Dinshaw Petit on political grounds and formed the Bombay Presidency Association in `1885`. |
| What associations developed in Madras Presidency and elsewhere? | Madras Native Association `1852`; Madras Mahajan Sabha `1884`; Allahabad; Lahore; Mufassil Branches: In `1852`, Madras Native Association was formed as the first political party in Madras Presidency. The Madras Mahajan Sabha was founded in `1884` by M. Viraraghavachari, B. Subramaniya Aiyer / G. Subramaniya Iyer and P. Ananda-charlu. Many political societies were founded in other places such as ‘Madras Mahajan Sabha’, ‘The Bombay Presidency Association’, ‘The Allahabad People Association’, ‘The Indian Association of Lahore’. Many of these bodies had branches in the Mufassil towns and it was after `1885` that these became the regional arms of the Congress. In Madras in `1884`, through the private initiative of a member of the Theosophical Society, delegates from different parts of India met on the sideline of the society’s annual convention, to discuss the necessity of a national organisation. |
| Association | Year | Place / Founders | Key Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bangabhasha Prakasika Sabha | 1836 | Associates of Raja Rammohan Roy | Early Bengal political organisation |
| Zamindari / Landholders’ Society | 1836 (also 1837) | Dwarkanath Tagore, Prasanna Kumar Tagore, Radhakanta Deb | Guard landlord interest; first organised constitutional agitation |
| British India Society | 1843 | England — William Adam | Information on condition of British India; peaceful lawful means |
| British Indian Association | 1851 | Merger Landholders’ + Bengal British India Society | Charter petition; partially accepted Charter Act 1853; pro-EIC in 1857 |
| Bombay Association / Bombay Native Association | 1852 | Jagannath Shankar Seth (Native Association) | Presidency association; charter suggestions |
| Madras Association / Madras Native Association | 1852 | Madras Presidency | First political party in Madras Presidency |
| East India Association | 1866 / 1866–67 / 1867 | London — Dadabhai Naoroji (with Mehta, Bhadruddin etc.) | Influence British public; branches 1869; defunct 1880s |
| Poona Sarvajanik Sabha | 1870 | M.G. Ranade, G.V. Joshi, S.H. Chiphankar | Bridge government–people; journal 1878; 30 years political education |
| Indian League | 1875 | Sisir Kumar Ghosh | Stimulate nationalism; political education |
| Indian Association of Calcutta | 1876 | Surendranath Banerjee, Ananda Mohan Bose | Most important pre-Congress; civil service campaign; low fees; later merged INC |
| Madras Mahajan Sabha | 1884 | Viraraghavachari, Subramaniya Iyer/Aiyer, Ananda-charlu | Younger Madras nationalists |
| Bombay Presidency Association | 1885 | Tyabji, Mehta, Telang | Broke from older Bombay leadership |
21. Process Culminating in the Congress (1870s–1885)
21. Process Culminating in the Congress (1870s–1885)
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| To what extent was the emergence of Congress in `1885` the culmination of political awakening beginning in the `1870s`? | Not Sudden; Culmination of `1860s`–`1870s` Process; Leap in Late `1870s`–Early `1880s`: Indian National Congress was founded in December `1885` by seventy-two political workers. It was the first organized expression of Indian nationalism on an all-India scale. A.O. Hume, a retired English ICS officer, played an important role in its formation. The foundation of the Indian National Congress in `1885` was not a sudden event, or a historical accident. It was the culmination of a process of several events and political awakening that had its beginnings in the `1860s` and `1870s` and took a major leap forward in the late `1870s` and early `1880s`. |
| Which nationwide agitations gave Indians experience and confidence before `1885`? | Lex Loci `1850`; Income Tax `1867`; Cotton Duties from `1875`; ICS Indianisation & Afghan War Costs `1877–80`; Vernacular Press Act; Arms Act; Plantation Labour Act; Ilbert Bill; National Fund `1883`; Volunteer Corps `1885`: The Indians had gained experience, as well as confidence, from the large number of agitations they had organized on national issues: Protests against missionary interventions and against the Lex Loci Act of `1850` were voiced from different parts of India simultaneously. In `1867` there was a nationwide agitation against the proposed income tax and in support of a demand for balanced budget. Since `1875`, there had been a continuous campaign around cotton import duties which Indians wanted to stay in the interests of the Indian textile industry. Then in `1877–80` a massive campaign was organised around the demand for Indianisation of the civil services and against Lord Lytton’s expensive Afghan adventures, the cost of which had to be met from Indian revenues. The Indian press and associations also organised an orchestrated campaign against the notorious Vernacular Press Act of `1878`. The Indians had also opposed the effort to disarm them through the Arms Act. In `1881–82` they organised a protest against Plantation Labour and Inland Emigration Act, which condemned the plantation labourers to serfdom. A major nation-wide agitation was launched again in `1883` in favour of the Ilbert Bill, which would enable Indian magistrates to try Europeans. This Bill was successfully thwarted by the Europeans and had shaken the educated Indians’ faith in the righteousness of British rule. In July `1883` a massive all-India effort was made to raise a National Fund which would be used to promote political agitation in India as well as England. In `1885`, Indians fought for the right to join the volunteer corps restricted to Europeans, and then organized an appeal to British voters to vote for those candidates who were friendly towards India. Several Indians were sent to Britain to put the Indian case before British voters through public speeches, and other means. |
| What political lesson did Indians draw, and how did younger radicals replace older associations? | Lack of All-India Coordination; Europeans Concerted; New Associations `1875–85`; All-India National Conference `1883`: The Indians had been quick to draw the political lesson. Their efforts had failed because they had not been coordinated on an all-India basis. On the other hand, the Europeans had acted in a concerted manner. This convinced the regional leaders about the need for an all-India organisation. While informal contacts between leaders from various cities were not lacking in any period, attempts to establish a formal forum were also made a number of times. The earliest of such endeavours to forge all-India links was in `1851` when the British India Association of Calcutta tried to open branches in other two presidencies with a view to send a joint petition to British parliament on the eve of the renewal of the Company’s Charter. The new political thrust in the years between `1875` and `1885` was the creation of the younger, more radical nationalist intellectuals most of whom entered politics during this period. They established new associations, having found that the older associations were too narrowly conceived in terms of their programmes and political activity as well as social bases. For example, the British Indian Association of Bengal had increasingly identified itself with the interests of the zamindars and, thus, gradually lost its anti-British edge. The Bombay Association and Madras Native Association had become reactionary and moribund. And so, the younger nationalists of Bengal, led by Surendranath Banerjea and Anand Mohan Bose, founded the Indian Association in `1876`. On the occasion of the Delhi Durbar in `1877`, the Indian journalists who were invited to this extravaganza took the opportunity to form a Native Press Association. They elected S.N. Banerjea, the leader of the Indian Association and the editor of *Bengalee*, as its first secretary and resolved to meet once or twice every year to discuss issues related to press and the country. By `1885`, the formation of an all-India political organization had become an objective necessity, and the necessity was being recognized by nationalists all over the country. This acquired a greater sense of urgency especially from `1883` and there was intense political activity. The *Indian Mirror* of Calcutta was carrying on a continuous campaign on the question. The Indian Association had already in December `1883` organized an All-India National Conference in Calcutta and given a call for another one in December `1885`. |
| Why was Hume needed as mediator, and what national-unity design did the first Congress adopt? | Supra-Regional Identity; Liberal Opinions; Annual Sessions Outside Host Province; National Unity Objective: So, the foundation of the Congress was the natural culmination of the political work of the previous years and the emergence of a national body was clearly on the cards, although mutual jealousies that thwarted such attempts in `1851` had not been completely removed either. There was still the need for a mediator who could bring all these regional leaders together under one organisational umbrella. Hume was ideally suited for this role, as his supra-regional identity made him acceptable to all the regional leaders. He was also acceptable for his known liberal political opinions. The year `1885` marked a turning point in this process, for that was the year the political Indians, the modern intellectuals interested in politics, who no longer saw themselves as spokesmen of narrow group interests, but as representatives of national interest vis-a-vis foreign rule. The Indian National Congress, which was thus born in December `1885`, tried from the very beginning to eliminate such regional differences. The first Congress declared that one of its major objectives would be the “development and consolidation of those sentiments of national unity”. The decision to hold the Congress session every year in different parts of the country and to choose the president from a region other than the one where the session was being held, was meant to break the regional barriers and misunderstandings. |
22. Foundation of the Indian National Congress (1885)
22. Foundation of the Indian National Congress (1885)
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| What role did A.O. Hume play, and how did he relate to Ripon and educated Indians? | Retired English Civil Servant; Toured Sub-Continent; Safety Valve Outlet; Network of Contacts: Many Indians were planning to establish an all India organization of nationalist political workers. But the credit for organizing the first meeting of the Indian National Congress goes to A.O. Hume, who was a retired English Civil Servant and who had chosen to stay back in India after the retirement. It was Hume who toured across the sub-continent, talked to prominent political leaders in Bombay, Madras and Calcutta and persuaded them to meet at a national conference that was initially supposed to meet at Poona. He was on a very good term with Lord Ripon, who was the viceroy of India at that time. He was of the view that the emergence of educated class should be accepted as a political reality and that timely steps should be taken to provide the right channel to the expression of the grievances of this class. He believed that efforts must be made to satisfy the ambitions of this class. Lord Ripon also shared with his views. A.O. Hume strenuously consolidated the network of contacts which he established. In Mumbai, he met and discussed with the leaders, who were influential in the presidency, the program of political action to be adopted by the educated Indians. On 1 March `1883`, A.O. Hume addressed students of Calcutta University urging them to form an association for the mental, moral, social, and political regeneration of the people of India. One of the main aims of Hume in facilitating the establishment of the National Congress was to offer an outlet — “a safety valve” — to the rising popular dissatisfaction against the British rule. As Hume put it: “A safety valve for the escape of great and growing forces generated by our own action was urgently needed and no more efficacious safety valve than our Congress Movement could possibly be devised.” The “safety valve” theory is, however, a small part of the truth or even false. More than anything else, the National Congress represented the urge of the politically conscious Indians to set up a national organization to work for their political and economic advancement. National movement was growing in the country as a result of the working of powerful forces. |
| Why did capable patriotic Indians accept Hume’s organisational role? | Avoid Official Hostility; Few Political Persons; Open Opposition Not Yet Entrenched: As for the question of the role of A.O. Hume, if the founders of the Congress were such capable and patriotic men of high character, why did they need Hume to act as the chief organizer of the Congress? The Indian leaders, who cooperated with Hume in starting this National Congress, were patriotic men of high character, who willingly accepted Hume’s help as they did not want to arouse official hostility towards their efforts at such an early stage of political activity. Considering the size of the Indian subcontinent, there were very few political persons in the early `1880s` and the tradition of open opposition to the rulers was not yet firmly entrenched. |
| What were the facts of the first session, and how should success of early Congress be judged? | Gokuldas Tajpal Sanskrit College Bombay; W.C. Banerjee; 72 Delegates; Objectives Not Founder Identity: The efforts of A.O. Hume yielded results and he organized the first session of the Indian National Congress at Bombay in the hall of Gokuldas Tajpal Sanskrit College On 20th December (Monday), `1885`. It was presided over by Womesh Chandra Banerjee of Bengal and attended by `72` delegates. W.C. Banerjee was one of the first ever Indian barristers and one of the foremost legal luminaries of the day; his election established a healthy precedent that the president should be chosen from a province other than the one in which the Congress was being held. (Source also dates the men who met in Bombay on 28 December `1885`.) By `1885`, a stage had been reached in the political development of India when certain basic tasks or objectives had to be laid down and struggled for. Moreover these objectives were correlated and could only be fulfilled by the coming together of political workers in a single organization formed on an all-India basis. The men who met in Bombay were inspired by these objectives and hoped to initiate the process of achieving them. The success or failure and the future character of the Congress would be determined not by who founded it but by the extent to which these objectives were achieved in the initial years. With the foundation of the National Congress in `1885`, the struggle for India’s freedom from foreign rule was launched in a small but organized manner. The national movement was to grow and the country and its people were to know no rest till freedom was won. |
23. Safety-Valve Thesis — Origins, Acceptance and Critique
23. Safety-Valve Thesis — Origins, Acceptance and Critique
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| Where did the safety-valve / conspiracy theory originate, and who accepted it across the spectrum? | Wedderburn Biography `1913`; Seven Volumes Simla `1878`; Right, Left, Centre; Lajpat Rai; R.P. Dutt; Golwalkar; Andrews-Mukherji: Hume’s involvement in the formation of INC gave rise to a lot of controversy regarding the origins of Congress. The safety-valve theory or the conspiracy theory, which was deduced from this simple fact, was for a long time subscribed to by all shades of historians, in the right, left and center. It was even accepted by some of the stalwarts of nationalist movement. In recent researches, however, it has been thoroughly discredited. The theory originated from William Wedderburn’s biography of Hume published in `1913`. Wedderburn, another civil servant, wrote that in `1878`, Hume had come across seven volumes of secret reports at Simla which showed that there had been seething discontent among the lower classes and a conspiracy to overthrow British rule by force. He became disturbed, met Lord Dufferin and together they decided to establish an organization with educated Indians. This would serve as a safety valve by opening up a line of communication between the rulers and the ruled and would thus prevent a mass revolution. The congress was in this way the creation of British rule. This safety-valve theory was believed by the earlier nationalist historians; the imperialist historians used it to discredit Congress and the Marxist historians developed a conspiracy theory from this. In his *Young India* published in `1916`, the Extremist leader Lala Lajpat Rai used the safety-valve theory to attack the Moderates in the Congress. Having discussed the theory at length and suggested that the Congress ‘was a product of Lord Dufferin’s brain,’ he argued that ‘the Congress was started more with the object of saving the British Empire from danger than with that of winning political liberty for India.’ More than a quarter century later, R. Palme Dutt’s authoritative work *India Today* made the myth of the safety-valve a staple of left-wing opinion. R.P. Dutt, for example, wrote that Congress was born through a conspiracy to forestall a popular uprising in India and the Indian bourgeoisie leaders were a party to it. In `1939`, M.S. Golwalkar, the RSS chief, had also found the safety-valve theory handy in attacking the Congress for its secularism and, therefore, anti-nationalism. In his pamphlet *We*, Golwalkar complained that Hindu national consciousness had been destroyed by those claiming to be ‘nationalists’. The liberal C.F. Andrews and Girija Mukherji fully accepted the safety-valve theory in their work, *The Rise and Growth of the Congress in India* published in `1938`. They were happy with it because it had helped avoid ‘useless bloodshed.’ |
| Why were safety-valve / conspiracy theories discredited in the `1950s`? | No Seven Volumes; Information Structure; Hume’s Department; 7-Year Wait; Tibetan Guru Fiction; Dufferin Hostile: In the `1950s`, these safety-valve or conspiracies theories were proved to be wrong because: First of all, those seven volumes of secret reports have not been traced in any of the archives either in India or London. Historians argue that given the structure of British information system in the `1870s`, it was highly unlikely that so many volumes of secret reports have existed. Hume was Secretary to the Department of Revenue, Agriculture and Commerce. How could the Secretary of these departments get access to Home Department files or CID reports? Also he was then in Simla while Home Department files were kept in Delhi; they were not sent to Simla. If Congress was founded out of the fear of an outbreak, why did Hume and British officialdom wait for seven long years? (Report in `1878` and congress in `1885`.) Wedderburn writes that a warning of the threatened danger came to Hume ‘from a religious Guru of Tibet.’ According to Wedderburn’s biography of Hume, in `1878`, the evidence of the seven volumes was shown to Hume by the Gurus who had sent reports by thousands of Chelas. Though Hume was in fact student of Eastern Religions and impressed by Gurus, but why should Hume believe that these reports ‘must necessarily be true?’ Further proof offered for the safety-valve theory was based on W.C. Bannerjee’s statement in `1898` in *Indian Politics* that the Congress, ‘as it was originally started and as it has since been carried on, is in reality the work of Dufferin.’ He stated that Hume had, in `1884`, thought of bringing together leading political Indians once a year “to discuss social matters” and did not “desire that politics should form part of their discussion.” But Dufferin asked Hume to do the opposite and start a body to discuss politics so that the Government could keep itself informed of Indian opinion. Clearly, either W.C. Bannerjee’s memory was failing or he was trying to protect the National Congress from the wrath of the late 19th century imperialist reaction, for contemporary evidence clearly indicated the opposite. All the discussions Hume had with Indian leaders regarding the holding of an annual conference referred to a political gathering. Neither Dufferin and his fellow-liberal Governors of Bombay and Madras nor his conservative officials were sympathetic to the Congress. It was not only in `1888` that Dufferin attacked the Congress in a vicious manner by writing that he would consider ‘in what way the happy despatch may be best applied to the Congress,’ for ‘we cannot allow the Congress to continue to exist.’ Dufferin openly castigated Congress for its dubious motives. He criticized it for representing a “microscopic minority” and this statement if anything else, explodes the safety valves or conspiracy theory. In fact, from the end of May `1885`, Dufferin had grown cool to Hume and began to keep him at an arm’s length. Historians now more or less agree that the story of seven volumes of secret report was a fiction created by a friendly biographer Wedderburn to portray Hume as British patriot who wanted to save the British Empire from an impending crisis. |
| What is the residual truth about Hume, and how did Gokhale reframe the exchange? | Hume Crucial but Exaggerated; Liberal Who Visualised Opposition; Lightning Conductor: The fact that Hume played a crucial role in the foundation of the Congress, however, remains, although this role might have been grossly exaggerated in the safety valve or conspiracy theories. But even if Hume had not taken any initiative, in India in the `1870s` and `1880s`, the formation of national organization was clearly in the air. In reality, Hume was a political liberal, who had clear idea about growing discontent among Indians. So he visualised an all India organisation which would represent Indian interest and act as an opposition. During May–June `1886`, Dufferin described Hume as “Cleverish, a little cracked, excessively vain and indifferent to truth”, his main fault being that he was one of the chief stimulus of Home Rule Movement. To conclude, it is high time that the safety-valve theory of the genesis of the Congress was confined to the care of the mahatmas from whom perhaps it originated. Gokhale wrote in `1913` that any attempt by the Indians to form an all India organization would immediately attract the unfriendly attention of the authorities. He further wrote that, “If the founder of the Congress had not been a great Englishman, the authorities would have at once found some way or the other to suppress the movement.” Thus, “if Hume and other English liberals hoped to use Congress as a safety-valve, the Congress leaders hoped to use Hume as a lightning conductor.” |
24. Nature and Character of Early INC (Moderate Phase 1885–1905)
24. Nature and Character of Early INC (Moderate Phase 1885–1905)
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| Was early Congress a full-fledged political party, and how did it present an all-India front? | No Paying Members/Central Office/Permanent Fund; Only General Secretary; Delegate Growth; European Associates: The early Congress was not a ‘full-fledged political party’. It had neither paying members nor a central office, nor a permanent fund, nor permanent officials. All it had was a general secretary. The leaders spared no efforts to assure the Raj that the Congress “wasn’t a nursery for sedition and rebellion.” They, as Jawaharlal Nehru admitted, remained preoccupied with concerns of landlords, capitalists and educated unemployed. Yet, the proceedings of its early sessions indicate a general will of the Congress to present an all-India front to the colonial regime. The number of delegates, representing the country’s four corners, rose from `72` in `1885` at Bombay, to `436` in `1886` at Calcutta, `607` in `1887` at Madras, `1,248` in `1888` at Allahabad and to `1,889` in Bombay. Along with Allan Octavian Hume and William Wedderburn, who were directly associated with the convening of the `1885` session, other ‘distinguished Europeans’ joined that, and other sessions too. Growth in popularity: Popular enthusiasm for the Congress was felt from the second session at Calcutta. The Town Hall — the session’s venue — was “stifled in a crowd of … 2,000 to 3,000 lookers-on” on the very first day. The size of such accompanying crowd rose to `6,000` at the `1889` Congress. |
