Advent of Europeans British Administration in IndiaEarly Resistance to British RuleStruggleby the Masses Social Reforms Nationalism in India Freedom Struggle MovementsGovernor Generals During British IndiaPersonalities TO

PICS

MP1-MHs-19

MODERNHISTORY

MODERN HISTORY

98 www.iasscore.in

CHAPTER 6

NATIONALISMIN INDIA

Nationalism Nationalism, in the sense in which we use it today, did not exist in India before the 19th century. The roots (origins) of modern idea of Nationalism do not lie in the Indian history but in the history of Modern Europe. In fact it is possible to talk of Indian nationalism as distinctly different from its European counterpart.In Europe the development of nationalism was the result of the fundamental changes that were taking place in society and economy around the 18th century. The beginning of the industrial revolution produced goods and materials and created wealth at an unprecedented (unprecedented means like never before) level. This led to the need for the creation of a unifi ed and large market where these goods could be sold.

Rise of Nationalist Feeling

The creation of a large market led to a political integration of villages, districts and provinces into a larger state. In this large and complex market different people were required to perform different roles for which they needed to be trained in different skills. But above all they needed to communicate with each other. This created the need for uniform educational centres with focus on one language. In the pre-modern times majority of the people learnt language and other skills in their local environments which differed from each other. But now, because of the new changes brought about by modern economy, a uniform system of training and schooling came into being. Thus modern English language in England, French in France and German in Germany became the dominant language in those countries.Uniformity in communication systems resulted in the creation of a ‘national culture’ and reinforced national boundaries. People living within those boundaries began to associate themselves with it. Culturally they also began to perceive themselves as one people and as members of one large community, i.e. Englishmen began to identify with each other and with the geographical boundaries of England. Similarly it happened to German and French people. This was the beginning of the idea of nationalism.Nationalism was the result of the emergence of nations and nation states (large culturally homogenous territories with a uniform political system within) in Europe. These nation states did not always exist. The early societies, with simpler forms of human organizations and without an elaborate division of labour, could easily manage their affairs without a state or a central authority to enforce law and order. State, as a central authority, came into being after the beginning of organized agriculture. People generally found it diffi cult to manage their lives without a central authority to regulate their lives. This need for a state became even greater with the onset of industrialization and a modern world economy. An elaborate system of communication and a uniform system of education with focus on one standardized language created conditions for cultural and political uniformity. Thus came into being modern nation states. These nation states, in order to sustain and perpetuate themselves, needed the allegiance and loyalty of the people residing in their territories. This was the beginning of nationalism.

MODERN HISTORY

99www.iasscore.in

In other words, an identifi cation by a people or community with the boundary of the Nation, state and its high culture gave rise to what we know as nationalism.

Advent of Nationalism in India But this was not how the idea of nationalism developed in India. The conditions in India were very different at a time when the idea of nationalism was taking roots in Europe. Industrialization occurred here at a very limited scale. When Europe was getting rapidly industrialized, India was still largely an agrarian economy. Different people spoke different languages. Though the feeling of patriotism, (patriotism: love and a feeling of loyalty for one’s territory and culture like the one that existed among the Marathas for Marathwara or among the Rajputs for Rajputana) certainly existed in India in pre-modern times. But nationalism as we understand it (unifi ed system of administration, common language, a shared high culture and political integration) did not exist in India until about the middle of the 19th century.Nationalism in India developed primarily as a response to the British rule. But initially they did not do it together or as one people. Different groups had their specifi c grievances against the British and therefore they fought for the redressal of their specifi c grievances. For instance the native rulers did not want the British to take over their territories (as it happened to the rulers of Awadh and Jhansi in present day U.P.). Similarly peasants, artisans and tribals suffered at the hands of the British rulers and often stood up in revolt against them. But merely the opposition to the British rule or a fi ght against them did not bring about a feeling of nationalism in India.Although different sections of the population got united because of common exploitation at the hands of the British, a feeling of identifi cation with the entire country and its people did not come about. Even the great revolt of 1857, in which many sections of the population fought together (like native rulers, soldiers, zamindars and peasants) did not produce a feeling of nationalism or an all-India unity. The idea that the people of India, in spite of many differences among themselves, had many things in common amongst them had not, as yet, taken roots. Similarly the realization that the British rule was foreign and an alien rule which wanted to subjugate the entire people and bring them under its control, had also not occurred.The essence of nationalism in India, or Indian nationalism, was the realization that all the Indian people had a common nationality and that it was in their collective interests to resist the British rule. To put it simply, a combined opposition to British rule and a desire to achieve national unity lay at the heart of Indian nationalism.The objective conditions for the development of nationalism were indeed fulfi lled by the arrival of the colonial rulers and their penetration into Indian society and economy. However, these conditions in themselves, did not create an awareness of nationalism among the people. The consciousness of the idea of nationalism took a long time to mature and made its presence gradually in the fi elds of culture, economy and politics.

Culture and Nationalism

It was in the fi eld of culture that the idea of nationalism was expressed fi rst. This happened at two levels:

Firstly it happened in the form of questioning some of the elements of traditional Indian culture and a desire to bring about reforms in it by removing some socially undesirable feature of Indian culture like caste system, religious superstitions, priesthood, discrimination against women etc.Secondly, an attempt was also made by the Indians to oppose the British encroachment in the Indian culture.

It is important to remember that the colonial conquest did not just mean the replacement of one kind of rulers by another. Its effect penetrated deep down to the lives of the ordinary people. In a variety of ways, through the efforts of British rulers and their agents, the culture of then colonial rulers began to spread among the Indian people. This spread of colonial culture and language produced two responses among the Indian elites (elite: socially privileged people belonging to high culture and the upper strata of the society). Some of them began to compare the traditional Indian society and culture with the one that existed in Modern England. They thus questioned some of the elements of the Indian culture.For instance social reformers like Raja Rammohan Roy and Ishwarachandra Vidyasagar worked hard for the eradication of some of the social evils that were a part of the Indian society. In particular Rammohan Roy attacked the practice of Sati (burning of the widow along with the husband on his death) and Vidyasagar advocated remarriage of widows. Leaders like Jotiba Phule initiated anti-caste

MODERN HISTORY

100 www.iasscore.in

movements in Maharashtra. They also made an appeal to the colonial rulers to intervene in the Indian society and bring about reforms, although they did not believe that the European culture was superior to Indian culture. They did. however, believe that the British rule represented a modernizing force which could help in the development of the Indian society along modern and rational lines.At another level, however, the Indian leaders tried to ‘defend’ and protect Indian culture against what they thought was an encroachment of the colonial culture into the lives of the Indian people. When attempts were made in the 1850s to impose a European dress and other practices on the Indian people, it was resisted by them. Interestingly this was also true of those social reformers who admired the British rule and hoped that the colonial rule would, through legislation and other means, introduce modernity in India. Thus Keshub Chandra Sen, a prominent 19th century reformer and a leader of the Brahmo Samaj (formed by Rammohan Roy in 1828) did not like to wear English dress or eat English food. Similarly Ishwarchandra Vidyasagar refused to go to a function hosted by the Lt. Governor because he was required to wear European dress. In this approach cultural rights and practices of the people were seen as very important and the colonial rule was defi ed on the ground that it was trying to impinge upon them.The idea of cultural nationalism, as it developed in the 19th century was based on a fi rm rejection of some of the negative features of the traditional Indian culture by, or its integration into, the culture of the colonial rulers. In other words the 19th century social reformers wanted the Indian culture to become truly modern; but they did not want it to become totally western. In this sense they were opposed to both the traditional culture but also to the modern colonial culture. This was the essence of cultural nationalism as practised in 19th century India.

Economic Nationalism

The origin of economic nationalism can be traced back to the second half of the 19th century when Indian leaders like Dadabhai Naoroji, Mahadev Govind Ranade and Romesh Chandra Dutt among others began realizing that the British rule was economically exploiting India and that it was largely responsible for keeping India under extreme poverty. From this a whole generation of Indian leaders like Gopal Krishna Gokhle, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, G.V. Joshi and many others developed a systematic and comprehensive economic critique of the British rule. Following are some of the features of economic nationalism they propounded and preached through their writings:

They emphasized that the colonial rule was economically exploiting India in a variety of ways. Initially this exploitation was confi ned to heavy taxation of the peasantry and the unequal trade with India. It was an unequal trade because the British East India Company (which was granted a monopoly of trade with India by the British Parliament) bought Indian goods very cheap and sold British manufactured goods to India at a very expensive rate. This resulted in India’s wealth going to England. It also destroyed the traditional handicraft industries of India.However, in the 19th century, whereas this form of economic exploitation continued, new and more complex forms of exploitation came into being. Now the colonial rulers exploited India as a supplier of raw material for their industries and a market where the goods produced in the British industries could be sold. India was made to cultivate those raw materials (like cotton or jute) which were required by British industries. The impact of this was that India’s wealth, which could have been utilized for India’s industrialization and economic development, was utilized instead for Britain’s economic development.

As a part of their understanding about a steady economic exploitation of India, the nationalist leaders, Dadabhai Naoroji in particular, propounded the ‘drain theory. Naoroji, in his famous book Poverty and the Un-British Rule in India written in (1901 pub. 1988) argued that India’s economic resources were being systematically siphoned off to England through trade, industrialization and high salaries to British offi cials which were being paid by Indian money. According to their calculations this ‘drain’ amounted to one half of government revenues and more than one third of India’s total savings. It was thus that Britain’s enrichment and India’s improvishment were taking place simultaneously.The early nationalist leaders thus argued that the British colonial rule, in a variety of ways, completely subordinated Indian economy to the economy of Great Britain. In their view the direction of the Indian economy was being geared to suit the needs of British economy. They demanded an end to the fl ow of Indian wealth to England and the industrialization of India with the help of Indian capital only, so that it would benefi t India and Indian people. In order to achieve this, the nationalist leaders demanded self-rule, or self-government or Swaraj for their country. The relevance of economic nationalism, as formulated by the nationalist leaders, was two-fold:

MODERN HISTORY

101www.iasscore.in

Firstly, it demolished the notion, generally held by the educated people in the fi rst half of the 19th century, that the British colonial government was a benevolent government and would ultimately lead to India’s economic development. Many people had believed that, if the colonial rule would continue for a long time, India would, in the end, become prosperous like Great Britain. The Indian nationalist leaders were able to demonstrate that this was wrong thinking and that the British colonial rule was actually harmful to the interests of the Indian people.Secondly, economic nationalism laid the foundation for a powerful nationalist agitation against the British colonial rule which started in the 20th century under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi and other leaders. These leaders took the ideas of the ‘economic nationalism’ to the Indian people and thus mobilized them into the national movement. Once the masses of Indian people joined the national movement, it became impossible for the British colonial rule to remain in India.

