text
stringlengths 25
2.05k
| text_pr
stringlengths 41
2.06k
|
|---|---|
progress ….(the task is) to evolve the required revolution
— whether it would be peaceful or violent. The character of the
revolution will depend upon the wisdom or unwisdo m of the
British Government and action of the British people.’
And this is how G.K. Gokhale evaluated this period in 1907:
‘Let us not forget that we are at a stage of the country’s progress
when our achievements are bound to be small, and our
disappointme nts frequent and trying. That is the place which it | <s>[INST]progress ….(the task is) to evolve the required revolution
— whether it would be peaceful or violent. The character of the
revolution will depend upon the wisdom or unwisdo m of the
British Government and action of the British people.’
And this is how G.K. Gokhale evaluated this period in 1907:
‘Let us not forget that we are at a stage of the country’s progress
when our achievements are bound to be small, and our
disappointme nts frequent and trying. That is the place which it[/INST] |
55 |Foundations of the Indian National Congress: The Reality
has pleased Providence to assign to us in this struggle, and our
responsibility is ended when we have done the work which
belongs to that place. It will, no doubt, be given to our
countrymen of future gen erations to serve India by their
successes; we, of the present generation, must be content to
serve her mainly by our failures. For, hard though it be, out of
those failures the strength will come which in the end will
accomplish great tasks.”
*
As for the question of the role of A.O. Hume, if the founders
of the Congress were such capable and patriotic men of high
character, why did they need Hume to act as the chief organizer
of the Congress? It is undou btedly true that Hume impressed —
and, quite rightly — all his liberal and democratic
contemporaries, including Lajpat Rai, as a man of high ideals
with whom it was no dis honor to cooperate. But the real answer
lies in the conditions of the time. Considering the size of the
Indian subcontinent, there were v ery few political persons in the
early 1 880s and the tradition of open opposition to the rulers
was not yet firmly entrenched.
Courageous and committed persons like Dadabhai Naoroji,
Justice Ranad e, Pherozeshah Mehta , G. Subramaniya Iyer and
Surendranath Banerjea (one year later) cooperated with Hume
because they did not want to arouse official hostility at such an
early stage of their work. They assumed that the rulers would be
less suspicious and less likely to attack a pote ntially subversive
organizati on if its chief organizer was a retired British civil
servant. Gokhale, with his characteristic modesty and political
wisdom, gazed this explicitly in 1913: ‘No Indian could have
started the Indian National Congress. .. if an Indian had. . . come
forward t o start such a movement embracing all India, the
officials in India would not have allowed the movement to come
into existence. If the founder of the congress had not been a great | <s>[INST]55 |Foundations of the Indian National Congress: The Reality
has pleased Providence to assign to us in this struggle, and our
responsibility is ended when we have done the work which
belongs to that place. It will, no doubt, be given to our
countrymen of future gen erations to serve India by their
successes; we, of the present generation, must be content to
serve her mainly by our failures. For, hard though it be, out of
those failures the strength will come which in the end will
accomplish great tasks.”
*
As for the question of the role of A.O. Hume, if the founders
of the Congress were such capable and patriotic men of high
character, why did they need Hume to act as the chief organizer
of the Congress? It is undou btedly true that Hume impressed —
and, quite rightly — all his liberal and democratic
contemporaries, including Lajpat Rai, as a man of high ideals
with whom it was no dis honor to cooperate. But the real answer
lies in the conditions of the time. Considering the size of the
Indian subcontinent, there were v ery few political persons in the
early 1 880s and the tradition of open opposition to the rulers
was not yet firmly entrenched.
Courageous and committed persons like Dadabhai Naoroji,
Justice Ranad e, Pherozeshah Mehta , G. Subramaniya Iyer and
Surendranath Banerjea (one year later) cooperated with Hume
because they did not want to arouse official hostility at such an
early stage of their work. They assumed that the rulers would be
less suspicious and less likely to attack a pote ntially subversive
organizati on if its chief organizer was a retired British civil
servant. Gokhale, with his characteristic modesty and political
wisdom, gazed this explicitly in 1913: ‘No Indian could have
started the Indian National Congress. .. if an Indian had. . . come
forward t o start such a movement embracing all India, the
officials in India would not have allowed the movement to come
into existence. If the founder of the congress had not been a great[/INST] |
Englishman and a distinguished ex -official, such was the distrust
of politic al agitation in those days that the authorities would have
at once found some way or the other to suppress the movement.
In other words, if Hume and other English liberals hoped to
use the Congress as a safety -valve, the Congress leaders hoped to | <s>[INST]Englishman and a distinguished ex -official, such was the distrust
of politic al agitation in those days that the authorities would have
at once found some way or the other to suppress the movement.
In other words, if Hume and other English liberals hoped to
use the Congress as a safety -valve, the Congress leaders hoped to[/INST] |
56 | India’s S truggle for Independence
use Hume as a lightning conductor. And as later developments
show, it was the Congress leaders whose hopes were fulfilled. | <s>[INST]56 | India’s S truggle for Independence
use Hume as a lightning conductor. And as later developments
show, it was the Congress leaders whose hopes were fulfilled.[/INST] |
57 | Socio -Religious Reforms and the National Awakening
CHAPTER 6. SOCIO -RELIGIOUS
REFORMS AND THE
NATIONAL AWAKENING
‘I regret to say,’ wrote Raja Ra mmohan Roy in 1828, ‘that the
present system of religion adhered to by the Hindus is not well
calculated to promote their political interest. The distinctions of
castes introducing innumerable divisions and sub -divisions
among them has entirely deprived th em of patriotic feeling, and
the multitude of religious rites and ceremonies and the laws of
purification have totally disqualified them from undertaking any
difficult enterprise. It is, I think, necessary that some change
should take place in their religi on at least for the sake of their
political advantage and social comfort.” Written at a time when
Indians had just begun to experience the ‘intellectual and
cultural turmoil that characterized social life in nineteenth
century India this represented the im mediate Indian response.
The British conquest and the consequent dissemination of
colonial culture and ideology had led to an inevitable
introspection about the strengths and weaknesses of indigenous
culture and institutions. The response, indeed, was vari ed but
the need to reform social and religious life was a commonly
shared conviction. The social base of this quest which has
generally, but not altogether appropriately been called the
renaissance, was the newly emerging middle class and the
traditional a s well as western educated intellectuals. The socio -
cultural regeneration in nineteenth century India was occasioned
by the colonial presence, but not created by it.
The spirit of reform embraced almost the whole of India
beginning with the efforts of Raj a Rammohan Roy in Bengal
leading to the formation of the Brahmo Samaj in 1828. Apart
from the Brahmo Samaj, which has branches in several parts of
the country, the Paramahansa Mandali and the Prarthana Samaj | <s>[INST]57 | Socio -Religious Reforms and the National Awakening
CHAPTER 6. SOCIO -RELIGIOUS
REFORMS AND THE
NATIONAL AWAKENING
‘I regret to say,’ wrote Raja Ra mmohan Roy in 1828, ‘that the
present system of religion adhered to by the Hindus is not well
calculated to promote their political interest. The distinctions of
castes introducing innumerable divisions and sub -divisions
among them has entirely deprived th em of patriotic feeling, and
the multitude of religious rites and ceremonies and the laws of
purification have totally disqualified them from undertaking any
difficult enterprise. It is, I think, necessary that some change
should take place in their religi on at least for the sake of their
political advantage and social comfort.” Written at a time when
Indians had just begun to experience the ‘intellectual and
cultural turmoil that characterized social life in nineteenth
century India this represented the im mediate Indian response.
The British conquest and the consequent dissemination of
colonial culture and ideology had led to an inevitable
introspection about the strengths and weaknesses of indigenous
culture and institutions. The response, indeed, was vari ed but
the need to reform social and religious life was a commonly
shared conviction. The social base of this quest which has
generally, but not altogether appropriately been called the
renaissance, was the newly emerging middle class and the
traditional a s well as western educated intellectuals. The socio -
cultural regeneration in nineteenth century India was occasioned
by the colonial presence, but not created by it.
The spirit of reform embraced almost the whole of India
beginning with the efforts of Raj a Rammohan Roy in Bengal
leading to the formation of the Brahmo Samaj in 1828. Apart
from the Brahmo Samaj, which has branches in several parts of
the country, the Paramahansa Mandali and the Prarthana Samaj[/INST] |
the country, the Paramahansa Mandali and the Prarthana Samaj
in Maharashtra and the Arya Samaj in Punjab and North India
were some of the prominent movements among the Hindus.
There were several other regional and caste movements like the | <s>[INST]the country, the Paramahansa Mandali and the Prarthana Samaj
in Maharashtra and the Arya Samaj in Punjab and North India
were some of the prominent movements among the Hindus.
There were several other regional and caste movements like the[/INST] |
58 | India’s S truggle for Independence
Kayasth Sabha in Uttar Pradesh and the Sarin Sabba in Punjab.
The backward castes also started the work of reformation with
the Satya Sodhak Samaj in Maharashtra and the Sri Narayana
Dharma Paripalana Sabha in Kerala. The Ahmadiya and Aligarh
movements, the Singh Sabha and the Rehnumai Mazdeyasan
Sabha represented the spirit of reform among the Muslims, the
Sikhs and the Parsees respectively. Despite being regional in
scope and content and confined to a particular religion, their
general perspectives were remarkably similar; they were regional
and religious manifestations of a common Consciousness.
Although religious reformation ‘was a major concern of
these movements, none of them were exclusively religious in
character. Strongly humanist in inspiration, the idea of
otherworldliness and salvation were not a part of their agenda;
instead their attention was focused on worldly exis tence. Raja
Rammohan Roy was prepared to concede the possible existence
of the other world mainly due to its utilitarian value. Akshay
Kumar Dutt and Ishwarchandra Vidyasagar were agnostics who
refused to be drawn into any discussion on supernatural
questi ons. Asked about the existence of God, Vidyasagar quipped
that he had no time to think about God, since there was much to
be done on earth. Bankim Chandra Chatterjee and Vivekananda
emphasized the secular use of religion and used spirituality to
take cogni zance of the material conditions of human existence.