| What methods and loyalty posture defined moderate culture of opposition? | Prayers, Petitions, Memoranda; “Un-British Rule”; Not Nest of Conspirators; Faith in British Justice: From the beginning the INC tried to eliminate regional differences. The first congress declared that one of its major objectives would be the “development and consolidation of those sentiments of national unity”. Indian National Congress in its early career was never a radical organization, as the culture of the opposition to the government had not yet taken roots. So they were cautious reformers seeking to alleviate certain unpleasant aspects of what Surendranath Banerjee described as the “un-British rule” in India and their method was sending prayers, petitions and memoranda. W.C. Banerjee, the president of the first Congress, made it clear at the very outset that it was not “a nest of conspirators and disloyalties”; they were thoroughly loyal and consistent well wishers of the British Government. The Indian National Congress was completely under the control of moderate leaders during `1885–1905`. In the initial years, the Congress leaders did not want the Congress to function as political party. They simply sought autonomy in internal affairs under the British suzerainty. They expressed their immense faith in the sincerity of the British government. They wanted that the Congress should work within the constitutional limits. The Congress proceedings were organized in the most orderly and efficient manner. A strict parliamentary procedure was observed in moving, discussing, and passing the resolutions. During the early years, the moderates pleaded for introduction of policies which would transform India economically, socially, and politically. The moderates appealed for self-rule for India. They favoured gradual reforms and their demands also remained moderate. The means chosen by them to achieve the ends were very well within the constitutional limits. In the initial phase, the educated middle class dominated the National Congress. Early Congressmen had an absolute faith in the effectiveness of peaceful and constitutional agitation. The holding of the annual session of the Congress was a significant method of its propaganda. The Congress leaders had trust in the essential sense of justice and kindness of the British nation. But, they were all under illusion that the British rule in India would be beneficial. So, their aim was to educate Indian public and make it conscious of its rights. The National Congress took pride in the British connection and regarded the British government not as an antagonist, but as an ally. |
| How did early Congress function as a movement rather than a party, and what demand did it raise? | Nation in the Making; Broad Objectives Only; Democratic Secular Nationalism; Widen Basis of Government: The Moderate Congress leaders were aware of the fact that India was a nation in the making. They had consistently worked for the development and consolidation of the idea of national unity irrespective of region, religion, or caste. They made a modest beginning in this direction by promoting close contacts and friendly relations among the people from different parts of the country. The economic and political demands of the moderates were structured with a view to unify the Indian people on the basis of a common political program. From the beginning, the Congress was conceived not as a party but as a movement. Except for agreement on the very broad objectives, it did not require any particular political or ideological commitment from its activists. It also did not try to limit its following to any social class or group. As a movement, it incorporated different political trends, ideologies and social classes and groups so long as the commitment to democratic and secular nationalism was there. In this way, the Congress movement started in India as a limited elitist politics for limited reforms. But nevertheless, it represented a new and modern trend in Indian political tradition. Despite its limitations, it sought to forge an overarching national unity and raised a very important political demand: the basis of the government should be widened and the people should have their proper and legitimate share in it. It was from here that the mainstream of Indian nationalist politics began to flow. |
| What were moderate methods, achievements and limitations (merged skeleton + master note)? | 3Ps; Drain Critique; Indian Councils Act `1892`; Narrow Social Base; Naive Trust: Led by Naoroji, Gokhale, Pherozeshah Mehta, W.C. Bonnerjee, R.C. Dutt. Methodology: 3Ps (Petition, Prayer, Protest); constitutional agitation within law. Achievements: Economic critique of colonialism (Drain of Wealth theory); expansion of legislative councils (Indian Councils Act `1892`); seeded democratic consciousness. Limitations: Narrow social base (urban educated elites); failed to involve masses; naive trust in British sense of justice. |
25. Objectives of Early Congress and Scope of Agenda
25. Objectives of Early Congress and Scope of Agenda
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| What were the founding objectives of early Indian National Congress (`1885`)? | National Unity; Common Political Platform; Politicization; All-India Leadership; Cadre; Recording Educated Opinion: Objectives of the early Indian National Congress `1885`: To promote the feeling of national unity; to weld India into a nation; to help create an Indian people; development and consolidation of feeling of national unity irrespective of race, caste, religion and provinces, to meet the imperialist charge that Indians were not a people or nation but a mere grouping of hundreds of diverse races, languages, castes and religions. To create a national political platform or programme on which all Indians could agree and which could serve as the basis for all-India political activity. Politicization of the people and the creation of public interest in political questions and the training and organization of public opinion in the country. The creation of an all-India political leadership. Such a leadership on a country-wide level did not exist in the `1880s`. Allied to this was the need to train a common band of political workers or cadre to carry on political work. Recording of the opinions of educated classes on pressing problems. Laying down lines for future course of action in public interest. In `1888`, it was decided that no resolution would be passed if it was objected to by an overwhelming majority of Hindu or Muslim. A majority clause figured in a resolution adopted in `1889` demanding reform in the legislative councils. As per Bipin Chandra, Congress has two basic objectives: to foster nation-building and Indian identity; and to provide a single political programme or platform for political workers across India to assemble and mobilise people. W.C. Banerjee’s three goals: strengthening national unity (sessions nationwide; presidents from various regions); reach out to all religions and alleviate minority worries (`1888` majority of Hindus or Muslims opposition rule); construct a secular nation. |
| Why were social reforms off the agenda, and what broader national issues did delegates raise? | Political Unity Priority; Bourgeois Path; Military Expenditure; Destitution; Upper Burma; Separation of Powers; Cotton Duty; Education: Social Reforms were not part of the agenda. Congress was to be a political body to represent political aspirations of the Indian people as a whole and not a platform to discuss social reform. This was mainly due to aim to creation of political unity in India. Early Congress mainly believed in bourgeois path of socio-economic political development. Dada Bhai Naoroji made this explicit in his presidential address to the 2nd Congress — Congress should only address national issues. The delegates did not merely demand Indianisation of civil services or greater Indian representation in the Government Councils, but opposed increasing military expenditure of the Raj; spoke of the country “sinking deeper and deeper into this abyss of destitution,” criticised the annexation of Upper Burma; proposed separation of executive and judiciary and re-imposition of import duty on finer classes of cotton goods; urged encouragement of indigenous manufactures; demanded promotion of general and technical education and reduction of government control over education — issues which were of common concern for the nation. Founding fathers of the Congress visualised it as ‘the germ of a Native Parliament.’ Despite scant respect shown to the Congress by Viceroy Dufferin and his immediate successors, its pressure for constitutional reforms yielded the first fruit with the `1892` Council Act. |
26. Social Composition of Early Congress — Narrow Base, Region, Profession, Community & Women
26. Social Composition of Early Congress — Narrow Base, Region, Profession, Community & Women
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| How narrow was the early Congress social base, and who led over landed aristocrats? | Unmistakably Narrow Base; Total Exclusion of Non-Elite; Western-Educated Professionals over Landed Aristocrats: The social base of the early Congress was unmistakably narrow. It had uneven representation and total exclusion of non-elite groups of Indian society. The Composition of the delegates at the first congress reflected the changing patterns of organised political life in India, the western educated professional groups gradually taking the lead over the landed aristocrats. Geographically, within the overall ascendancy of the presidencies, Bengal was gradually slipping from its leadership position, which was being taken over by Bombay, surging ahead of all other regions. The first meeting of the Indian National Congress in `1885` was attended by seventy-two non-official Indian representatives and they included people apparently from various walks of life, or belonging to “most classes”, as claimed by the official report of the Congress. Hence the Congress movement started in India as a limited elitist politics for limited reforms. But nevertheless, it represented a new and modern trend in Indian political tradition. Despite its limitations, it sought to forge an overarching national unity and raised a very important political demand: “the basis of the government should be widened and the people should have their proper and legitimate share in it”. It was from here that the mainstream of Indian nationalist politics began to flow. Founding fathers of the Congress visualised it as ‘the germ of a Native Parliament.’ Despite scant respect shown to the Congress by Viceroy Dufferin and his immediate successors, its pressure for constitutional reforms yielded the first fruit with the `1892` Council Act. |
| What was the regional distribution of delegates at the first Congress (`1885`)? | Bombay 38; Madras 21; Bengal Only 4; NWP & Awadh 7; Punjab 3 Towns — One Each: If we look at their regional distribution, thirty-eight came from Bombay Presidency, twenty one from Madras, but only four from Bengal, as the Indian Association had convened its own national conference in Calcutta almost at the same time and the Bengal leaders were told of the Bombay conference only at the very last moment. Apart from the presidencies, seven representatives came from the four principal towns of North-Western Provinces and Awadh and one each from the three towns of Punjab. It was in other words, despite lofty claims, a gathering of professionals, some landlords and businessmen, representing primarily the three presidencies of British India. |
| What was the profession-wise breakdown of Congress delegates (`1892–1909`)? | Landlords 18.99%; Lawyers 39.32%; Traders 15.10%; Journalists 3.18%; Doctors 2.94%; Teachers 3.16%; Other Professionals 17.31%: There were lawyers, merchants, bankers, landowners, medical men, journalists, educationists, religious teachers and reformers. About `18.99%` of the delegates who attended the congress sessions between `1892` and `1909` were landlords; the rest were lawyers (`39.32%`), traders (`15.10%`), journalists (`3.18%`), doctors (`2.94%`), teachers (`3.16%`) and other professionals (`17.31%`). They predominantly belonged to the high caste Hindu communities and this pattern continued for two decades. Delegates for the sessions being overwhelmingly from the educated and professional sections of the Hindu community. |
| What was the communal and caste composition, and how did Muslim delegate numbers rise (`1885–1889`)? | Hindus ~90%; Muslims 6.5%; Brahmins 40% among Hindus; Muslim Rise 2→33→81→221→254; Lucknow Six-Tenths: Bearing the exception of Bombay politician, Badruddin Tyabji, mostly were Hindus. Between `1892` and `1909`, nearly `90%` of delegates who attended congress sessions were Hindus and only `6.5%` were Muslims. Among Hindus, `40%` were Brahmins and rest were upper caste Hindus. However, the organisation increasingly assumed a representative character. The number of registered Muslim delegates rose from the paltry figure of two in `1885` to `33` in `1886`, `81` in `1887`, `221` in `1888`, `254` in `1889`. The Congress even resolved in `1887–88` not to debate social or religious matters for ensuring the support of religious minorities. Six-tenths of Muslim delegates to Congress sessions from `1886` to `1901` were from Lucknow alone. The number of delegates, representing the country’s four corners, rose from `72` in `1885` at Bombay, to `436` in `1886` at Calcutta, `607` in `1887` at Madras, `1,248` in `1888` at Allahabad and `1,889` in Bombay. (In the limitations layer of the same source, Brahmins among Hindus are also stated as nearly `48%`; Muslim participation began to decline rather dramatically after `1893`.) |
| What was the presence of women and non-elite delegates at the `1889` Bombay and `1890` Calcutta sessions? | Dwarkanath Ganguly; Six Women / Ten Registered; Pandita Ramabai; Swarnakumari Devi; Kadambini Ganguly; 41 Cultivators + 2 Artisans: Owing to the efforts of Dwarkanath Ganguly, six women delegates were present at the `1889` Congress session in Bombay (`10` registered lady delegates) including social reformer Pandita Ramabai, Rabindranath Tagore’s sister Swarnakumari Devi and Calcutta University’s first lady graduate Kadambini Ganguly. The two from Bengal were Dwarkanath’s wife Kadambini and Swarnakumari Debi, wife of Janakinath Ghosal. The presence of both women was closely connected with the extent of their husbands’ links with Congress politics. Orthodox opinion objected to even this limited participation, and ridiculed Dwarkanath for insisting on the right of women to be represented in Congress to express their views and on their right to be elected members of the Legislative Council. In `1890` Calcutta Session, Kadambini Ganguly addressed the Congress Session. Her contributions at these sessions were more symbolic than substantial — in Calcutta she made a motion to thank the Chairman. The `1889` session was attended by `41` ‘simple’ cultivators and two working artisans. Carefully ‘sheltering’ diverse social concerns, the Congress sessions proved to be the melting point of all …interconnections. This limitation of participation did not fluster the members of the Congress, as they complacently claimed to represent the whole nation; but it obviously put some constraints on their programmes. |
Profession (1892–1909 delegates) | Share |
|---|---|
| Landlords | 18.99% |
| Lawyers | 39.32% |
| Traders | 15.10% |
| Journalists | 3.18% |
| Doctors | 2.94% |
| Teachers | 3.16% |
| Other professionals | 17.31% |
| Year | Muslim registered delegates | Total delegates (selected) |
|---|---|---|
1885 (Bombay) | 2 | 72 |
1886 (Calcutta) | 33 | 436 |
1887 (Madras) | 81 | 607 |
1888 (Allahabad) | 221 | 1,248 |
1889 (Bombay) | 254 | 1,889 |
27. Moderate Period of INC (1885–1905) — Three-Day Tamashas and Key Leaders
27. Moderate Period of INC (1885–1905) — Three-Day Tamashas and Key Leaders
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| What three phases of Congress politics does the source mark, and how did Moderate Congress function? | Moderate `1885–1905`; Extremist `1905–1920`; Gandhian `1920–1947`; Annual “Three Day Tamashas”: Indian National Congress underwent three different phases or periods: (1) Moderate period (`1885–1905`); (2) Extremist period (`1905–1920`); (3) Gandhian Period (`1920–1947`). Congress politics during the first twenty years of its history is roughly referred to as moderate politics. Congress at that time was hardly a full-fledged political party; it was more in the nature of an annual conference, which deliberated and adopted resolutions during the “three day tamashas”, and then dispersed. Its members were mostly part-time politicians, who were successful professionals in their personal lives — a thoroughly Anglicized upper class who had very little time and commitment for full-time politics. The leading figures during the first phase of the National Movement were A.O. Hume, W.C. Banerjee, Surendra Nath Banerjee, Dadabhai Naoroji, Feroze Shah Mehta, Gopalakrishna Gokhale, Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya, Badruddin Tyabji, Justice Ranade, G. Subramanya Aiyar etc. |
| What were the main facts on W.C. Banerjee / Bonnerjee and Pherozeshah Mehta? | First INC President; First Indian Contest for Commons; Lion of Bombay; INC President `1890`; *Bombay Chronicle* `1910`:W.C. Banerjee was the first president of Indian National Congress. He was the first Indian to contest the election for the British House of Commons although he lost the election. He was the president of the Indian National Congress again in the `1892` session in Allahabad. Sir Pherozeshah Mehta (`4 August 1845` – `5 November 1915`) was a Parsi Indian political leader, activist, and a leading lawyer of Mumbai, who was knighted by the British Government in India for his service to the law. He was known as The Lion of Bombay. He became the Municipal commissioner of Bombay Municipality in `1873` and its President four times. Pherozeshah Mehta was nominated to the Bombay Legislative Council in `1887` and in `1893` a member of the Imperial Legislative Council. He was chosen the president of the Indian National Congress in `1890`. In `1910`, he started *Bombay Chronicle*, an English-language weekly newspaper. |
| What were Justice M.G. Ranade’s institutional and reform contributions? | Prarthana Samaj; Poona Sarvajanik Sabha; Social Conference; Widow Marriage Association `1861`; Mentor to Gokhale:Justice Mahadev Govind Ranade (`18 January 1842` – `16 January 1901`) was a distinguished Indian scholar, social reformer and author. He was a founding member of the Indian National Congress and owned several designations as member of the Bombay legislative council, member of the finance committee at the centre, and the judge of Bombay High Court. He published books on Indian economics and on Maratha history. He saw the need for heavy industry for economic progress and believed in Western education as a vital element to the foundation of an Indian nation. With his friends Atmaram Pandurang, Bal Mangesh Wagle and Vaman Abaji Modak, Ranade founded the Prarthana Samaj, a Hindu movement inspired by the Brahmo Samaj, espousing principles of enlightened theism based on the ancient Vedas. (Prarthana Samaj was started by Keshav Chandra Sen.) Ranade founded the Poona Sarvajanik Sabha & Ahmednagar Education Society and later was one of the originators of the Indian National Congress. He has been portrayed as an early adversary of the politics of Bal Gangadhar Tilak and a mentor to Gopal Krishna Gokhale. Ranade was a founder of the Social Conference movement, directing his social reform efforts against child marriage, the shaving of widows’ heads, the heavy cost of marriages and other social functions, and the caste restrictions on traveling abroad, and he strenuously advocated widow remarriage and female education. He was one of the founders of the Widow Marriage Association in `1861`. Ranade valued India’s history, having had a great interest in Shivaji and the Bhakti movement; Ranade encouraged the acceptance of change, believing traditional social structures, like the caste system, should accommodate change, thereby preserving India’s ancient heritage. Though Ranade criticised superstitions and blind faith, he was conservative in his own life. Upon the death of his first wife, his reform-minded friends expected him to marry (and thereby rescue) a widow. However, he adhered to his family’s wishes and married a child bride, Ramabai Ranade, whom he subsequently provided with an education. After his death, she continued his social and educational reform work. |
| What defined Surendranath Banerjee and G. Subramanya Aiyar as Moderate leaders? | Rashtraguru; Indian Burke; *The Bengalee*; Indian Association `1876`; *The Hindu* `1878`; *Swadesamitran*:Surendranath Banerjee founded the Indian National Association. He was also known by the Rashtraguru. He cleared the Indian Civil Service examinations in `1869`, but was barred owing to a dispute over his exact age. Banerjee cleared the exam again in `1871` and was posted as assistant magistrate in Sylhet. However, Banerjee was dismissed soon from his job owing to racial discrimination. Banerjee went to England to protest this decision, but was unsuccessful. During his stay in England (`1874–1875`), he studied the works of Edmund Burke and other liberal philosophers. These works guided him in his protests against the British. He was known as the Indian Burke. In `1879`, he founded the newspaper, *The Bengalee*. He founded the Indian Association (`1876`) to agitate for political reforms. He had convened the Indian National Conference (`1883`) which merged with the Indian National Congress in `1886`. He firmly opposed the Partition of Bengal. He was an important figure in the Swadeshi movement — advocating goods manufactured in India against foreign products. Banerjee supported the Morley-Minto reforms `1909` — which were resented and ridiculed as insufficient and meaningless by the vast majority of the Indian public and nationalist politicians. Banerjee was a critic of the proposed method of civil disobedience advocated by Mahatma Gandhi. G. Subramanya Aiyar was a leading Indian journalist, social reformer and freedom fighter who founded *The Hindu* newspaper along with M. Veeraraghavachariar, T. T. Rangachariar, P. V. Rangachariar on `20 September 1878`. He preached nationalism through the Madras Mahajana Sabha. He also founded *Swadesamitran*. He was one of the `72` delegates present at the Bombay Conference at Tejpal Sanskrit College on `12 December 1885`, which resulted in the founding of the Indian National Congress. Subramania Iyer campaigned vehemently for reforms in Hindu society. He supported widow remarriage and desired to abolish untouchability and child marriages. Subramania Iyer arranged for the remarriage of his widowed daughter for which he was socially boycotted. |