Religion and Nationalism

Apart from cultural nationalism and economic nationalism, there were other ways also in which the idea of Indian nationalism was being expressed. There came into being, in the second half of the 19th century, a thinking on Indian nationalism which was based on religion. It was leaders like Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, Dayanand Saraswati (who founded Arya Samaj in 1875). Vivekananda and Arbindo Ghosh who made Hindu religion and its ideas the motivating force behind Indian nationalism. They looked upon the British presence in India as an attempt by the Western civilization to dominate the Indian civilization. They were completely opposed to this domination.These leaders were convinced that although the British had succeeded in conquering India, the Eastern civilization was superior to the Western one. Bankim Chandra argued that although the British had conquered India with the help of military and technological superiority, Indians should not start blindly following it. He argued about the uniqueness of the Indian society where the ideas of Western civilization could not be applied. These leaders understood the Western civilization to be based on the ideas of individualism (rather than spirituality) and found them to be completely unsuitable for India. Vivekanand believed that the Western ideas had to be re-modelled according to the Indian situation. He said: “In Europe, political ideas form the national unity. In Asia religious ideas form the national unit.”These leaders derived their inspiration not from the Western texts and other sources but from the traditional Indian texts like Vedas, Upnishads and Gita. They criticized the British colonial rule mainly on the ground that it was trying to impose an inferior material system on India which was a land rich with spiritual resources.This understanding of nationalism based on religion had a political aspect also. Leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak wanted to take the idea of nationalism to the people. They knew that religion was a very important moral force in the Indian society. Hence they decided to use religion in the propagation of nationalist ideas. In order to be able to speak to people in their language, i.e. religious language, Tilak introduced the Ganapati festival in Maharashtra in 1893 to create a religious platform from where nationalist idea could be preached and spread.This understanding of nationalism based on religion led to two different kinds of political mobilizations in the 20th century. On the one hand, leaders like Mahatma Gandhi welcomed the use of religion for nationalist mobilization. But they did not confi ne this approach only to Hindu religion. They used the symbols and language of Hinduism, Islam and other religions too. Thus they tried to bring members of different religious communities into the national movement and also promote unity among them.The second approach was more exclusivist in nature and was refl ected in the activities of organizations like Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League. Whereas the leaders of Hindu Mahasabha confi ned their activities only to Hindu, those of the Muslim League appealed only to Muslims. They also did not develop any understanding of Indian nationalism either by contributing to the unity of the Indian people or by engaging in persistent opposition to British colonial rule.In the end it is important for you to understand some aspects of the relationship between various kinds of nationalisms that you have read in this Module. Although they may seem different from each other, they actually had many things in common. They were different from one another only to the extent that they followed different paths so come to the same destination. They were also not opposed to each other in any fundamental sense. They were all opposed to the British colonial rule but their opposition was based on different grounds. The advocates of cultural nationalism believed that the colonial rule

MODERN HISTORY

102 www.iasscore.in

had started encroaching into Indian culture which should be resisted. The profounders of economic nationalism argued that the colonial rule was economically exploiting India and was the main factor in keeping India backward.Similarly, leaders like Bankim and Vivekananda opposed the British rule on the ground that it was tempering with the spiritual resources of India. All the three were opposed to the colonial rule because of its impact on the Indian people. Their ideas helped in the building of a powerful anti-colonial Indian national movement in the 20th century which fi nally defeated and overthrew the colonial rule from India.

Social Basis of Indian Nationalism The negative consequence of the British rule made the Indians belonging to different classes and social groups realize that there was a basic contradiction between the aims and objectives of British rule and the interests of Indian people. The gradual realization by these different classes or social groups or Indian society that the British rule was hampering their development brought them together to fi ght against colonial rule. Hence these different classes and groups of Indian society formed the social basis of Indian nationalism.The major social group that formed the vanguard of Indian national movement was the middle class or the bourgeoisie. But by the end of 19th century, even the limited numbers of educated Indians were facing growing unemployment. Moreover, even those who found jobs discovered that most of the better paid jobs were reserved for the English people. Thus, the middle class and lower middle class Indians realized that only a country which was developing economically, socially and culturally could provide opportunities for them. And this development would not be possible without political independence. Hence they formed the vanguard of the Indian Nationalist Movement.The peasants were the chief victims of British colonialism. The government took away the bulk of the produce in the form of land revenue and other taxes. The landlords and the moneylenders were literally imposed on them. When the peasants organized struggles against the zamindars, the landlords and the moneylenders, the government crushed them ruthlessly in the name of law and order. Gradually the peasants became aware of the role of imperialism and saw that it was mainly responsible for their plight.The artisans and the craftsmen had also suffered much at the hands of imperialism. The handicraft industry was destroyed and the artisans were left with no alternative employment and had to fall back on agriculture, which itself was stagnant and even deteriorating. Their condition became particularly bad to worst by end of the 19th century. As a result they took an active part in the anti-imperialist struggle of the 20th century.With the growth of modern industries such as those of jute, textiles, etc., a new social class emerged- the working class. Though small, the working class in India represented new social outlook. The Indian workers worked and lived under highly unsatisfactory conditions till 1918; there were no fi xed hours of work for men, no social insurance against old age, accident, unemployment, etc. Their real wages were so low that most of the time they lived below the poverty line. The conditions in the tea and coffee plantations were no better. Low wages, unhealthy climate and even physical violence kept the workers as virtual slaves. With the gradual realization that these conditions were due to the imperialist nature of the British rule, the Indian workers came to acquire a militant, anti-imperialist approach.A class of India industrial capitalists too developed after 1858. They soon had to compete with the British capitalists. This gave them the realization that their growth was checked by the offi cial trade, tariff, transport and fi nancial policies of the British. The Indian capitalists their instinct for survival was particularly aroused after 1913 when large scale infl ow of foreign capital occurred and British industrial corporations started establishing themselves in India. Instead of the help which government was expected to give to those Indian capitalists, it sought to put impediments to the growth of Indian Industry. Thus, the Indian capitalists found themselves at loggerheads with the colonial regime. But since they were men of property and members of a developing class, they did not come into immediate and open confrontation with the foreign rulers. They bided their time but, after 1919, they began to support the rapidly growing nationalist movement fi nancially.Other social groups like zamindars, landlords, princes, bureaucrats and traditional intellectuals sided with the British since they had a vested interest in perpetuating colonial rule over India. Even from the social groups, many joined the national struggle out of love for their country.

MODERN HISTORY

103www.iasscore.in

Thus the colonial nature of the British rule and its harmful impact on Indian lives led to the gradual but sure development of powerful nationalist movement in India. The movement was a nationalist movement because it embraced within its fold all the different classes and groups of Indian society.

What was its Nature in the Moderate Era?

The social basis of Indian national movement did not remain the same throughout its three phase- Moderate, Extremist and Gandhian phases. In the moderate phase, it was extremely narrow, being limited to the urban English educated Indians. Even in this phase, the movement, however, continuously widened its social basis to include fresh social strata, especially sections of the lower middle classes. This is clearly revealed by the steady growth and spread of vernacular newspaper.

How did it Changed in the Extremist Era?

During the Extremist phase, the social basis of the nationalist movement lay primarily in the urban lower middle classes whom the ‘extremists’ succeeded in politicizing in some parts of the country. Interestingly, the capitalists withheld their support from the extremists in spite of their vigorous campaign of Swadeshi and Boycott. Later, during the days of Home Rule Leagues, only a few stray capitalists gave fi nancial help to the two Leagues. Also, while the extremists talked glowingly of the masses in general, they too, like the moderates, tended to revert to a middle class self-consciousness whenever faced with masses- the peasantry or the working class.

How was it in the Gandhian Era?

The masses, i.e., the peasants and the workers, came into the national movements primarily in the Gandhian phase. This is perhaps the most important aspects of the growth of the national movements. But it is no less important that the capitalists as a class also came into the movement and came to support it actively, though primarily fi nancially, only during this phase. Neither the moderates nor the extremists had been able to get active support of this since both the class and its contradiction with imperialism matured fully only during and after the First World War.Another aspect of the mass character of the movement and the militant character of its nationalism after 1918 was the general sucking in, for the fi rst time, of the large strata of small zamindars and landlords and merchants and money-lenders. It was also only now that the urban and semi-urban lower middle classes were fully drawn into the movement on a national scale.

Rise and Growth of Indian National Congress Before the Revolt of 1857, the British viewed India as one nation since it suited their immediate purpose. They were in the process of conquering India and hence they argued that the conquest of the entire sub-continent would alone provide administrative and political unity to this country. Thus, the conquest of India was justifi ed on the ground of benefi ting the people of this country. But in the aftermath of the revolt of 1857, when they realized the dangers of treating India as one nation, they reversed their stand. They gave up the policy of annexation as they realized that existence of the native states was useful to them. The policy of dividing the Indians was pursued with vigour and therefore, it became necessary to discard the concept of one Indian nation. British historians and scholars also upheld that India was never a nation. It was land of different languages, dresses, social customs, religions, races, ideas, etc. Politically, too it was never united. These scholars maintained that the attempts to unite it politically always failed miserably. The Indians developed the concept of nationalism only during the British rule. Thus, the British scholars have maintained that India nationalism was the heritage of the British rule.The Indian scholars, however, have refuted this opinion of the British scholars. They have contested that India is undoubtedly a country of variety primarily because of the geographical vastness of the country and the liberal cultural attitude of its people. But behind all this variety in its culture, religions, manners, customs etc, there has always existed a basic unity among the India people. Though India had remained divided, Vedic religion, Sanskrit language, Hindu customs places of pilgrimages which are spread all over India, values of life, etc., have always provided unity to India. Even the India Muslims have become part and parcel of this country politically and culturally. The British deliberately divided the Muslims and Hindus leading to communal differences between the two groups. Thus, factors which contribute towards the formation of nationalism were already existing in India. Yet, it is accepted that

MODERN HISTORY

104 www.iasscore.in

nationalism in the modern sense developed in India only during the British rule, especially during the latter half of the 19th century.