Given the inter -connection between religious beliefs and
social practices, religious reformation was a necessary pre -
requisite for social reform. ‘The Hindu meets his religion at every
turn. In eating, in drinking, moving, sitting, standing, he is to
adhere to sacred rules, to depart from which is sin and impiety.’
Similarly, the social life of the Muslims was strongly influenced
by religious tenets. Religion was the dominant ideology of the
times and it was not possible to undertake any social action | <s>[INST]58 | India’s S truggle for Independence
Kayasth Sabha in Uttar Pradesh and the Sarin Sabba in Punjab.
The backward castes also started the work of reformation with
the Satya Sodhak Samaj in Maharashtra and the Sri Narayana
Dharma Paripalana Sabha in Kerala. The Ahmadiya and Aligarh
movements, the Singh Sabha and the Rehnumai Mazdeyasan
Sabha represented the spirit of reform among the Muslims, the
Sikhs and the Parsees respectively. Despite being regional in
scope and content and confined to a particular religion, their
general perspectives were remarkably similar; they were regional
and religious manifestations of a common Consciousness.
Although religious reformation ‘was a major concern of
these movements, none of them were exclusively religious in
character. Strongly humanist in inspiration, the idea of
otherworldliness and salvation were not a part of their agenda;
instead their attention was focused on worldly exis tence. Raja
Rammohan Roy was prepared to concede the possible existence
of the other world mainly due to its utilitarian value. Akshay
Kumar Dutt and Ishwarchandra Vidyasagar were agnostics who
refused to be drawn into any discussion on supernatural
questi ons. Asked about the existence of God, Vidyasagar quipped
that he had no time to think about God, since there was much to
be done on earth. Bankim Chandra Chatterjee and Vivekananda
emphasized the secular use of religion and used spirituality to
take cogni zance of the material conditions of human existence.
Given the inter -connection between religious beliefs and
social practices, religious reformation was a necessary pre -
requisite for social reform. ‘The Hindu meets his religion at every
turn. In eating, in drinking, moving, sitting, standing, he is to
adhere to sacred rules, to depart from which is sin and impiety.’
Similarly, the social life of the Muslims was strongly influenced
by religious tenets. Religion was the dominant ideology of the
times and it was not possible to undertake any social action[/INST] |
times and it was not possible to undertake any social action
without coming to grips with it.
*
Indian society in the nineteenth century was caught in a
vicious web created by religious superstitions and social
obscurantism. Hinduism, as | <s>[INST]times and it was not possible to undertake any social action
without coming to grips with it.
*
Indian society in the nineteenth century was caught in a
vicious web created by religious superstitions and social
obscurantism. Hinduism, as[/INST] |
59 | Socio -Religious Reforms and the National Awakening
Max Weber observed, had ‘bec ome a compound of magic,
animism and superstition’ and abominable rites like animal
sacrifice and physical torture had replaced the worship of God.
The priests exercised an overwhelming and, indeed, unhealthy
influence on the minds of the people. Idolatry and polytheism
helped to reinforce their Position. As suggested by Raja
Rammohan Roy, their monopoly of scriptural knowledge and of
ritual interpretation imparted a deceptive character to all
religious systems. The faithful lived in submission, not only to
God, the powerful and unseen, but even to the whims, fancies
and wishes of the priests. There was nothing that religious
ideology could not persuade people to do — women even went to
the extent of offering themselves to priests to satisfy their carnal
pleasures.
Social conditions were equally depressing. The most
distressing was the position of women. The birth of a girl was
unwelcome, her marriage a burden and her widowhood
inauspicious. Attempts to kill girl infants at birth were not
unusual. Those who escaped this initial brutality were subjected
to the violence of marriage at a tender age. Often the marriage
was a device to escape social ignominy and, hence, marital life
did not turn out to be a pleasant experience. An eighty -year-old
Brahmin in Bengal had as many as two hundred wives, the
youngest being just eight years old. Several women hardly had a
married life worth the name, since their husbands participated in
nuptial ceremonies for a consideration and rarely set eyes on
their wives after that. Y et when their husbands died they were
expected to commit Sati which Rammohan described as ‘murder
according to every shasfra.’ If they succeeded in overcoming this
social coercion, they were condemned, as widows, to life -long
misery, neglect and humiliatio n.
Another debilitating factor was caste; it sought to maintain | <s>[INST]59 | Socio -Religious Reforms and the National Awakening
Max Weber observed, had ‘bec ome a compound of magic,
animism and superstition’ and abominable rites like animal
sacrifice and physical torture had replaced the worship of God.
The priests exercised an overwhelming and, indeed, unhealthy
influence on the minds of the people. Idolatry and polytheism
helped to reinforce their Position. As suggested by Raja
Rammohan Roy, their monopoly of scriptural knowledge and of
ritual interpretation imparted a deceptive character to all
religious systems. The faithful lived in submission, not only to
God, the powerful and unseen, but even to the whims, fancies
and wishes of the priests. There was nothing that religious
ideology could not persuade people to do — women even went to
the extent of offering themselves to priests to satisfy their carnal
pleasures.
Social conditions were equally depressing. The most
distressing was the position of women. The birth of a girl was
unwelcome, her marriage a burden and her widowhood
inauspicious. Attempts to kill girl infants at birth were not
unusual. Those who escaped this initial brutality were subjected
to the violence of marriage at a tender age. Often the marriage
was a device to escape social ignominy and, hence, marital life
did not turn out to be a pleasant experience. An eighty -year-old
Brahmin in Bengal had as many as two hundred wives, the
youngest being just eight years old. Several women hardly had a
married life worth the name, since their husbands participated in
nuptial ceremonies for a consideration and rarely set eyes on
their wives after that. Y et when their husbands died they were
expected to commit Sati which Rammohan described as ‘murder
according to every shasfra.’ If they succeeded in overcoming this
social coercion, they were condemned, as widows, to life -long
misery, neglect and humiliatio n.
Another debilitating factor was caste; it sought to maintain[/INST] |
Another debilitating factor was caste; it sought to maintain
a system of segregation, hierarchically ordained on the basis of
ritual status. The rules and regulations of caste hampered social
mobility, fostered social divisions and sapped individual in itiative.
Above all was the humiliation of untouchability which militated
against human dignity.
There were innumerable other practices marked by
constraint, credulity, status, authority, bigotry and blind | <s>[INST]Another debilitating factor was caste; it sought to maintain
a system of segregation, hierarchically ordained on the basis of
ritual status. The rules and regulations of caste hampered social
mobility, fostered social divisions and sapped individual in itiative.
Above all was the humiliation of untouchability which militated
against human dignity.
There were innumerable other practices marked by
constraint, credulity, status, authority, bigotry and blind[/INST] |
60 | India’s S truggle for Independence
fatalism. Rejecting them as features of a decaden t society, the
reform movements sought to create a social climate for
modernization. In doing so, they referred to a golden past when
no such malaise existed. The nineteenth century situation was
the result of an accretionary process; a distortion of a onc e ideal
past. The reformers’ vision of the future, however, was not based
on this idealization. It was only an aid and an instrument —
since practices based on faith cannot be challenged without
bringing faith itself into question. Hence, Raja Rammohan Roy ,
demonstrated that sati had no religious sanction, Vidyasagar did
not ‘take up his pen in defence of widow marriage’ without being
convinced about Scriptural support and Dayanand based his
anti-casteism on Vedic authority.
This, however, did not mean a s ubjection of the present to
the past nor a blind resurrection of tradition ‘The dead and the
buried,’ maintained Mahadev Govind Ranade, the doyen of
reformers in Maharashtra, ‘are dead, buried, and burnt once for
all and the dead past cannot, therefore, be revived except by a
reformation of the old materials into new organized forms.’
Neither a revival of the past nor a total break with tradition was
contemplated.
*
Two important intellectual criteria which informed the
reform movements were rationalism an d religious universalism.
Social relevance was judged by a rationalist critique. It is difficult
to match the uncompromising rationalism of the early Raja
Rammohan Roy or Akshay Kumar Dutt. Rejecting supernatural
explanations, Raja Rammohan Roy affirmed th e principle of
causality linking the whole phenomenal universe. To him
demonstrability was the sole criterion of truth . In proclaiming
that rationalism is our only preceptor ,’ Akshay Kumar went a
step further. All natural and social phenomena, he held, cou ld be
analyzed and understood by purely mechanical processes. This | <s>[INST]60 | India’s S truggle for Independence
fatalism. Rejecting them as features of a decaden t society, the
reform movements sought to create a social climate for
modernization. In doing so, they referred to a golden past when
no such malaise existed. The nineteenth century situation was
the result of an accretionary process; a distortion of a onc e ideal
past. The reformers’ vision of the future, however, was not based
on this idealization. It was only an aid and an instrument —
since practices based on faith cannot be challenged without
bringing faith itself into question. Hence, Raja Rammohan Roy ,
demonstrated that sati had no religious sanction, Vidyasagar did
not ‘take up his pen in defence of widow marriage’ without being
convinced about Scriptural support and Dayanand based his
anti-casteism on Vedic authority.
This, however, did not mean a s ubjection of the present to
the past nor a blind resurrection of tradition ‘The dead and the
buried,’ maintained Mahadev Govind Ranade, the doyen of
reformers in Maharashtra, ‘are dead, buried, and burnt once for
all and the dead past cannot, therefore, be revived except by a
reformation of the old materials into new organized forms.’
Neither a revival of the past nor a total break with tradition was
contemplated.
*
Two important intellectual criteria which informed the
reform movements were rationalism an d religious universalism.
