Assignment Code: MHI-09/AST/TMA/2022-23

Course Code: MHI-09

Assignment Name: Indian National Movement

Year: 2022-2023

Verification Status: Verified by Professor

Attempt any five questions. The assignment is divided into two Sections 'A' and 'B'. You have to attempt at least two questions from each section in about 500 words each. All questions carry equal marks.

Section-A

Q1) Compare the views of the Marxist historians and Subaltern Studies on Indian nationalism.

Ans) Both the imperialist and nationalist perspectives on Indian nationalism have drawn criticism from Marxist historians. They criticise the colonialist viewpoint for having a prejudiced image of India and its people, as well as the nationalist commentators for trying to trace the origins of nationalism back to antiquity. In their understanding of the nationalist phenomena, they are criticised for ignoring economic causes and class distinction. The examination of the modes of production and classes is the cornerstone of the Marxist paradigm. According to Marxist historians, there was a fundamental antagonism between imperialism and Indian society. They attempt to explain these procedures by making use of the economic transformations brought on by colonialism. And finally, they think that India was not always a nation but rather that the nationalist movement had a significant role in the nation's creation in contemporary times.

Bipan Chandra comes to the conclusion that the early nationalist leaders' overall economic vision was "essentially capitalist" based on his research of the economic thinking of both the so-called moderates and the extremists. By this, he means that "they championed capitalist growth in general and the interests of the industrial capitalists in particular" in almost every facet of economic life. This does not imply that they were advancing the capitalists' particular interests. In actuality, there wasn't much capitalist backing for the Congress in the beginning. The belief held by nationalists that "industrial development along capitalist lines was the only way to regenerate the country in the economic field, or that, in other words, the interests of the industrial capitalist class objectively coincided with the chief national interest of the moment," was the source of nationalist support for industrial capitalism.

The Subaltern Studies

The academics affiliated with the magazine Subaltern Studies rose to renown in the latter half of the 20th century by aggressively denouncing all other types of Indian history-writing. They presented their own version of Indian nationalism in particular as well as the entirety of modern Indian history. With the release of the first volume of Subaltern Studies in the early 1980s, this interpretation of Indian nationalism started to gain a lot of traction among some groups of Indian historians. In modern Indian history, which sought to disassociate itself from all prior viewpoints on the Indian national movement, it was hailed as a radical departure.

Guha asserts that the absence of the people's politics from all elitist history' narratives is a common characteristic. The subaltern historians rejected the idea that popular mobilisation was the consequence of either economic circumstances or top-down initiatives because they were unhappy with the Congress nationalism and its expression in the Indian state. They asserted that they had found a mass autonomous area that was antagonistic to the political elite. This was the realm of the subaltern, where the elite was constantly met with resistance and uprising. The subaltern historians also gave this area a broad sense of unity, including a number of diverse, heterogeneous groups like tribes, the peasantry, the proletariat, and, on occasion, the middle classes.

Q2) Write a note on economic nationalism with special reference to Indian thinkers. 20

Ans) India's economic nationalism emerged in the midst of its dependence on Britain. This was related to two other events: colonial building of India as a territorially defined region and global capitalist expansion that has been referred to as the first globalisation. By the middle of the nineteenth century, Britain had begun to industrialise, expanding throughout the world in search of food for its labouring people, raw materials for its industries, and relatively safe markets for its manufactured goods.

Early Thoughts

Between 1870 and 1905, the mainline of nationalist economic theories was developed. However, a small group of individuals in Maharashtra had already written and spoken about some of the problems related to the British Empire's economic exploitation of India. In reality, Raja Rammohan Roy's writings from the early 1830s show that people were aware of the detrimental economic effects of British colonial control in India. He expressed his displeasure with the "tribute" paid to Britain and his worry for the situation of the self-sufficient peasants.

Economic Critique of Colonial Rule

A broad and thorough nationalist critique of British rule in India arose during the 1870s and 1880s. Dadabhai Naoroji, Mahadev Govind Ranade, Romesh Chunder Dutt, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, G. Subramaniya Iyer, G.V. Joshi, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, and Surendranath Banerjee were among the most significant proponents of the new "political economy of nationhood." They became aware of India's submissive integration into the global capitalist system. This role was described by Ranade as a "dependent colonial economy."

1. The Drain of Wealth: The anti-colonial nationalist narrative's most popular theme arguably became its criticism of the flow of money out of India. The greatest economic wrong of the colonial system was believed to be that the rulers of India were stealing the country's wealth, causing the country to become impoverished. Drain was intended to be a one-sided transfer of resources from India to Britain without any associated economic or commercial benefit. The drain idea was invented by revered nationalist Dadabhai Naoroji.

2. Poverty of Indian People: After more than a century of colonial rule, the crushing poverty of the vast majority of Indians was evident to all. By the late nineteenth century, the former faith held by the Indian elite that the British administration in India would adhere to charitable economic policies resulting in prosperity had disappeared. The terrible poverty of Indians had been a continual source of worry for nationalists since the 1870s.