Detailed Analysis

What led to the Rise of Indian National Movement?

The fi rst and foremost cause for its rise and growth was the grievances of different sections of the Indian society due to the ruthless exploitation of Indian by the British. Even prior to the British, many foreigners looted the wealth of India but Indians were able to make up for the loss. The British drained the resources of India in a most systematic and unjust way. They came as traders and even after becoming its rulers, their primary motive remained fi nancial gain. India, therefore, lost its economic resources not only in the form of revenue, salaries and other emoluments to the British offi cers, profi ts on investments, etc., but also because of the unfavorable balance of trade which was primarily a creation of the British. The Industrial Revolution in England necessitated import of raw materials from foreign countries and an extensive market for its fi nished goods. Indian provided both these requirements. This resulted in the destruction of Indian handicrafts and cottage industries, heavy pressure on agriculture and increased impoverishment of the people. The revenue policy of the British ruined Indian agriculture thoroughly. The trade policy, particularly the free trade policy, created the most unfavorable balance of trade. The industries could not grow suffi ciently on modern lines because of the antipathy of the foreign rulers. The educated Indians failed to get useful employment because all higher services were not opened to them. Thus, except certain classes with vested interests like the native rulers, landlords, zamindars, village moneylenders, etc., almost all sections of Indian society such as the peasant, workers, middle classes (educated section), industrialists, etc., suffered. The nation as a whole was reduced to mere subsistence level and with no hope of any relief in future. It was bound to react and this reaction was one of the most important causes of Indian nationalism.The administrative and economic unifi cation of Indian during the 19 th and early 20th centuries also played a vital role. The British had gradually introduced a uniform and modern system of government throughout the country and thus unifi ed it administratively. The destruction of the rural and local self-suffi cient economy and the introduction of modern trade and industries on all-India scale had increasingly made India’s economic life a single whole, and interlinked the economic fate of people living in different parts of the country. For example, if famine or scarcity occurred in one part of India, prices and availability of foodstuffs were affected in all other parts of the country too. This was not usually the case before the 19th century. Furthermore, introduction of new means of transport and communications such as the railways, telegraph and unifi ed postal system had brought different parts of the country together and promoted mutual contact among the people, especially among the leaders.The spread of modern western education and thought through the medium of English language was another factor for the rise and growth of nationalism in India. English was made the medium of instruction in schools and colleges in 1835. It became the language of the educated people of India irrespective of the difference of region. It provided the best means of understanding and developing close contact among them. These educated Indians came in contact with the western ideas and thought such as liberty, equality, democracy, socialism, etc. Also many of them went abroad and came in direct contact with the western world. It was these English educated Indians who developed the national movement, organised it, and provided the leadership.But here two facts should be made clear. Firstly, it was not modern educational system that created the national movement in India which was, in fact, the product of the confl ict of interests between England and India. The system only enabled the educated Indians to imbibe western thought and thus to assume the leadership of the national movement, and to give it a democratic and modern direction. Secondly, the exchange of modern ideas should not be over stressed. After all, the educated Indians of the past also possessed a common language in the form of Sanskrit and later on Persian as well. Nor was English essential for the acquisition of modern scientifi c knowledge and thought.In fact, so far as the common people were concerned the spread of modern ideas occurred through the development of Indian languages, the growing literature in them and most of all, the popular Indian press.The chief instrument through which the nationalist-minded Indians spread the message of patriotism and modern economic, social and political ideas and created an all-India consciousness was the press and literature. With the introduction of printing press in India, a large number of newspapers were published in different regional languages of India. In 1875 itself, their number was 408. These papers constantly criticized the offi cial policies, put forward the Indian point of view, asked the people to unite

MODERN HISTORY

105www.iasscore.in

and work for national welfare and also popularized modern ideas of self-government, democracy, etc. They also enabled nationalist workers living in different parts of the country to exchange views with one another. Nationalist literature in the form of novels, essays and patriotic poetry also played an important role in arousing national consciousness.The socio-religious reform movements of the 19 th century also made a signifi cant contribution to the Indian national movement. Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Swami Vivekanada, Swami Dayananda Saraswati, etc., were all patriotic. They revived the glory of ancient India, created faith among the people in their religions and culture, and thus gave the message of love to their motherland and to the people of India. Swami Dayananda was the fi rst to use the word ‘Swaraj’ and declared Hindi as the national language of India. Many Arya Samajist leaders were in the forefront of the national movement and were primarily responsible for the rise of extremism in the Congress.The adoption of the tone of racial superiority by the British in their dealings with Indians also played an important role. Racial prejudice came to be practiced quite openly in each and every aspect, for instance, in eligibility to public posts, in the administration of justice, in payments to the employees and even in personal matters. The Revolt of 1857 created bitterness between the British and the Indians and the behavior of the British towards the Indians became intolerably arrogant and haughty. Disrespect to Indians, beating of India servants and cultivators, disrespect to their women, etc., became common events. These happenings were given wide publicity by the Indian newspapers, which in turn infl amed the feelings of Indians against the British and helped the growth of national consciousness among the Indians.By the 1870’s it was evident that the Indian Nationalism had gathered enough strength and momentum to appear as a major force on the Indian political scene. However, it required the reactionary regime of Lord Lytton (1876-80) to give it a visible form and the controversy around the Ilbert Bill (1883) to assume an organized form. The Afghan war during the period of Lord Lytton adversely affected the economic resources of India. He arranged the Delhi Durbar to declare Queen Victoria as the Empress of India at a time when a large part of India was in the grip of famine and epidemic. He passed the Vernacular Press Act, which curbed the liberty of Indian press and his Arms Act was means to prevent the Indians from keeping weapons. All these measures of Lytton fed the smoldering discontent against the British.These measures were followed by the Ilbert Bill which was present in the Central Legislature during the viceroyalty of Lord Ripon. According to this bill, the Indian judges would have the rights to try Europeans as well. It was vehemently opposed by the British residents in India, who collected funds and organized a systematic campaign against the bill both in England and India and ultimately succeeded in getting the bill amended so that it lost its very spirit. The Indians too organized an all-India campaign in favour of the bill. Though, their agitation failed, they learnt the most useful lesson that in order to get their demands accepted by the government, they too must organize themselves on a national scale and agitate continuously and unitedly.

What was the Role and Impact of Early Nationalists?

The second half of the 19 th century witnessed a strong national political consciousness and the foundation and growth of an organized national movement. During this period, the modern Indian intelligentsia created political associations to spread political education and to initiate political activity in the country. This political activity was to be based on new political ideas, a new intellectual perception of reality, new social, economic and political objectives, new forces of struggle and resistance and new techniques of political organization.The new political activity was to represent a turning point in ideology, policy, organization and leadership. The task was diffi cult since Indians were utterly unfamiliar with modern political work. Even the idea that people could organize 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.Ram Mohan Roy was one of the fi rst Indian leaders to start an agitation for political reforms. He fought for freedom of the press, trial by jury, the separation of the judiciary from the executive, appointment of Indians to higher offi ces, protection of the ryots from zamindari oppression and development of Indian trade and industries. His agitation was carried on after his death by the radical Bengali youths known as the Derozians. They started numerous public associations to discuss modern ideas and their application to India and a large number of newspapers and journals to propagate those ideas. Thus the germs of modern political consciousness were sown in the 1820’s and 1830’s by Ram Mohan Roy and the Derozians.

MODERN HISTORY

106 www.iasscore.in

How were the Pre-Congress Associations Organized?

The fi rst political organization to be started in India was the Landholder’s Society at Calcutta in 1838; but it was started with the narrow aim of protecting the class interests of the zamindars of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. In 1843, the Bengal British Indian Society was organised with wider political objectives. In 1851, the British Indian Association was formed. Simultaneously, the Madras Native Association and the Bombay Association were established in 1852. Many similar associations and clubs were established in smaller towns and cities all over the country. Almost all of them were dominated by wealthy commercial or zamindari elements and were local in character. They worked for reform of administration, association of Indians with the administration and spread of modern education. These associations sent long petitions, putting forward Indian demands to the British Parliament.The period after 1858 witnesses a gradual widening of the gulf between the educated Indians and British Indian administration. As the educated Indians studied the characters of British rule and its consequences for the Indians, they became more and more critical of British policies in India. The discontent gradually found expression in political activity. But the existing association no longer satisfi ed the politically conscious Indians.

What were the Issues taken up by the Pre-Congress Associations?

Dadabhai Naoroji organized the East India Association in London in 1866 to discuss Indian questions and to infl uence British public opinion. Branches of the associations were organized in major Indian cities. Naoroji soon came to be known to his contemporaries and the succeeding generations of Indian as the ‘grand old man of India’.His greatest contribution was his economic analysis of the British rule. He showed that the poverty and economic backwardness of Indian were not inherent in local conditions but were caused by colonial rule which was draining Indian of its wealth and capital. He was honoured by being elected thrice as the president of the Indian National Congress.Justice M.G. Ranade, Ganesh Vasudev Joshi, S.H. Chiplunkar and other organized the Poona Sarvajanik Sabha in 1870. The Sabha carried on active political education for the next 30 years. It also brought out a quarterly journal which became the intellectual guide of new India, particularly on economic questions. The younger elements were also active in other parts of India. In 1884, M. Viraraghavachari, G. Subramaniam Iyer, Ananda Charlu and others formed the Madras Mahajana Sabha. In Bombay, Pherozeshah Mehta, K.T. Telang, Bahdruddin Tyabji and others founded the Bombay Presidency Association in 1855.The most important of the pre-Congress nationalist organizations was the Indian Association of Calcutta. The youth of Bengal had been gradually getting discontented with the conservative and pro-landlord policies of the British Indian Association. Now, led by Anand Mohan Bose and Surendra Nath Banaerjee, these young people founded the Indian Association of Calcutta in 1876 with the aim of creating a strong public opinion in the country on political programmes. The fi rst issue taken by the new association for agitation was that of reforms of the system of the civil service examinations. The association sent Surendranath Benerjee as a special delegate to other parts of the country to canvass support for the agitation. He was perhaps the fi rst modern Indian to gain an all-India popularity. In order to involve the common people in the activities of broad political movement, the leaders of the Indian Association organized agitations in favour of the rights of the tenants against the foreign tea planters. The association also opened branches in different towns and villages of Bengal and in many cities outside Bengal.Though all the above organizations had served useful purpose, they were basically narrow in their scope and functioning. They dealt mostly with local questions and their membership and leadership were confi ned to a few people belonging to a single city or province. Even the Indian association, despite its efforts to become an all-India body through convening two all-India conferences, could not succeed in becoming a representative body of political workers and leaders all over the country.