Social relevance was judged by a rationalist critique. It is difficult
to match the uncompromising rationalism of the early Raja
Rammohan Roy or Akshay Kumar Dutt. Rejecting supernatural
explanations, Raja Rammohan Roy affirmed th e principle of
causality linking the whole phenomenal universe. To him
demonstrability was the sole criterion of truth . In proclaiming
that rationalism is our only preceptor ,’ Akshay Kumar went a
step further. All natural and social phenomena, he held, cou ld be
analyzed and understood by purely mechanical processes. This[/INST] |
analyzed and understood by purely mechanical processes. This
perspective not only enabled them to adopt a rational approach
to tradition but also to evaluate the contemporary socio -religious
practices from the standpoint of social utility and to repl ace faith
with rationality. In the Brahmo Samaj, it led to the repudiation of
the infallibility of the Vedas, and in the Aligarh Movement, to the | <s>[INST]analyzed and understood by purely mechanical processes. This
perspective not only enabled them to adopt a rational approach
to tradition but also to evaluate the contemporary socio -religious
practices from the standpoint of social utility and to repl ace faith
with rationality. In the Brahmo Samaj, it led to the repudiation of
the infallibility of the Vedas, and in the Aligarh Movement, to the[/INST] |
61 | Socio -Religious Reforms and the National Awakening
reconciliation of the teachings of Islam with the needs of the
modern age. Holding that religious tenets were not immutable,
Syed Ahmed Khan emphasized the role of religion in the progress
of society: if religion did not keep pace with and meet the
demands of the time. It would get fossilized as in the case of
Islam in India.
The perspectives on reform were not a lways influenced by
religious Considerations A rational and secular outlook was very
much evident in Posing an alternative to prevalent social
practices. In advocating widow marriage and opposing polygamy
and child marriage, Akshay Kumar was not concerned about
religious sanction or whether they existed in the pa His
arguments were mainly based on their effects of Society. Instead
of depending on the scriptures, he cited medical Opinion against
Child marriage. He held very advanced ideas about marriage and
family: courtship before marriage, partnership and equality as
the basis of married life and divorce by both law and custom. In
Maharashtra, as compared to other regions, there was less
dependence on religion as an aid to social reform. To Gopal Han
Deshm ukh, popularly known as L okahitavadi whether social
reform s had the sanction of religion was immaterial. If religion
did not sanction these, he advocated that religion itself should be
changed as it was made by man and what was laid down, in the
scriptures need not necessarily be of contemporary relevance.
Although the ambit of reforms was particularistic, their
religious perspective was universalistic. Raja Rammohan Roy
considered different religions as national embodiments of
universal theism. The Brahmo Samaj was initially conceived by
him as a universalist church. He was a defender of the basic and
universal principles of all religions — the monotheism of the
Vedas and the Unitarianism of Christianity — and at the same
time attacked polytheism of Hindui sm and the trinitarianism of | <s>[INST]61 | Socio -Religious Reforms and the National Awakening
reconciliation of the teachings of Islam with the needs of the
modern age. Holding that religious tenets were not immutable,
Syed Ahmed Khan emphasized the role of religion in the progress
of society: if religion did not keep pace with and meet the
demands of the time. It would get fossilized as in the case of
Islam in India.
The perspectives on reform were not a lways influenced by
religious Considerations A rational and secular outlook was very
much evident in Posing an alternative to prevalent social
practices. In advocating widow marriage and opposing polygamy
and child marriage, Akshay Kumar was not concerned about
religious sanction or whether they existed in the pa His
arguments were mainly based on their effects of Society. Instead
of depending on the scriptures, he cited medical Opinion against
Child marriage. He held very advanced ideas about marriage and
family: courtship before marriage, partnership and equality as
the basis of married life and divorce by both law and custom. In
Maharashtra, as compared to other regions, there was less
dependence on religion as an aid to social reform. To Gopal Han
Deshm ukh, popularly known as L okahitavadi whether social
reform s had the sanction of religion was immaterial. If religion
did not sanction these, he advocated that religion itself should be
changed as it was made by man and what was laid down, in the
scriptures need not necessarily be of contemporary relevance.
Although the ambit of reforms was particularistic, their
religious perspective was universalistic. Raja Rammohan Roy
considered different religions as national embodiments of
universal theism. The Brahmo Samaj was initially conceived by
him as a universalist church. He was a defender of the basic and
universal principles of all religions — the monotheism of the
Vedas and the Unitarianism of Christianity — and at the same
time attacked polytheism of Hindui sm and the trinitarianism of[/INST] |
Christianity. Syed Ahmed Khan echoed the same idea: all
prophets had the same din (faith) and every country and nation
had different prophets. This perspective found clearer articulation
in Keshub Chandra Sen’s ideas. He said ‘ our position is not that
truths are to be found in all religions, but all established religions
of the world are true.’ He also gave expression to the social
implications of this universalist perspective: ‘Whoever worships
the True God daily must learn to recognize all his fellow | <s>[INST]Christianity. Syed Ahmed Khan echoed the same idea: all
prophets had the same din (faith) and every country and nation
had different prophets. This perspective found clearer articulation
in Keshub Chandra Sen’s ideas. He said ‘ our position is not that
truths are to be found in all religions, but all established religions
of the world are true.’ He also gave expression to the social
implications of this universalist perspective: ‘Whoever worships
the True God daily must learn to recognize all his fellow[/INST] |
62 | India’s S truggle for Independence
countrymen as brethren. Caste would vanish in such a state of
society. If I believe that my God is one, and that he has created
us all, I must at the same time instinctively, and with all the
warmth of natural feelings, look upon a ll around me — whether
Parsees, Hindus, Mohammadans or Europeans — as my
brethern.’
The universalist perspective was not a purely philosophic
concern; it strongly influenced the political and social outlook of
the time, till religious particularism gained ground in the second
half of the nineteenth century. For instance, Raja Rammohan
Roy considered Muslim lawyers to be more honest than their
Hindu counterparts and Vidyasagar did not discriminate against
Muslims in his humanitarian activities. Even to Banki m, who is
credited with a Hindu outlook, dharma rather than religious
belonging was the criterion for determining superiority. Yet,
‘Muslim yoke’ and ‘Muslim tyranny’ were epithets often used to
describe the pre -colonial rule. This, however, was not a reli gious
but a political attitude, influenced by the arbitrary character of
pre-colonial political institutions. The emphasis was not on the
word ‘Muslim’ but on the word ‘tyranny.’ This is amply clear from
Syed Ahmed Khan’s description of the pre -colonial sy stem: ‘The
rule of the former emperors and rajas was neither in accordance
with the Hindu nor the Moha mmadan religion. It was based upon
nothing but tyranny and oppression; the law of might was that of
right; the voice of the people was not listened to’. T he yardstick
obviously was not religious identity, but liberal and democratic
principles. This, however, does not imply that religious identity
did not influence the social outlook of the people; in fact, it did
very strongly. The reformers’ emphasis on un iversalism was an
attempt to contend with it. However, faced with the challenge of
colonial culture and ideology, universalism, instead of providing | <s>[INST]62 | India’s S truggle for Independence
countrymen as brethren. Caste would vanish in such a state of
society. If I believe that my God is one, and that he has created
us all, I must at the same time instinctively, and with all the
warmth of natural feelings, look upon a ll around me — whether
Parsees, Hindus, Mohammadans or Europeans — as my
brethern.’
The universalist perspective was not a purely philosophic
concern; it strongly influenced the political and social outlook of
the time, till religious particularism gained ground in the second
half of the nineteenth century. For instance, Raja Rammohan
Roy considered Muslim lawyers to be more honest than their
Hindu counterparts and Vidyasagar did not discriminate against
Muslims in his humanitarian activities. Even to Banki m, who is
credited with a Hindu outlook, dharma rather than religious
belonging was the criterion for determining superiority. Yet,
‘Muslim yoke’ and ‘Muslim tyranny’ were epithets often used to
describe the pre -colonial rule. This, however, was not a reli gious
but a political attitude, influenced by the arbitrary character of
pre-colonial political institutions. The emphasis was not on the
word ‘Muslim’ but on the word ‘tyranny.’ This is amply clear from
Syed Ahmed Khan’s description of the pre -colonial sy stem: ‘The
rule of the former emperors and rajas was neither in accordance
with the Hindu nor the Moha mmadan religion. It was based upon
nothing but tyranny and oppression; the law of might was that of
right; the voice of the people was not listened to’. T he yardstick
obviously was not religious identity, but liberal and democratic
principles. This, however, does not imply that religious identity
did not influence the social outlook of the people; in fact, it did
very strongly. The reformers’ emphasis on un iversalism was an
attempt to contend with it. However, faced with the challenge of
colonial culture and ideology, universalism, instead of providing[/INST] |
the basis for the development of a secular ethos, retreated into
religious particularism.
*
The nineteenth century witnessed a cultural -ideological
struggle against the backward elements of traditional culture, on
the one hand, and the fast hegemonizing colonial culture and
ideology on the other. The initial refonning efforts represented the | <s>[INST]the basis for the development of a secular ethos, retreated into
religious particularism.
*
The nineteenth century witnessed a cultural -ideological
struggle against the backward elements of traditional culture, on
the one hand, and the fast hegemonizing colonial culture and
ideology on the other. The initial refonning efforts represented the[/INST] |
63 | Socio -Religious Reforms and the National Awakening
former. In the rel igious sphere they sought to remove idolatry,
polytheism and priestly monopoly of religious knowledge and to
simplify religious rituals. They were important not for purely
religious reasons but equally for their social implications. They
contributed to the liberation of the individual from conformity
born out of fear and from uncritical submission to the
exploitation of the priests. The dissemination of religious
knowledge through translation of religious texts into vernacular
languages and the right grante d to the laity to interpret
scriptures represented an important initial breach in the
stranglehold of misinterpreted religious dogmas. The
simplification of rituals made worship a more intensely personal
experience without the mediation of intermediaries. The
individual was, thus, encouraged to exercise his freedom.