3. Underdevelopment of Industry: The nationalists were adamant that under colonial authority, India was experiencing an industrial underdevelopment process. It was brought on by two phenomena, the demise of India's indigenous industries and the slow growth of the modern industry, both of which were strongly tied to colonial policy.

4. Public Finance: Nationalist criticism of colonial public finances included both the amount of revenue collected and the manner in which it was used. Because of the colonial government's financial policies' negative impact on the nation's resources, nationalists paid close attention to them. They were harshly critical of the colonial government's taxing policy, which claimed that taxes in India were relatively low.

5. Agriculture: Nearly 80% of colonial India's population depended on agriculture, and in the eighteenth century, government revenue primarily came from land sales. The peasants was becoming increasingly impoverished as a result of the stringent collection of the rising demand for land tax. Early on, the nationalists took notice of this problem and maintained that it was one of the primary reasons for repeated famines, India's poverty, and the deterioration of its agricultural sector.

6. Foreign Trade: Even though India has always engaged in trade with other countries, the colonial occupation saw a significant growth. Both import and export experienced exponential growth, and trade itself significantly changed. Up until 1813, India had mostly been an importer of precious metals like gold and silver and an exporter of manufactured products, particularly cotton and silk textiles.

Q3) Write a note on the Non-cooperation movement.

Ans) The desire of Indian Muslims to defend the Khalifa's institution in Turkey gave rise to the Khilafat movement in India. According to Islamic tradition, the Khalifa was the Prophet Muhammad's successor, the leader of the faithful, and the keeper and protector of the Muslim holy sites. The Ottoman Power was the only Islamic empire in the nineteenth century; hence Indian Muslims regarded the Sultan of Turkey as the Khalifa and held him in the highest regard. The Khilafat movement was started by Muslims in India to put pressure on the British government to be lenient and protect the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire and the institution of the Khalifa because Turkey had lost the First World War and it was certain that the victorious Allies would impose strict terms on it.

There are two methods to account for the Khilafat movement's ideological foundations. On the one hand, experts have identified it as being present in global pan-Islamic sentiments and activities that are non-Indian and external in nature. However, other historians have emphasised its inwardness and attempts to employ pan-Islamic symbols to forge a pan-Indian Muslim identity and to bring it into line with Indian nationalism. These two developments were not at odds with one another, in reality. A possible interpretation of the Khilafat is that it represents an effort on the part of the Indian Muslim leadership to unite their pan-Islamic and Indian nationalist beliefs. This combination was what led to the significant mass mobilisation starting in 1919.

The office of the Khalifa and the person of Turkey's Sultan served as the religious centre for this effort to bring Indian Muslims together. Since the late eighteenth century, the Sultan of Turkey has been widely recognised by Indian Sunni Muslims as the Khalifa who will guard the Muslim sacred sites. Thus, whenever Turkey got embroiled in wars, such as during the Greco-Turkish War of 1897 and the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–78, Indian Muslim leaders experienced a spike in pan-Islamic sentiments. The Muslim authorities were terrified that the Christian countries were trying to topple the Ottoman Empire and the Khalifa during the Balkan Wars of 1911–1913.

Two streams that were both interested in implementing educational changes for Muslims after colonial control provided the movement's leadership. One was the Westernizing intelligentsia based in Aligarh, which pushed for English-language instruction and recruitment into the government sector. The other was ulama, who rejected English education and Western manners and worked to support the ancient Madrasa-based Islamic educational system. The existence of these two different leadership styles caused the movement to vary. The ulama gave the movement a radical edge while the Western-educated leadership typically sought moderation.

The leadership founded the Jamiat al-Ulama-e Hind and the All-India Khilafat Committee in order to properly organise the movement. Up until the mid-1920s, these two organisations totally eclipsed the previous Muslim political organisation known as Muslim League. The effective campaign to mobilise the Muslim community in support of Khilafat demands got underway in 1919. The Congress, a nationalist organisation, and Mahatma Gandhi, the most palatable leader at the moment, were the best choices. Although the Congress was not yet ready for an all-Indian movement, Gandhiji was more than prepared to lead the Khilafat movement. However, a number of additional factors allowed the diverse anti-imperialist organisations to unite on a single platform.

Section-B

Q1) Describe the various forms which the popular protests took between 1945 and 1947.

Ans) When there were violent altercations with the authorities in November 1945 and February 1946, the movement took a new direction. The first occurred on November 21 in relation to the INA trials, the second on February 11 regarding Rashid Ali's punishment as an INA officer, and the third on February 18 in relation to the Royal Indian Navy uprising. In every instance, a group's protests escalated into conflict, with residents of the city and other regions of the nation showing their support. A procession of students from the Forward Bloc, Students Federation, and Islamia College both Hindu and Muslim started the uprising on November 21, 1945. They took over Dalhousie Square, which is where the administration of Calcutta is located, and when they refused to leave, they were lathi-charged. Two people died and fifty-two people were injured as a result of shooting during an argument with the police. People in the city gathered in great numbers in protest, which caused the city to become paralysed. Strikes quickly turned into armed conflicts when European-owned businesses became the target.