How was the Congress Formed?

The politically conscious Indians were increasingly becoming aware of the need for an all-India organization not only to provide a common forum for the meeting of minds and the formulation of a common programme of activity, but also to carry on public education with a view to creating a broad-based freedom struggle. The social basis for such an organization was now well laid and enough experience had been gathered. Many Indians from different parts of the country - Dadabhai Naoroji, Justice Ranade, Pherozeshah Mehta, K.T. Telang, etc., in western India, G. Subramania Iyer, Ananda Charlu, etc., in southern India, and W.C. Banarjee, Surendranath Bannerjee, Ananda Mohan Bose, etc, in eastern India had simultaneously begun to plan setting up of an all-India nationalist organization.

MODERN HISTORY

107www.iasscore.in

The idea was given a concrete shape by the Bombay group of nationalist political workers who co-operated with A.O. Hume, an Englishman and retired civil servants, to bring together at Bombay in December 1885 political leaders from different parts of the country. These leaders formed the Indian National Congress, the fi rst session of which was presided over by W.C. Banerjee.

Why was it Organized?

Sometimes it is remarked that Hume’s main purpose in encouraging the foundation of the Congress was to provide a ‘safety valve’ or a safe outlet to the growing discontent among the educated Indians. He wanted to prevent the union of discontented nationalist intelligentsia with the discontented peasants. By patronizing a mild political movement he hoped, to prevent it from getting out of control.This explanations is however totally inadequate and misleading as an explanation for the foundation of the Congress. At the most, it explains to a limited extent Hume’s role in the whole episode. The Indians who actively worked for the creation of an all-India political organization represented new social forces that were increasingly opposed to the exploitation of India for British interest. They needed an organization that would fi ght for India’s political and economic advancement. They were patriotic men of high character and were in no way stooges of the foreign government. They cooperated with Hume because they did not want to arouse offi cial hostility to their early political efforts and they hoped that a retired civil servant’s active presence would allay offi cial suspicious.

Policies and Programme of the Early Nationalists A fundamental difference existed between the policy and programmes of the early nationalists and the militant nationalists. It is essentially due to this that the fi rst group of nationalists are described as the ‘moderates’, and the second group as the ‘extremists’ and consequent periodisation of the Indian nationalists movement into the moderates era (1885-1905), the extremist era (1905-1919) and the Gandhian era (1919-1947).

Ideas and Work of Moderates

The moderates did not advocate a direct struggle for the political emancipation of the country. Instead, they worked towards a number of political achievements. The most important of these activities were completion of the process of unifying Indian people into a nation creation of a national political platform, exposing the exploitative character of British imperialism, introduction of modern politics, creation of the feeling of self-confi dence among the Indians, promotion of the growth of a modern capitalist economy in India, etc.They were fully aware of the fact that India was a nation in the making and India nationhood was gradually coming into being, and therefore could not be taken for granted as an accomplished fact. They were also aware that the political leaders had to constantly work for the development and consolidation of the feeling of national unity irrespective of region, caste or religion. The economic and political demands of the moderates were, in fact, formulated with a view to unite the Indian people on the basis of common economic and political programme.They desire to create a national political platform on which all Indians belonging to different regions, religions and social classes could agree and which could serve as the basis for all-India political activity whose basic aim was not just good government, but democratic self-government. The Indian National Congress, for instance was established apart for other reasons with the hope to provide a national political platform and thus promote close contact and friendly relations among active nationalists from different parts of the country.From the beginning, the moderates believed that India should eventually move towards democratic self-government. But they did not demand immediate fulfi llment of this goal. Instead they suggest a gradual approach towards it. Their immediate political demands were extremely moderate. Initially they demanded that Indians should be given a large share in the government by expanding and reforming the existing legislative Councils. They also demanded the widening of the powers of the Council and an increase in the powers of the members who were to be the elected representatives of the people. The Indian Council Acts of 1882 and 1909 were passed mainly due to the efforts of the moderates though these acts did not secure much for the Indians. But by the turn of the 19th century, the moderates made good progress in their political demands. Their demand was no longer confi ned to petty reforms but was extended to full-self-government, including full Indian control over all legislation and fi nances on the model of the self-government colonies of Canada and Australia. This demand was initially made by Dadabhai Naoroji in 1904 and later by Gokhale in 1905.

MODERN HISTORY

108 www.iasscore.in

Exposing the exploitative character of British imperialism and spreading their understanding of the British rule in Indian among the people was another important item on the agenda of the moderates. They took note of all the three forms of contemporary economic exploitation, namely, through trade, industry and fi nance. Realizing that the essence of British imperialism lay in the subordination of the Indian economy to that of Britain, they strongly opposed the British attempts to develop in India the basis characteristics of a colonial economy, viz., the transformation of India into a supplier of raw materials, a market for British manufactures and a fi eld of investment for foreign capital. Moreover, in every sphere of economic life they advocated the lessening and even severance of India’s economic dependence on England.One of the most powerful weapons in the nationalist armoury of anti-imperialist criticism was that of the ‘Drain Theory’. They pointed out that a large part of India’s capital and wealth was being drained out or exported to Britain without any return. This drain of wealth was chiefl y in the form of interest on loans, earnings of British capital invested in India, and the salaries and pensions of the civil and military personal serving in India. The drain was the visible and concentrated form that the foreign economic exploitation of Indian took. By attacking the drain, the moderates, thus called into question the very essence of the economics of imperialism. It was also the symbol through which the common man could grasp the existence of colonial exploitation.Besides, they organized many agitations against all the important offi cial economic policies based on the colonial structure. For instance, they organized a powerful all-India agitation against the abandonment of tariff duties on imports from 1857 to 1880 and against the imposition of cotton excise duties in 1849-96. This agitation played a major role in arousing country-wide national feelings and educating the people regarding the real aim and purpose of British rule in India. Thus, all the efforts of the moderates fi nally resulted in the growth of an all-India opinion that the British were exploiting India and thus leading to its impoverishment, economic backwardness and under-development.Another important programme of the moderates was the introduction of modern politics based on the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people and on the notion that politics is not the preserve of the ruling class only. They formed several political associations, including the Indian National Congress to spread political education and to initiate political work in the country. This work was to be based on new intellectual perception of reality, new social-economy and political objectives, new forces of struggle and resistance and new techniques of political organization. It was to represent a turning point in ideology, policy organization and leadership. The task was diffi cult since Indians were utterly unfamiliar with modern politics. Even the notion that people could organize themselves politically in opposition to their rulers was a novel one. Consequently, their work proceeded rather slowly and it took more than half a century to bring the common people within the fold of modern politics.They also wanted to promote the growth of modern capitalist economy in India. They rightly believe that the British economic policies were responsible for bringing about the ruin of India’s traditional handicraft industries and for obstructing the development of modern industries. Most of them opposed the large scale import of foreign capital for investment in the Indian railways, plantations and industries on the ground that it would lead to the suppression of Indian capitalists and a further increase in the hold of the British over India’s economy and policy.The chief remedy they suggested for the removal of poverty was the modernization of India life in all fi elds and in particular the development of modern industries, which are essential for the proper growth of a capitalist economy. But rapid industrialization required active state assistance and a policy of tariff protection. So, they urged the British government to aid Indian industries through fi nancial subsides, loans and guarantees through state-aided or controlled banks, by borrowing abroad and lending in India, by pioneering state-owned industries in fi elds such as steel and mining which Indian capitalists were too weak to enter, but, which were essential for industrial development, by collecting and disseminating industrial and commercial information and by promoting technical education.

Ideas and Works of Extremists

The programmes of the militant nationalists or the extremists were almost similar to those of the moderates. Their programmes were built on their predecessors programmes and their i.e., the moderates concrete exposure of the character of the British rule in India. But they differed from the latter in one important respect, i.e., extremists demanded complete independence, while the moderates were content with democratic self-government as in the colonies of Australia and Canada.However, this difference in their political goals was not substantial as the moderates were as much interested in the question of political power as the extremists. In fact, Tilak himself repeatedly pointed out that there was no real differences between him and the moderates regarding the goals of the

MODERN HISTORY

109www.iasscore.in

national movement. The moderates did not strive for complete independence mainly because of the feeling that the time was not yet ripe for it. It is interesting to note here that even Tilak had no hesitation in going back time and against form the demand for complete independence to dominion status.Thus, the basic difference between the early nationalists and the militant nationalists did not lie in their programme or in different defi nition of the nationalists political goal. As we would be seeing below, the real difference if there was any, lay in their policies or the methods of struggle to achieve the agreed goals. In other words, the difference was not in the programmes or what was to done but in the policies or how it was to be done.

What were The Moderate Policies? It were the polices or the methods and techniques of political work of the early nationalists that earned them the title of ‘moderates’. The policies can be summed up briefl y as constitutional agitation within the four walls of the law and slow, orderly political progress. In order to put their programmes into practice, they relied on several methods.The moderates lay down that the struggle for freedom was to be peaceful and bloodless. Political progress was to be harmonized with and based on order. It had to be so because they felt that otherwise they would not have even the slightest hope of implanting their programmes and achieving their political goals. In assuming this, they were quite justifi ed because the Indians as they were at this point of history (badly divided, lacking modern sense of nationalism and poorly armed) would have no chance against British imperialism which was at its peak at this time.Most of the moderates either personally witnessed or were aware of the dismal failure of the Indians in attempting to overthrow the foreign yoke in bloody manner (armed revolt including the Revolt of 1857). Consequently, they were thoroughly convinced that the only way they could achieve freedom was though peaceful and bloodless struggle. This, in fact, continued to be basic tenant of the dominant leadership of the national movement till the end, though there were some occasional deviations from it in the later period.