The socially debilitating influence of the caste system which
perpetuated social distinctions was universally recognized as an
area which called for urgent reform. It was morally and ethically
abhorrent , more importantly, it militated against patriotic feelings
and negated the growth of democratic ideas. Raja Rammohan
Roy initiated, in ideas but not in practice, the opposition which
became loud and clear as the century progressed. Ranade,
Dayana nd and Vivekananda denounced the existing system of
caste in no uncertain terms. While the reform movements
generally stood for its abolition, Dayanand gave a utopian
explanation for chaturvarna (four-fold varna division of Hindu
society) and sought to mai ntain it on the basis of virtue. ‘He
deserves to be a Brahman who has acquired the best knowledge
and character, and an ignorant person is fit to be classed as a
shudra,’ he argued. Understandably the most virulent opposition
to caste came from lower caste movements. Jyotiba Phule and
Narayana Guru were two unrelenting critics of the caste system | <s>[INST]63 | Socio -Religious Reforms and the National Awakening
former. In the rel igious sphere they sought to remove idolatry,
polytheism and priestly monopoly of religious knowledge and to
simplify religious rituals. They were important not for purely
religious reasons but equally for their social implications. They
contributed to the liberation of the individual from conformity
born out of fear and from uncritical submission to the
exploitation of the priests. The dissemination of religious
knowledge through translation of religious texts into vernacular
languages and the right grante d to the laity to interpret
scriptures represented an important initial breach in the
stranglehold of misinterpreted religious dogmas. The
simplification of rituals made worship a more intensely personal
experience without the mediation of intermediaries. The
individual was, thus, encouraged to exercise his freedom.
The socially debilitating influence of the caste system which
perpetuated social distinctions was universally recognized as an
area which called for urgent reform. It was morally and ethically
abhorrent , more importantly, it militated against patriotic feelings
and negated the growth of democratic ideas. Raja Rammohan
Roy initiated, in ideas but not in practice, the opposition which
became loud and clear as the century progressed. Ranade,
Dayana nd and Vivekananda denounced the existing system of
caste in no uncertain terms. While the reform movements
generally stood for its abolition, Dayanand gave a utopian
explanation for chaturvarna (four-fold varna division of Hindu
society) and sought to mai ntain it on the basis of virtue. ‘He
deserves to be a Brahman who has acquired the best knowledge
and character, and an ignorant person is fit to be classed as a
shudra,’ he argued. Understandably the most virulent opposition
to caste came from lower caste movements. Jyotiba Phule and
Narayana Guru were two unrelenting critics of the caste system[/INST] |
Narayana Guru were two unrelenting critics of the caste system
and its consequences. A conversation between Gandhiji and
Narayana Guru is significant. Gandhiji, in an obvious reference
to Chaturvarna and the inherent differenc es in quality between
man and man, observed that all leaves of the same tree are not
identical in shape and texture. To this Narayana Guru pointed
out that the difference is only superficial, but not in essence: the
juice of all leaves of a particular tree would be the same in
content. It was he who gave the call — ‘one religion, one caste
and one God for mankind’ which one of his disciples, Sahadaran | <s>[INST]Narayana Guru were two unrelenting critics of the caste system
and its consequences. A conversation between Gandhiji and
Narayana Guru is significant. Gandhiji, in an obvious reference
to Chaturvarna and the inherent differenc es in quality between
man and man, observed that all leaves of the same tree are not
identical in shape and texture. To this Narayana Guru pointed
out that the difference is only superficial, but not in essence: the
juice of all leaves of a particular tree would be the same in
content. It was he who gave the call — ‘one religion, one caste
and one God for mankind’ which one of his disciples, Sahadaran[/INST] |
64 | India’s S truggle for Independence
Ayyapan, changed into ‘no religion, no caste and no God for
mankind.’
The campaign for the improvement of the condition and
status of women was not a purely humanitarian measure either.
No reform could be really effective without changes in the
domestic conditions, the social space in which the initial
socialization of the individual took place. A crucial role in this
process was played by women. Therefore, there could be no
reformed men and reformed homes without reformed women.
Viewed from the standpoint of women, it was, indeed, a limited
perspective. Nevertheless it was realized that no country could
ever m ake ‘significant progress in civilization whose females were
sunk in ignorance.’
If the reform movements had totally rejected tradition,
Indian society would have easily undergone a process of
westernization. But the reformers were aiming at modernization
rather than westernization. A blind initiation of western cultural
norms was never an integral part of reform.
To initiate and undertake these reforms which today appear
to be modest, weak and limited was not an easy proposition. It
brought about unprece dented mental agony and untold domestic
and social tension. Breaking the bonds of tradition created
emotional and sentimental crises for men and women caught
between two worlds. The first widow marriage in Bengal attracted
thousands of curious spectators. To the first such couple in
Maharashtra the police had to give lathis to protect themselves!
Rukmabhai, who refused to accept her uneducated and
unaccomplished husband, virtually unleashed a storm. Faced
with the prospect of marrying a young girl much agai nst his
conviction, R anade spent several sleepless nights. So did
Lokahitavadi, Telang and a host of others who were torn between
traditional sentiments and modern commitments. Several
however succumbed to the former, but it was out of this struggle
that the new men and the new society evolved in India.
* | <s>[INST]64 | India’s S truggle for Independence
Ayyapan, changed into ‘no religion, no caste and no God for
mankind.’
The campaign for the improvement of the condition and
status of women was not a purely humanitarian measure either.
No reform could be really effective without changes in the
domestic conditions, the social space in which the initial
socialization of the individual took place. A crucial role in this
process was played by women. Therefore, there could be no
reformed men and reformed homes without reformed women.
Viewed from the standpoint of women, it was, indeed, a limited
perspective. Nevertheless it was realized that no country could
ever m ake ‘significant progress in civilization whose females were
sunk in ignorance.’
If the reform movements had totally rejected tradition,
Indian society would have easily undergone a process of
westernization. But the reformers were aiming at modernization
rather than westernization. A blind initiation of western cultural
norms was never an integral part of reform.
To initiate and undertake these reforms which today appear
to be modest, weak and limited was not an easy proposition. It
brought about unprece dented mental agony and untold domestic
and social tension. Breaking the bonds of tradition created
emotional and sentimental crises for men and women caught
between two worlds. The first widow marriage in Bengal attracted
thousands of curious spectators. To the first such couple in
Maharashtra the police had to give lathis to protect themselves!
Rukmabhai, who refused to accept her uneducated and
unaccomplished husband, virtually unleashed a storm. Faced
with the prospect of marrying a young girl much agai nst his
conviction, R anade spent several sleepless nights. So did
Lokahitavadi, Telang and a host of others who were torn between
traditional sentiments and modern commitments. Several
however succumbed to the former, but it was out of this struggle
that the new men and the new society evolved in India.
*[/INST] |
that the new men and the new society evolved in India.
*
Faced with the challenge of the intrusion of colonial culture
and ideology, an attempt to reinvigorate traditional institutions | <s>[INST]that the new men and the new society evolved in India.
*
Faced with the challenge of the intrusion of colonial culture
and ideology, an attempt to reinvigorate traditional institutions[/INST] |
65 | Socio -Religious Reforms and the National Awakening
and to realize the potential of traditional culture developed during
the ni neteenth century. The initial expression of the struggle
against colonial domination manifested itself in the realm of
culture as a result of the fact that the principles on which the
colonial state functioned were not more retrogressive than those
of the pre-colonial state. All intrusions into the cultural realm
were more intensely felt. Therefore, a defence of indigenous
culture developed almost simultaneously with the colonial
conquest.
This concern embraced the entire cultural existence, the
way of lif e and all signifying practices like language, religion, art
and philosophy. Two features characterized this concern; the
creation of an alternate cultural -ideological system and the
regeneration of traditional institutions. The cultivation of
vernacular languages , the creation of an alternate system of
education, the efforts to regenerate Indian art and literature, the
emphasis on Indian dress and food, the defence of religion and
the attempts to revitalize the Indian system of medicine, the
attempt to prob e the potentialities of pre -colonial technology and
to reconstruct traditional knowledge were some of the
expressions of this concern. The early inklings of this can be
discerned in Raja Rammohan Roy’s debates with the Christian
missionaries, in the format ion and activities of Tattvabodhini
Sabha, in the memorial on education signed by 70,000
inhabitants of Madras and in the general rese ntment against the
Lex Loci Act (the Act proposed in 1845 and passed in 1850
provided the right to inherit ancestral prope rty to Hindu converts
to Christianity). A more definite articulation, however, was in the
ideas and activities of later movements generally characterized as
conservative and revivalist. Strongly native in tendency, they
were clearly influenced by the need to defend indigenous culture | <s>[INST]65 | Socio -Religious Reforms and the National Awakening
and to realize the potential of traditional culture developed during
the ni neteenth century. The initial expression of the struggle
against colonial domination manifested itself in the realm of
culture as a result of the fact that the principles on which the
colonial state functioned were not more retrogressive than those
of the pre-colonial state. All intrusions into the cultural realm
were more intensely felt. Therefore, a defence of indigenous
culture developed almost simultaneously with the colonial
conquest.
This concern embraced the entire cultural existence, the
way of lif e and all signifying practices like language, religion, art
and philosophy. Two features characterized this concern; the
creation of an alternate cultural -ideological system and the
regeneration of traditional institutions. The cultivation of
vernacular languages , the creation of an alternate system of
education, the efforts to regenerate Indian art and literature, the
emphasis on Indian dress and food, the defence of religion and
the attempts to revitalize the Indian system of medicine, the
attempt to prob e the potentialities of pre -colonial technology and
to reconstruct traditional knowledge were some of the
expressions of this concern. The early inklings of this can be
discerned in Raja Rammohan Roy’s debates with the Christian
missionaries, in the format ion and activities of Tattvabodhini
Sabha, in the memorial on education signed by 70,000
inhabitants of Madras and in the general rese ntment against the
Lex Loci Act (the Act proposed in 1845 and passed in 1850
provided the right to inherit ancestral prope rty to Hindu converts
to Christianity). A more definite articulation, however, was in the
ideas and activities of later movements generally characterized as
conservative and revivalist. Strongly native in tendency, they
were clearly influenced by the need to defend indigenous culture[/INST] |
against colonial cultural hegemony. In this specific historical
sense, they were not necessarily retrogressive, for underlying
these efforts was the concern with the revival of the cultural
personality, distorted, if not destro yed, by colonial domination.
More so because it formed an integral element in the formation of
national consciousness. Some of these tendencies however, were
not able to transcend the limits of historical necessity and led to
a sectarian and obscurantist o utlook. This was possibly a
consequence of the lack of integration between the cultural and | <s>[INST]against colonial cultural hegemony. In this specific historical
sense, they were not necessarily retrogressive, for underlying
these efforts was the concern with the revival of the cultural
personality, distorted, if not destro yed, by colonial domination.