| What were Dadabhai Naoroji’s political and economic contributions as a Moderate? | Grand Old Man; First Asian British MP `1892–95`; East India Association; *Poverty and Un-British Rule* `1901`; Royal Commission `1896`:Dadabhai Naoroji (`4 September 1825` – `30 June 1917`), known as the Grand Old Man of India, was a Parsi intellectual, educator, cotton trader, and an early Indian political and social leader. He was a member of parliament (MP) in the United Kingdom House of Commons between `1892` and `1895`, and the first Asian to be a British MP. In his political campaign and duties as an MP, he was assisted by Muhammed Ali Jinnah. In `1867` Naoroji helped to establish the East India Association, one of the predecessor organisations of the Indian National Congress with the aim of putting across the Indian point of view before the British public. This Association soon won the support of eminent Englishmen and was able to exercise considerable influence in the British Parliament. He was also a member of the Indian National Association founded by Sir Surendranath Banerjee from Calcutta a few years before the founding of the Indian National Congress in Bombay, with the same objectives and practices. The two groups later merged into the INC, and Naoroji was elected President of the Congress in `1886`. In `1874`, he became Prime Minister of Baroda and was a member of the Legislative Council of Mumbai (`1885–88`). Dadabhai Naoroji became Indian representative in the socialist Second International, at their `1905` congress in Amsterdam. Later, on `22 August 1907`, his assistant Mrs. Bhikaiji Rustom Cama attended the International Socialist Conference in Stuttgart, Germany, where she described the devastating effects of a famine that had struck the Indian subcontinent. In her appeal for human rights, equality and for autonomy from Great Britain. Naoroji published *Poverty and un-British Rule in India* in `1901`. Dadabhai Naoroji’s work focused on the drain of wealth from India into England through colonial rule. Naoroji’s work on the drain theory was the main reason behind the creation of the Royal commission on Indian Expenditure in `1896` in which he was also a member. This commission reviewed financial burdens on India and in some cases came to the conclusion that those burdens were misplaced. In `1906`, Naoroji was again elected president of the Indian National Congress. |
| What defined Gopal Krishna Gokhale as Moderate leader and rival of Tilak? | Protégé of Ranade; Servants of India Society `1905`; Age of Consent vs Tilak; Mentor to Gandhi and “Muslim Gokhale” Jinnah: Gokhale became a member of the Indian National Congress in `1889`, as a protégé of social reformer Mahadev Govind Ranade. In `1899`, Gokhale was elected to the Bombay Legislative Council. He was elected to the Council of India of Governor-General of India on `22 May 1903` as non-officiating member representing Bombay Province. He later served to Imperial Legislative Council after its expansion in `1909`. He there obtained a reputation as extremely knowledgeable and contributed significantly to the annual budget debates. Gokhale developed so great a reputation among the British that he was invited to London to meet with secretary of state Lord John Morley. Gokhale would help during his visit to shape the Morley-Minto Reforms introduced in `1909`. In many ways, Tilak and Gokhale’s early careers paralleled — both were Chitpavan Brahmin (though unlike Gokhale, Tilak was wealthy), both attended Elphinstone College, both became mathematics professors, and both were important members of the Deccan Education Society. When both became active in the Congress, however, the divergence of their views concerning how best to improve the lives of Indians became increasingly apparent. Gokhale’s first major confrontation with Tilak centred around one of his pet issues, the Age of Consent Bill introduced by the British Imperial Government, in `1891–92`. Gokhale and his fellow liberal reformers, wishing to purge what they saw as superstitions and abuses in their native Hinduism, supported the Consent Bill to curb child marriage abuses. Though the Bill was not extreme, only raising the age of consent from ten to twelve, Tilak took issue with it; he did not object per se to the idea of moving towards the elimination of child marriage, but rather to the idea of British interference with Hindu tradition. The bill however became law in the Bombay Presidency. In `1905`, Gokhale became president of the Indian National Congress. Gokhale used his now considerable influence to undermine his longtime rival, Tilak, refusing to support Tilak as candidate for president of the Congress in `1906`. By now, Congress was split: Gokhale and Tilak were the respective leaders of the moderates and the “extremists”. In `1905`, when Gokhale was elected president of the Indian National Congress and was at the height of his political power, he founded the Servants of India Society to specifically further one of the causes dearest to his heart: the expansion of Indian education and to train Indians to dedicate their lives to the cause of the country. Gokhale wrote that “The Servants of India Society will train men prepared to devote their lives to the cause of country in a religious spirit, and will seek to promote, by all constitutional means, the national interests of the Indian people.” Gokhale was famously a mentor to Mahatma Gandhi in his formative years. In `1912`, Gokhale visited South Africa at Gandhi’s invitation. As a young barrister, Gandhi returned from his struggles against the Empire in South Africa and received personal guidance from Gokhale, including a knowledge and understanding of India and the issues confronting common Indians. Despite his deep respect for Gokhale, however, Gandhi would reject Gokhale’s faith in western institutions as a means of achieving political reform and ultimately chose not to become a member of Gokhale’s Servants of India Society. Many members of Society were also against Gandhi joining it. After death of Gokhale, first Gandhi wanted to join it but later withdrew application due to division among members. Gokhale was also the role model and mentor of Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the future founder of Pakistan, who in `1912`, aspired to become the “Muslim Gokhale”. Gokhale died on `19 February 1915` at an early age of forty-nine. Bal Gangadhar Tilak, his lifelong political opponent, said at his funeral: “This diamond of India, this jewel of Maharashtra, this prince of workers is taking eternal rest on funeral ground. Look at him and try to emulate him”. |
| What were Madan Mohan Malaviya’s and Badruddin Tyabji’s Moderate roles? | Mahamana; BHU `1916`; INC President Four Times; Congress Nationalist Party; Tyabji Third INC President; First Indian Solicitor:Madan Mohan Malaviya (`1861–1946`) was an Indian educationist and politician notable for his role in the Indian independence movement. He was also addressed as ‘Mahamana’. In December `1886`, Malaviya attended the 2nd Indian National Congress session in Calcutta under chairmanship of Dadabhai Naoroji. He remained a member of the Imperial Legislative Council from `1912` and when in `1919` it was converted to the Central Legislative Assembly he remained its member as well, till `1926`. Malaviya was an important figure in the Non-cooperation movement. However, he was opposed to the politics of appeasement and the participation of Congress in the Khilafat movement. Malaviya was the founder of Banaras Hindu University (BHU) at Varanasi in `1916`. In April `1911`, Annie Besant met Malaviya and they decided to work for a common Hindu University at Varanasi. Besant and fellow trustees of the Central Hindu College, which she has founded in `1898` also agreed to Government of India’s precondition that the college should become a part of the new University. Thus Banaras Hindu University (BHU) was established in `1916`, through under the Parliamentary legislation, ‘B.H.U. Act `1915`’. In `1933`, Malaviya started *Sanatana Dharma* from BHU, a magazine dedicated to religious, dharmic interests. He was a moderate leader and opposed the separate electorates for Muslims under the Lucknow Pact of `1916`. Malaviya was the President of the Indian National Congress on four occasions (`1909` & `1913`, `1919`, `1932`); he left congress in `1934` and also one of the initial leaders of the Hindu Mahasabha. In protest against the Communal Award which sought to provide separate electorates for minorities, Malaviya along with Madhav Shrihari Aney left the Congress and started the Congress Nationalist Party. The party contested the `1934` elections to the central legislature and won `12` seats. Malaviya was one of the founders of Scouting in India. He also founded a highly influential English newspaper, *The Leader* published from Allahabad in `1909`. In `1924`, Malaviya along with the help of national leaders Lala Lajpat Rai and M. R. Jayakar and industrialist Ghanshyam Das Birla, acquired *Hindustan Times* and saved it from an untimely demise. His efforts resulted in the launch of its Hindi edition named *Hindustan Dainik* in `1936`. Malaviya played an important part in the removal of untouchability and in giving direction to the Harijan movement. The Harijan Sevak Sangh was founded at a meeting in `1933` at which Pandit Malaviya presided. Badruddin Tyabji (`10 October 1844` – `19 August 1906`) was an Indian lawyer who served as the third President of the Indian National Congress. Badruddin Tyabji returned to India in `1867` after study in Europe and became the first Indian solicitor. |
28. Moderate Ideology
28. Moderate Ideology
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| What was the core ideological posture of the Moderates toward British rule and reform? | Equality as Abstract Idea; Liberty as Class Privilege; Gradual Reforms; “Un-British” Rule Not Expulsion: They did demand equality, which seemed to be a rather abstract idea; they equated liberty with class privilege and wanted gradual or piecemeal reforms. ‘British rule’, to most of them seemed to be an act of providence destined to bring in modernization. Indians needed some time to prepare themselves for self-government. In the meanwhile, absolute faith could be placed in British Parliament and the people. Their complaint was only against “un-British” rule in India perpetrated by the viceroy, his executive council and the Anglo-Indian bureaucracy — an imperfection that could be reformed or rectified through gentle persuasion. Their politics was very limited in terms of goals and methods. They were secular in their attitudes, though not always forthright enough to rise above their sectarian interests. They were conscious of the exploitative nature of British rule, but wanted its reforms and not expulsion. |
29. Moderate Methods — 3P (Petition, Prayer, Protest) and British Committee of INC (1889)
29. Moderate Methods — 3P (Petition, Prayer, Protest) and British Committee of INC (1889)
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| How did Gokhale define the 3P method, and what was the role of annual sessions? | Petition, Prayer, Protest (*Sudhar*); Press and Platform; Congress Only 3 Days a Year; No Permanent Missionary: Early Congressmen had an implicit faith in the efficacy of peaceful and constitutional agitation as opposed to popular means of agitation. It was well explained by Gokhale in his journal *Sudhar* as the 3P method: Petition, Prayer and Protest. The press and platform of the annual sessions were their agency of agitation. The holding of annual sessions was another method of Congress propaganda. At this session, the government policy was discussed and resolutions were passed in forceful manner; these annual sessions attracted the attention of both the educated section of the middle class and government. But the biggest drawback was that the Congress lasted only for 3 days in a year and it had no missionary to carry on the work in the interval between the two sessions. The congressmen believed in the essential sense of justice and the goodness of the British nation. The Moderates believed that the British basically wanted to be just to the Indians but were not aware of the real conditions. They thought it was only the bureaucracy which stood between the people and their rights. Therefore, if public opinion could be created in the country and public demands be presented to the Government through resolutions, petitions, meetings, etc., the authorities would concede these demands gradually. |
| What two-pronged methodology did Moderates use, and what was the British Committee of INC (`1889`)? | Create Public Opinion in India; Persuade British Opinion; British Committee of INC `1889`; London Session Plan Postponed: To achieve these ends, they worked on a two-pronged methodology: (1) create a strong public opinion to arouse consciousness and national spirit and then educate and unite people on common political questions; (2) persuade the British Government and British public opinion to introduce reforms in India on the lines laid out by the nationalists. To remind the British, deputations of leading Indians were sent to Britain to give this viewpoint. To do this in `1889`, a British Committee of INC was founded to carry out its propaganda. It was to present India’s view point to the British authority. Dadabhai Naoroji spent his major part in England where he got elected in the British House of Commons and formed a powerful Indian lobby in the House of Commons. In `1890`, it was decided to hold a session of the Indian National Congress in London in `1892`, but owing to the British elections of `1891` the proposal was postponed and never revived later. |
30. Moderate Programs — Constitutional, Administrative, Military, Economic Drain Theory & Civil Rights
30. Moderate Programs — Constitutional, Administrative, Military, Economic Drain Theory & Civil Rights
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| What were Moderate constitutional demands and what did the Indian Councils Act `1892` yield? | Expansion & Reform of Councils; “No Taxation without Representation”; Lord Cross’s Act `1892` Marginal Only: Programs and Limited Successes: (a) Constitutional field. What they receive in return, however, was Lord Cross’s Act or the Indian Council’s Amendment Act of `1892`, which only provided for marginal expansion of the legislative councils both at the center and the provinces. Some Moderates like Ranade and Gokhale favoured social reforms. They protested against child marriage and widowhood. Legislative councils in India had no real official power till `1920`. Yet, work done in them by the nationalists helped the growth of the national movement. The Imperial Legislative Council constituted by the Indian Councils Act (`1861`) was an impotent body designed to disguise official measures as having been passed by a representative body. Indian members were few in number — thirty years from `1862` to `1892` only forty-five Indians were nominated to it, most of them being wealthy, landed and with loyalist interests. Only a handful of political figures and independent intellectuals such as Syed Ahmed Khan, Kristodas Pal, V.N. Mandlik, K.L. Nulkar and Rashbehari Ghosh were nominated. From `1885` to `1892`, the nationalist demands for constitutional reforms were centred around: (1) Expansion of councils — i.e., greater participation of Indians in councils; (2) Reform of councils — i.e., more powers to councils, especially greater control over finances. The early nationalists worked with the long-term objective of a democratic self-government. Their demands for constitutional reforms were conceded in `1892` in the form of the Indian Councils Act. These reforms were severely criticised at Congress sessions. Now, they demanded (i) a majority of elected Indians, and (ii) control over the budget i.e., the power to vote upon and amend the budget. They gave the slogan — “No taxation without representation”. Gradually, the scope of constitutional demands was widened and Dadabhai Naoroji (`1904`), Gopal Krishna Gokhale (`1905`) and Lokmanya Tilak (`1906`) demanded self-government like the self-governing colonies of Canada and Australia. Also, leaders like Pherozshah Mehta and Gokhale put government policies and proposals to severe criticism. The British had intended to use the councils to incorporate the more vocal among Indian leaders, so as to allow them to let off their “political steam”, while the impotent councils could afford to remain deaf to their criticism. But the nationalists were able to transform these councils into forums for ventilating popular grievances, for exposing the defects of an indifferent bureaucracy, for criticising government policies/proposals, raising basic economic issues, especially regarding public finance. |
| What administrative reforms did Moderates demand? | Indianisation of Services; Simultaneous ICS Exams; Separation of Judiciary from Executive; Welfare Expenditure; Indentured Labour:(b) Administrative system. The first demand of the moderates was for the Indianisation of the services. An Indianised civil service would be more responsive to the Indian needs, they argued. It would stop the drainage of money, which was annually expatriated through the payment of salary and pension of the European officers. More significantly, this reform was being advocated as a measure against racism. They demanded actually simultaneous civil service examination both in India and London and raising of the age limit for appearing in such examinations from nineteen to twenty-three. In `1892–93`, under the initiative of William Gladstone, the House of Commons passed a resolution for simultaneous examination, though the secretary of state was still opposed to it. But at the same time, the maximum age for examination was further lowered to the disadvantage of the Indians. Criticism of an oppressive and tyrannical bureaucracy and an expensive and time-consuming judicial system. They demanded Separation of judicial from executive functions. The other administrative demands of the moderates included the extension of trial by jury, repeal of the arms act, and a campaign against the exploitation of the indentured labour at the Assam tea gardens; increase in expenditure on welfare (i.e., health, sanitation), education — especially elementary and technical — irrigation works and improvement of agriculture, agricultural banks for cultivators, etc. They demanded better treatment for Indian labour abroad in other British colonies, who faced oppression and racial discrimination there. |
| What military and foreign-policy demands did Moderates raise? | Share Military Expenditure Evenly; Indians as Volunteers and Higher Ranks; Criticise Aggressive Foreign Policy:(c) Military. The British Indian army was being used in imperial wars in all parts of the world, particularly in Africa and Asia. These and the Indian frontier wars of the `1890s` put a very heavy burden on the Indian finances. The moderates demanded that this military expenditure should be evenly shared by the British government; Indians should be taken into the army as volunteers and more and more of them should be appointed in higher ranks. All of these demands were however rejected. Criticism of an aggressive foreign policy which resulted in annexation of Burma, attack on Afghanistan and suppression of tribals in the North-West. |
| What was the Moderate economic critique of imperialism and Drain Theory? | Naoroji, Ranade, R.C. Dutt, Dinshaw Wacha; Free Trade Subordination; Drain ~£12m (Naoroji) vs £30m (Digby); Welby Commission:(d) Economic Critique of Imperialism. The most significant historical contribution of the moderates was that they offered an economic critique of colonialism. This economic nationalism, as it is often referred to, became a major theme that developed further during the subsequent period of nationalist movement and to a large extent influenced the economic policies of the Congress government in independent India. The early nationalists took note of all the three forms of contemporary colonial economic exploitation, namely, through trade, industry and finance. They clearly grasped that the essence of British economic imperialism lay in the subordination of the Indian economy to the British economy. Names important to remember in this respect: Dinshaw Wacha, Dadabhai Naoroji, a successful businessman, Justice M.G. Ranade (wrote *Essays in Indian Economics* (`1898`)) and R.C. Dutt, a retired ICS officer, who published *The Economic History of India* in two volumes (`1901–1903`). The early nationalists complained of India’s growing poverty and economic backwardness and the failure of modern industry and agriculture to grow and they put the blame on British economic exploitation. Dadabhai Naoroji declared that the British rule was “an everlasting, increasing, and every day increasing foreign invasion”. The main thrust of this economic nationalism was on Indian poverty created by the application of the classical economic theory of free trade; their main argument was that British colonialism had transformed itself in the 19th century by jettisoning the older and direct modes of extraction through plunder, tribute and mercantilism in favour of more sophisticated and less visible methods of exploitation through free trade and foreign capital investment. This turned India into a supplier of agricultural raw materials and foodstuffs and a consumer of manufactured goods. India was thus reduced to the status of a dependent agrarian economy and a field of British capital investments. Dadabhai Naoroji in his famous book *Poverty and Indian Poverty and UnBritish Rule in India* wrote his Drain Theory. He showed how India’s wealth was going away to England in the form of salaries, savings, pensions, payments to British troops in India and profits of the British companies. In fact, the British Government was forced to appoint the Welby Commission, with Dadabhai as the first Indian as its member, to enquire into the matter. In Naoroji’s calculation this drain of wealth from India to Britain amounted to about £ `12` million per year, while William Digby calculated it to be £ `30` million. To quote Dadabhai Naoroji: “materially British rule caused only impoverishment; it was like ‘the knife of sugar’. That is to say there is no oppression; it is all too smooth and sweet, but it is the knife notwithstanding.” What the moderates wanted was a change in economic policies. Their recommendations included reduction of expenditure and taxes, reallocation of military charges, a protectionist policy to protect Indian industries, abolition of salt tax, reduction of land revenue assessment, extension of Permanent Settlement to Ryotwari and Mahalwari areas (this was a pro-Zamindar demand), reduction in military expenditure, encouragement of cottage industries and handicrafts, and encouragement to modern industry through tariff protection and direct government aid. But none of these demands were fulfilled. This economic theory of linking Indian poverty to colonial rule, and also perhaps by implication challenging the whole concept of paternalistic imperialism or British benevolence. In this way, the moderate politicians generated anger against British rule, though because of their own weaknesses, they themselves could not convert it into an effective agitation for its overthrow. |
| How did Moderates defend civil rights when the Government curtailed liberties? | Freedoms of Speech, Press, Thought, Association; Tilak Arrest `1897`; Natu Brothers Deported Without Trial:(e) Defence of Civil Rights. The early Indian nationalists were attracted to modern civil rights, namely, the freedoms of speech, the Press, thought and association. They put up a strong defence of these civil rights whenever the Government tried to curtail them. The struggle for democratic freedoms became an integral part of the nationalist struggle for freedom. The Government arrested B.G. Tilak and several other leaders in `1897` for spreading disaffection against the Government. The Natu brothers were deported without trial. The entire country protested against this attack on the liberties of the people. |