Why were they Moderate In Nature?

They lacked confi dence in the capacity of the Indian masses to take part in modern politics for a long time to come. When they looked at the Indian masses, they only saw their apathy and ignorance, and not their energy, tenacity and capacity to make sacrifi ces and fi ght heroically. Consequently, the task of making the masses politically conscious and mobilizing them was seen as an extremely slow process. They believed that militant mass struggle against imperialism could be waged only after the heterogeneous elements of Indian society had been politically educated and organized. In its turn, the absence of a mass base led them to political moderation.Lacking mass support the moderates necessarily confi ned their political work to agitation and propaganda, i.e., to petitions, meeting, resolutions, deputations, etc. They held meetings where speeches of a very high political and intellectual caliber were made, and resolutions setting forth popular demands were passed. Through the press, they carried on daily critique of the government; they also sent numerous memorials and petitions to high government offi cial and the British Parliament. These memorials and petitions were carefully documented in which facts and arguments were diligently marshalled. Though these petitions were ostensibly addressed to the government, their real aim was to educate the Indian people.Another aim of the early nationalist political work was to infl uence the British government and the British public opinion to introduce the desired changes. The moderates initially believed that the British were actually unaware of the real conditions of India. They, therefore, set out to enlighten the British public and political leaders, through memorials and petitions and by carrying on active political propaganda in Britain. Dadabhai Naoroji, in fact, spent the major part of his life and income in Britain doing propaganda work among its people and politicians. Deputations of leading Indian leaders were also frequently sent to Britain.Another inevitable method of the moderates was their adoption of the tactics of pressure, known as ‘P-C-P’ strategy (Pressure-Compromise-Pressure), to attain political rights and democratic self-government in a prolonged stage-by-stage evolution. Four basic assumptions were involved in this strategy. First of all, the function of political work and agitation whether in India or Britain was to put pressure on the colonial authorities to concede the immediate demands. Secondly, given enough pressure the authorities could be persuaded to give concessions. This was a crucial assumptions. For, the British must cooperate in the process since the changes were to be brought through their actions. Thirdly, every concession must be utilized. This would necessarily involve cooperating with the colonial regime as best as they could. Fourthly, ever compromise must be seen as jumping ground for the next

MODERN HISTORY

110 www.iasscore.in

one and therefore, agitation or pressure should be quickly renewed. This spiraling movement would continue till the goal of Indian political power was achieved.

What were the Extremist Policies?

The only difference between the moderates and extremists in this matter was in their attitudes towards non-violence. It was a matter of personal conviction for most of the moderates though practical considerations too played an important role in determining this attitude towards non-violence. To the extremists, it was mostly a practical expedient. The extremists, therefore, did not condemn violence as such though they themselves did not resort to violent methods.More importantly, the extremists advocated the organization of mass struggle against British imperialism. This was, in fact, the most important and perhaps the only signifi cant, difference between the policies of the extremists and those of the moderates. Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal, Lala Lajpat Rai and other extremists had infi nite faith in the power of the masses for action and in the Indian people’s capacity to bear the strain of a prolonged political struggle against imperialism. They believed that suppression by the government would not throttle the mass movement. It would instead, educate the people, arouse them further, strengthen their resolve to overthrow imperialism and lead to a heightened political struggle. They, therefore, advocated the organization of a mass struggle against imperialism as fi rst step in making the masses politically active. They talked of bridging the gulf between the educated people and the masses, though not all of them.

Why were they Extremist in Nature?

The extremists evolved a higher concept of the forms of political struggle in order to improve the techniques of political action. In other words, the extremists apart from employing the moderate forms of agitation gave a call for passive resistance, i.e., to refuse to cooperate with the government and to boycott government service, government courts and government schools and colleges. But they were unable to implement this concept fully and, as a result, not transcend agitation (the form adopted by the moderates) though their agitation was much more militant and effective than that of the moderates because the former had a broader base than the latter.This failure of the extremists inevitably led to revolutionary terrorism. Since most of the extremists leaders had wrongly defi ned their difference with the moderates (they had concentrated on ‘action’ and sacrifi ces rather than on the need to evolve a different type of politics), the young men brought up on the ideology of ‘action’ and sacrifi ce were soon disenchanted with militant agitation, demanded ‘action’ and took recourse to individual terrorism.The extremists too like the moderates had adopted the P-C-P strategy in order to attain complete independence. Because the extremists gave several calls for immediate independence, it is easy to be misled into thinking that their strategic approach was different. In fact, such calls were part of the same overall strategy. Every such call was succeeded by a set of immediate demands which had little direct relation to the demand for immediate and complete independence. So what changed after 1905 was not the basic strategy of P-C-P. The extremists were not working for the direct overthrow of the British rule. They too emphasized the technique of negotiations backed by controlled mass action.The extremists did, however, change the mode of persuasion or putting pressure. They put greater mass pressure behind their demands. They shifted from intellectuals to the masses to a signifi cant extent, from memorials, petitions and resolutions to processions, demonstrations and large mass movements. The sanctions behind their demand were different and far stronger. But the political advance was still to occur by stages and through compromise, that is, ultimately through British consent and action.

Role of Literature and News-Media in Freedom Struggle With the passage of time, as the freedom movement began to attract larger sections of the people, and the demand for freedom became more insistent, literature strengthened the growing idealism of people. But it also did something more. Besides inspiring people to make all kinds of sacrifi ces for the cause of country s liberation, literature also brought out weaknesses of the nationalist movement and its leaders. Beginning with the 19th century, when nationalist ideas began to emerge and literature in different Indian languages entered its modem phase, more and more writers began to employ literature for patriotic purpose. Most of them, in fact, believed that because they belonged to an enslaved country, it was their duty to create Literature of a kind that would contribute to the all-round regeneration of their society and pave the way for national liberation.

MODERN HISTORY

111www.iasscore.in

Even when freedom from the British rule had not yet emerged as a programme of any major political organisation or movement, and the Indian National Congress was concerned only with constitutional agitation, the realisation of subjection and the need for freedom had begun to be clearly expressed in literature. With the passage of time, as the freedom movement began to attract larger sections of the people, and the demand for freedom became more insistent, literature strengthened the growing idealism of the people. But it also did something more. Besides inspiring people to make all kinds of sacrifi ces for the cause of the country’s liberation, literature also brought out the weaknesses of the nationalist movement and its leaders. Rammohan Roy, Ranade, Gandhi, Tagore , and others as the poets and contributors to the Indian literature, nevertheless it should be noted that these stalwarts used language as forceful means of communicating their ideas to India and the world. These stalwarts were among makers of independent India and what they said and wrote is cherished as national literature. Patriotic writings proliferated almost spontaneously in different languages, as the resistance of a community against foreign rule. Rangalal in Bengali, Mirza Ghalib in Urdu and Bharatendu Harishchandra in Hindi expressed themselves as the patriotic voice of that era. This voice was, on the one hand, against colonial rule, and on the other, for the glorifi cation of India. Michael Madhusudan Dutt (1824-73) wrote the fi rst modern epic in an Indian language, and naturalised blank verse in Bengali. Subramania Bharati (1882-1921) was the great Tamil patriot-poet, who revolutionized the poetic tradition in Tamil.Historical novels were written by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee (Bengali), Hari Narayan Apte (Marathi), and others, to describe the glorious past of India, and to instill nationalist fervour in her people. Novels were found to be the most appropriate medium to eulogize the intellectual and physical richness of the past, and reminded Indians about their obligations and rights. In fact, in the 19th century, the idea of national identity emerged from literature, and most Indian writings turned into the voice of enlightment. This paved the way for India to understand the real, factual position by the time it reached the threshold of the 20th century. It was during this time that Tagore started writing the novel Gora (1910), to challenge colonial rule, colonial criteria and colonial authority, and to give new meaning to Indian nationalism.Rabindranath Tagore opposed imperialism and supported Indian nationalists, and these views were fi rst revealed in Manast, which was mostly composed in his twenties. Sri Aurobindo was an Indian nationalist, freedom fi ghter, philosopher, yogi, guru and poet. He joined the Indian movement for freedom from British rule, for a while became one of its infl uential leaders. Nehru was a prolifi c writer in English and wrote a number of books, such as, The Discovery of India, Glimpses of World History, and his autobiography, Toward Freedom. Gandhi was the preeminent leader of Indian nationalism. Gandhi was a prolifi c writer. One of Gandhi’s earliest publications, Hind Swaraj, published in Gujarati in 1909, is recognised as the intellectual blueprint of India’s freedom movement.The emergence of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Tagore, infl uencing Indian life and literature, were quite often complementary to one another. Gandhi became the theme of both poetry and fi ction of cultural nationalism. He became an apostle of peace and idealism. Poets like Vallathol (Malayalam), Satyendranath Datta (Bengali), Kazi Nazrul Islam (Bengali) and Akbar Allahabadi (Urdu) accepted Gandhi as a challenge to western civilization, and as an assertion of the dignity of Asian values. Gandhian heroes swamped the fi ctional world of that time. Raja Rao (English), Tara Shankar Bandyopadhyay (Bengali), Premchand (Hindi), V.S. Khandekar (Marathi), Sarat Chandra Chatterjee (Bengali), Lakshmi Narayan (Telugu) all created Gandhian protagonists as rural reformers or social workers with moral and religious commitments.Premchand (1880-1936) wrote novels in Hindi. He was a true son of the soil, deeply attached to the Indian earth. He was the fi nest literary exponent of the Indian peasantry in Indian literature. As a true Gandhian, he believed in the idealistic theory of ‘a change of heart’ in the exploiters. But, in his magnum opus, Godan (1936), he becomes a realist and records the suffering and struggle of the Indian rural poor.

