Perspectives on Indian national movement
-
Imperialist
-
Liberal
-
Socialist
-
Marxist
-
Radical humanist
-
Dalit
IMPERIALIST —
-
The politics on the subcontinent was not a national movement, it was a communal movement.
-
There was no grand idea inspiring the leaders. The leaders were dominated by animal instincts. They were after power, money, the leaders were not national leaders but power brokers for their communities.
-
Partition was the natural culmination of communal politics that was taking place on the subcontinent.
-
The politics present India is not different.
Context of the debate –
-
To what extent it would be appropriate to call the political in the subcontinent from 1857 to 1947 and Indian National Movement.
-
The political activities are described by national movement by nationalist historians, since congress was the leading party which came to acquire power after independence the nationalist discourse became meta narrative. However it is essential to analyse these activities from the perspective of other narratives also.
IMPERIALIST INTERPRETATION –
-
Views –
-
British administration always questioned the existence of India as a nation. For eg – John Strachey in his book India, its administration and progress published in 1888 wrote that – the first and the only fact about India is that there is no India and never was. John Seeley in his book Expansion of England published in 1883 held that India as a nation is vulgar error, political scholars should avoid.
-
Similarly Lord Dufferin called congress as representing microscopic minority, Britishers introduced caste census, separate electorate to give statutory basis to their view.
-
-
Salient views of imperialist historian –
-
The politics of subcontinent is not a national movement, it was a communal movement.
-
There was no grand idea inspiring the leaders. The leaders were dominated by animal instinct. They’re after power, money, the leaders were not national leader but power brokers for their communities.
-
Partition was the national culmination of communal politics that was taking place on the subcontinent.
-
The politics of present India is not different.
-
LIBERALS/EARLY NATIONALIST –
-
Surendranath Banerjee – They accepted India is not a nation but nation in making.
CULTURAL NATIONALIST –
-
Aurobindo Ghosh – They held that existence of India as a nation cannot be questioned. India is a nation since beginning.
NATIONALIST HISTORIANS –
-
Dr. Tara Chand, R.C Majumdar – It was wrong to suggest that there was no national movement or national party or leadership. Acc to them –
-
INC was a national party.
-
There was a nationalist ideology.
-
There was nationalist leadership.
-
There was a definite desire among Indians to emerge as a nation.
-
The survival of India as a nation against all odds, external and internal is a testimony that we cannot deny the existence of India as a nation.
-
MARXIST –
-
For marxist, nationalism is a bourgeoise concept it is never in the inures of masses.
-
M.N Roy in his book ‘India in transition’ held that –
-
Gandhi was a bourgeoise leader.
-
Congress was a bourgeoise a party.
-
-
Aarti Dutt’s book India today –
-
Extremely critical of Gandhi and calls Gandhi as mascot of bourgeoise class.
-