31. Limitations of the Moderates
31. Limitations of the Moderates
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| How did faith in the English liberal tradition and 3P methods limit Moderate politics? | Intrinsic Faith in English Democratic Tradition; Failure Palpable by End of 19th Century; Tories Return:(a) 3P (Prayers, Petitions and Protest). The moderate politicians could not or did not organize an agitation against British rule because of them still sharing an intrinsic faith in the English democratic liberal political tradition. Their method was to send prayers and petitions, to make speeches and publish articles. By using these tools of colonial modern public life, they tried to prepare a convincing logical case aimed at persuading the liberal political opinion in England in favour of granting self-government to India. They did not understand true nature of British rule in India. The failure of moderate politics was quite palpable by the end of the 19th century and their failure was doomed as the less sympathetic Tories returned in power in Britain at the turn of the century. |
| How did narrow social base, Hindu dominance and propertied interests constrain Moderates? | Mainly Hindus (Badruddin Tyabji Exception); No Faith in Masses; Gokhale on Divisions; Pro-Zamindar; Mining Bill vs Assam Labour:(b) Narrow Social base, absence of mass participation and negative attitude of Government. These early moderate politicians were also mainly Hindus, barring the notable exception of Bombay politician, Badruddin Tyabji. Between `1892` and `1909`, nearly `90%` of the delegates who attended the Congress sessions are Hindus and only `6.5%` were Muslims and among the Hindus again, nearly `48%` were Brahmans and the rest were upper-caste Hindus. This social composition inevitably resulted in social orthodoxy as social questions were not to be raised in the congress sessions till `1907`. Muslim participation in Congress sessions began to decline rather dramatically after `1893`. Yet, major Congress politicians suffered from a sense of complacency as no rival Muslim political organization worth its name developed until `1906`. The basic weakness of the early national movement lay in its narrow social base. It did not penetrate down to the masses. In fact, the leaders lacked faith in the masses. Describing the difficulties in the way of organizing of active political struggle, Gopal Krishna Gokhale pointed to the endless divisions and subdivisions in the country, the bulk of the population ignorant and clinging with a tenacity to the old modes of thought and sentiment, which are averse to all changes and do not understand change. Lacking support of the masses, the early nationalists could not adopt a militant political position. They failed to visualize that the masses could prove to be the real driving force in the movement. There were contradictions in moderate politics, which made it more limited and alienated from the greater mass of the Indian population. This was related to the social background of those who mostly belonged to the propertied classes. About `18.99%` of the delegates who attended the congress sessions between `1892` and `1909` were landlords; the rest were lawyers (`39.32%`), traders (`15.10%`), journalists (`3.18%`), doctors (`2.94%`), teachers (`3.16%`) and other professionals (`17.31%`). The congress could therefore not consequently take a logical stand on peasant questions. They demanded extension of the Permanent Settlement only in the interest of the zamindars and opposed cadastral survey in `1893–94`, though it was meant to protect the peasants from the manipulations of the zamindars. They were opposed to factory reforms like the Mining Bill which proposed to improve the living condition of women and children and restrict their employment under certain plea that they were prompted by Lancashire interests. However, they supported labour reforms for Assam tea gardens as capitalist interest involved there was of foreign origin, happily forgetting that the Indian mill owners in Bombay exploited their labourers in no less flagrant ways. |
| What other failures and the “microscopic minority” charge marked Moderate limits? | Military Share Fraction; Commissioned Ranks Rejected; Dufferin November `1888` Microscopic Minority:(c) Other Failure. British agreed to share only a small fraction of military expenditure and demand for appointing Indians in commissioned ranks were rejected as no European officer would cherish the thought of being ordered by Indian Commander. Many other demands were rejected. The moderate politics thus remained quite limited in nature in terms of its goals, programs, achievements and participation. Lord Dufferin, therefore could easily get away with his remark in November `1888` that Congress represented only a ‘microscopic minority’ of the Indian people. |
32. Evaluation of the Early Nationalists / Moderates
32. Evaluation of the Early Nationalists / Moderates
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| What positive historical significance and concrete gains does the source assign to Moderates? | Economic Critique Discursive Field; Aitchison `1886`; Councils Act `1892`; Calcutta University & Municipal Acts `1904`; National Awakening: An Evaluation of the Early Nationalists: (1) Despite limitations of representation, the historical significance of the early Congress lay in the fact that by providing an economic critique of colonialism and by linking Indian poverty to it, the moderate politicians had constructed a discursive field within which the subsequent nationalist attack on colonialism could be conceptualized. (2) On the request of Moderates in `1886`, Lord Dufferin appointed Aitchison Committee on Indian Civil Service. On its recommendation, the upper age was increased to `22` but examination was to be held in London only. (3) The Moderates had succeeded in getting the expansion of the legislative councils by the Indian Councils Act of `1892`. (4) On request of Moderates, Calcutta University Act of `1904` and Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act of `1904` were passed. (5) The Moderates were able to create a wide national awakening among the people and above all, the feeling of belonging to one nation. They popularized the ideas of democracy, civil liberties and representative institutions. (6) They represented the most progressive forces of the time. (7) They trained people in political work and popularised modern ideas. This helped in generating anti-imperialist sentiments among the public. (8) They exposed the basically exploitative character of colonial rule, thus undermining its moral foundations. (9) Their political work was based on hard realities, and not on shallow sentiments, religion, etc. (10) They were able to establish the basic political truth that India should be ruled in the interest of Indians. (11) They created a solid base for a more vigorous, militant, mass-based national movement in the following years. (12) But, at the same time, the nationalists failed to widen the democratic base of the movement by not including the masses, especially women, and not demanding the right to vote for all. |
33. British Attitude Towards Early Congress
33. British Attitude Towards Early Congress
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| How did official attitude shift from initial neutrality to hostility? | Garden Party `1886`; George Yule `1888`; Dufferin Microscopic Minority; Employees Forbidden `1890`; Hamilton; Curzon: Initially the official attitude towards Congress was of neutrality and indifference if not favourable. In this spirit, Dufferin gave a garden party to delegates attending second Congress session in Calcutta (`1886`). Governor of Madras gave facilities to the organisers in 3rd session of Madras in `1887`. The `1888` Allahabad Session of INC was presided by George Yule, who became first Englishman to do so. But soon it became apparent (by `1887`) that INC would not be confined to limited role; British became hostile. British could not tolerate the political awareness spreading among common people. Third session of Madras in `1887` was presided by Badaruddin Tyabji. The word Self Governance was mentioned. In `1887`, Dufferin attacked the Congress in a public speech and ridiculed it as representing only a microscopic minority of the people and Congress demands as a big jump into the unknown. Earlier in `1886` he wrote about the role of national press: There can be no doubt there is generated in the mind of those who read those papers a sincere conviction that we are all of us enemies of mankind in general and India in particular. In `1890`, Government employees were forbidden from participating or attending Congress meetings. George Hamilton, Secretary of State for India accused Congress for possessing seditious and double sided character. In `1900`, he complained to Dadabhai Naroji that: You announce yourself as a sincere supporter of the British rule, but you denounce the conditions and consequences which are inseparable from the maintenance of that rule. Earlier in `1897`, he wrote to Viceroy Elgin: The solidarity, which is growing of native opinion and races and religions in antagonism to our rule frightens me as regards of the future. Despite its moderate methods and its emphasis on loyalty to British crown, the INC failed to secure any substantial concession from the government. |
| How did divide-and-rule and repression–conciliation–suppression structure British response? | Sayyed Ahmed Khan; Shiva Prasad; Hindi-Urdu; Cow Protection; Kimberley `1893`; Indian Councils Act `1892`; Education Act `1903`; Swadeshi Trap: Realising that the growing unity of the Indian people posed a major threat to their rule, the British authorities also pushed further the policy of divide and rule. They encouraged Sir Sayyed Ahmed Khan (Aligarh Movement), Raja Shiva Prasad of Benaras, and other pro-British individuals to start anti-Congress movement. The British attitude became even more hostile to the Congress under Lord Curzon. He said that the Congress was tottering to its fall and one of my greatest ambitions while in India was to assist it to a peaceful demise. The government under Curzon wanted to weaken the nationalist elements in general and Congress in particular by driving the wedge amongst the leaders in the name of religion and communalise the Indian politics by partitioning Bengal in `1905`, on communal grounds. While just after Revolt of `1857`, British had repressed the Muslim upper classes and favoured Hindu middle and upper classes, after `1870` they made an attempt to turn upper and middle class Muslim against the national movement. They exploited the controversy around Hindi and Urdu to promote communal feelings. Cow protection movement by orthodox Hindus was also used. Kimberley, the Secretary of State for India wrote to Landsdowne, the Viceroy in `1893` that movement makes all combinations of Hindu and Muslims impossible and so cuts at the root of the Congress agitation for formation of united Indian people. An effort was made to turn traditional feudal class against the new intelligentsia, province against province, caste against caste etc. To create split in the nationalist rank, British adopted more friendly approach towards either the conservatives or moderate sections. The moderate sections were appeased by making many concessions like passing Indian Council Act of `1892`, increasing maximum age of recruitment in Civil Services etc. By Education Act of `1903`, strict control on university education was applied as British thought that spread of education is causing nationalism. The leaders belonging to the older associations like British Indian Association were sought to be appeased and turned against the radical Congress leaders. After Swadeshi Movement of Bengal, British adopted a new policy of “Repression-Conciliation Suppression” under which they repressed the militant leadership first, then tried to win over the moderates and finally tried to suppress militant leadership completely and then they ignored moderates. Moderates and extremists both fell into this trap. Earlier British had felt that moderate led Congress will be easily finished because it was weak and without popular base. But after Bengal Movement policy was changed. |
34. Historiographical Debates — Derivative Discourse to Early Nationalist School
34. Historiographical Debates — Derivative Discourse to Early Nationalist School
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| What twofold challenge did colonial modernity pose for Indian nationalism? | Forge National Unity; Claim Right to Self-Determination: Indian nationalism that confronted British imperialism in the nineteenth century was said to be a product of colonial modernity. As the self-professed mission of the colonizers was to elevate the colonized from their present state of decadence to a desired state of progress towards modernity, it became imperative for the latter to contest that stamp of backwardness and assert that they too were capable of uniting and ruling themselves within the structural framework of a modern state. So the challenge of nationalism in colonial India was twofold: to forge a national unity and to claim its right to self-determination. |
| What is the First View — Partha Chatterjee and Ashis Nandy? | “Derivative Discourse”; Response Shaped by Western Imperialism:Partha Chatterjee argued that nationalism in India, which was assigned a privileged position by its Western educated political leadership, was a “different”, but a “derivative discourse” from the West. Ashis Nandy also thinks that Indian nationalism as a response to Western imperialism was shaped by what it was responding to. |
| What is the Second View — C.A. Bayly? | Pre-Existing Territoriality; Traditional Patriotism: According to C.A. Bayly, Indian nationalism built on pre-existing sense of territoriality, a traditional patriotism. |
| What is the Third View — Early Nationalist School? | Supremacy of Nationalist Ideology; Homogeneous Nation; Inner Conflicts Ignored: The early nationalist school focused primarily on the supremacy of a nationalist ideology and a national consciousness to which all other forms of consciousness were assumed to have been subordinated. This awareness of nation was based on a commonly shared antipathy towards colonial rule, a feeling of patriotism and an ideology rooted in a sense of pride in India’s ancient traditions. This school ignored the inner conflicts within Indian society — which among other things, led to its division into two nation-states — and assumed the existence of nation as a homogeneous entity with a single set of interests. |
35. Neo-Traditionalist School and Cambridge School
35. Neo-Traditionalist School and Cambridge School
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| What is the Fourth View — Neo-traditionalist school? | Politicization along Language, Caste, Religion; Western Education + Representation; Bhadralok, Chitpavan, Tamil Brahmans: Politicization of Indian society developed along the lines of traditional social formations, such as linguistic regions, castes or religious communities, rather than the modern categories of class or nation. The most important catalysts of change in this context were the institutional innovations of the colonial state, notably the introduction of Western education and political representation. These new opportunities intersected with the traditional Indian social divisions and created a new status group — the Western-educated elite, which drew its members from the existing privileged indigenous collective, such as the *bhadralok* in Bengal, the Chitpavan Brahmans in Bombay or the Tamil Brahmans of Madras. The backward regions or the underprivileged groups that remained outside this limited political nation until Mahatma Gandhi initiated the new era of mass nationalism. |
| What is the Fifth View — Cambridge School, and how is it criticised? | Localised Movements; Self-Serving Leaders; Aggregate of Interest Groups; “Animal Politics”; Competition-Collaboration: If the ‘neo traditionalist’ historians studied Indian politics within the framework of the province, a few others have tracked these divisions further down to the level of localities. The ‘Cambridge School’ have questioned the ontology of a unified nationalist movement, and have traced instead only a series of localised movements in colonial India. The National Movement was led by self-serving leaders entirely to pursue their narrow individual or clannish interests. They bargained with the British for power and patronage. India was not a nation, but an aggregate of disparate interest groups. Critic of this School: It completely derecognized the role of nationalistic ideology and seek to explain the nationalistic politics in terms of a competition-collaboration syndrome. It reduced nationalist movement to the state of “Animal Politics”. |
36. Orthodox and Later Marxist Interpretations
36. Orthodox and Later Marxist Interpretations
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| What is the Sixth View — Orthodox Marxist school (R.P. Dutt)? | Class Character; Industrial Capitalism; Bourgeois Leadership; Neglect/Betrayal of Masses: It sought to analyze the class character of the nationalist movement and tried to explain it in terms of the economic developments of the colonial period, primarily the rise of industrial capitalism and the development of a market society in India. It identified the bourgeois leadership, which directed this movement to suit their own class interests and neglected the interests of the masses and even to some extent betrayed them. This narrow class approach and economic determinism of the early Marxists like R.P. Dutt were qualified in later Marxist writings of S.N. Mukherjee, Sumit Sarkar and Bipin Chandra. |
| What did S.N. Mukherjee and Sumit Sarkar contribute as Later Marxist writings? | Complexities; Caste with Class; Dual Language of Politics; Elite vs Populist Levels; Complex Interaction:S.N. Mukherjee pointed out the complexities of nationalism, its many layers and meanings, the importance of caste along with class and the simultaneous use of a traditional as well as a modern language of politics. Sumit Sarkar recognizes the legitimacy of nationalism, but does not ignore the “internal tensions” within it. There were two levels of anti-imperialist struggles in India, he contends, the one elite and the other populist. One need not ignore either of the two, but look at the “complex interaction of these two levels”. |
| How did Bipin Chandra reframe Marxist interpretation with primary and secondary contradictions? | Popular Multi-Class Movement; Primary = People vs British; Secondary Compromised for Nationalist Hegemony:Bipin Chandra gave Marxist interpretation a distinctly nationalist orientation. He argues that Indian nationalist movement was a popular movement of various classes, not exclusively controlled by the bourgeoisie. In colonial India they demonstrate two types of contradictions. The primary contradiction was between the interests of the Indian people and those of British rule; Several secondary contradictions within the Indian society, between classes, castes and religious communities. As the anti-colonial struggle made progress, the secondary contradictions were compromised in the interest of the primary contradiction and in this way the hegemony of a nationalist ideology was established. The nationalist movement was not the movement of a single class or caste or a religious community. There were various groups with conflicting interests and hence the need for constant compromises to avoid class, caste or communal conflicts and to bring all those disparate groups under one umbrella type leadership. As a result, the Indian nationalist movement became a peoples’ movement, though all the secondary conflicts were not satisfactorily resolved. |
37. Subaltern School — Dominance without Hegemony and Later Shift
37. Subaltern School — Dominance without Hegemony and Later Shift
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| What is Ranajit Guha’s critique of elitist historiography of nationalism? | People’s Autonomous Contribution Neglected; Hollow Elite Nationalism vs Real Subaltern Nationalism:Ranajit Guha says: The historiography of Indian nationalism has for a long time been dominated by elitism and it neglects the contribution made by the people on their own, that is, independently of the elite to the making and development of this nationalism. This school thinks that organized national movement which ultimately led to the formation of the Indian nation-state was hollow nationalism of the elites, while real nationalism was that of the masses, whom it calls the ‘subaltern’. Although the subalterns from time to time participated in political movements initiated by the bourgeoisie, the latter failed to speak for the nation. The bourgeois leadership failed to establish its hegemony through either persuasion or coercion, as it was continually contested by the peasantry and the working class, who had different idioms of mobilisation and action, which the nationalist movement failed to appropriate. The new nation-state established the dominance of this bourgeoisie and its ideology, but it was a “dominance without hegemony”. |
| How does subaltern perspective distinguish elite vs people politics? | Vertical vs Horizontal Mobilisation; Legalistic vs Mass/Violent; Conscious Participation; Anti-Rowlatt `1919`; QIM `1942`: Subaltern school of thought highlights the contribution made by people on their own in making and development of Indian Nationalism. Elitist historians ignored the contribution made by the people on their own like in Anti-Rowlatt Act Satyagraha `1919`, Quit India Movement, `1942` etc. It says that the programme, ideology and leadership of peasants and Tribal uprising were provided by rebels themselves. Guha also tried to differentiate between the politics of elite and the politics of people. According to him, mobilization in the domain of elite politics was achieved vertically whereas in domain of subaltern politics this achieved horizontally. Elite politics was more cautious and controlled and had legalistic and constitutional orientation. They depended on British Parliamentary Institutions. Subaltern politics were based on mass mobilization, relatively violent and depended on organisation of kinship, territoriality or class associations. They were more spontaneous and their politics derived from the condition of exploitation to which they were subjugated in varying degrees. Subaltern knew why they are part of any movement and what and why they are doing. It means their decision to participate was a conscious decision even though the movement was spontaneous and violent. They rose due to failure of the Indian bourgeoisie to speak for the Nation. |
| What shift occurred in Subaltern Studies in recent years? | Class to Community; Material to Culture/Identity; Colonial Intelligentsia Included; Mutually Conditioned Historicity: Subaltern historiographical strand has undergone considerable shifts in recent years, with the focus moving from class to community, from material analysis to the privileging of culture, mind and identity. Sumit Sarkar about the “decline of the subaltern in Subaltern Studies”: This is because gradually its focus has expanded from an exclusive preoccupation with forms and instances of subaltern protest to an incorporation of the politics of the colonial intelligentsia as well. Dipesh Chakrabarty justifies shift in focus because “elite and dominant groups can also have a subaltern past” (source text: “lite and dominant groups”). According to Partha Chatterjee, the two domains of elite and subaltern politics should be studied not in their separateness but in their “mutually conditioned historicity”. |