Role of Press

The greatest impact on the development or foundation of English in India came when the commercial monopoly of the Company was ended in 1813, and the British in India assumed, police functions, educative and civilizing or administrative functions as well. Missionaries began to enter, and they helped established printing press which served printing of grammar books, dictionaries, and translations etc. The printing press led to newspapers and Hickey’s Bengal Gazette was the fi rst Newspaper.At that time, education system entered in the country through British contacts and many societies and missions like Brahma Samaj, Ramkrishna Mission, AryaSamaj, and Theosophical Society came into the scenario with the feeling of social development and nationalism. The era of Hindi Journalism started

MODERN HISTORY

112 www.iasscore.in

in 1826 with ‘UddantaMartanda’ from Kolkata, then Bangdoot, Banaras Akhbaar, Gyandeepak, MalwaAkhbaar, Gwalior Gazette, Payam-e-Azadi, SamacharSudhaVarshan, Lokhit, Marwaad Gazette, Jodhpur Government Gazette etc. were introduced with the mission of independence, self-rule and social reforms.1860’s witnessed a boom in the Indian Language Press in the country. Several Newspapers made their appearance in this period. Also many English Newspapers which evolved at that time are fl ourishing even today like The Times of India (1861), The Pioneer (1861), The Statesman (1875) and The Hindu (1878). Number of acts and restrictions like The Vernacular Press Act, Gagging Act etc tried to overrule the power of Print Media in India but the then social reformers and freedom fi ghters like Mahatma Gandhi, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Aurbindo Ghosh, Annie Beasant, Surendra Nath Banerjee, Lala Lajpat Rai, Ganesh Shankar Vidyarthi and many others recognized the power of pen and used it as a tool for propagating the feeling of nationalism and brotherhood. They also used their Newspapers to remove the socio-religious evils of the society. Thus, the history of Journalism in India is inseparably linked with the development of social awareness, national consciousness and the progress of freedom movement.Also the Newspapers like Kesari, Pratap, Maratha, Yugantar, Sudarshan, Samalochak, Maryada, Swadesh, Abhyudaya, Karmaveer, Karmyogi, Gadar etc. brought revolution in the Hindi Journalism of India.Mahatma Gandhi, who was considered as the greatest Journalist of his times used his Newspapers- Indian Opinion, Young India, Navjivan, Satyagrah and Harijan, to expose the fl aws of the society and to stimulate social awakening. He advocated that a Newspaper is a powerful tool in bringing positive changes in the society but at the same time, he feared that this power can be misused for commercial interests as many publications started looking for the revenue attached to the advertisements. That is why, he once said that a Newspaper is a great power but just as an unchained torrent of water brings devastations, similarly an uncontrolled pen can also fetch destruction for the entire humanity. Thus, he suggested that the sole aim of Journalism should be service to the people.

Intensification of Nationalist Movement Partition of Bengal

The British Government decided to partition Bengal. The decision to partition Bengal into two provinces shocked the whole country. It was part of their political trump card, the policy of divide and rule. As a matter of fact, from 1870 onwards, the British started inciting the Hindus and the Muslims to form their own political parties to establish their distinct religious identities. That was the beginning of the communalization of politics.The British not only encouraged the two communities to form political parties along religious lines, they took various steps to create a situation whereby Hindus and Muslims would be forced to think that their religious identity was at peril. This effort culminated in the partition of Bengal in 1905. The Presidency of Bengal was divided into two parts apparently for administrative reasons. It was argued that Bengal, Bihar and Orissa which formed a single province of British India since 1765, had grown too large to handle under a single administration; but it was quite clear that the partition was made along communal lines in order to divide the communities.

Resistance to Partition

It thus provided an impetus to the religious divide and one of the results was the formation of the Muslim League. The people of Bengal were indignant and outraged. For them the partition was not merely a fresh application of the British policy of divide and rule, but the sundering of the soul of a people. This single event brought about united opposition from all groups, political and non-political. The Indian nationalists clearly saw the design behind the partition and condemned it unanimously. Thus began the second phase of the Freedom Movement also known as anti-partition and Swadeshi Movement. This period covered the period between 1905 and 1915. This triggered off a tremendous awakening and it manifested in a sudden outburst of the genius of the Bengali race, fl owering in the fi eld of literature and music. So great was its impact that Ramsay Macdonald exclaimed: “Bengal is creating India by song and worship, it is clothing her in queenly garments.”It must be noted that the movement was not restricted to Bengal. The whole of India got involved into the cauldron; in Maharashtra, Tilak took direct part, in Punjab it was Lala Lapat Rai and in South India it was Subramaniam Bharati. The movement had supporters from all sections of society, from landlords and merchants to labourers and even sanyasis. Associations of different classes of people

MODERN HISTORY

113www.iasscore.in

were formed who organised volunteers to spread the cause of Swadeshi and boycott. Students were in the forefront of the movement, who practiced and propagated Swadeshi and took the lead in organising picketing of shops selling foreign goods. Women participated by organising processions and picketing shops. The leaders of Bengal set up national educational institutions to impart literary, technical and physical education. Slogans of Swaraj, Swadeshi, Boycott, and National Education, emerged during the anti-partition campaign. Bal Gangadhar Tilak carried on a vigorous propaganda of this programme and recommended its adoption at the session of the Congress held at Calcutta in 1906. Dadabhai Naoroji and other leaders of the Liberal faction supported the proposal and it was adopted. Tilak emerged as a leader of national stature from that year. But the most important consequence of the Partition of Bengal was the advent of Sri Aurobindo in active politics.

Mode of Action

During phase, 1903 to mid-1905 moderate techniques of petitions, memoranda, speeches, public meetings and press campaigns held full sway. The objective was to turn to public opinion in India and England against the partition proposals by preparing a foolproof case against them. The hope was that this would yield suffi cient pressure to prevent this injustice from occurring. The Government of India however remained unmoved. Despite the widespread protest, voiced against the partition proposals, the decision to partition Bengal was announced on 19 July 1905.The formal proclamation of the Swadeshi Movement was, made on the 7 August 1905, in meeting held at the Calcutta to hall. The movement; hitherto sporadic and spontaneous, now had a focus and a leadership that was coming together. At the 7th August meeting, the famous Boycott Resolution was passed. Even Moderate leaders like Surendranath Banerjea toured the country urging the boycott of Manchester cloth and Liverpool salt. The day partition took effect — 16 October 1905 — was declared a day of mourning throughout Bengal. People fasted and in Calcutta a hartal was declared. People took out processions and band after band walked barefoot, bathed in the Ganges in morning and then paraded the streets singing Bande Mataram which, almost spontaneously, became the theme song of the movement. People tied rakhis on each other’s hands as a symbol of the unity of the two halves of Bengal. 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.The Indian National Congress took up the Swadeshi call and the Banaras Session, 1905, presided over by G.K. Gokhale, supporter the Swadeshi and Boycott Movement for Bengal. The militant nationalists led by Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal, Lajpat Rai and Aurobindo Ghosh were, however, in favour of extending the movement to the rest of India and carrying it beyond the programme of just Swadeshi and boycott to a full fl edged political mass struggle. The aim was now Swaraj and the abrogation of partition had become the ‘pettiest and narrowest of all political objects” The Moderates, by and large, were not as yet willing to go that far.In 1906, however, the Indian National Congress at its Calcutta Session, presided over by Dadabhai Naoroji, took a major step forward. Naoroji in his presidential address declared that the goal of the Indian National Congress was ‘self-government or Swaraj like that of the United Kingdom or the Colonies.’ The differences between the Moderates and the Extremists, especially regarding the pace of the movement and the techniques of struggle to be adopted, came to a head in the 1907 Surat session of the Congress where the party split with serious consequences for the Swadeshi Movement.The Swadeshi period also saw the creative use of traditional popular festivals and melas as a means of reaching out to the masses. The Ganapati arid 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 i.e. extensively used in disseminating the Swadeshi message in an intelligible form to vast sections of the people.Great emphasis was given to self-reliance or ‘Atmasakti’ as a necessary part of the struggle against the Government. Self reliance in various fi elds meant the re-asserting of national dignity, honor and confi dence. Further, 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. In actual terms this meant social reform and campaigns against evils such as caste oppression, early marriage, the dowry system, consumption of alcohol, etc.

MODERN HISTORY

114 www.iasscore.in

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. Scores of national schools sprang up all over the country within a short period. In August 1906, the National Council of Education was established. The Council, consisting of virtually all the distinguished persons of the country at the time, defi ned its objectives as to organize a system of Education Literary; Scientifi c and Technical - on National lines and under National control from the primary to the university level.

British Repressive Acts

Immediately after the Surat Congress, the British Government decided to crush the revolutionary movement-also known as the Extremist movement-led by the Indian Nationalist Congress. The British introduced repressive measures such as: The Prevention of Seditious Meetings Act; The Explosive Substance Act; The Criminal Law Amendment Act; The Newspapers (Incitement to Offences) Act.Sri Aurobindo was arrested in May 1908, in the Alipur Conspiracy Case as implicated in the doings of the revolutionary group led by his brother Barindra; but no evidence of any value could be established against him. At the same time, Lala Lajpat Rai was deported, Tilak was arrested on July 22 and sentenced to six years in prison and Chidambaram Pillai and other leaders from South India were arrested.The moderates in the Congress party were looking frantically for some means to separate themselves from those facing repression. With the departure of Sri Aurobindo to Pondicherry and the imprisonment of Tilak, the second phase of the Freedom Struggle ended.

Minto-Morley Reforms

As a result of the strong popular reaction after the Partition of Bengal, Lord Curzon was replaced by Lord Minto as the Viceroy in November 1905; he was assisted by Lord Morley as the Secretary of State. It was at this time that the British Government came up with the Minto-Morley Reforms. These reforms were fi rst proposed in 1906 but they were fi nally passed by the British Parliament in 1909. In 1906, even as the Boycott struggle was raging and was being crushed with a heavy hand, the Secretary of State Morley called in the “moderate” leaders for discussions on possible reforms of the Councils. These reforms were offi cially known as the Government of India Act 1909. Its aim was specifi cally to see how the system of government could be better adapted to meet the requirements and promote the welfare of the different provinces without impairing its strength and unity. It attempted to enlarge the legislative councils and make them more representative. However, it would not be wrong to say that the Indian Councils Act was actually a farcical exercise in mass deception. It pompously introduced the principle of “elections”. What this amounted to was merely a minority of indirectly elected members in the Central Legislative Council and a majority of indirectly elected members in the Provincial Councils. The Councils themselves allowed only some powers of discussion, putting of questions, and sponsoring of resolutions. These Councils had no control over administration or fi nance. The reforms were made with the express intent of isolating the growing nationalist movement.