More so because it formed an integral element in the formation of
national consciousness. Some of these tendencies however, were
not able to transcend the limits of historical necessity and led to
a sectarian and obscurantist o utlook. This was possibly a
consequence of the lack of integration between the cultural and[/INST] |
66 | India’s S truggle for Independence
political struggles, resulting in cultural backwardness, despite
political advance.
The cultural -ideological struggle, represented by the socio -
religious movements , was an integral part of the evolving national
consciousness. This was so because it was instrumental in
bringing about the initial intellectual and cultural break which
made a new vision of the future possible. Second, it was a part of
the resistance aga inst colonial cultural and ideological hegemony.
Out of this dual struggle evolved the modern cultural situation:
new men, new homes and a new society. | <s>[INST]66 | India’s S truggle for Independence
political struggles, resulting in cultural backwardness, despite
political advance.
The cultural -ideological struggle, represented by the socio -
religious movements , was an integral part of the evolving national
consciousness. This was so because it was instrumental in
bringing about the initial intellectual and cultural break which
made a new vision of the future possible. Second, it was a part of
the resistance aga inst colonial cultural and ideological hegemony.
Out of this dual struggle evolved the modern cultural situation:
new men, new homes and a new society.[/INST] |
67 | An Economic Critiqu e of Colonialism
CHAPTER 7. AN ECONOMIC CRITIQUE
OF COLONIALISM
Of all the national movements in colonial countries, the
Indian national movement was the most deeply and firmly rooted
in an understanding of the nature and character of colonial
economic domination and exploitation. Its early leaders, known
as Moderates, were the first in the 19th cent ury to develop an
economic critique of colonialism. This critique was, also, perhaps
their most important contribution to the development of the
national movement in India — and the themes built around it
were later popularized on a massive scale and forme d the very
pith and marrow of the nationalist agitation through popular
lectures, pamphlets, newspapers, dramas, songs, and prabhat
pheries.
Indian intellectuals of the first half of the 19th century had
adopted a positive attitude towards British rule in the hope that
Britain, the most advanced nation of the time, would help
modernize India. In the economic realm, Britain, the emerging
industrial giant of the world, was expected to develop India’s
productive forces through the introduction of modern scien ces
and technology and capitalist economic organization. It is not
that the early Indian nationalists were unaware of the many
political, psychological and economic disabilities of foreign
domination, but they still supported colonial rule as they
expected it to rebuild India as a spit image of the Western
metropolis.
The process of disillusionment set in gradually after 1860 as
the reality of social development in India failed to conform to
their hopes. They began to notice that while progress in new
directions was slow and halting; overall the country was
regressing and underdeveloping. Gradually, their image of British
rule began to take on darker hues; and they began to probe
deeper into the reality of British rule and its impact on India.
Three names stand out among the large number of Indians | <s>[INST]67 | An Economic Critiqu e of Colonialism
CHAPTER 7. AN ECONOMIC CRITIQUE
OF COLONIALISM
Of all the national movements in colonial countries, the
Indian national movement was the most deeply and firmly rooted
in an understanding of the nature and character of colonial
economic domination and exploitation. Its early leaders, known
as Moderates, were the first in the 19th cent ury to develop an
economic critique of colonialism. This critique was, also, perhaps
their most important contribution to the development of the
national movement in India — and the themes built around it
were later popularized on a massive scale and forme d the very
pith and marrow of the nationalist agitation through popular
lectures, pamphlets, newspapers, dramas, songs, and prabhat
pheries.
Indian intellectuals of the first half of the 19th century had
adopted a positive attitude towards British rule in the hope that
Britain, the most advanced nation of the time, would help
modernize India. In the economic realm, Britain, the emerging
industrial giant of the world, was expected to develop India’s
productive forces through the introduction of modern scien ces
and technology and capitalist economic organization. It is not
that the early Indian nationalists were unaware of the many
political, psychological and economic disabilities of foreign
domination, but they still supported colonial rule as they
expected it to rebuild India as a spit image of the Western
metropolis.
The process of disillusionment set in gradually after 1860 as
the reality of social development in India failed to conform to
their hopes. They began to notice that while progress in new
directions was slow and halting; overall the country was
regressing and underdeveloping. Gradually, their image of British
rule began to take on darker hues; and they began to probe
deeper into the reality of British rule and its impact on India.
Three names stand out among the large number of Indians[/INST] |
Three names stand out among the large number of Indians
who initiated and carried out the economic analysis of British | <s>[INST]Three names stand out among the large number of Indians
who initiated and carried out the economic analysis of British[/INST] |
68 | India’s S truggle for Independence
rule during the years 1870 -1905. The tallest of the three was
Dadabhai Naoroji, known in the pre -Gandhian era as the Grand
Old Man of India. Born in 1825, he became a successful
businessman but devoted his entire life and wealth to the
creation of a national movement in India. His near contemporary
Justice Mahadev Govind Ranade, taught an entire generation of
Indians the value of modem industrial devel opment. Romesh
Chandra Dutt, a retired ICS officer, published The Economic
History of India at the beginning of the 20th century in which he
examined in minute detail the entire economic record of colonial
rule since 1757.
These three leaders along with G .V. Joshi, G. Subramaniya
lyer, G.K. Gokhale, Prithwis Chandra Ray and hundreds of other
political workers and journalists analysed every aspect of the
economy and subjected the entire range of economic issues and
colonial economic policies to minute scrut iny. They raised basic
questions regarding the nature and purpose of British rule.
Eventually, they were able to trace the process of the
colonialization of the Indian economy and conclude that
colonialism was the main obstacle to India’s economic
developm ent.
They clearly understood the fact that the essence of British
imperialism lay in the subordination of the Indian economy to the
British economy. They delineated the colonial structure in all its
three aspects of domination through trade, industry and f inance.
They were able to see that colonialism no longer functioned
through the crude tools of plunder and tribute and mercantilisin
but operated through the more disguised and complex
mechanism of free trade and foreign capital investment. The
essence of 19th century colonialism, they said, lay in the
transformation of India into a supplier of food stuffs and raw
materials to the metropolis, a market for the metropolitan
manufacturers, and a field for the investment of British capital. | <s>[INST]68 | India’s S truggle for Independence
rule during the years 1870 -1905. The tallest of the three was
Dadabhai Naoroji, known in the pre -Gandhian era as the Grand
Old Man of India. Born in 1825, he became a successful
businessman but devoted his entire life and wealth to the
creation of a national movement in India. His near contemporary
Justice Mahadev Govind Ranade, taught an entire generation of
Indians the value of modem industrial devel opment. Romesh
Chandra Dutt, a retired ICS officer, published The Economic
History of India at the beginning of the 20th century in which he
examined in minute detail the entire economic record of colonial
rule since 1757.
These three leaders along with G .V. Joshi, G. Subramaniya
lyer, G.K. Gokhale, Prithwis Chandra Ray and hundreds of other
political workers and journalists analysed every aspect of the
economy and subjected the entire range of economic issues and
colonial economic policies to minute scrut iny. They raised basic
questions regarding the nature and purpose of British rule.
Eventually, they were able to trace the process of the
colonialization of the Indian economy and conclude that
colonialism was the main obstacle to India’s economic
developm ent.
They clearly understood the fact that the essence of British
imperialism lay in the subordination of the Indian economy to the
British economy. They delineated the colonial structure in all its
three aspects of domination through trade, industry and f inance.
They were able to see that colonialism no longer functioned
through the crude tools of plunder and tribute and mercantilisin
but operated through the more disguised and complex
mechanism of free trade and foreign capital investment. The
essence of 19th century colonialism, they said, lay in the
transformation of India into a supplier of food stuffs and raw
materials to the metropolis, a market for the metropolitan
manufacturers, and a field for the investment of British capital.[/INST] |
The early Indian na tional leaders were simultaneously
learners and teachers. They organized powerful intellectual
agitations against nearly all the important official economic
policies. They used these agitations to both understand and to
explain to others the basis of these policies in the colonial
structure. They advocated the severance of India’s economic | <s>[INST]The early Indian na tional leaders were simultaneously
learners and teachers. They organized powerful intellectual
agitations against nearly all the important official economic
policies. They used these agitations to both understand and to
explain to others the basis of these policies in the colonial
structure. They advocated the severance of India’s economic[/INST] |
69 | An Economic Critiqu e of Colonialism
subservience to Britain in every sphere of life and agitated for an
alternative path of development which would lead to an
independent economy. An important feature of th is agitation was
the use of bold, hard - hitting and colourful language.
*
The nationalist economic agitation started with the
assertion that Indians were poor and were growing poorer every
day. Dadabhai Naoroji made poverty his special subject and
spent h is entire life awakening the Ind ian and British public to
the ‘c ontinuous impoverishment and exhaustion of the country ’
and ‘the wretched, heart -rending, blood -boiling condition of
India.’ Day after day he declaimed from public platforms and in
the Press t hat the Indian ‘is starving, he is dying off at the
slightest touch, living on insufficient food.”
The early nationalists did not see this all -encompassing
poverty as inherent and unavoidable, a visitation from God or
nature. It was seen as man -made and, therefore, capable of being
explained and removed. As R.C. Du tt put it: ‘If India is poor
today, it is through the operation of economic causes.’ In the
course of their search for the causes of India’s poverty, the
nationalists underlined factors and force s which had been
brought into play by the colonial rulers and the colonial
structure.
The problem of poverty was, moreover, seen as the problem
of increasing of the ‘productive capacity and energy’ of the people,
in other words as the problem of national development . This
approach made poverty a broad national issue and helped to
unite, instead of divide, different regions and sections of Indian
society.
Economic development was seen above all as the rapid
development of modern industry. The early national ists accepted
with remarkable unanimity that the complete economic
transformation of the country on the basis of modem technology
and capitalist enterprise was the primary goal of all their | <s>[INST]69 | An Economic Critiqu e of Colonialism
subservience to Britain in every sphere of life and agitated for an
alternative path of development which would lead to an
independent economy. An important feature of th is agitation was
the use of bold, hard - hitting and colourful language.