| What concluding synthesis does the source offer on Indian nationalism as contested terrain? | Selective Appropriation of Colonial Knowledge; Plural Society; Many Voices of the Nation: Indian nationalism, in other words, is an intensely contested discursive terrain from where it is difficult to arrive at a dialectical middle ground or evolve an eclectic view that would be acceptable to all. If British rule sought to colonize Indian minds, the Indians also selectively appropriated, internalized and manipulated that colonial knowledge to mount their own resistance to colonial hegemony. India was a plural society and therefore Indian nationalism was bound to have many voices, as different classes, groups, communities and regions interpreted their ‘nation’ in various, sometimes even contradictory, ways. |
| Historiographical View | Key Proponents | Core Argument |
|---|---|---|
| Derivative discourse | Partha Chatterjee; Ashis Nandy | Indian nationalism different but derived from / shaped by Western imperialism |
| Traditional patriotism | C.A. Bayly | Built on pre-existing territoriality and traditional patriotism |
| Early Nationalist | Early nationalist school | Homogeneous nation; supremacy of nationalist ideology; inner conflicts ignored |
| Neo-traditionalist | Neo-traditionalist school | Politics along language/caste/religion; western-educated elite from privileged collectives |
| Cambridge School | Cambridge historians | Localised movements; interest-group “animal politics”; competition-collaboration |
| Orthodox Marxist | R.P. Dutt | Bourgeois leadership; class interests; neglect/betrayal of masses |
| Later Marxist | S.N. Mukherjee; Sumit Sarkar; Bipin Chandra | Complexities; elite–populist interaction; primary vs secondary contradictions |
| Subaltern | Ranajit Guha; later Chakrabarty, Chatterjee | People on their own; dominance without hegemony; later mutually conditioned historicity |
38. Imperial Ideology — Eric Stokes’s Three Strands
38. Imperial Ideology — Eric Stokes’s Three Strands
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| What philosophical ‘Liberal division on India’ did Eric Stokes identify? | Democracy and Self-Government for Dependent Empire; Irish Home Rule Context; Divergent Utilitarian Strands: Imperial idea of British had a philosophical as well as functional basis. Philosophically, there was what Eric Stokes has called a “Liberal division on India”. The division arose on the question of democracy and self-government to the dependent empire. While on the Irish Home Rule question the educated mind in England had gone against the earlier Gladstonian liberalism, utilitarianism in the late nineteenth century developed certain divergent strands. |
| What was the First Strand — extreme liberal position? | John Bright; Manchester School; Outrightly Critical of British Rule in India: There was on the one hand, an extreme liberal position taken by John Bright and the Manchester School, which became outrightly critical of British rule in India. |
| What was the Second Strand — middle course / educative mission? | J.S. Mill; Democracy for Civilized Peoples; Educative Mission; Macaulay and Ripon Disciples: Taking the middle course were the other liberal utilitarians like John Stuart Mill, who believed that democracy and self-government were essential checks on despotic power, but the doctrine was only suitable for civilized people. India, therefore, had to be governed despotically. But they also inherited the optimism of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment that human nature could be changed through proper education. So, they conceived the imperial goal as an educative mission. Indians could be entrusted with self-government when they were properly educated for the purpose of self-rule in accordance with the principles of rationalism and natural justice. J.S. Mill had his disciples in India like Macaulay and Lord Ripon, who still believed that the Indians could be given self-governing rights at an appropriate date, when they would be properly educated for this. |
| What was the Third Strand — authoritarian Pax Britannica? | Fitzjames Stephen; Bentham + Hobbes; Law Backed by Power; Reject Representative Institutions as Moral Duty: There was a third and more authoritarian strand. Both Bentham and James Mill thought that democracy was a checking device against the abuse of power and ultimately a means of registering the will of the majority. But neither had any belief in individual liberty; happiness and not liberty was the end of good government. From this, an extreme authoritarian position was derived by Fitzjames Stephen, who succeeded the liberal Macaulay as the law member in the viceroy’s council in India. He combined Benthamism with Hobbesian despotism: law and good government, he thought, were the instruments of improvement, and both were meaningless unless backed by power. From this philosophy followed his position on Britain’s role in India being the great mission of establishing peace and order conducive to the progress of civilization, Pax Britannica. The task of the British was to introduce essential principles of European civilization. He rejected the notion that the British had a moral duty to introduce representative institutions in India. It could be conceded if only there was a strong demand from among a sizeable section of the Indians. Stephen, with his immense influence on the Indian civil servants, became the philosopher of authoritarian British imperialism in India in the late nineteenth century. |
39. Explaining Constitutional Reforms — Cambridge, Tomlinson, Nationalist Strength
39. Explaining Constitutional Reforms — Cambridge, Tomlinson, Nationalist Strength
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| Which constitutional reforms still proceeded despite high noon of authoritarian imperialism after `1857`? | Indian Councils Act `1861`; Act `1892`; Local Self-Government Act `1882`; Ilbert Bill `1883`; Morley-Minto `1909`; Montagu-Chelmsford `1919`: Yet the Government of India had to introduce, though gradually, the principle of representative self-government in the late nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries: The Indian Councils Act of `1861` established limited self-government in Bengal, Madras and Bombay. The Act of `1892` increased the number of nominated members in provincial legislative councils. Then there were the Local Self-Government Act of `1882`, the Ilbert Bill of `1883`, the Morley-Minto Reforms of `1909` and the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms of `1919`. |
| How does the Cambridge School’s ‘weak imperialism’ explain reforms? | Functional Need for Collaborators; Indianisation of Services; Local Self-Governing Entry: The old ‘Cambridge School’ would refer to its theory of “weak imperialism” and argue that the reforms were because of the functional needs of imperialism. The empire being essentially “weak”, politically there was a need for Indian collaborators. Therefore, there was a gradual Indianisation of the civil service and entry of Indians at lower levels of local self-governing institutions. |
| What is B.R. Tomlinson’s fiscal-crisis explanation, and what is its limit? | Imperial Obligations Unfulfilled; Elected Representatives Raise & Spend Revenue; Not Sole Explanation:B.R. Tomlinson has argued about a fiscal crisis of the British Indian empire which left its imperial obligations unfulfilled. So, devolution of power was to buy Indian support, as the elected Indian representatives would be better able to raise more revenue and would be more judicious in spending it. Indeed, opposition to the idea of Indian self-government melted down because of war pressures and financial weaknesses; but it is difficult to explain the reforms solely in terms of fiscal exigencies. |
| How does growing nationalist strength, especially around Morley-Minto, explain reforms? | Swadeshi & Extremism Forced Thought; Revolutionary Terrorism Reinforced; Morley from `1906`; Cast-Iron Bureaucracy No Longer Viable: A more important reason behind this gradual devolution was the growing strength of Indian nationalism which the Cambridge cluster of historians chose to underestimate. Intensity of the Swadeshi movement and the spread of extremism had forced upon the administration some new thoughts on constitutional reforms, while revolutionary terrorism reinforced this process. Fresh thinking had started since `1906`, as Secretary of State Lord Morley, a liberal scholar, urged Viceroy Lord Minto to balance the unpopular Bengal partition with reforms. Although partition was declared to be a settled fact, there was also a realization that India could no longer be ruled with a “cast iron bureaucracy”. Indians should be given some share of power; they had to be admitted into the legislature, and if necessary, even into the executive council. |
40. Extremist Period (1905–1920) — Emergence and Causes
40. Extremist Period (1905–1920) — Emergence and Causes
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| How did Extremism emerge within Congress, and what earlier roots do Extremists claim? | “Angry Young Men”; Swaraj by Self-Reliant Methods; Growing since `1857` as Swadharma and Swaraj: The closing decade of the nineteenth century and early years of the twentieth century witnessed the emergence of a new and younger group within the Indian National Congress, which was sharply critical of the ideology and the methods of the old leadership. These “angry young men” advocated the adoption of *Swaraj* as the goal of the Congress to be achieved by more self-reliant and independent methods. The new group came to be called the Extremist party in contrast to the older one, which began to be referred to as the Moderate party. By the starting of the 20th century, Indian politics had come under influence and dominance of extremists. Though from the last few years of the 19th century, extremists came into existence, it was only after the partition of Bengal that they gained popularity. From `1905` onwards, the moderate leaders rapidly lost their influence over the National Congress. Gradually, over the years, the trend of militant nationalism (also known as Extremism) grew in the country. Extremism on the Indian national scene did not spring up all of a sudden in the first decade of the twentieth century. In fact, it had been growing slowly since the revolt of `1857`, but was invisible. The nationalist ideas behind the revolt of `1857`, according to the extremists, were *Swadharma* and *Swaraj*. |
| What causes produced Extremism — political failure, Curzon, culture and international events? | Act `1892` Dissatisfaction; Curzon’s Policies; Abyssinia `1896`; Japan–Russia `1905`; Partition of Bengal: Causes of Extremism: (1) The refusal to meet the political and economic demands by the government and its repressive measures against the growing national movement shook the faith of an increasing number of Indians in the ideology and technique of liberal nationalism. Leadership of moderates had failed to deliver any fruit to India and so young nationalist leaders started to acquire dominant position gradually. (2) Act of `1892` dissatisfied the congress leaders and so they chose to resort to legal and nationalist policies for their demands. (3) Now they recognised the true nature of the British rule which moderates failed to and had belief in its being just. (4) Education gave them a new vision and they got inspiration from Indian history. Western thinkers also influenced them. (5) Increasing westernisation of India by British led them to think that they will destroy Indian traditions, customs and culture and so they grew against British. (6) Lord Curzon’s reactionary policy was also responsible for the growth of extremism. He spoke derogatorily of Indian character in general which hurt pride of Indians. At Calcutta University Convocation, he said, “Undoubtedly truth took a high place in the codes of the west before it had been similarly honoured in the East.” The Calcutta Corporation Act, Official Secrets Act, Indian University Act of `1904` created great resentment in India. The Delhi Durbar held in `1903` when India had not fully recovered from famine of `1899–1900` was interpreted as a “a pompous pageant to a starving population”. (7) Much more was the dissatisfaction with achievements of moderates which paved a way to extremists in Indian politics. (8) The rise of the extremism in the national movement was a reaction against the attempts of the Western reformists to reconstruct India in the image of the West. They were greatly influenced by the growth and development of spiritual nationalism in India. (9) Contemporary International influences: Abyssinia’s repulsion of Italian Army in `1896`, and Japan’s victory over Russia in `1905` broke the spell of European invincibility. Nationalistic movements in Egypt, Persia, Turkey and Russia also influenced extremism. Also humiliating treatment of Indians in British colonies like South Africa helped extremism. (10) Partition of Bengal was one of the most important reasons of emergence of extremism. (11) Most of the limitations of moderates were cause of birth of extremism. |
41. Goals of Swaraj and Nature of Extremism
41. Goals of Swaraj and Nature of Extremism
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| How did Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal and Aurobindo interpret Swaraj differently? | Tilak — Indian Control Not Total Severance; Bipin Pal — Complete Autonomy Free of British; Aurobindo — Source Also States Self-Rule within British Structure: The goal of the extremists was ‘swaraj’, which different leaders interpreted differently. For Tilak, it meant Indian control over the administration, but not a total severance with Great Britain. Bipin Chandra Pal believed that no self-government was possible under British rule. So, for him, swaraj was complete autonomy, absolutely free from the British control. Aurobindo Ghosh in Bengal also visualized swaraj still meant self-rule within the parameters of British imperial structure. (Source phrasing places Aurobindo after Pal’s complete-autonomy definition while stating “within the parameters of British imperial structure” — both formulations are retained as in source.) |
| What defined the nature of Extremism — social base, methods, spiritual nationalism and cultural roots? | Wide Social Base; Extra-Constitutional Boycott; Bankim Chandra; Vivekananda & Dayananda; Arya Samaj Swaraj Slogan: Nature of Extremism and Its Leaders: (1) Extremists had wide social base of political agitations; they involved lower middle class and middle class public apart from educated class of people. (2) They did not believe in British rule and believed crown’s claim unworthy. (3) They got their inspiration from Indian history, tradition, culture and heritage and had faith in masses’ capacity to participate and sacrifice. (4) They also adopted extra constitutional methods of boycott, etc. (5) Their demand was Swaraj, as their birthright. (6) Strong reaction to British imperialist policies in India. (7) The philosophy of political extremism was greatly influenced by the writings of Bankim Chandra and his spiritual nationalism. (8) Attachment to rationalism and western ideals almost alienated the moderates from the masses in India. That is why despite their high idealism, they failed to create a solid mass base for their movement. The militant nationalists drew inspiration from India’s past, invoked the great Episodes in the history of the Indian people, and tried to instill national pride and self-respect among the Indian people. (9) They opposed the idealizing of the Western culture by the liberals and considered it cultural capitulation to the British rulers. The militant nationalist leaders emphasized that it would only bring about an inferiority complex among the Indians and repress their national pride and self confidence so vital to the struggle for freedom. (10) The militant nationalists revived the memories of the Vedic past of the Hindus, the great phase of the regimes of Asoka and Chandragupta, the heroic deeds of Rana Pratap and Shivaji, the epic patriotism of Rani Laxmibai. They propounded that the Indian people were endowed with a special spiritual consciousness. (11) The leading extremists such as Lala Lajpat Rai, Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal, Aurobindo Ghosh, Rajnarayan Bose, Ashwini Kumar Dutt were all products of English education. Though all of them were highly educated and greatly influenced by English literature and political ideas and institutions, they drew heavily from the traditional culture and civilization of India rather than from the West. All of them felt the necessity for changing the outlook of Indians in the light of the advancement made by the West in the fields of science and technology and also the need for reforming the society and the religion. (12) Extremist thought derived its support from teachings of Vivekananda and Dayananda Saraswati. (13) Extremist slogan of Swaraj was first introduced by Arya Samaj of Dayananda Saraswati. (More clarity in Nature of Extremism will be discussed in the next chapter: Swadeshi Movement in Bengal.) |
42. Extremist Leaders — Lal-Bal-Pal, Aurobindo Ghosh and V.O. Chidambaram Pillai
42. Extremist Leaders — Lal-Bal-Pal, Aurobindo Ghosh and V.O. Chidambaram Pillai
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| What was the Lal-Bal-Pal triumvirate and how did the militant movement fade? | Assertive Nationalists `1905–1918`; Swadeshi & Boycott; Tilak Arrest; Pal & Aurobindo Retirement: Lal Bal Pal (Lala Lajpat Rai, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, and Bipin Chandra Pal) were a triumvirate of assertive nationalists in British-ruled India in the early 20th century, from `1905` to `1918`. They advocated the Swadeshi movement involving the boycott of all imported items and the use of Indian-made goods in `1907` during the anti-Partition agitation in Bengal which began in `1905`. The militant nationalist movement gradually faded with the arrest of its main leader Bal Gangadhar Tilak and retirement of Bipin Chandra Pal and Aurobindo Ghosh from active politics. |
| What were Lala Lajpat Rai’s career, Simon Commission martyrdom and Saunders revenge chain? | Punjab Keshari; Simon Commission Injuries → Death `17 Nov 1928`; Bhagat Singh–Rajguru–Sukhdev–Azad; Saunders `17 Dec 1928`:Lala Lajpat Rai (Punjab Keshari) (`28 January 1865` – `17 November 1928`) was an Indian Punjabi author and politician. He sustained serious injuries by the police when leading a non-violent protest against the Simon Commission and died less than three weeks later. His death anniversary (`17 November`) is one of several days celebrated as Martyrs’ Day in India. Despite being injured, Rai subsequently addressed the crowd and said that “I declare that the blows struck at me today will be the last nails in the coffin of British rule in India”. Bhagat Singh vowed to take revenge, and joined other revolutionaries, Shivaram Rajguru, Sukhdev Thapar and Chandrashekhar Azad, in a plot to kill Scott. However, in a case of mistaken identity, Bhagat Singh was signalled to shoot on the appearance of John P. Saunders, an Assistant Superintendent of Police. He was shot by Rajguru and Bhagat Singh while leaving the District Police Headquarters in Lahore on `17 December 1928`. His involvement with Hindu Mahasabha leaders gathered criticism as the Mahasabhas were non-secular, which did not conform with the system laid out by the Indian National Congress. He was a devotee of Arya Samaj and was editor of *Arya Gazette*. After joining the Indian National Congress, and taking part in political agitation in the Punjab, Lajpat Rai was deported to Mandalay, Burma, without trial, in May `1907`. In November, however, he was allowed to return when the viceroy, Lord Minto, decided that there was insufficient evidence. Lajpat Rai’s supporters attempted to secure his election to the presidency of the party session at Surat in December `1907`, but elements favouring co-operation with the British refused to accept him, and the party split over the issues. Lala Lajpat Rai wrote *Unhappy India*. He said, “A man without a soul is a mere animal. A nation without a soul is only a dumb driven cattle.” |
| What were Bipin Chandra Pal’s and Bal Gangadhar Tilak’s roles as Extremists? | *New India*; Valentine Chirol “Father of Indian Unrest”; Ganesh & Shivaji Festivals; *Kesari*/*Mahratta*; “Swarajya is my birthright”:Bipin Chandra Pal founded journal *New India*. Sri Aurobindo referred to him as one of mightiest prophets of nationalism. Within Congress, Tilak was foremost extremist. He was called father of Indian unrest by Valentine Chirol (source spelling: Chixole). He founded Ganesh Festival Committee in `1893`, organised no tax campaigns in famine affected Bombay Presidency in `1894`, and founded Shivaji Festival Committee in `1895`. Deccan Education Society came into existence after Shri Vishnushastri Chiplunkar founded New English School along with Tilak, in `1880`. Tilak started two weeklies, *Kesari* in Marathi and *Mahratta* in English in `1880–81` with Gopal Ganesh Agarkar as the first editor. By this he was recognized as ‘awakener of India’. During late `1896`, a Bubonic plague spread from Bombay to Pune, and by January `1897`, it reached epidemic proportions. British troops were brought in to deal with the emergency and harsh measures were employed including forced entry into private houses, examination of occupants, evacuation to hospitals and segregation camps, removing and destroying personal possessions, and preventing patients from entering or leaving the city. Tilak took up this issue by publishing inflammatory articles in his paper *Kesari*, quoting the Hindu scripture, the *Bhagavad Gita*, to say that no blame could be attached to anyone who killed an oppressor without any thought of reward. Following this, on `22 June 1897`, Commissioner Rand and another British officer, Lt. Ayerst were shot and killed by the Chapekar brothers. He was sentenced for `18` months imprisonment for supporting Chapekar Brothers. Following the Partition of Bengal, which was a strategy set out by Lord Curzon to weaken the nationalist movement, Tilak encouraged the Swadeshi movement and the Boycott movement. Tilak opposed the moderate views of Gopal Krishna Gokhale, and was supported by fellow Indian nationalists Bipin Chandra Pal in Bengal and Lala Lajpat Rai in Punjab. They were referred to as the “Lal-Bal-Pal triumvirate”. In `1907`, the annual session of the Congress Party was held at Surat, Gujarat. Trouble broke out over the selection of the new president of the Congress between the moderate and the radical sections of the party. The party split into the radicals faction, led by Tilak, Pal and Lajpat Rai, and the moderate faction. Nationalists like Aurobindo Ghose, V. O. Chidambaram Pillai were Tilak supporters. On `30 April 1908`, two Bengali youths, Prafulla Chaki and Khudiram Bose, threw a bomb on a carriage at Muzzafarpur, to kill the Chief Presidency Magistrate Douglas Kingsford of Calcutta fame, but erroneously killed two women travelling in it. While Chaki committed suicide when caught, Bose was hanged. Tilak, in his paper *Kesari*, defended the revolutionaries and called for immediate Swaraj or self-rule. The Government swiftly arrested him for sedition. A special jury convicted him, and the judge Dinshaw D. Davar gave him the sentence of six years’ transportation. Tilak was sent to Mandalay, Burma from `1908` to `1914`. While in the prison he wrote the *Gita Rahasya*. After coming out of Jail, he was eager for reconciliation with Congress and had abandoned his demand for direct action and settled for agitations “strictly by constitutional means”. Tilak was one of the first and strongest advocates of “Swaraj” (self-rule) and a strong radical in Indian consciousness. He is known for his quote, “Swarajya is my birthright, and I shall have it”. He formed a close alliance with Muhammad Ali Jinnah, during the Indian Home Rule Movement. |
