- Intro: The Indian Independence Movement was a series of historic events with the ultimate aim of ending the British rule in India.
- Radical Humanist perspective:
- was advocated by MN Roy.
- He published his thoughts in New Humanism-A manifesto.
- He said radical humanism was called radical because it rejected many traditional political and philosophical assumptions and humanism as its focus was entirely on the needs and conditions of human beings.
- Roy was an advocate of “party-less democracy.’ Hence he held critical views regarding role of Congress and Gandhi in INM.
- For Roy, Congress wanted to end the British rule and establish congress rule over India.
- Roy called Gandhi a “weak and watery man who was always on a lookout for appointments with the Viceroy.”
- MN Roy and his followers quit the congress and dissolved their “League of Radical Congressmen” to create “Radical democratic Party” in 1939.
- They were opposed to the congress regarding World War II. They favored Indian support to the British to defeat the German fascist. They criticized the congress for the launch of Quit India Movement in 1942 and remarked it as Congress’ callous criminal neglect of national defense.
- For radical humanists, INM was a mere political movement. It did not provide Indians with “freedom in the truest sense.”
- Roy was criticized for his unpatriotic stand that went against Congress and Gandhi.
- Echoing Roy’s view, socialist Ram Manohar Lohia once said that India’s freedom movement was fought and won by the proletariats and its fruits were enjoyed by the bourgeoisie.
- conclusion: RH perspective offers a view of INM that was human centric. It offers a microlevel analysis of the movement, focussing on not just freedom of the nation, but the freedom of an individual as well.
- Liberal( favouring Congress and Gandhi) perspective:
- On nationalism:
- This forms the hegemonic school of INM
- For them nation is a political entity. Reject cultural nationalism.
- cultural nation is natural, political nation is built by the people. Suitable for small countries like Israel. large and diverse countries like India and USA are political nation .
- seen in the idea of early nationalists
- S Banerjea: India is nation in the making.
- for them western education and ideas of liberty were basically responsible for the formation of national consciousness.
- the formation of INC was the result of search to find avenue for self expression and self assertion.
- they believed that the masses were not capable of independent action and were to be mobilised by the middle class , western educated leaders.
- viewed British as agents of modernisation, as justice loving people and did not want to antagonise them ,hence their demands were limited.
- Bipin Chandra writes that the national movement begun by congress, thus represented both, the social aspirations of middle classes in India and also the supreme desire for freedom and racial justice.
- even after coming from middle class, they did not possess any class interests and were devoted to the cause of nation and acted as spokespersons of the silent majority who could not speak on their own.
- they represented all classes,communities and groups and pursued national,secular and progressive politics.
- they not only wanted political reforms but freedom from socital customs- sati,polygamy,female infanticide. Cite ex of IC Vidyasagar, RR Mohan Roy.
- R C Mazumdar- there were Bengali,Marathi but no Indian at ht beginning of 19th century. It was the movements launched by congress which gave reality to the ideal of Indian unity.
- Dr Tarachand
- Criticism:
- Ranjit Guha- history by nationalists historians is one sided blinkered history and sort of spiritual biography of Indian elites.
- Gyan Pandey -nationalist historians ignored all the mass struggles outside the realm of congress particularly the tribals and peasant movements.
- Conclusion : but there can be no doubt about the contribution of INC and Gandhi to consolidate various sections of people to rise against the British and liberate India from the clutches of colonialism.
- Marxist/socialist perspective-
- It forms the counter hegemonic school of INM.
- Their analysis of the national movement was based on an understanding of the role of economic factors and classes in the making of the nation as well as a movement.
- Karl Marx writing for the New York Herald Tribune recognised that on one hand the British rule in India had insidious character, but on the other he viewed it as a blessing in disguise and argued that revolt of 1857 is a revolt of feudal elements to protect their privileges rather than a war of national independence
- rejects nationalism as an instrument of bourgeoisie and calls for proletarian internationalism.
- They say the leaders of the movement were traditional intellectuals (Gramscian concept) , ie they did not come directly from amongst the people but became leaders of particular classes by ideologically assuming responsibility for those classes.
- For them peasant movements like Tebhaga, Telangana, Kisan Sabha movement and workers movements like Ahmadabad mill strike were revolutionary movements in truest sense
- They founded the congress socialist party but understood that it is congress that must lead the movement under British and they should play a supporting role to the cause (Dutt-Bradley thesis). Hence they thought it is better to be part of Congress and counter rightist forces from within Congress
- M n Roy: was against nationalist struggle and believed that nationalists will join hands with imperialists. Was a critic of Gandhi and his methods which in his view were against the interests of the proleteriats. For Roy- INC represented the political ideology and aspiration of a youthful bourgeoisie (book- India in transition)
- S A Dange
- Socialists like Acharya Narendra Dev
- Jaiprakash Narayan in his book- why socialism says Gandhi failed to realize class contradictions for mass politics. Later on became a Gandhian, believed in sarvodaya, party-less democracy.