Muslim League, Congress, and Communist students marched in opposition to Rashid Ali's trial on February 11, 1946. The altercation happened on Dharamtolla Street in Calcutta because Section 144 was implemented there, arrests were made, and lathi charges were used. People in the city and other cities throughout the nation organised gatherings to express their sympathies. These meetings frequently devolved into assaults on European and government property. Naval ratings of HMIS Talwar went on strike on February 18 in protest of the treatment they had been given. This includes horrible food and racial humiliation. When word got out that ratings had been fired upon, those from Castle and Fort Barracks joined the ratings from Talwar. Outraged by this, ratings snatched Congress flags and carried them high while roaming the city, committing small-scale fires, and threatening the police and even common Europeans.

As word travelled throughout the nation, ratings in other naval bases also revolted. In Karachi, the ratings of the HMIS Hindustan took the initiative, and three shore institutions, another ship, and another ship soon followed. Aden, the Andaman Islands, Bahrain, Calcutta, Cochin, Delhi, Jamnagar, Madras, and Visakhapatnam were among the first places to go on strike. 20 shore establishments and 78 ships totalling 20,000 ratings had participated in the protest. Men from the other armed services also showed up to show their sympathies. In the suburbs of Marine Drive, Andheri, and Sion in Bombay, troops from the Royal Indian Air Force went on strike.

Only the militant segments of society in the urban centres were allowed to participate. The common folk in the villages were not directly impacted by these upsurges. The communities of Hindus and Muslims showed some organisational coherence, at most, which some academics contend could have served as the foundation for preventing partition. The Communists arrived with their red banners and hoisted them beside the green League flags, but they persisted in seeking guidance from their own organisations.

The problem was one of strategy, not just poor timing, or poor tactics. Before considering conflict, the Congress felt that all potential avenues for negotiation ought to be explored. The AICC stated this in a resolution on September 22, 1945. The Congress's guiding principle must continue to be non-cooperation and direct action when necessary, and discussions and settlement when possible. The overall approach of the Congress was thus. This tactic was supported in 1946 by the perception that colonial rule was coming to an end and a final settlement was anticipated. Given the circumstances, it was prudent to be ready for a fight while taking care to avoid taking any hasty actions that may jeopardise the chance of a settlement.

Q2) Discuss the views of various historians regarding the relationship between nationalism and peasantry.

Ans) The relationship between the Congress, the leading nationalist organisation, and the peasants is a subject of debate among historians. The peasants' agitations are either given little attention by nationalist historians or the peasants are seen as inactive masses who were awakened by nationalist leaders to take part in nationalist fights. The assumption is that the nationalist activists brought politics to the apolitical peasants. The peasants is typically viewed as an uneducated mass whose entry into politics was facilitated by Gandhian nationalism. The majority of peasantry-related literature follow a general Marxist perspective.

Marxist historians tend to see the influence of the Congress, particularly Gandhi, negatively, despite the fact that they acknowledge the nationalist movement's enormous influence on peasant consciousness and activism. They see the nationalism movement as being bourgeois, preserving the interests of the aristocracy, and being prone to obstruct, restrain, or even suppress the movement when it got militant. They contend that the Congress dissuaded the peasantry's class organisations and ignored their anti-landlord demands. The fundamental Marxist perspective on how the Congress treated the masses was developed by R.P. Dutt and A.R. Desai, and many later Marxist historians followed in their footsteps.

Bipan Chandra had a negative opinion on Congress' treatment of peasants in his early writings. He claims that the interests of the peasants were more or less entirely sacrificed in the name of national solidarity against imperialism. The unilateral cost to the peasants was the promotion of national integration. The National Congress struggled for years to develop a comprehensive agrarian agenda. Without any such agenda, Gandhi's three great movements those of 1920, 1930, and 1942 all got their start. He even makes the argument that Gandhi typically tried to temper the demands of the peasants and restrained their militancy in the event of a conflict between them and the landlords.

According to Dhanagare, the Gandhian "constructive" activities' most significant societal purpose was managing friction, which explains the alliance between wealthy landowners and their tenants and labourers. The Congress bourgeois leadership, in the words of Kapil Kumar, "exploited the peasants' support to gain political independence oblivious to the economic side of swaraj and the peasantry's aspirations." And the main reason the two mass groups withdrew was because they were afraid of no-rent campaigns, which would have meant combining anti-colonial and anti-feudal struggles. Even further, he contends that "Gandhi had in fact exercised a restraining impact on the revolutionary potentiality of the peasants at Champaran which may have burst into militant struggles except for his intervention."

Mridula Mukherjee vigorously defends the Congress' part in launching and supporting the peasant struggles in various regions. She claimed that, particularly after 1918, the national movement was enormously important in igniting peasant movements. The organisations and cadre that had previously contributed to the national movement later took a lead role in starting and supporting the peasant movements. even the protesters The core of the powerful Kisan Sabha movements in the 1930s was this new cadre. Gandhiji in particular had a crucial part to play in this. On the anti-imperialist ideology, the national movement was a multi-class movement. This made it necessary to adapt the demands of the peasant class to the larger needs of the nationalist cause