Outcomes of Swadeshi Movement

The effects of the Swadeshi movement can be summed up thus: It destroyed the Moderate reformist politics and spread the revolutionary mentality and the ideal of independence;It laid the foundations of an Industrial India-not of course wholly industrial-for it recognized the importance of the agricultural class.It brought in the commercial classes and the whole educated middle class into the political fi eld-and not the middle class only, while Moderation had touched only a small fringe;It had no time to bring the peasantry, but it had begun the work and Gandhi carried it farther. It laid down a method of agitation which Gandhi took up and continued with few additions like Satyagraha, Khilafat, Harijan etc.

The mild policies of the Moderates in the Congress led to the rise of passionate, radical nationalists, who came to be called the ‘Garam Dal’. Thus the fi rst phase of the nationalist movement came to an end with government reaction against the Congress on the one hand and a split in the Congress in 1907 on the other. That is why the period after 1905 till 1918 can be referred to as the ‘Era of Passionate Nationalists or Garam Dal’. Lala Lajpat Rai, Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Bipin Chandra Pal (Lal-Bal-Pal)

MODERN HISTORY

115www.iasscore.in

were important leaders of this Radical group. When the Moderates were in the forefront of the action, they had maintained a low profi le but now they swung into action. Their entry marked the beginning of a new trend and a new face in India’s struggle for freedom. According to them, the Moderates had failed to defi ne India’s political goals and the methods adopted by them were mild and ineffective. Besides, the Moderates remained confi ned to the upper, landed class and failed to enlist mass support as a basis for negotiating with the British.The Garam Dal realized that the British were out to exploit Indians, destroy their self-suffi ciency and drain India of its wealth. They felt that Indians should now become free of foreign rule and govern themselves. This group, instead of making petitions to the government, believed in organizing mass protests, criticizing government policies, boycotting foreign goods and use of Swadeshi (home-made) goods etc. They did not believe in depending on the mercy of the Britishers, but believed that freedom was their right. Bal Gangadhar Tilak gave a slogan ‘Freedom is our birth right and we must have it’.In 1916 the two groups were again united with the efforts of Mrs. Annie Besant. In 1916, Muslim League and Congress also came to an understanding with each other and signed the Lucknow Pact. Later, Mahatm Gandhi, Jawahar Lal Nehru, Subhash Chandra Bose became the eminent fi gures of Indian National Congress, who led the freedom movement of India forward.

Home Rule League Home Rule League, was two short-lived organizations of the same name in India established in April and September 1916, respectively, by Indian militant nationalist Bal Gangadhar Tilak and British social reformer and Indian independence leader Annie Besant. The term was borrowed from a similar movement in Ireland, referred to the efforts of Indian nationalists to achieve self-rule from the British Indian government.The Moderates were disillusioned with the Morley- Minto reforms and a section of nationalists felt that popular pressure was required to attain concessions from the Government. Also, the 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’s League was set up in April 1916 and was restricted to Maharashtra (excluding Bombay city), Karnataka, Central Provinces and Berar. It had six branches and the demands included swarajya, formation of linguistic states and education in the vernacular.Besant’s League was set up in September 1916 in Madras and covered the rest of India (including Bombay city). It had 200 branches, was loosely organised as compared to Tilak’s League and had George Arundale as the organising secretary. Besides Arundale, the main work was done by B.W. Wadia and C.P. Ramaswamy Aiyar.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. 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 were the Objectives of Home Rule League?

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.

What was the Government Attitude towards Home Rule League?

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

MODERN HISTORY

116 www.iasscore.in

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. 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. The Government released Besant in September 1917.

Why the Agitation Faded out by 1919?

The Moderates who had joined the Congress after Besant’s arrest were pacifi ed by talk of reforms and Besant’s release. Later on talk of passive resistance by the Extremists kept the Moderates off from activity from September 1918 onwards. As a major blow Montagu-Chelmsford reforms which became known in July 1918 further divided the nationalist ranks. In September 1918 Tilak had to go abroad in connection with a case while Annie Besant fl uctuated over her response to the reforms and the techniques of passive resistance. And thus, the movement was left leaderless.

What were its Positive Outcomes?

The major achievement of this movement was that Tilak’s and Besant’s efforts in the Moderate-Extremist reunion at Lucknow (1916) revived the Congress as an effective instrument of Indian nationalism and gave and a sense of urgency to the national movement. It created an organisational link between the rural and urban areas which proved crucial in later years when the movement entered its mass phase in a true sense. And thus, it prepared the masses for politics of the Gandhian style. Also, the movement shifted the emphasis from the educated elite to the masses. It infl uenced the British policy and the declaration of Montagu and the Montford reforms in August 1917 were infl uenced by it.

Militants and Revolutionaries The rise and growth of violent revolution in India from the beginning of the 20 th century was due to several factors. Some of the youth, particularly those of Bengal, Punjab and Maharashtra were increasingly getting frustrated with the moderate methods and techniques of political struggle such as petitions, meetings, resolutions, speeches, etc.The youth were also gradually losing faith in the extremist methods of passive resistance (i.e. to refuse to cooperate with the government and to boycott government service, courts government schools and colleges) to achieve nationalist aims. This feeling was further strengthened by the failure of the Swadeshi and Anti-partition Movement to get the partition of Bengal repealed. Some of the events following the partition of Bengal accentuated the revolutionary impulse of many young Indians. Besides, there was growing hatred among the Indian youth for foreign rule due to the racial superiority and arrogant behavior of the British. This hatred was also due to the repressive measures adopted by the British to suppress the national movement.The British Government became even more repressive and arrogant particularly during the anti- partition movement. This had an immediate impact on the minds of the impatient youth who were in a rebellious mood. In fact, even prior to the anti-partition movement, Tilak, the leader of the extremist group, in fl amed the tempers of some of his younger followers suffi ciently to lead them to individual acts of violence, for instance, the assassination of two unpopular British offi cials by the Chapekar brothers of Poona in 1897.

What were their Methods?

The methods of the revolutionaries differed drastically from those of both the moderates and the extremists. Their fi rst method was the propagation of revolutionary ideas through the publication of newspapers, journals, books and pamphlets. The societies they organized had to be secret because of the very nature of their activities. Assassination of oppressive and unpopular offi cials and also traitors (those Indians who acted as messengers and informers to the British government) was another method adopted in order to strike horror in the hearts of the British offi cials in particular. This method was borrowed directly from the methods of Irish revolutionaries and the Russian Nihilists. The third method was the organization of military conspiracies with the help of Indian soldiers and, if possible, also of foreign nations hostile to Great Britain, with the aim of expelling the British from India. The fourth method was the organization of raids on banks, police stations and government armories in order to raise funds and arms and ammunition for their revolutionary activities.

MODERN HISTORY

117www.iasscore.in

How were Secret Societies Organized?

Several secret societies were set up especially in Bengal and Maharashtra. In Bengal, the fi rst revolutionary secret societies had been started around 1902-the Anushilan Samiti of Calcutta founded by Barindrakumar Ghosh and Jatindranath Banerji (Aurobindo’s emissaries) and Promotha Mitter, and the Anushilan Samiti of Dacca founded by Pulin Das. In Maharashtra, the fi rst secret society, viz.., Mitra Mela was founded by the Savarkar brothers in 1899. Later, when V.D. Savarkar went abroad, his elder brother Ganesh Savarkar started in 1907 the ‘Abhinava Bharat’ which soon had many branches all over western India. Secret societies were also established in Bihar, Orissa, Punjab and other regions of India as well. A few of them succeeded in keeping mutual contact among them but most of them worked under isolated groups of leaders. Around the time of the Kakori robbery and the subsequent trial, various revolutionary groups had emerged in places such as Bengal, Bihar and Punjab. These groups eventually came together for a meeting at Feroz Shah Kotla, in Delhi, on 7–8 August 1928, and from this emerged the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association. They also established centers of revolutionary activity abroad. In London, the lead was taken by Shyamji Krishna Varma and V.D. Savarkar, in Europe by Madame Cama and Ajit Singh, while in the U.S.A and Canada Sohan Singh Bhakna and Har Dayal were the prominent leaders. While the Indian revolutionaries in Britain and Europe could be no more than fairly isolated émigré groups, those in the U.S.A and Canada for the fi rst time acquired mass base. These people, under the leadership of Sohan Singh Bhakna and Har Dayal, had established the ‘Ghadar’ (revolution) party in 1913. While most of its members were Sikh peasants, workers, petty traders, soldiers, etc., their leaders were mostly educated Hindus or Muslims. The party had active members in other countries such as Mexico, Japan, China, Philippines, Malaya, Singapore, Thailand, Indo-China and East and South Africa.

How did they Spread their Ideas?

The revolutionaries, both in India and abroad, also published a number of newspapers, journals and pamphlets in order to propagate revolutionary ideas among the Indians. Newspapers like the Sandhya and the Yugantar in Bengal and Kal in Maharshtra began to advocate armed revolution. A good number of journals were also brought out by Indian revolutionaries abroad. Some of these journals were the ‘Indian Sociologist’ by Shyamji Krishna Varma from London, the ‘Bande Mataram’ by Madame Cama from Paris, the ‘Talvar’ by Virendranath Chattopadhyay from Berlin, the ‘Free Hindustan’by Taraknath Das from Vancouver, ‘Ghadar’ by the Ghadar Party from San Fransisco, etc. The most important pamphlets brought out by the revolutionaries were the ‘Bhawani Mandir’ (by Aurobindo Ghose in 1905) and ‘Oh! Martyrs’ by the London group in 1907.

What Conspiracies were Hatched?