*
The nationalist economic agitation started with the
assertion that Indians were poor and were growing poorer every
day. Dadabhai Naoroji made poverty his special subject and
spent h is entire life awakening the Ind ian and British public to
the ‘c ontinuous impoverishment and exhaustion of the country ’
and ‘the wretched, heart -rending, blood -boiling condition of
India.’ Day after day he declaimed from public platforms and in
the Press t hat the Indian ‘is starving, he is dying off at the
slightest touch, living on insufficient food.”
The early nationalists did not see this all -encompassing
poverty as inherent and unavoidable, a visitation from God or
nature. It was seen as man -made and, therefore, capable of being
explained and removed. As R.C. Du tt put it: ‘If India is poor
today, it is through the operation of economic causes.’ In the
course of their search for the causes of India’s poverty, the
nationalists underlined factors and force s which had been
brought into play by the colonial rulers and the colonial
structure.
The problem of poverty was, moreover, seen as the problem
of increasing of the ‘productive capacity and energy’ of the people,
in other words as the problem of national development . This
approach made poverty a broad national issue and helped to
unite, instead of divide, different regions and sections of Indian
society.
Economic development was seen above all as the rapid
development of modern industry. The early national ists accepted
with remarkable unanimity that the complete economic
transformation of the country on the basis of modem technology
and capitalist enterprise was the primary goal of all their[/INST] |
and capitalist enterprise was the primary goal of all their
economic policies. Industrialism, it was further believed,
represe nted, to quote G.V. Joshi, ‘a superior type and a higher
stage of civilization;’ or, in the words of Ranade, factories could | <s>[INST]and capitalist enterprise was the primary goal of all their
economic policies. Industrialism, it was further believed,
represe nted, to quote G.V. Joshi, ‘a superior type and a higher
stage of civilization;’ or, in the words of Ranade, factories could[/INST] |
70 | India’s S truggle for Independence
‘far more effectively than Schools and Colleges give a new birth to
the activities of the Nation.’ Modem industry was also seen as a
major force which could help unite the diverse peoples of India
into a single national entity having common interests.
Surendranath Banerjea’s newspaper the Bengalee made the point
on 18 January 1902: ‘The agitation for political rights may bind
the vari ous nationalities of India together for a time. The
community of interests may cease when these rights are
achieved. But the commercial union of the various Indian
nationalities, once established, will never cease to exist.
Commercial and industrial activi ty is, therefore, a bond of very
strong union and is, therefore, a mighty factor in the formation of
a great Indian union.’
Consequently, because of their whole -hearted devotion to
the cause of industrialization, the early nationalists looked upon
all oth er issues such as foreign trade, railways, tariffs, currency
and exchange, finance, and labour legislation in relation to this
paramount aspect.
*
At the same time, nearly all the early nationalists were clear
on one question: However great the need of In dia for
industrialization, it had to be based on Indian capital and not
foreign capital. Ever since the1840s, British economists,
statesman and officials had seen the investment of foreign
capital, along with law and order, as the major instrument for the
development of India. John Stuart Mill and Alfred Marshall had
put forward this view in their economic treatises. In 1899, Lord
Curzon, the Viceroy, said that foreign capital was ‘a sine qua non
to the national advancement’ of India.
The early nationalists disagreed vehemently with this view.
They saw foreign capital as an unmitigated evil which did not
develop a country but exploited and impoverished it. Or, as
Dadabhai Naoroji popularly put it, foreign capital represented the
‘despoilation’ and ‘exploitat ion’ of Indian resources. Similarly, the | <s>[INST]70 | India’s S truggle for Independence
‘far more effectively than Schools and Colleges give a new birth to
the activities of the Nation.’ Modem industry was also seen as a
major force which could help unite the diverse peoples of India
into a single national entity having common interests.
Surendranath Banerjea’s newspaper the Bengalee made the point
on 18 January 1902: ‘The agitation for political rights may bind
the vari ous nationalities of India together for a time. The
community of interests may cease when these rights are
achieved. But the commercial union of the various Indian
nationalities, once established, will never cease to exist.
Commercial and industrial activi ty is, therefore, a bond of very
strong union and is, therefore, a mighty factor in the formation of
a great Indian union.’
Consequently, because of their whole -hearted devotion to
the cause of industrialization, the early nationalists looked upon
all oth er issues such as foreign trade, railways, tariffs, currency
and exchange, finance, and labour legislation in relation to this
paramount aspect.
*
At the same time, nearly all the early nationalists were clear
on one question: However great the need of In dia for
industrialization, it had to be based on Indian capital and not
foreign capital. Ever since the1840s, British economists,
statesman and officials had seen the investment of foreign
capital, along with law and order, as the major instrument for the
development of India. John Stuart Mill and Alfred Marshall had
put forward this view in their economic treatises. In 1899, Lord
Curzon, the Viceroy, said that foreign capital was ‘a sine qua non
to the national advancement’ of India.
The early nationalists disagreed vehemently with this view.
They saw foreign capital as an unmitigated evil which did not
develop a country but exploited and impoverished it. Or, as
Dadabhai Naoroji popularly put it, foreign capital represented the
‘despoilation’ and ‘exploitat ion’ of Indian resources. Similarly, the[/INST] |
editor of the Hindustan Review and Kayastha Samachar
described the use of foreign capital as ‘a system of international
depradation. ‘ | <s>[INST]editor of the Hindustan Review and Kayastha Samachar
described the use of foreign capital as ‘a system of international
depradation. ‘[/INST] |
71 | An Economic Critiqu e of Colonialism
They further argued that instead of encouraging and
augmenting Indian capital fo reign capital replaced and
suppressed it, led to the drain of capital from India and further
strengthened the British hold over the Indian economy. To try to
develop a country through foreign capital, they said, was to
barter the entire future for the pett y gains of today. Bipin
Chandra Pal summed up the nationalist point of view in 1901 as
follows: ‘The introduction of foreign, and mostly British, capital
for working out the natural resources of the Country, instead of
being a help, is, in fact, the greate st of hindrances to all real
improvements in the economic condition of the people. It is as
much a political, as it is an economic danger. And the future of
New India absolutely depends upon as early and radical remedy
of this two -edged evil.’
In essence, the early nationalists asserted that genuine
economic development was possible only if Indian capital itself
initiated and developed the process of industrialization. Foreign
capital would neither undertake nor could it fulfill this task.
According to the early nationalists, the political
consequences of foreign capital investment were no less harmful
for the penetration of a country by foreign capital inevitably led to
its political subjugation. Foreign capital investment created
vested interests which de manded security for investors and,
therefore, pert foreign rule. ‘Where foreign capital has been sunk
in a country,’ wrote the Hindu in its issue dated 23 September
1889, ‘the administration of that country becomes at once the
concern of the bondholders.’ It added: ‘(if) the influence of foreign
capitalists in the land is allowed to increase, then adieu to all
chances of success of the Indian National Congress whose voice
will be drowned in the tremendous uproar of “the empire in
danger” that will surely be raised by the foreign capitalists.’
* | <s>[INST]71 | An Economic Critiqu e of Colonialism
They further argued that instead of encouraging and
augmenting Indian capital fo reign capital replaced and
suppressed it, led to the drain of capital from India and further
strengthened the British hold over the Indian economy. To try to
develop a country through foreign capital, they said, was to
barter the entire future for the pett y gains of today. Bipin
Chandra Pal summed up the nationalist point of view in 1901 as
follows: ‘The introduction of foreign, and mostly British, capital
for working out the natural resources of the Country, instead of
being a help, is, in fact, the greate st of hindrances to all real
improvements in the economic condition of the people. It is as
much a political, as it is an economic danger. And the future of
New India absolutely depends upon as early and radical remedy
of this two -edged evil.’
In essence, the early nationalists asserted that genuine
economic development was possible only if Indian capital itself
initiated and developed the process of industrialization. Foreign
capital would neither undertake nor could it fulfill this task.
According to the early nationalists, the political
consequences of foreign capital investment were no less harmful
for the penetration of a country by foreign capital inevitably led to
its political subjugation. Foreign capital investment created
vested interests which de manded security for investors and,
therefore, pert foreign rule. ‘Where foreign capital has been sunk
in a country,’ wrote the Hindu in its issue dated 23 September
1889, ‘the administration of that country becomes at once the
concern of the bondholders.’ It added: ‘(if) the influence of foreign
capitalists in the land is allowed to increase, then adieu to all
chances of success of the Indian National Congress whose voice
will be drowned in the tremendous uproar of “the empire in
danger” that will surely be raised by the foreign capitalists.’
*[/INST] |
*
A major problem the early nationalists highlighted was that
of the progressive decline and ruin of India’s traditional
handicrafts. Nor was this industrial prostration accidental they
said. It was the result of the d eliberate policy of stamping out
Indian industries in the interests of British manufacturers. | <s>[INST]*
A major problem the early nationalists highlighted was that
of the progressive decline and ruin of India’s traditional
handicrafts. Nor was this industrial prostration accidental they
said. It was the result of the d eliberate policy of stamping out
Indian industries in the interests of British manufacturers.[/INST] |
72 | India’s S truggle for Independence
The British administrators, on the other hand, pointed with
pride to the rapid growth of India’s foreign trade and the rapid
construction of railways as instrume nts of India’s development as
well as proof of its growing prosperity However, the nationalists
said that because of their negative impact on indigenous
industries, foreign trade and railways represented not economic
development but colonialization and Und erdevelopment of the
economy. What mattered in the case of foreign trade, they
maintained, was not its volume but its pattern or the nature of
goods internationally exchanged and their impact on national
industry and agriculture. And this pattern had under gone drastic
changes during the 19th Century, the bias being overwhelmingly
towards the export of raw materials and the import of
manufactured goods.
Similarly, the early nationalists pointed out that the
railways had not been coordinated with India’s ind ustrial needs.