| What were V.O. Chidambaram Pillai’s and Aurobindo Ghosh’s contributions? | Kappalottiya Tamilan; Swadeshi Steam Navigation; *New Lamps for the Old* Bible of Extremism; Pondicherry Ashram `1926`:V.O. Chidambaram Pillai (`1872–1936`), or V.O.C., also known as *Kappalottiya Tamilan* “The Tamil Helmsman”, was a Tamil political leader. He was a disciple of Bal Gangadhar Tilak. He launched the first indigenous Indian shipping service between Tuticorin and Colombo with the Swadeshi Steam Navigation Company, competing against British ships. At one time a member of the Indian National Congress, he was later charged with sedition by the British government and sentenced to life imprisonment; his barrister license was stripped. Aurobindo Ghose was an Indian nationalist, philosopher, yogi, guru, and poet. Aurobindo studied for the Indian Civil Service at King’s College, Cambridge, England. After returning to India he took up various civil service works under the maharaja of the princely state of Baroda and began to involve himself in politics. He was imprisoned by the British for writing articles against British rule in India. He was released when no evidence was provided. During his stay in the jail he had mystical and spiritual experiences, after which he moved to Pondicherry, leaving politics for spiritual work. He founded there Sri Aurobindo Ashram in `1926`. From `1926` he started to sign himself as Sri Aurobindo. For Sri Aurobindo, nationalism was not a mere political or economic cry; it was rather the innermost hunger of his whole soul for the rebirth in him and through men like him, the whole India, the ancient culture of the Hindustan and its pristine purity and nobility. Indian nationalism was given a spiritual orientation by the nationalists. Aurobindo Ghosh wrote pamphlet, *New Lamps For The Old* which is considered as Bible of Extremism in which he described Congress being out of touch with proletariats. He wrote a series of articles in *Bangadarshan*, the journal of Bankim Chandra Chatterjee. He portrayed India as “Mother” and appealed to the emotional aspect of Indian Nationalism. Vishnu Shastri Chiplunkar wrote *Nibandhmala*, a collection of poems with extremist thoughts. Till Mahatma Gandhi arrived on the political scene of India, the extremists dominated the Indian National Congress. |
43. Assessment of Extremism and Differences between Moderates and Extremists
43. Assessment of Extremism and Differences between Moderates and Extremists
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| How does the source assess Extremism’s range, revivalism and limited success? | From Active Revolutionaries to Non-Violent Sympathisers; Hindu Revivalism; Partition Annulled `1911`; Swaraj No Longer Revolutionary: Advocates of extremism ranged from active revolutionaries at one end to secret sympathizers of revolutionaries to those who were opposed to all violent methods at the other end. Their goal of swaraj also had different meaning as we have seen earlier. The extremists transformed patriotism from ‘an academic pastime’ to ‘service and suffering for nation’. Socially they became revivalists. Rai and Pal, though advocates of social reform, spoke of Hindu nation. Tilak opposed age of consent bill though reason was legitimacy of British to enact this Act. Tilak’s Cow protection policy, organisation of Ganesh festival in `1893` projected him as a leader of Hindu orthodoxy. These factors divided Hindu and Muslim. They got some success: (a) Partition of Bengal was annulled in `1911`; (b) Aim of Swaraj, though denied by Lord Morley, was no longer looked upon as a revolutionary demand. |
| What were the systematic differences between Moderates and Extremists? | Social Base, Ideology, Loyalty, Methods, Masses, Goals — Nine Contrasts: Differences between Moderates and Extremists in Indian Politics: Moderates: (1) Social base was zamindars and upper middle classes in towns. (2) Ideological inspiration was western liberal thought and European history. (3) Believed in England’s providential mission in India. (4) Believed political connections with Britain to be in India’s social, political and cultural interests. They believed in cooperation. (5) Professed loyalty to the British Crown. (6) Believed that the movement should be limited to middle class intelligentsia; masses not yet ready for participation in political work. (7) Demanded constitutional reforms and share for Indians in services. (8) Insisted on the use of constitutional methods only. (9) They were patriots and did not play the role of a comprador class. Extremists: (1) Social base was educated middle and lower middle classes in towns. (2) Ideological inspiration was Indian history, cultural heritage, national education and Hindu traditional symbols. (3) Rejected ‘providential mission theory’ as an illusion. (4) Believed that political connections with Britain would perpetuate British exploitation of India. They believed in confrontation. (5) Believed that the British Crown was unworthy of claiming Indian loyalty. (6) Had immense faith in the capacity of masses to participate and to make sacrifices. (7) Demanded swaraj as the panacea for Indian ills. (8) Did not hesitate to use extra-constitutional methods like boycott and passive resistance to achieve their objectives. (9) They were patriots who made sacrifices for the sake of the country. |
| Dimension | Moderates | Extremists |
|---|---|---|
| Social base | Zamindars and upper middle classes in towns | Educated middle and lower middle classes in towns |
| Ideological inspiration | Western liberal thought and European history | Indian history, cultural heritage, national education, Hindu traditional symbols |
| View of British rule | Providential mission; cooperation; loyalty to Crown | Rejected providential mission; confrontation; Crown unworthy of loyalty |
| Masses | Limited to middle-class intelligentsia; masses not ready | Immense faith in mass capacity to participate and sacrifice |
| Demands | Constitutional reforms; share in services | Swaraj as panacea |
| Methods | Constitutional only (3P) | Extra-constitutional: boycott, passive resistance |
44. Partition of Bengal (1905)
44. Partition of Bengal (1905)
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| What was the scale of undivided Bengal and the declared vs real objective of partition? | 189,000 sq. miles; ~8 crores; Nerve Centre of Nationalism; Muslim-Majority East vs Hindu-Majority West: The provincial state of Bengal had an area of `189,000` sq. miles and a population of nearly `8` crores. It included the Hindi-speaking regions of Bihar, the Oriya-speaking regions of Orissa as well as the Assamese-speaking region of Assam, making it a huge administrative entity. Moreover, the capital Calcutta was the capital of the entire British India. With the growing efforts of the Indian National Congress to secure the independence of India, the partition was expected to weaken what was perceived as the nerve center of Indian nationalism. With real objective as second one but declared objective as first one, Lord Curzon decided to partition Bengal into two entities, which would result in a Muslim-majority in the eastern half, and a Hindu-majority in the western half. This he hoped would reduce the administrative pressures as well divide the population on religious grounds, quelling the Indian Independence Movement. The main reason for the Partition was purely political. The Hindus were in a better position in terms of economic status, professional qualities etc., than the Muslims. During the pre-Sepoy Mutiny period, section of Hindu traders greatly helped the British while their Muslim counterparts did not. The British were angry. With the spread of Western education Hindus made a big way, but the Muslims could not. A sense of deprivation crept in. Perhaps, the sense of deprivation was engineered. When the discontentment grew in the beginning of this century, the British capitalised on this sense of deprivation. Even Lord Minto, Curzon’s successor, was critical of the way in which partition was imposed disregarding public opinion but saw that it was good political strategy; Minto argued that “from a political point of View alone, putting aside the administrative difficulties of the old province, I believe partition to have been very necessary.” |
| How was Bengal divided on `16 October 1905`, and what did Risley say? | West Bengal+Bihar+Orissa (Calcutta) vs East Bengal & Assam (Dhaka); “Bengal United is Power”; Annulled `1911`: The Partition of Bengal in `1905` was made on `October 16` by Viceroy Curzon. The former province of Bengal was divided into two new provinces: (1) “Bengal” (comprising western Bengal as well as the province of Bihar and Orissa) and capital at Calcutta. It was to have `17` million Bengali and `37` million Oriya and Hindi speaking people thus reducing Bengali to a minority in Bengal itself. (2) “East Bengal and Assam” with a population of `31` million people and with its capital at Dhaka. In the official note, Risley, the Home Secretary to the Government of India said, “Bengal united is power; Bengal divided will pull several different ways”. The partition of the state intended to curb Bengali influence by not only placing Bengalis under two administrations, but by reducing them to a minority in Bengal itself. Also, the partition was meant to foster another kind of division — this time on the basis of religion, i.e. between the Muslims and the Hindus. The Indian Nationalists clearly saw the design behind the partition and condemned it unanimously. The anti-partition and Swadeshi movement had begun. Due to these political protests, the two parts of Bengal were reunited in `1911`. A new partition which divided the province on linguistic, rather than religious grounds followed, with the Hindi, Oriya and Assamese areas separated to form separate administrative units: Bihar and Orissa Province was created to the west, and Assam Province to the east. The administrative capital of British India was moved from Calcutta to New Delhi as well. |
45. Swadeshi Movement — Genesis, Nature, Samitis and Economic Boycott
45. Swadeshi Movement — Genesis, Nature, Samitis and Economic Boycott
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| What was the genesis of Swadeshi and who were its chief architects? | Anti-Partition from `1903`; Most Successful Pre-Gandhian Movement; Aurobindo, Tilak, Pal, Lajpat Rai, V.O.C.: The Swadeshi movement had its genesis in the anti-partition movement which started with the partition of Bengal by the Viceroy of India, Lord Curzon, `1905` and continued up to `1911`. It was the most successful of the pre-Gandhian movements. Its chief architects were Aurobindo Ghosh, Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal and Lala Lajpat Rai, V. O. Chidambaram Pillai. Though affected in `1905`, the partition proposals had come onto the public domain as early as `1903`. Therefore, since `1903`, there was prepared the ground for the launch of the Swadeshi movement. In first phase (`1903–1905`), moderate way of 3Ps was in full sway but it could not stop partition. Strong sense of unity among Bengalis fostered by their regional independence, cultural development of 19th century, spread of western education and Hindu revivalist mood gave birth to a vehement resistance. |
| How did Boycott-cum-Swadeshi evolve from economic pressure to militant mass politics? | Last Resort after Constitutional Agitation; Manchester Cotton Pressure; Infant Industry Protection; Politics of Militancy: The Nature of the Swadeshi Movement: The Bengalis adopted the boycott movement as the last resort after they had exhausted the armoury of constitutional agitation (between `1903` and `1905`) known to them, namely vocal protests, appeals, petitions and Conferences to coerce the British to concede the unanimous national demand. This was boycott-cum-swadeshi movement. The original conception of Boycott was mainly an economic one. It had two distinct, but allied purposes in view. The first was to bring pressure upon the British public by the pecuniary loss they would suffer by the boycott of British goods, particularly the Manchester cotton goods for which Bengal provided the richest market in India. Secondly, it was regarded as essential for the revival of indigenous industry which being at its infant stage could never grow in the face of free competition with foreign countries which had highly developed industry. Like the Boycott, the Swadeshi as a purely economic measure for the growth of Indian Industry was not an altogether novel idea in India. It was preached by several eminent personalities in the 19th century, Gopal Hari Deshmukh, better known as Lokahitawadi of Bombay, Swami Dayananda and Bholanath Chandra of Calcutta. But the seeds sown by them did not germinate till the soil was rendered fertile by the grim resolve of a united people, exasperated beyond measure, to forge the twin weapons of Boycott and Swadeshi in order to undo the great wrong which was inflicted upon them by an arrogant Government. Later on, the economic boycott receded into background with the passage of time and it developed into an idea of non-cooperation with the British in every field and the object aimed at was a political regeneration of the country with the distant goal of absolute freedom looming large before the eyes of the more advanced section. Similarly, Swadeshi completely outgrew the original conception of promoting Indian industry. It assumed a new form based upon the literal connotation of the word swadeshi, namely attachment to everything Indian. The movement marked the beginning of new politics, it marked the beginning of a new nationalist era — the former was politics of militancy and the later the politics of the militant nationalism. It was characterised by a shift from political moderation to political extremism, from constitutional agitation to radical struggle and from politics of petition to direct action. The movement marked the beginning of new form of mobilization. New political weapons for giving a new orientation to the politics of pressure came to be used — Swadeshi, Constructive Swadeshi, Boycott, Extended Boycott, passive resistance, mass agitation etc. The movement was the first popular upsurge and humble beginning of multi-class movement ensuring participation of new section of people like students, women, lower middle class people, zamindars, peasant etc. The mobilisation is remarkable by mobilisation of peasantry in some areas and politicization of the economic grievances of the labours. Even though mobilization was in limited areas, the very beginning of modern mass politics in India is markable. Peasants in most parts didn’t actively join boycott or passive resistance but many through meetings, constructive works, etc. were exposed for the first time to modern nationalist ideas and politics. |
| What role did samitis play, especially Ashwini Kumar Dutt’s Swadesh Bandhab Samiti? | Volunteer Corps; Barisal 159 Branches; Magic Lantern Lectures; Physical Training; Arbitration Courts: Corps of volunteers (or *samitis* as they were called) were another major form of mass mobilization widely used by the Swadeshi Movement. The Swadesh Bandhab Samiti set up by Ashwini Kumar Dutt, a school teacher, in Barisal was the most well known volunteer organization of them all. Through the activities of this Samiti, whose `159` branches reached out to the remotest corners of the district, Dutt was able to generate an unparalleled mass following among the predominantly Muslim Peasantry of the region. The samitis took the Swadeshi message to the villages through magic lantern lectures and Swadeshi songs, gave physical and moral training to the members, did social work during famines and epidemics, organized schools, training in Swadeshi craft and arbitration courts. Though the samitis stuck their deepest roots in Barisal, they had expanded to other parts of Bengal as well. British officialdom was genuinely alarmed by their activities, their growing popularity with the rural masses. |
| What were the positive and negative economic elements of Swadeshi, and social boycott? | Indigenous Goods Regeneration; Bombay/Ahmedabad Mills; Handlooms; Bonfires; Social Ostracism; Tilak Yoga of Bahishkar: In the economic sense, Swadeshi would represent both a positive and a negative element. The positive element of economic swadeshi was the regeneration of indigenous goods. The boycott of foreign goods led to the increase in demand of indigenous goods especially clothes which felt short of supply. The mill-owners of Bombay and Ahmadabad came to its rescue. The Boycott movement in Bengal supplied a momentum and driving force to the cotton mills in India and the opportunity thus presented was exploited by the mill-owners. It was complained at that time that the Bombay mill-owners made a huge profit at the expense of what they regarded as ‘Bengali Sentimentalism’, for buying indigenous cloth at any sacrifice and there may be some truth in it but this is not sure. Bengal had to supplement the supply from Bombay mills by the coarse production of handlooms. The weaving industry in Bengal was a very flourishing one till the British ruined it after they had established their rule over the province in the 18th century. The economic boycott movement seemed to be a suitable opportunity for reviving that industry. The clothes produced were very coarse but were accepted by the Bengalis in the true spirit of the Swadeshi Movement. A song which became very popular all over the country urged upon the people to give the place of honour to the coarse cloth which is the gift of the Mother, too poor to offer a better one. J.N. Tata founded Tata Iron and Steel. Prafulla Chandra Ray set up Bengal Chemicals Factory. Tilak described Swadeshi as *Yoga of Bahishkar*, a religious ritual of self punishment. The negative element of the economic swadeshi was the boycott and burning of foreign goods. Though Manchester cloth was the chief target of attack, the movement was extended to other British manufacturers also, such as salt and sugar as well as luxury goods in general. The ideas of Swadeshi and economic boycott was kept alive and brought home to every door by articles in newspapers, processions, popular songs, enrolment of volunteers to keep vigilant watch and by occasional bonfires of foreign cloth, salt and sugar. The old apparels of foreign made belonging to sundry people were placed in a heap and then it was set on fire. Fines were inflicted on anyone found using foreign sugar. Foreign cigarettes were bought and burnt in the streets, Brahmins refused to assist any religious ceremonies in houses where European salt and sugar were used and Marwaris were warned of importing foreign articles. All these bonfires however affected the economy of the people. To burn ‘Manchester made goods’ bought at a high price literally affects the people but swept by national enthusiasm. The social boycott was an outcome of economic swadeshi movement. It was preached to go against the repressive measures of the Government. The social boycott was a very powerful weapon. A man selling or buying foreign goods or in any way opposing Swadeshi Movement and helping Government in putting it down would be subjected to various degrees of humiliation. Such social ostracism would make a man quite unhappy, sometimes even very miserable and the Government could do very little to help him in his distress. But such non violent ostracism was not the only form of persecution. Sometimes, the ‘renegade’ would suffer material loss and bodily or mental pain. |
46. Swadeshi — National Education, Art, Culture, Science and Press
46. Swadeshi — National Education, Art, Culture, Science and Press
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| How did national education emerge under Swadeshi and who organised it? | Bengal National College (Aurobindo Principal); National Council of Education `1906`; Dawn Society; Jadavpur Engineering: One of the major planks of the programme of self-reliance was Swadeshi or national education. Taking a cue from Tagore’s Shantiniketan, the Bengal National College was founded, with Aurobindo as the principal. Students in promoting the boycott and swadeshi movement drew upon them the wrath and violence of the British Raj. Circulars were issued forbidding the students under threat of severe penalty to associate themselves in any way with the Boycott movement; even the cry of *Bande Mataram* in streets and other public places was declared to be a punishable offence. Scholars or colleges whose students disobeyed the order were not only threatened with the withdrawal of Government grants and even with disaffiliation, but their students were to be declared ineligible for Government Service. The authorities of the educational institutions were asked to keep strict watch over their pupils, and if unable to control them, were to report the names to the Education Department for taking necessary disciplinary action. The magistrates were asked to inform the teachers and those connected with the management of educational institutions, that if necessary they might be enrolled as Special Constables. The Director of Public Instruction asked the principals of colleges to show cause why their students who took part in the picketing should not be expelled. All this produced a storm of indignation in the country and the Indian-owned Press denounced the circulars in the strongest language. Anti-circular society was set up with the objective of rallying students through processions, picketing, collection of funds and creating awareness. The students of some colleges in Rangpur defied the Government orders and when they were fined, the guardians refused to pay the fine and established a national school for the boys who were expelled. Teachers were also asked to resign for not whipping the boys. The action of the authorities led to a movement among the students to boycott the Calcutta University which they described as *Golamkhana* (House of manufacturing slaves). At a conference attended by a large number of very eminent men of Bengal in different walks of life held on `10th November, 1905`, it was decided to establish at once a National Council of Education (*Jatiya Shiksha Parishad*) in order to organize a system of education — literary, scientific and technical — on national lines and under national control. The number of national schools also grew apace with time. The earliest use of the term national education was made by Prasanna Kumar Tagore in connection with Hindu College Pathshala in `1839`. The effort to organise Tattvabodhini Pathshala in `1840` and Hindu Hitarthi Vidyalaya in `1846` also indicated desire for establishing national education, but real credit for popularising and organising national education goes to Satish Chandra Mukherjee and his Dawn Society. Founder-editor of the *Dawn* magazine (`1897–1913`), an organ of Indian Nationalism, in `1902` Satish Chandra Mukherjee organised the “Dawn Society” of culture, to protest against the Report of the Indian Universities Commission, representing the inadequate university education imposed by the Government to fabricate clerks for the merchant offices. In a protest meeting on `5 Nov, 1905` and addressed by R.N. Tagore, Hirendranath Dutta, Satishchandra Mukherjee etc., the idea of national education took a more concrete shape. By the donation of Subodh Chandra Mullick (for which he was given title of Raja) and zamindar of Mymensingh, in `1906`, Satish took a leading part in forming the National Council of Education and became a lecturer in the Bengal National College. In `1907`, after Sri Aurobindo’s resignation on `2 August 1907` (fearing “that he might be spirited away to prison at any moment, and his association with the National College might cause great damage to the institution”). Under the aegis of the National Council of Education, a number of National Schools were founded at various places like Jadavpur Engineering College. Taraknath Palit had set up the society for the Promotion of Technical Education which founded Bengal Technical Institute. But most of these schools and institutions failed to flourish due to hostile government. But Jadavpur Engineering College continued and transformed into University in `1956`. The scheme for National Council of Education was indebted to a letter from Sir George Birdwood, known for his valuable census of Indian crafts and industries, to Satish in `1898`. Birdwood wrote that while India must look to the west for scientific culture, she must never surrender her spiritual culture. |