The revolutionaries also tried to organize military conspiracies with the help of Indian soldiers in the British army and also that of the foreign countries hostile to Britain. For revolutionaries striving for immediate complete independence, the First World war seemed a heaven-sent opportunity, draining India of troops (the number of white soldiers was reduced to just 15,000) and bringing the possibility of fi nancial and military help from the enemies of Britain, mainly Germany and Turkey. It was one point of time when a successful coup d’état appeared possible. Britain’s war with Turkey brought about close cooperation between Hindu nationalists and militant Muslim pan-Islamists. As a result of this cooperation, important Muslim revolutionary leaders emerged- men like Barkatullah in the Ghadar Party and Deoband Mullahs like Muhammad Hasan and Obaidulla Sindhi.Efforts to send help to revolutionaries from abroad were centered during the war years in Berlin where the Indian Independence Committee was setup in 1915 under Virendranath Chattopadyay, Bhupen Dutta, Hardayal and some others in collaboration with the German foreign offi ce under the so-called Zimmerman plan. An Indo-German-Turkish mission tried to stir up anti-British feelings among tribes near the Indo-Iranian border, and in December 1915, Mahendra Pratap, Barkatulla and Abaidulla Sindhi set up a ‘Provisional Government of Free India’ at Kabul with some backing from crown prince Amanullah but not from the Amir, Habibulla. Funds were channeled through German embassies in the Far East and, from Japan, Rash Behari Bose and Abani Mukherji made several efforts to send arms after 1915. However, all the gun- running attempts failed as the fl ame of an armed revolt had died down by early 1915.

How and Why were Dacoities Organized?

‘They organized a number of raids on government armouries, banks and police stations to raise funds, arms and ammunition. According to offi cial records, between 1907 and 1917, the number of dacoities

MODERN HISTORY

118 www.iasscore.in

that were conducted in different places in India was 1121. The Chittagong group of revolutionaries headed by Surya Sen brought off the most spectacular coup in the entire history of revolutionary violence in April 1930 by seizing the local armoury and issuing an independence proclamation in the name of the ‘Indian Republic Army’. In Punjab also, where the Hindustan Socialist Republic Association had become very active, 26 incidents of robberies were reported in 1930.

Why did Revolutionaries Fail?

The revolutionaries and their movements gradually faded out and failed to achieve their main goal of complete freedom. In fact, violence as a political weapon was bound to fail. The revolutionaries came mainly from urban middle class intelligentsia, out of touch with the peasants and workers. Hence, they could not reach and mobilize the masses. Furthermore, as their activities had to be carried out secretly, they could not take the people into confi dence. The social limitations of revolutionary voilence remain obvious; in a 1918 offi cial list of killed or convicted revolutionaries in Bengal, no less than 165 came from the three upper castes (Brahmin, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas). Thus, apart from class limitations, it also had caste limitations, which further prevented it from acquiring a mass base.They also lacked a common pan and central leadership. Most of the time they were working at cross purposes and there was also no proper communications among them. With such kind of disorganization and lack of communication facilities they were bound to fail against the enemy which was an imperialist power at its zenith with all kinds of weapons as well as effi cient transport and communications.The British Indian government on its part followed a very ruthless and repressive policy towards them. The government through a series of conspiracy cases, stern penalties and harsh laws, broke the back of the revolutionaries. The Newspaper (Incitement of offences) Act, the Criminal law Amendment Act, the Explosive Substances Act, the Indian Press Act and the Defence of India Act were added to the armoury of bureaucracy.Moreover, the intense religiosity of most of the early secret societies (a feature which was to partly disappear over time) helped to keep Muslims aloof or hostile, though it acted as uniting bond among the Hindu revolutionaries. The much quoted Gita doctrine of ‘Nishkama Karma’ stimulated an impractical heroism and a cult of martyrdom for its own sake in place of effective programmes and plans.

What was their Significance?

Thought they failed to achieve their goal of complete independence, they did make a valuable contribution to the growth of nationalism in India. They set rare examples of death-defying heroism in the cause of complete independence, a goal which the Congress as whole would formally accept only in1930. Their desperate deeds and daring plans, cool action and indifference to death won them a lasting place in the memory of the nation and they became immensely popular among their compatriots even though most of the politically conscious people did not agree with their political attitude.Along with a wealth of patriotic songs, they had, to their credit, some important cultural achievements among which may be mentioned a new interest in regional and local history and folk traditions, the scientifi c work of J.C. Bose and P.C. Roy and the Bengal school of painting founded by Abaindranath Tagore.Above all, they established worldwide contacts in quest of arms and shelter leading to important ideological consequences. For instance, a good number of revolutionaries got converted to socialists and communists in the latter period.

Gadar Movement The outbreak of the First World War in 1914 gave a new lease of life to the nationalist movement which had been dormant since the heady days of the Swadeshi Movement. This opportunity was seized, in different ways arid with varying success, by the Ghadar revolutionaries based in North America and by Lokamanya Tilak, Annie Besant and their Home Rule Leagues in India. The Ghadarites attempted a violent overthrow of British rule, while the Home Rule Leaguers launched a nation-wide agitation for securing Home Rule or Swaraj.The economic downturn in India during the early twentieth century witnessed a high level of emigration. Some of these emigrants settled in North America. The West Coast of North America had, since 1904, become home to a steadily increasing number of Punjabi immigrants. These included Punjabis as well as people from other parts of India.

MODERN HISTORY

119www.iasscore.in

Agitations against the entry of the Indians were launched by native American labourers and these were supported by politicians looking for the popular vote. Meanwhile, the Secretary of State for India had his own reasons for urging restrictions on immigration. For one, he believed that the terms of close familiarity of Indians with Whites which would inevitably take place in America was not good for British prestige; it was by prestige alone that India was held and not by force. Further, he was worried that the immigrants would get contaminated by socialist ideas, and that the racial discrimination to which they were bound to be subjected would become the source of nationalist agitation in India.’The combined pressure resulted in an effective restriction on Indian immigration into Canada in 1908. The Canadian government decided to curtail this infl ux with a series of laws, which were aimed at limiting the entry of South Asians into the country and restricting the political rights of those already in the country.The fi rst fi llip to the revolutionary movement was provided by the visit to Vancouver, in early 1913, of Bhagwan Singh, a Sikh priest who openly preached the gospel of violent overthrow of British rule and urged the people to adopt Bande Mataram as a revolutionary salute. Bhagwan Singh was externed from Canada after a stay of three months.The centre of revolutionary activity soon shifted to the US, which provided a relatively free political atmosphere. The crucial role was played by Lala Har Dayal, a political exile from India. The bomb attack on Lord Hardinge, the Viceroy of India, in Delhi on 23 December, 1912, excited his imagination and roused the dormant Indian revolutionary in him and he issued a Yugantar Circular praising the attack on the Viceroy.Soon the Hindi Association was set up in Portland in May 1913. At the very fi rst meeting of the Association, held in the house of Kanshi Rain, and attended among others by Bhai Parmanand, Sohan Singh Bhakna, and Harnam Singh ‘Tundilat,’ Har Dayal set forth his plan of action that was not to fi ght againt Americans but to fi ght for the freedom of India. Har Dayal’s ideas found immediate acceptance. A Working Committee was set up and the decision was taken to start a weekly paper, The Ghadar, for free circulation, and to set up a headquarters called Yugantar Ashram in San Francisco. On 1 November 1913, the fi rst issue of Ghadar, in Urdu was published and on 9 December, the Grumukhi edition. The Ghadar was circulated widely among Indians in North America, and within a few months it had reached groups settled in the Philippines, Hong Kong, China, the Malay States, Singapore, Trinidad, the Honduras, and of course, India. It evoked an unprecedented response, becoming the subject of lively discussion and debate. Unsurprisingly, The Ghadár, succeeded, in a very brief time, in changing the self-image of the Punjabi immigrant from that of a loyal soldier of the British Raj to that of a rebel whose only aim was to destroy the British hold on his motherland. Finally, in 1914, three events infl uenced the course of the Ghadar movement: the arrest and escape of Har Dayal, the Komagata Maru incident, and the outbreak of the First World War.Dayal was arrested on 25 March 1914 on the stated ground of his anarchist activities though everybody suspected that the British Government had much to do with it. Released on bail, he used the opportunity to slip out of the country. With that, his active association with the Ghadar Movement came to an abrupt end.The most important development that made the Ghadar revolution imminent was the outbreak of the World War. The leading activists of the Ghadar Movement decided that the opportunity must be seized, that it was better to die than to do nothing at all, and that their major weakness, the lack of arms, could be overcome by going to India and winning over the Indian soldiers to their cause. The Prominent leaders were sent to persuade Indians living in Japan, the Philippines, China, Hong Kong, The Malay States, Singapore and Burma to return home and join the rebels.The Government of India, fully informed of the Ghadar plans, armed itself with the ingress into India Ordinance. On arrival, the emigrants, were scrutinized, the ‘safe’ ones allowed to proceed home, the more ‘dangerous’ ones arrested and the less dangerous’ ones ordered not to leave their home villages. Some of them escaped detection and went to Punjab to foment rebellion. Frustrated and disillusioned with the attitude of the civilian population, the Ghadarites turned their attention to the army and made a number of naive attempts in November 1914 to get the army units to mutiny. But the lack of an organized leadership and central command frustrated all the Ghadar‘s efforts.Later, Rash Behari Bose, fi nally arrived in Punjab in mid-January 1915 to assume leadership of the revolt. But the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) had succeeded in penetrating the organization, from the very highest level down, and the Government succeeded in taking effective pre-emptive

MODERN HISTORY

120 www.iasscore.in

measures. Most of the leaders were arrested, though Bose escaped. For all practical purposes, the Ghadar Movement was crushed.The intrigues of the Ghadar Party in Punjab during the war, were among the main stimuli for the enactment of the Defence of India Act, appointment of the Rowlatt Committee, and the enactment of the Rowlatt Acts. The Jallianwala Bagh massacre is also linked intimately with the Raj’s fears of a Ghadarite uprising in India especially Punjab in 1919. The major weakness of the Ghadar leaders was that they completely under-estimated the extent and amount of preparation at every level — organizational, ideological, strategic, tactical, fi nancial — that was necessary before an attempt at an armed revolt could be organized. Taken by surprise by the outbreak of the war they sounded the bugles of war without examining the state of their army. They forgot that to mobilize a few thousand discontented immigrant Indians, who were already in a highly charged emotional state because of the racial discrimination they suffered at the hands of white foreigners, was very different.Another major weakness of the movement was its almost none existent organizational structure; the Ghadar Movement was sustained, more by the enthusiasm of the militants than by their effective organization. The Ghadar Movement also failed to generate an effective and sustained leadership that was capable of integrating the various aspects of the movement.

**********