They had therefore, ushered in a commercial and not an
industrial revolution which enabled imported foreign goods to
undersell domestic industrial products. Moreover, they said that
the benefits of railway construction in terms of encouragem ent to
the steel and machine industry and to capital investment — what
today we would call backward and forward linkages — had been
reaped by Britain and not India. In fact, remarked G.V. Joshi,
expenditure on railways should be seen as Indian subsidy to
British industries.’ Or, as Tilak put it, it was like ‘decorating
another’s wife.”
According to the early nationalists, a major obstacle to rapid
industrial development was the policy of free trade which was, on
the one hand, ruining India’s handicraft ind ustries and, on the
other, forcing the infant and underdeveloped modem industries
into a premature and unequal and, hence, unfair and disastrous
competition with the highly organized and developed industries of | <s>[INST]72 | India’s S truggle for Independence
The British administrators, on the other hand, pointed with
pride to the rapid growth of India’s foreign trade and the rapid
construction of railways as instrume nts of India’s development as
well as proof of its growing prosperity However, the nationalists
said that because of their negative impact on indigenous
industries, foreign trade and railways represented not economic
development but colonialization and Und erdevelopment of the
economy. What mattered in the case of foreign trade, they
maintained, was not its volume but its pattern or the nature of
goods internationally exchanged and their impact on national
industry and agriculture. And this pattern had under gone drastic
changes during the 19th Century, the bias being overwhelmingly
towards the export of raw materials and the import of
manufactured goods.
Similarly, the early nationalists pointed out that the
railways had not been coordinated with India’s ind ustrial needs.
They had therefore, ushered in a commercial and not an
industrial revolution which enabled imported foreign goods to
undersell domestic industrial products. Moreover, they said that
the benefits of railway construction in terms of encouragem ent to
the steel and machine industry and to capital investment — what
today we would call backward and forward linkages — had been
reaped by Britain and not India. In fact, remarked G.V. Joshi,
expenditure on railways should be seen as Indian subsidy to
British industries.’ Or, as Tilak put it, it was like ‘decorating
another’s wife.”
According to the early nationalists, a major obstacle to rapid
industrial development was the policy of free trade which was, on
the one hand, ruining India’s handicraft ind ustries and, on the
other, forcing the infant and underdeveloped modem industries
into a premature and unequal and, hence, unfair and disastrous
competition with the highly organized and developed industries of[/INST] |
the West. The tariff policy of the Government convinced the
nationalists that British economic policies in India were basically
guided by the interests of the British capitalist class.
The early nationalists strongly criticized the colonial pattern of
finance. Taxes were so raised, they averred, as to overburden the
poor while letting the rich, especially the foreign capitalists and
bureaucrats, go scot -free. To vitiate this, they demanded the
reduction of land revenue and abolition of the salt tax and | <s>[INST]the West. The tariff policy of the Government convinced the
nationalists that British economic policies in India were basically
guided by the interests of the British capitalist class.
The early nationalists strongly criticized the colonial pattern of
finance. Taxes were so raised, they averred, as to overburden the
poor while letting the rich, especially the foreign capitalists and
bureaucrats, go scot -free. To vitiate this, they demanded the
reduction of land revenue and abolition of the salt tax and[/INST] |
73 | An Economic Critiqu e of Colonialism
supported the imposition of income tax and impor t duties on
products which the rich and the middle classes consumed.
On the expenditure side, they pointed out that the emphasis
was on serving Britain’s imperial needs while the developmental
and welfare departments were starved. In particular, they
condemned the high expenditure on the army which was used by
the British to conquer and maintain imperialist control over large
parts of Asia and Africa.
*
The focal point of the nationalist critique of colonialism was
the drain theory.’ The nationalist leade rs pointed out that a large
part of India’s capital and wealth was being transferred or
‘drained’ to Britain in the form of salaries and pensions of British
civil and military officials working in India , interest on loans
taken by the Indian Government, pr ofits of British capitalists in
India, and the Home Charges or expenses of the Indian
Government in Britain.
The drain took the form of an excess of exports over imports
for which India got no economic or material return. According to
the nationalist calc ulations, this drain amount to one -half of
government revenues, more than the entire land revenue
collection and over one -third of India’s total savings. (In today’s
terms this would amount to eight per cent of India’s national
income).
The acknowledged h igh-priest of the drain theory was
Dadabhai Naoroji. It was in May 1867 that Dadabhai Naoroji put
forward the idea that Britain was draining and ‘bleeding’ India.
From then on for nearly half a century he launched a raging
campaign against the drain, hamme ring at the theme through
every possible form of public communication .
The drain, he declared, was the basic cause of India’s
poverty and the fundamental evil of British rule in India. Thus,
he argued in 1880: it is not the pitiless operations of economic
laws, but it is the thoughtless and pitiless action of the British | <s>[INST]73 | An Economic Critiqu e of Colonialism
supported the imposition of income tax and impor t duties on
products which the rich and the middle classes consumed.
On the expenditure side, they pointed out that the emphasis
was on serving Britain’s imperial needs while the developmental
and welfare departments were starved. In particular, they
condemned the high expenditure on the army which was used by
the British to conquer and maintain imperialist control over large
parts of Asia and Africa.
*
The focal point of the nationalist critique of colonialism was
the drain theory.’ The nationalist leade rs pointed out that a large
part of India’s capital and wealth was being transferred or
‘drained’ to Britain in the form of salaries and pensions of British
civil and military officials working in India , interest on loans
taken by the Indian Government, pr ofits of British capitalists in
India, and the Home Charges or expenses of the Indian
Government in Britain.
The drain took the form of an excess of exports over imports
for which India got no economic or material return. According to
the nationalist calc ulations, this drain amount to one -half of
government revenues, more than the entire land revenue
collection and over one -third of India’s total savings. (In today’s
terms this would amount to eight per cent of India’s national
income).
The acknowledged h igh-priest of the drain theory was
Dadabhai Naoroji. It was in May 1867 that Dadabhai Naoroji put
forward the idea that Britain was draining and ‘bleeding’ India.
From then on for nearly half a century he launched a raging
campaign against the drain, hamme ring at the theme through
every possible form of public communication .
The drain, he declared, was the basic cause of India’s
poverty and the fundamental evil of British rule in India. Thus,
he argued in 1880: it is not the pitiless operations of economic
laws, but it is the thoughtless and pitiless action of the British[/INST] |
policy; it is the pitiless eating of India’s substance in India, and
the further pitiless drain to England; in short, it is the pitiless | <s>[INST]policy; it is the pitiless eating of India’s substance in India, and
the further pitiless drain to England; in short, it is the pitiless[/INST] |
74 | India’s S truggle for Independence
perversion of economic laws by the sad bleeding to which India is
subject ed, that is destroying India.’
Other nationalist leaders, journalists and propagandists
followed in the foot -steps of Dadabhai Naoroji. R.C. Dutt, for
example, made the drain the major theme of his Economic History
of India. He protes ted that ‘taxation raised by a king, says the
Indian poet, is like the moisture sucked up by the sun, to be
returned to the earth as fertilizing rain; but the moisture raised
from the Indian soil now descends as fertilizing rain largely on
other lands, not on India. . . So great an Economic Drain out of
the resources of a land would impoverish the most prosperous
countries on earth; it has reduced India to a land of famines
more frequent, more widespread, and more fatal, than any known
before in the history of India, or of the world.’
The drain theory incorporated all the threads of the
nationalist critique of Colonialism, for the drain denuded India of
the productive capital its agriculture and industries so
desperat ely needed. Indeed, the drain theory was the high water -
mark of the nationalist leaders’ comprehensive, interrelated and
integrated economic analysis of the colonial situation. Through
the drain theory, the exploitative character of British rule could
be made Visible. By attacking the drain, the nationalists were
able to call into question in an uncompromising manner, the
economic essence of imperialism.
Moreover, the drain theory possessed the great political
merit of
being easily grasped by a nation of peasants. Money being
transferred from on e country to another was the most easily
understood of the theories of economic exploitation, for the
peasant daily underwent this experience vis -a-vis the state,
landlords, moneylenders, lawyers and priests. No other idea
could arouse people more than the thought that they were being
taxed so that others in far off lands might live in comfort. | <s>[INST]74 | India’s S truggle for Independence
perversion of economic laws by the sad bleeding to which India is
subject ed, that is destroying India.’
Other nationalist leaders, journalists and propagandists
followed in the foot -steps of Dadabhai Naoroji. R.C. Dutt, for
example, made the drain the major theme of his Economic History
of India. He protes ted that ‘taxation raised by a king, says the
Indian poet, is like the moisture sucked up by the sun, to be
returned to the earth as fertilizing rain; but the moisture raised
from the Indian soil now descends as fertilizing rain largely on
other lands, not on India. . . So great an Economic Drain out of
the resources of a land would impoverish the most prosperous
countries on earth; it has reduced India to a land of famines
more frequent, more widespread, and more fatal, than any known
before in the history of India, or of the world.’
The drain theory incorporated all the threads of the
nationalist critique of Colonialism, for the drain denuded India of
the productive capital its agriculture and industries so
desperat ely needed. Indeed, the drain theory was the high water -
mark of the nationalist leaders’ comprehensive, interrelated and
integrated economic analysis of the colonial situation. Through
the drain theory, the exploitative character of British rule could
be made Visible. By attacking the drain, the nationalists were
able to call into question in an uncompromising manner, the
economic essence of imperialism.
Moreover, the drain theory possessed the great political
merit of
being easily grasped by a nation of peasants. Money being
transferred from on e country to another was the most easily
understood of the theories of economic exploitation, for the
peasant daily underwent this experience vis -a-vis the state,
landlords, moneylenders, lawyers and priests. No other idea
could arouse people more than the thought that they were being
taxed so that others in far off lands might live in comfort.[/INST] |
taxed so that others in far off lands might live in comfort.
‘No drain’ was the type of slogan that all successful
movements need — it did not have to be proved by sophisticated
and complex arguments. It had a sort of immanen t quality about
it; it was practically self -evident. Nor could the foreign rulers do
anything to appease the people on this question. Modem
colonialism was inseparable from the drain. The contradiction | <s>[INST]taxed so that others in far off lands might live in comfort.