| How did Swadeshi reshape art, culture, science and the press? | *Amar Sonar Bangla*; Abanindranath Tagore; Nandlal Bose; *Jatras*; J.C. Bose; *Bande Mataram*; Press Campaign: It was perhaps in the cultural sphere that the impact of the swadeshi movement was most marked. The songs composed at the time by Rabindranath Tagore, Rajani Kanta Sen, Dwijendralal Ray, Mukunda Das, Syed Abu Mohammad and others later became the moving spirit for nationalists of all hues — ‘terrorists’, ‘Gandhian or Communists’ — and are still popular. Rabindranath Tagore, Rajnikant Sen, Dwijendralal Roy and Nabakrishna Chakraborty composed patriotic songs. Rabindranath’s *Amar Sonar Bangla*, written at that time, was to later inspire the liberation struggle of Bangladesh and was adopted as the National Anthem of the country in `1971`. The Swadeshi influence could be seen in Bengali folk music popular among Hindu and Muslim villagers and it evoked collections of Indian fairy tales such as *Thakurmar Jhuli* (Grandmother’s tales) written by Daksinaranjan Mitra Majumdar which delights Bengali children to this day. Similarly, there were great improvements in Indian art. Painting became a national art. Abanindranath Tagore broke the domination of Victorian naturalism over Indian art and sought inspiration from indigenous tradition of Mughal, Rajput and Ajanta. Nandlal Bose was first recipient of a scholarship offered by Indian Society of Oriental Art founded in `1907`. Tagore gave a call for Rakhi Bandhan as a token for Hindu-Muslim unity and wrote articles under title *Atma Shakti*. The Swadeshi period saw the creative use of traditional popular festivals and melas as a means of reaching out to the masses. The Ganapati and Shivaji festivals, popularized by Tilak, became a medium for Swadeshi propaganda not only in Western India but also in Bengal. Traditional folk theatre forms such as *jatras* were extensively used in disseminating the Swadeshi message in an intelligible form to vast sections of the people, many of whom were being introduced to modern political ideas for the first time. Ramsay Macdonald visiting Bengal during this period wrote that Bengal was creating India by song and worship. In science, J.C. Bose, Prafulla Chandra Ray and others pioneered original research that was praised the world over. The writings of *Bande Mataram* practically revolutionized the political attitude of Bengal. Surendranath Banerjea, Krishna Kumar Mitra, Prithwishchandra Ray and other leaders launched a powerful press campaign against the partition proposals through journals and newspapers like the *Bengalee*, *Hitabadi* and *Sanjibani*. The four leading newspapers of Calcutta — the *Bengalee*, the *Amrita Bazaar Patrika*, the *Indian Mirror* and the *Hindu Patriot* — protested against this division of Bengal. The *Amrita Bazaar Patrika* in its issue of `14th December, 1903` called on the people of East Bengal to hold public meetings in every town and village to prepare petition for submission to the government, which was signed by lakhs of people. Vernacular newspapers such as the *Sanjivani* and the *Bangabashi* expressed open hostility against this proposal. |
47. Swadeshi Outside Bengal, Government Repression, Drawbacks and Estimate
47. Swadeshi Outside Bengal, Government Repression, Drawbacks and Estimate
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| How did Swadeshi spread outside Bengal and what repressive measures followed? | Tilak (Poona/Bombay); Ajit Singh & Lajpat Rai (Punjab); Syed Haidar Raza (Delhi); V.O.C. (Madras); Lathi Charge; *Bande Mataram* Illegal: The message of Swadeshi and the boycott of foreign goods soon spread to the rest of the country: Lokamanya Tilak took the movement to different parts of India, especially Poona and Bombay; Ajit Singh and Lala Lajpat Rai spread the Swadeshi message in Punjab and other parts of northern India. Syed Haidar Raza led the movement in Delhi; Rawalpindi, Kangra, Jammu, Multan and Haridwar witnessed active participation in the Swadeshi Movement; Chidambaram Pillai took the movement to the Madras presidency, which was also galvanized by Bipin Chandra Pal’s extensive lecture tour. Other than boycott and burning of foreign goods, people also resorted to ‘peaceful picketing’ which was destined to become a normal feature in almost every type of political agitation in future. All these gave the police a good opportunity to interfere. The volunteers were roughly handled and if they resisted, the police beat them with lathis. These ‘Regulation Lathis’ were freely used by the police in the first instance to drive away the picketers and to disperse crowds, whether rioters or peaceful. The uttering of *Bande Mataram* was an indisputable evidence of sympathy to movement and later it was made illegal to shout *Bande Mataram* in a public place. The official phrase, “mild lathi charge” to describe the assault of the police, was a misnomer. It was certainly not mild as the gaping wounds on the bodies loudly proclaimed. The Government also issued instructions to the educational institutions to control their boys and prevent them from participating in the swadeshi movement. Rural markets were controlled; bans were put on processions and meetings; leaders were put into confinement without any trial and loyal Muslims were made to go against the recalcitrant Hindus. |
| What were drawbacks, communal consequences and lasting effects of Swadeshi? | Muslim Alienation; Muslim League `1906`; Surat Split Weakened; *Atmasakti*; Gandhi on Prison as Badge of Honour; War of Position: Drawbacks, Effects and Estimate of Swadeshi Movement: It didn’t garner the support of mass Muslims and they were turned against the movement by British. The use of traditional popular customs and festivals to mobilise masses was misinterpreted by Communal forces backed by the State. Communal riots broke in Bengal. Curzon said: Dacca would become capital of new Muslim majority province and they will get better deal free from Calcutta. To mollify the people of East Bengal, Lord Curzon declared that a university as a center of excellence would be established in Dacca (which would later be named as University of Dhaka) and formed a committee in this regard consisting Khwaja Salimullah, A. K. Fazlul Huq and others. The decision was severely criticized by some Hindu leaders in West Bengal. The swadeshi partition and the Government measures finally led to the split of Hindus and Muslims and virtually the formation of Muslim League in `1906`. Movement lacked effective organisation and political structure and they lacked struggle-pause-struggle technique of Mahatma Gandhi. Split of Congress in `1907` weakened the movement and repression of British caused intensity to be drained. Though swadeshi movement had spread outside Bengal but rest of the country was not yet prepared to adopt new style and stage of politics. For the first two or three years, there was a serious decline in the import of British goods, particularly cloth. Passive resistance could not go for long and its ultimate result could never be in doubt. This was the genesis of the sudden emergence of a network of secret revolutionary organizations which were determined to meet the Government on equal terms, by collecting arms and opposing terrorism by terrorism. The youth of the country, who had been part of the mass movement, now found themselves unable to disappear tamely into the background once the movement itself grew moribund and Government repression was stepped up. Frustrated, some among them opted for ‘individual heroism’ as distinct from the earlier attempts at mass action. Although swadeshi was originally conceived as merely a handmaid of boycott of foreign goods and meant only to be an urge to use indigenous in preference to foreign goods, it soon attained a much more comprehensive character and became a concrete symbol of nationalism. Swadeshi in Bengal brought into the vortex of politics a class of people — the landed aristocracy — who had hitherto held studiously aloof from the congress or any other political organization. Outside Bengal, it gave a rude shock of disillusionment to the whole of India and stimulated the political thoughts of the people. Swadeshi emphasized on ‘*atmasakti*’ or soul force. Movement gave a thrust to self-reliance, a new confidence and reassertion of national pride. Self-help and constructive work at the village level was envisaged as a means of bringing about the social and economic regeneration of the villages and of reaching the rural masses. This meant social reform and campaigns against evils such as caste oppression, early marriage, the dowry system, consumption of alcohol, etc. It had permanent impact on the development of several industries like textile mills, soap and match factories etc. Banks and insurance companies were started. The greatest beneficiaries were Bombay and Ahmedabad where enterprising industrialists came forward to fill the vacuum created by decrease of British import. It had direct impact on cultural development and education in Bengal. The movement evolved several new methods and techniques of mass mobilization and mass action though it was not able to put them all into practice successfully. It also widened social base of movement. One particular aspect of the swadeshi movement which M.K. Gandhi prized was that it taught the people to challenge and defy the authority of the Government openly in public and took away from the minds of even ordinary men the dread of police assault and prison as well as the sense of ignominy which hitherto attached to them. To go to prison got badge of honour and not as hitherto a brand of infamy. Swadeshi Movement was only the first round in the national popular struggle against colonialism. It was an important ‘battle’ in the long drawn out and complex ‘war of position’ for Indian independence. |
48. Congress Attitude to Swadeshi and the Surat Split (1907)
48. Congress Attitude to Swadeshi and the Surat Split (1907)
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| How did Congress sessions of `1905` and `1906` handle Swadeshi and Boycott? | Gokhale `1905` Colourless Compromise; Naoroji `1906` Swarajya + Swadeshi/Boycott/National Education: Attitude of the Congress to Swadeshi Movement: In `1905`, Congress with Gokhale as President recorded emphatic protest against partition of Bengal which was already done. Moderates were not ready to extend open support to boycott. Under pressure from Bengal delegates a colourless compromise resolution was passed, leaving it unclear whether the boycott of British goods was approved or not. In `1906`, the Extremists were able to secure better terms from the Moderates. The Congress with Dadabhai Naoroji as President, recognized Boycott as legitimate and accorded its most cordial support to Swadeshi Movement. Another resolution asked the people to take up the question of national education for both boys and girls. Extremists wanted to extend the movement to rest of India and beyond the programme of just Swadeshi and Boycott to full fledged mass struggle with aim of Swaraj but Moderates were not ready for it. After the open split in Surat in `1907`, Congress under grip of the Moderates never reiterated or discussed the resolution passed in `1906`. They looked up Bengal as local issue and ignored because it meant a direct confrontation with the government. |
| What background and factors led to the Surat Split from Benaras `1905` to Calcutta `1906`? | Extend Boycott Outside Bengal vs Limit to Bengal; Naoroji as Compromise President; Swarajya Undefined: Background and Factors Leading to Surat Split: In December `1905`, at the Benaras session of the Indian National Congress presided over by Gokhale, the Moderate-Extremist differences came to the fore. The Extremists wanted to extend the Boycott and Swadeshi Movement to regions outside Bengal and also to include all forms of associations (such as government service, law courts, legislative councils, etc.) within the boycott programme and thus start a nationwide mass movement. The Extremists wanted a strong resolution supporting their programme at the Benaras session. The Moderates, on the other hand, were not in favour of extending the movement beyond Bengal and were totally opposed to boycott of councils and similar associations. They advocated strictly constitutional methods to protest against the partition of Bengal. As a compromise, a relatively mild resolution condemning the partition of Bengal and the reactionary policies of Curzon and supporting the swadeshi and boycott programme in Bengal was passed. This succeeded in averting a split for the moment. At the Calcutta session of the Congress in December `1906`, the Moderate enthusiasm had cooled a bit because of the popularity of the Extremists and the revolutionary terrorists and because of communal riots. Here, the Extremists wanted either Tilak or Lajpat Rai as the president, while the Moderates proposed the name of Dadabhai Naoroji, who was widely respected by all the nationalists. Finally, Dadabhai Naoroji was elected as the president and as a concession to the militants, the goal of the Indian National Congress was defined as ‘swarajya or self-government like the United Kingdom or the colonies’. Also a resolution supporting the programme of swadeshi, boycott and national education was passed. The word swaraj was mentioned for the first time, but its connotation was not spelt out, which left the field open for differing interpretations by the Moderates and the Extremists. The Extremists, emboldened by the proceedings at the Calcutta session, gave a call for wide passive resistance and boycott of schools, colleges, legislative councils, municipalities, law courts, etc. The Moderates, encouraged by the news that council reforms were on the anvil, decided to tone down the Calcutta programme. The two sides seemed to be heading for a showdown. The Extremists thought that the people had been aroused and the battle for freedom had begun. They felt the time had come for the big push to drive the British out and considered the Moderates to be a drag on the movement. They concluded that it was necessary to part company with the Moderates, even if it meant a split in the Congress. The Moderates thought that it would be dangerous at that stage to associate with the Extremists whose anti-imperialist agitation, it was felt, would be ruthlessly suppressed by the mighty colonial rule. The Moderates saw in the council reforms an opportunity to realise their dream of Indian participation in the administration. Any hasty action by the Congress, the Moderates felt, under Extremist pressure was bound to annoy the Liberals in power in England then. The Moderates were no less willing to part company with the Extremists. The Moderates did not realise that the council reforms were meant by the Government more to isolate the Extremists than to reward the Moderates. The Extremists did not realise that the Moderates could act as their outer line of defence in face of state repression. Both sides did not realise that in a vast country like India ruled by a powerful imperialist country, only a broad based nationalist movement could succeed. |
| How did the Surat Session of December `1907` produce the split, and what was the aftermath? | Nagpur/Tilak vs Surat/Rashbehari Ghosh; Minto “Great Triumph”; Mehta Congress; Repressive Laws; Morley-Minto `1909`; Tilak Moderate after `1914`: Split of Congress in Surat Session, December `1907`: The Extremists wanted the `1907` session to be held in Nagpur (Central Provinces) with Tilak or Lajpat Rai as the president and reiteration of the swaraj, swadeshi, boycott and national education resolutions. The Moderates wanted the session at Surat in order to exclude Tilak from the presidency, since a leader from the host province could not be session president (Surat being in Tilak’s home province of Bombay). Instead, Moderates led by Gokhale and Firuz Shah Mehta wanted Rashbehari Ghosh as the president and sought to drop the resolutions on swaraj, swadeshi, boycott and national education. Both sides adopted rigid positions, leaving no room for compromise. The split became inevitable after clash during the session. The moderate leaders having captured the machinery of the Congress excluded the militant elements from it. Minto wrote to Morley: Congress collapse at Surat was a great triumph for us. Aftermath and Effect of Split: After Surat Split, Congress was now dominated by the Moderates who lost no time in reiterating Congress commitment to the goal of self-government within the British Empire and to constitutional methods only to achieve this goal. Next sessions of Congress in Banaras and Allahabad were called Mehta Congress due to hegemony of Firozshah Mehta. The Extremists founded the Liberal Party and called themselves Neo-Nationalist. The Government launched a massive attack on the Extremists. Between `1907` and `1911`, five new laws were enforced to check anti-government activity. These legislations included the Seditious Meetings Act, `1907`; Indian Newspapers (Incitement to Offences) Act, `1908`; Criminal Law Amendment Act, `1908`; and the Indian Press Act, `1910`. Tilak, the main Extremist leader, was sent to Mandalay (Burma) jail for six years on charge of disturbing public order. Aurobindo and B.C. Pal retired from active politics. Lajpat Rai left for abroad. The Extremists were not able to organise an effective alternative party to sustain the movement. The Moderates were left with no popular base or support, especially as the youth rallied behind the Extremists. In the long run, the split did not prove useful to either party. The Moderate leaders lost touch with the younger generation of nationalists. The British Government played the game of “Divide and Rule” and tried to win over moderate nationalist opinion so that the militant nationalists could be isolated and suppressed. To placate the moderate nationalists, it announced constitutional concessions through the Indian Councils Act of `1909`, which are known as the Morley-Minto Reforms of `1909`. In `1911`, the Government also announced the cancellation of the partition of Bengal. Western and Eastern Bengals were to be reunited, while a new province consisting of Bihar and Orissa was to be created. At the same time the seat of the Central Government was shifted from Calcutta to Delhi. After `1908`, the national movement as a whole declined for a time. In `1914`, Tilak was released and he picked up the threads of the movement in the form of Home Rule Movement. After release from Jail, Tilak became Moderate. |
49. Beginning of Revolutionary Extremism in India
49. Beginning of Revolutionary Extremism in India
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| What four major trends in the Swadeshi Movement did Sumit Sarkar identify, and where does revolutionary extremism fit? | Moderate Trend; Constructive Swadeshi; Political Extremism; Revolutionary Extremism:Sumit Sarkar has identified four major trends in the Swadeshi Movement, namely, Moderate trend, Constructive swadeshi, Political extremism and Revolutionary extremism. So far as Bengal was concerned, by `1908`, political swadeshi was certainly on the decline and was taken over by another trend, i.e., individual terrorism against British officials and Indian collaborators. This signified, as Sarkar (`1973`) points out, a shift from non-violence to violence and also from mass action to elite action, necessitated primarily by the failure of the mass mobilisation efforts. The culture of violence as a mode of political protest was always alive in India even after the suppression of the revolt of `1857`. |
| How did revolutionary extremism develop in Maharashtra from Phadke to the Chapekar brothers? | Phadke `1876–77` Ramoshi Dacoities → Aden Exile; Chapekar Brothers & W.C. Rand `1897`: In Maharashtra, in `1876–77`, Vasudeo Balwant Phadke had gathered around him a band of Ramoshis and other backward classes and engaged them in dacoities to collect money for his more grandiose scheme of an armed revolt against the English. He was caught in `1879` and was deported to Aden where he later died a lonely death. But the revolutionary trend was kept alive in Maharashtra through the physical culture movement and formation of youth clubs, the most well known of which was founded in Poona by the Chapekar brothers, Damodar and Balkrishna. From here they moved further and in `1897` killed W.C. Rand, the notorious chairman of the Poona Plague Commission, which was allegedly responsible for the atrocities perpetrated by the soldiers during their house searches to identify plague victims. Both of them were later caught and hanged, but the tradition lingered on. |
| How did militant nationalism and secret societies develop in Bengal from the 1860s–70s to Anushilan and Dacca Anushilan? | Physical Culture & *Akhras*; Midnapur `1902`; Sarala Ghosal; Atmonnoti Samiti; Anushilan March `1902`; Dacca Anushilan October `1906`; *Yugantar*: In Bengal, militant nationalism developed in the same way since the 1860s and 70s, when the physical culture movement became a craze and *akhras* or gymnasiums were set up everywhere to develop what Swami Vivekananda had described as strong muscles and nerves of steel. This was a psychological attempt to break away from the colonial stereotype of effeminacy imposed on the Bengalees. The real story of terrorism in Bengal begins from `1902` with the formation of four groups, three in Calcutta and one in Midnapur: the first was the Midnapur Society founded in `1902` and this was followed by the founding of a gymnasium by Sarala Ghosal in Ballygunge Circular Road in Calcutta, the Atmonnoti Samiti by some central Calcutta youths, and the Anushilan Samiti by Satischandra Basu in March `1902`. The progress of this movement till `1905` was modest; but the beginning of the swadeshi movement in that year brought an upsurge in secret society activities. The Dacca Anushilan Samiti was born in October `1906` through the initiative of Pulin Behari Das. This was followed by an all-Bengal conference of the revolutionaries in December and a revolutionary weekly called *Yugantar* started in the same year. |