- Bipin Chandra-
- said INM was a bourgeoisie led movement.
- In-fact the hegemony of the Bourgeoisie over the national movement had anything but increased during Gandhi.
- Though his views changed drastically in his work-India's struggle for independence. In-fact he said The Indian national movement is the only movement where the Gramsian theoretical perspective of war of position and war of man-oeuvre were successfully practised.
- Rajani Palme Dutt- called Gandhi as mascot of bourgeoisie in his book India today. Said 1857 revolt was a revolt of the old conservative and feudal forces.
- Initially congress was led by western educated elites sections of the society but after the world wars the peasantry and industrial workers made their presence felt.
- Said the leadership of congress only remained with the propertied class who prevented radicalization of movement to which could become dangerous to their interests.
- Say that NCM was withdrawn as the masses were becoming too militant and a threat to the propertied class.
- Said congress had a twofold character . One through leading movements against imperialism and second through cooperation with imperialism if the movement radicalized and went against their interests and privileges.
- Say even when masses were mobilized they were kept outside the decision making process. Political activity of the masses was rigidly controlled from the top. The masses never became an individual political force
- Ems namboodaripad -Gandhiyum Gandhisavam- said Gandhi's was a restricted mass struggle and he was a conscious tool of bourgeoisie.
- problems:
- communists in India remained confused. Dependent on direction from USSR, failed to understand peculiar situation of India.
- even Ambedkar highlighted weakness of communists and kept dalit cause separate from cause of poor as espoused by the communists.
- Sumit Sarkar- Gandhi was “no mere a bourgeois tool” and a “puppet in the hands of the capitalists.
- conclusion: Marxist perspective fails to realize the important role of INC and Gandhi to consolidate various sections of people to rise against the British and liberate India from the clutches of colonialism.
- Dalit perspective:-
- In the works of
Ambedkar | EV Ramaswamy Naiker- came out of congress saying it was a party of Brahmans. Started self respect movementt. | Jyotiba Phule’s ghulamgiri |
- Dalit perspective rose as a reaction to the social stratification present in the society that was dominated by Brahmanical hegemony.
- Dalit intelligentsia was critical of the lack of commitment on the part of the congress to share power with dalits and expressed serious doubt about the commitment of upper caste leadership to bring social equality.
- Initially congress refused to take up questions of social reforms and Indian social conference was formed by MG Ranade that focussed on social reformation of Indian system
- in the words of BR Ambedkar: Brahmin rule is worse than British rule
- for Ambedkar any struggle without the abolition of internal oppression had no importance to him.
- he said “the freedom for which the governing class is struggling for is the freedom that rules the servile classes in India.
- he held that if there was any class that deserved protection against the tyranny of the majority, it was the depressed class.
- he held that without social revolution that gave equality to dalits, change in political leadership from British to INC would further strengthen the hold of upper castes over dalits.
- Gail Omvedt: Dalit movements against upper castes were more democratic and nationalists than the elite controlled INC.
- Periyar said that as long as their is existence of untouchability, all talk of freedom and self rule is empty.
- dalit intelligentsia’s primacy to socio-economic movements over anti colonial struggle was primarily rooted in their experiences of living in an unjust society.
- Ambedkar in Book- what Congress and Gandhi had done to untouchables-Said they did nothing.No future for untouchables in India
- Said if Tilak would have been untouchable he would have said annihilation of caste as my birthright.
- Said Swaraj w/o extinction of caste is too mechanical and worthless.
- said congress had no agenda for abolition of caste. On the contrary Gandhi was justifying Varna system. said Gandhi's faith in Hinduism was not in the interests of dalits.
- Jyotiba Phule said British Raj is better than Peshwa Raj .Asked how people divided into thousands of castes can be one nation.
- Ambedkar: Without social unity India would be a state without nation . freedom of a country cannot be different from freedom of its people
- nationalism is based on LEF.
- Swaraj of congress will make Hindus more powerful , untouchables more deprived.
- untouchables will continue to remain “hewers of wood” and “drawers of water.”
- espoused democratic soicialsim - one man. One vote . One value.
- his socialism was influenced by john dewey( American fabian socialist).
- Freedom from British is needed but only freedom from British is irrelevant.
- for them the aim of the INM wasn't limited to the attainment of freedom but had to lead to the creation of a qualitatively different society, devoid of caste antagonism which the INM didn't achieve
- However Dalit perspective was defined as too narrowly conceived.
- Arun Shourie has described Ambedkar as a “false god” for whom interests of a certain section mattered more than interests of the nation as a whole.
- Conclusion- Strength of dalit perspective is that it makes us understand that nationalsim is based on value of fraternity. Their notion of nationhood was based on abolition of existing inequalities and having equal rights in every sphere of life.