| What actions defined the Barindra–Maniktala phase, and how did Muzaffarpur and Alipore reshape the movement? | Rangpur Dacoity August `1906`; Maniktala Bomb; Muzaffarpur `30 April 1908`; Alipore Trial; C.R. Das & Aurobindo Acquittal: A distinct group within the Calcutta Anushilan Samiti headed by Barindra Kumar Ghosh (Aurobindo’s brother), Hemchandra Qanungo and Prafulla Chaki soon started action. The first swadeshi dacoity or robbery to raise funds was organised in Rangpur in August `1906` and a bomb manufacturing unit was set up at Maniktala in Calcutta. Attempts to assassinate oppressive officials and spies, and robbery in the houses of wealthy Saha merchants who had earlier refused to stop dealing in foreign goods, became the main features of the revolutionary activities since `1907–8`. But the abortive attempt at Muzaffarpur on the life of the Presidency Magistrate Kingsford on `30 April 1908` by Khudiram Bose and Prafulla Chaki and the following arrest of the entire Maniktala group, including Aurobindo and Barindra Kumar Ghosh, dealt a great blow to such militant activities. In terms of direct gains, the terrorists achieved precious little; most of their attempts were either aborted or failed. Nor did they believe that assassinations or dacoities would alone bring India liberation, as Aurobindo’s original idea was to prepare for an open armed revolution. But they also achieved a lot. The hanging of Khudiram and the Maniktala Bomb Conspiracy, publicised by the press and immortalised in folk songs, fired the imagination of the entire Bengalee population. C.R. Das, still a briefless barrister, appeared as the defence counsel for Aurobindo and argued that if preaching the principle of freedom was any crime, then the accused was surely guilty. To everybody’s surprise, Aurobindo was acquitted; but Barindra and Ullaskar Dutta were sentenced to death and others were to be deported for life. On appeal, the death sentences were reduced to life imprisonment; and some other sentences were reduced as well. The movement hereafter went underground and became decentralised, but did not die down. Revolutionary terrorism by now had acquired legitimacy in the popular mind, as many people believed that it was an effective alternative to the earlier mendicant policies of the moderates. |
| What political consequences did revolutionary pressure produce by `1909–11`, and how did the centre of activity shift after annulment? | Morley-Minto Fear Thesis; S.P. Sinha Appointment; Annulment `1911` & Delhi Capital; End of Bengali Dominance: When the Morley-Minto Reforms were announced in `1909`, many of these people believed it was because of fear generated by revolutionary activities. As one historian argues, the appointment of Lord S.P. Sinha as the Law Member in the Viceroy’s executive council was surely the result of pressures generated by terrorist activities. The partition of Bengal itself was annulled in `1911` and although the measure was presented as a “coronation boon” from George V, it might not have been totally unrelated to such pressures. But there were other administrative calculations too, the most important of which was the transfer of capital from Calcutta to Delhi — a measure that certainly needed to be sugarcoated. This marked the end of Bengali dominance in national politics of India. The Curzonian aim of weakening the Bengali politicians was achieved in a different way and now with less resistance. But the annulment of partition did not bring an end to militant nationalism, as violence was not generated by partition alone. The centre of activities now moved to Punjab and Uttar Pradesh, where the Bengali revolutionaries were joined by the Punjabis returning from North America, where they had formed the revolutionary Ghadar Party. |
| How did Ghadar, Komagata Maru, wartime army plots and Bagha Jatin unfold, and what legal instruments closed this phase? | Hardinge Bomb `1912`; Komagata Maru Budge Budge September `1914`; Rash Behari Bose; Bagha Jatin Balasore `1915`; Defence of India Act `1915`; Rowlatt `1918`: They organised dacoities throughout north India to raise funds and in `1912` plotted an unsuccessful attempt to assassinate the Viceroy Lord Hardinge. In September `1914` the stranded Punjabi Ghadrites on board the *Kamagata Maru* clashed with the army at Budge Budge near Calcutta. With the outbreak of World War One even more grandiose schemes of organising armed revolts in the Indian army with help from Germany or Japan began to appear. Rash Behari Bose operating from Lahore tried to organise an army revolt throughout north India, but failed to evoke any response from the sepoys and ultimately fled to Japan. In Bengal, the revolutionaries united under the leadership of Jatin Mukherjee (Bagha Jatin) tried to smuggle in arms from Germany, but the amateurish attempt ultimately ended in an uneven battle with the British police at Balasore in Orissa. The unbound repression of the government at this period, freely using the new wartime Defence of India Act (`1915`), made terrorist attacks more and more infrequent. But the spectre of revolutionary violence did not disappear at all and it made the Sedition Committee draft in `1918` the draconian Rowlatt bills, which inflamed Mahatma Gandhi into action and to initiate a new phase in Indian politics, where the central focus would shift from violence to non-violence, from elite action to mass agitation. |
50. The Home Rule Movement (1916)
50. The Home Rule Movement (1916)
| Cue Words | Notes | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| What was the Home Rule Movement, and how did it relate to World War I and the Ghadar response? | Indian Response to WWI; Irish Model; Dominion Status; Aggressive Politics: The Home Rule Movement was the Indian response to the First World War in a less charged but a more effective way than the response of Indians living abroad which took the form of the Ghadar adventure. The All India Home Rule League was a national political organization founded in `1916` and organised on the lines of the Irish Home Rule Leagues to lead the national demand for self-government, termed Home Rule, and to obtain the status of a Dominion within the British Empire as enjoyed by Australia, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand and Newfoundland at the time. It represented the emergence of a new trend of aggressive politics. Annie Besant and Tilak were the pioneers of this new trend. Two Home Rule Leagues were established, one by B.G. Tilak at Poona in April `1916` and the other by Mrs. Annie Besant at Madras in September `1916`. The main aim of the Movement was to get self-government for India within the British Empire. | |||||||||||||||
| What factors led to the Home Rule Movement? | War Division of Political Classes; Morley-Minto Disillusionment; Wartime Miseries; Collapse of White Superiority Myth; Tilak after `1914`; Besant since `1896`: Factors leading to the Movement were the following. Many Indian revolutionaries opposed the war, while moderates and liberals backed the war. The issue divided India’s political classes and left the increasing demand for self-government going nowhere. A section of nationalists felt that popular pressure was required to attain concessions from the Government. The Moderates were disillusioned with the Morley-Minto reforms. People were feeling the burden of wartime miseries caused by high taxation and a rise in prices, and were ready to participate in any aggressive movement of protest. The War, being fought among the major imperialist powers of the day and backed by naked propaganda against each other, exposed the myth of white superiority. Tilak was ready to assume leadership after his release in June `1914`, and had made conciliatory gestures to reassure the Government of his loyalty and to the Moderates that he wanted, like the Irish Home Rulers, a reform of the administration and not an overthrow of the Government. He also said that the acts of violence had only served to retard the pace of political progress in India. He urged all Indians to assist the British Government in its hour of crisis. Annie Besant, the Irish theosophist based in India since `1896`, had decided to enlarge the sphere of her activities to include the building of a movement for Home Rule on the lines of the Irish Home Rule Leagues. | |||||||||||||||
| How were the two Leagues formed after the Congress sessions of `1914` and `1915`? | Failed `1914` Rapprochement; Extremists Readmitted `1915`; Separate Leagues to Avoid Friction: Both Tilak and Besant realised that the sanction of a Moderate-dominated Congress as well as full cooperation of the Extremists was essential for the movement to succeed. Having failed at the `1914` session of the Congress to reach a Moderate-Extremist rapprochement, Tilak and Besant decided to revive political activity on their own. By early `1915`, Annie Besant had launched a campaign to demand self-government for India after the war on the lines of white colonies. She campaigned through her newspapers, *New India* and *Commonweal*, and through public meetings and conferences. At the annual session of the Congress in `1915` the efforts of Tilak and Besant met with some success. It was decided that the Extremists be admitted to the Congress. Although Besant failed to get the Congress to approve her scheme of Home Rule Leagues, the Congress did commit itself to a programme of educative propaganda and to a revival of local-level Congress committees. Not willing to wait for too long, Besant laid the condition that if the Congress did not implement its commitments, she would be free to set up her own League — which she finally had to, as there was no response from the Congress. Tilak and Besant set up their separate leagues to avoid any friction. | |||||||||||||||
| What were the geographical scope, organisation and demands of Tilak’s and Besant’s Leagues? | Tilak: MH/KA/CP-Berar, 6 Branches; Besant: Rest of India, 200 Branches; Arundale, Wadia, C.P. Ramaswamy Aiyar:
| |||||||||||||||
| Who joined the Home Rule agitation, and who stayed away? | Motilal, JL Nehru, Desai, Das, Malaviya, Jinnah, Sapru, Lajpat Rai; Anglo-Indians, Most Muslims, South Non-Brahmins Absent: The move created considerable excitement at the time, and attracted many members of the Indian National Congress and the All India Muslim League, who had been allied since the `1916` Lucknow Pact. The Home Rule agitation was later joined by Motilal Nehru, Jawaharlal Nehru, Bhulabhai Desai, Chittaranjan Das, Madan Mohan Malaviya, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Tej Bahadur Sapru and Lala Lajpat Rai. Some of these leaders became heads of local branches. Many of the Moderate Congressmen who were disillusioned with Congress inactivity, and some members of Gokhale’s Servants of India Society also joined the agitation. However, Anglo-Indians, most of the Muslims and non-Brahmins from South did not join as they felt Home Rule would mean rule of the Hindu majority, mainly the high caste. | |||||||||||||||
| What was the Home Rule League programme and method of mass education? | Political Education; Libraries; Conferences; Pamphlets; Plays; Local Government; Gujarat & Sindh; Russian Revolution `1917`: The League campaign aimed to convey to the common man the message of Home Rule as self-government. It carried a much wider appeal than the earlier mobilisations did and also attracted the hitherto ‘politically backward’ regions of Gujarat and Sindh. The aim was to be achieved by promoting political education and discussion through public meetings, organising libraries and reading rooms containing books on national politics, holding conferences, organising classes for students on politics, propaganda through newspapers, pamphlets, posters, illustrated post-cards, plays, religious songs, etc., collecting funds, organising social work, and participating in local government activities. The Russian Revolution of `1917` proved to be an added advantage for the Home Rule campaign. | |||||||||||||||
| How did the Government respond to Home Rule, and what was Montagu’s comment on Besant’s internment? | Madras Student Ban; Tilak Barred from Punjab & Delhi; Besant Arrest June `1917`; Subramaniya Aiyar Renounces Knighthood; Montagu Shiva Quote; Release September `1917`: The Government came down with severe repression, especially in Madras where the students were prohibited from attending political meetings. A case was instituted against Tilak which was rescinded by the High Court. Tilak was barred from entering the Punjab and Delhi. In June `1917`, Annie Besant and her associates, B.P. Wadia and George Arundale, were arrested. This invited nationwide protest. In a dramatic gesture, Sir S. Subramaniya Aiyar renounced his knighthood while Tilak advocated a programme of passive resistance. The repression only served to harden the attitude of the agitators and strengthen their resolve to resist the Government. Montagu, the secretary of state, commented that “Shiva …cut his wife into fifty-two pieces only to discover that he had fifty-two wives. This is what happens to the Government of India when it interns Mrs Besant.” The Government released Besant in September `1917`. | |||||||||||||||
| Why did the Home Rule agitation fade out by `1919`? | No Mass Politics; Brahman Domination & Non-Brahman Opposition; Montford Division July `1918`; Besant Conciliatory; Tilak Chirol Libel Case; Gandhi Satyagraha; Communal Riots `1917–18`: The movement, instead of going forward after its great advance in `1917`, gradually dissolved. During `1918`, various factors combined to diffuse the energies that had concentrated in the agitation for Home Rule. Although their impact fell on a much wider community outside its direct membership, the Home Rule Leagues ultimately could not bring in mass agitational politics in India. Apart from firing up college students, educated Indians and people in the cities, the Leagues elicited little response or enthusiasm from India’s masses and the British government. It was often divided upon whether to follow up with public demonstrations, or compromise by contesting elections to the legislative councils. In Madras, Maharashtra and Karnataka, despite some untouchable support, the Leagues being under Brahman domination, invited the opposition of the non-Brahmans. The Moderates who had joined the movement after Besant’s arrest were pacified by the promise of reforms and by Besant’s release. They were also put off by the talk of civil disobedience and did not attend the Congress from September `1918` onwards. The publication of the scheme of Government reforms in July `1918` (Montagu-Chelmsford reforms) further divided the nationalist ranks. Some wanted to accept it outright and others to reject it outright, while many felt that, though inadequate, they should be given a trial. Annie Besant, who was made the Congress President in `1917`, began to take a conciliatory attitude towards the moderates, particularly after the announcement of the Montagu-Chelmsford reform proposals, and put the passive resistance programme on hold. This frustrated the young extremist leaders who provided her main support base and the Home Rule Leagues soon became defunct. Montagu-Chelmsford reforms which became known in July `1918` divided the nationalist ranks. Tilak was more consistent in his approach, but given Besant’s vacillations, and the change in the Moderate stance, there was little that he could do to sustain the movement on his own. Also, towards the end of the year, he decided to go to England to pursue the libel case that he had filed against Valentine Chirol, the author of *Indian Unrest*, and was away for many critical months. With Annie Besant unable to give a firm lead, and Tilak away in England, the movement was left leaderless. Its further growth and activity were stalled by the rise of Mohandas Gandhi and his Satyagraha art of revolution: non-violent, but mass-based civil disobedience. Communal riots were witnessed during `1917–18`. There was a lack of effective organisation. Talk of passive resistance by the Extremists kept the Moderates off from activity from September `1918` onwards. | |||||||||||||||
| What were the positive gains and legacy of the Home Rule Movement? | Transitional Phase to Mass Politics; Town–Country Links; Swarajya Sabha `1921`; Montagu August Declaration & Montford; Moderate–Extremist Reunion: In spite of all these, the Home Rule Movement cannot be said a failure. The tremendous achievement of the Home Rule Movement and its legacy was that it created a generation of ardent nationalists who formed the backbone of the national movement in the coming years when, under the leadership of the Mahatma, it entered its truly mass phase. It was the Home Rule League that marked the transitional phase between the deliberative and dormant phase of the INC to the mass-based politics of the Gandhian agitation. The Home Rule Leagues created organizational links between town and country which were to prove invaluable in later years. By popularizing the idea of Home Rule or self-government, and making it a commonplace thing, it generated a widespread pro-nationalist atmosphere in the country. In `1920`, the All India Home Rule League elected Mahatma Gandhi as its President. In a year, the body would merge into the Indian National Congress to form a united Indian political front. In `1921` All India Home Rule League changed its name to Swarajya Sabha. The movement shifted the emphasis from the educated elite to the masses and permanently deflected the movement from the course mapped by the Moderates. The League spread political awareness in new areas like Sindh, Punjab, Gujarat, United Provinces, Central provinces, Bihar, Orissa as well as Madras, which all sought an active political movement. The August `1917` declaration of Montagu and the Montford reforms were influenced by the Home Rule agitation. Tilak’s and Besant’s efforts in the Moderate-Extremist reunion revived the Congress as an effective instrument of Indian nationalism. It lent a new dimension and a sense of urgency to the national movement. It created a generation of ardent nationalists. It prepared the masses for politics of the Gandhian style. |
51. Lucknow Pact (1916)
51. Lucknow Pact (1916)
| Cue Words | Notes | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| What was the Lucknow Pact, and why was Jinnah called the Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity? | INC–Muslim League Agreement `1916`; Jinnah as Architect; Sarojini Naidu Title; Moderate–Extremist Cordiality: Lucknow Pact refers to an agreement reached between the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League at the joint session of both the parties, held in Lucknow, in `1916`. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, then a member of the Congress as well as the League, made both the parties reach an agreement to pressure the British government to adopt a more liberal approach to India and give Indians more authority to run their country, besides safeguarding basic Muslim demands. After the unpopular partition of Bengal, Jinnah approached the League to make it more popular among the Muslims. Due to the reconciliation brought about by Jinnah between the Congress and the League, the Nightingale of India, Sarojini Naidu, gave him the title of “Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity”. The Lucknow Pact also established cordial relations between the two prominent groups of the Indian National Congress — Extremist group led by Bal Gangadhar Tilak (who came back from Jail after 6 years), and the moderates. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| What reasons pushed the Muslim League towards a joint pact with Congress? | Annulment of Partition; New Muslim Leadership `1913`; Turkey/Caliph Hostility; Chelmsford Post-War Reform Invitation: When the All-India Muslim League came into existence, it was a moderate organization with its basic aim to establish friendly relations with the British Crown. However, due to the decision of the British government to annul the partition of Bengal, the Muslim leadership decided to change its stance. In `1913`, a new group of Muslim leaders entered the fold of the Muslim League with a much different view than their predecessors. The indifferent policy of England towards the Caliph of Turkey made the Muslims hostile to the British as Caliph was regarded as the religious head of Muslims all over the world. At the close of the war, Lord Chelmsford had invited suggestions from the Indians for post World War I reforms. So naturally the Muslim League which was on the sidelines of the country politics by that time would like to come ahead to get a better share in the expected giveaways of reforms. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| How did Moderate–Extremist reunion and the path to Lucknow unfold from Bombay `1915` to December `1916`? | Bombay December `1915`; October `1916` Memorandum of 19; Calcutta November `1916`; Lucknow Sessions `29` & `31 December 1916`: In December `1915`, the extremists under Tilak and moderates under Gokhale met at Bombay where the Muslim League joined them to draft a set of minimum constitutional demands through mutual consultations, thus giving an idea of illusionary Hindu-Muslim Unity. The principal leaders of the two political parties assembled at one place for the first time. The speeches made from the platform of the two groups were similar in tone and theme. Within a few months of the Bombay meetings, 19 Muslim and Hindu elected members of the Imperial Legislative Council addressed a memorandum to the Viceroy on the subject of reforms in October `1916`. Their suggestions were discussed, amended and accepted at a subsequent meeting of the Congress and Muslim League leaders at Calcutta in November `1916`. The agreement was confirmed by the annual sessions of the Congress and the League in their annual sessions held at Lucknow on `29 December` and `31 December 1916` respectively. Sarojini Naidu gave Jinnah, the chief architect of the Lucknow Pact, the title of “the Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity”. So, for the first time in history, Muslim League and Indian National Congress worked together to present a set of demands to British which came to be known as the Lucknow Pact. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| What were the fourteen main features of the Lucknow Pact? | Self-Government; India Council Abolition; SOS Salary; Separation of Powers; 1/3rd Muslim Central Representation; Separate Electorates; Weightage; 150 Council; 5-Year Term; Adult Franchise:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| How does the source assess the Lucknow Pact’s long-term communal and political consequences? | Communal Politics Recognised; Weightage & Province-wise Privileges; 3/4th Communal Veto; League Legitimised; Seed of `1947` Partition: Muslim League and Congress agreed to separate electorates which means Congress formally recognised communal politics and tacitly gave recognition that India consisted of different communities with separate interest of their own that finally resulted in partition of India in `1947`. In the imperial legislative council, Muslim representation was slated to be 1/3rd, although their population was not 1/3rd. The weightage to Muslim minority was recognized; the result was that this left the way open to the future resurgence of communalism in Indian politics. Muslim members’ strength in legislature was laid down province by province; thus one of the most dangerous pacifist policies of Congress not only recognized communal representation but also recognized communal privileges. Any legislature could not work if 3/4th member of any religion opposed it; its consequence was introduction of communal veto in legislature. Till Lucknow Pact, Muslim League was nowhere in the national politics. By making this pact, the Congress “recognized” that Muslim League is a political party that represents the Muslims of India. This was a mistake. INC leaders thought they were sacrificing their seats in the legislature yet they failed to understand its logical implications and partition in the offing. |
UPSC Relevance
UPSC Relevance
| Cue Words | Notes |
|---|---|
| What Mains angles does this master note support under Modern Indian History / Freedom Struggle? | Key Angles UPSC Targets:
|
I'll read the first 200 lines of the Mains notes file, then convert every detail into VitePress Cornell Notes format with zero loss.Checking existing Cornell Notes patterns in the project for the expected structure.Converting lines 1–200 into VitePress Cornell Notes with full fidelity on names, dates, figures, and quotes.