‘No drain’ was the type of slogan that all successful
movements need — it did not have to be proved by sophisticated
and complex arguments. It had a sort of immanen t quality about
it; it was practically self -evident. Nor could the foreign rulers do
anything to appease the people on this question. Modem
colonialism was inseparable from the drain. The contradiction[/INST] |
75 | An Economic Critiqu e of Colonialism
between the Indian people and British imperialism was seen by
people to be insoluble except by the overthrow of British rule. It
was, therefore, inevitable that the drain theory became the main
staple of nationalist political agitation during the Gandhian era.
*
This agitation on economic issues contributed to the
undermining of the ideological hegemony of the alien rulers over
Indian minds, that is, of the foundations of colonial rule in the
minds of the people. Any regime is politically secure only so long
as the people have a basic faith in its moral purpo se, in its
benevolent character — that is, they believe that the rulers are
basically motivated by the desire to work for their welfare. It is
this belief which leads them to support the regime or to at least
acquiesce in its continuation. It provides legi timacy to a regime in
this belief lie its moral foundations.
The secret of British power in India lay not only in physical
force but also in moral force, that is; in the belief sedulously
inculcated by the rulers for over a century that the British were
the Mai-Baap of the common people of India — the first lesson in
primary school language textbooks was most often on ‘the
benefits of British rule.’ The nationalist economic agitation
gradually undermined these moral foundations. It corroded
popular confide nce in the benevolent character of British rule —
in its good results as well as its good intentions.
The economic development of India was offered as the chief
justification for British rule by the imperialist rulers and
spokesmen. The Indian nationalist s controverted it forcefully and
asserted that India was economically backward precisely because
the British were ruling it in the interests of British trade,
industry and capital, and that poverty and backwardness were
the inevitable Consequences of colon ial rule. Tilak’s newspaper,
the Kesari, for example, wrote on 28 January 1896: ‘Surely India | <s>[INST]75 | An Economic Critiqu e of Colonialism
between the Indian people and British imperialism was seen by
people to be insoluble except by the overthrow of British rule. It
was, therefore, inevitable that the drain theory became the main
staple of nationalist political agitation during the Gandhian era.
*
This agitation on economic issues contributed to the
undermining of the ideological hegemony of the alien rulers over
Indian minds, that is, of the foundations of colonial rule in the
minds of the people. Any regime is politically secure only so long
as the people have a basic faith in its moral purpo se, in its
benevolent character — that is, they believe that the rulers are
basically motivated by the desire to work for their welfare. It is
this belief which leads them to support the regime or to at least
acquiesce in its continuation. It provides legi timacy to a regime in
this belief lie its moral foundations.
The secret of British power in India lay not only in physical
force but also in moral force, that is; in the belief sedulously
inculcated by the rulers for over a century that the British were
the Mai-Baap of the common people of India — the first lesson in
primary school language textbooks was most often on ‘the
benefits of British rule.’ The nationalist economic agitation
gradually undermined these moral foundations. It corroded
popular confide nce in the benevolent character of British rule —
in its good results as well as its good intentions.
The economic development of India was offered as the chief
justification for British rule by the imperialist rulers and
spokesmen. The Indian nationalist s controverted it forcefully and
asserted that India was economically backward precisely because
the British were ruling it in the interests of British trade,
industry and capital, and that poverty and backwardness were
the inevitable Consequences of colon ial rule. Tilak’s newspaper,
the Kesari, for example, wrote on 28 January 1896: ‘Surely India[/INST] |
is treated as a vast pasture for the Europeans to feed upon.’ And
P. Ananda Charlu, an ex -President of the Congress, said in the
Legislative Council: ‘While India is safe -guarded against foreign
inroads by the strong arm of the British power, she is defenceless
in matters where the English and Indian interests clash and | <s>[INST]is treated as a vast pasture for the Europeans to feed upon.’ And
P. Ananda Charlu, an ex -President of the Congress, said in the
Legislative Council: ‘While India is safe -guarded against foreign
inroads by the strong arm of the British power, she is defenceless
in matters where the English and Indian interests clash and[/INST] |
76 | India’s S truggle for Independence
where (as a Tamil saying puts it) the very fence begins to feed on
the crop.’
The young intellec tual from Bihar, Sachidanand Sinha,
summed up the Indian critique in a pithy manner in Indian
People on 27 February 1903: ‘Their work of administration in
Lord Curzon’s testimony is only the handmaid to the task of
exploitation. Trade cannot thrive without efficient administration,
while the latter is not worth attending to in the absence of profits
of the former. So always with the assent and often to the dictates
of the Chamber of Commerce, the Government of India is carried
on, and this is the “White Man ’s Burden.”’
It was above all Dadabhai Naoroji who in his almost daily
articles and speeches hammered home this point. ‘The face of
beneficence,’ he said, was a mask behind which the exploitation
of the country was carried on by the British though
‘unacco mpanied with any open compulsion or violence to person
or property which the world can see and be horrified with.’ And,
again: ‘Under the present evil and unrighteous administration of
Indian expenditure, the romance is the beneficence of the British
Rule, the reality is the “bleeding” of the British Rule.” Regarding
the British claim of having provided security of life and property,
Dadabhai wrote: ‘The romance is that there is security of life and
property in India; the reality is that there is no such th ing. There
is security of life and property in one sense or way, i.e., the
people are secure from any violence from each other or from
Native despots. . . But from England’s own grasp there is no
security of property at all, and, as a consequence, no secur ity for
life… What is secure, and well secure, is that England is perfectly
safe and secure… to carry away from India, and to eat up in
India, her property at the present rate of 30,000,000 or
40,000,000 £ a year. . . To millions in India life is simply “h alf-
feeding,” or starvation, or famine and disease ‘. | <s>[INST]76 | India’s S truggle for Independence
where (as a Tamil saying puts it) the very fence begins to feed on
the crop.’
The young intellec tual from Bihar, Sachidanand Sinha,
summed up the Indian critique in a pithy manner in Indian
People on 27 February 1903: ‘Their work of administration in
Lord Curzon’s testimony is only the handmaid to the task of
exploitation. Trade cannot thrive without efficient administration,
while the latter is not worth attending to in the absence of profits
of the former. So always with the assent and often to the dictates
of the Chamber of Commerce, the Government of India is carried
on, and this is the “White Man ’s Burden.”’
It was above all Dadabhai Naoroji who in his almost daily
articles and speeches hammered home this point. ‘The face of
beneficence,’ he said, was a mask behind which the exploitation
of the country was carried on by the British though
‘unacco mpanied with any open compulsion or violence to person
or property which the world can see and be horrified with.’ And,
again: ‘Under the present evil and unrighteous administration of
Indian expenditure, the romance is the beneficence of the British
Rule, the reality is the “bleeding” of the British Rule.” Regarding
the British claim of having provided security of life and property,
Dadabhai wrote: ‘The romance is that there is security of life and
property in India; the reality is that there is no such th ing. There
is security of life and property in one sense or way, i.e., the
people are secure from any violence from each other or from
Native despots. . . But from England’s own grasp there is no
security of property at all, and, as a consequence, no secur ity for
life… What is secure, and well secure, is that England is perfectly
safe and secure… to carry away from India, and to eat up in
India, her property at the present rate of 30,000,000 or
40,000,000 £ a year. . . To millions in India life is simply “h alf-
feeding,” or starvation, or famine and disease ‘.[/INST] |
feeding,” or starvation, or famine and disease ‘.
With regard to the benefits of law and order, Dadabhai said:
‘There is an Indian saying: “Pray strike on the back, but don’t
strike on the belly.”’ Under the ‘native despot the people keep and
enjoy wha t they produce, though at times they suffer some
violence on the back. Under the British Indian despot the man is
at peace, there is no violence; his substance is drained away, | <s>[INST]feeding,” or starvation, or famine and disease ‘.
With regard to the benefits of law and order, Dadabhai said:
‘There is an Indian saying: “Pray strike on the back, but don’t
strike on the belly.”’ Under the ‘native despot the people keep and
enjoy wha t they produce, though at times they suffer some
violence on the back. Under the British Indian despot the man is
at peace, there is no violence; his substance is drained away,[/INST] |
77 | An Economic Critiqu e of Colonialism
unseen, peaceably and subtly — he starves in peace, and
peaceably perishes in p eace, with law and order.
*
The corrosion of faith in British rule inevitably spread to the
political field. In the course of their economic agitation, the
nationalist leaders linked nearly every important economic
question with the politically subordinate d status of the country.
Step by step, issue by issue, they began to draw the conclusion
that since the British Indian administration was ‘only the
handmaid to the task of exploitation,’ pro -Indian and
developmental policies would be followed only by a reg ime in
which Indians had control over political power.
The result was that even though most of the early
nationalist leaders were moderate in politics and political
methods, and many of them still professed loyalty to British rule,
they cut at the politic al roots of the empire and sowed in the land
the seeds of disaffection and disloyalty and even sedition. This
was one of the major reasons why the period 1875 to 1905
became a period of intellectual unrest and of spreading national
consciousness — the seed -time of the modem Indian national
movement.
While until the end of the 19th century, Indian nationalists
confined their political demands to a share in political power and
control over the purse, by 1905 most of the prominent
nationalists were putting fo rward the demand for some form of
self-government. Here again, Dadabhai Naoroji was the most
advanced. Speaking on the drain at the International Socialist
Congress in 1904, he put forward the demand for ‘self -
government’ and treatment of India ‘like other British Colonies.”
A year later in 1905, in a message to the Benares session of the
Indian National Congress, Dadabhai categorically asserted: ‘Self -
government is the only remedy for India’s woes and wrongs.’ And,
then, as the President of the 1906 sessio n of the Congress at | <s>[INST]77 | An Economic Critiqu e of Colonialism
unseen, peaceably and subtly — he starves in peace, and
peaceably perishes in p eace, with law and order.
*
The corrosion of faith in British rule inevitably spread to the
political field. In the course of their economic agitation, the
nationalist leaders linked nearly every important economic
question with the politically subordinate d status of the country.
Step by step, issue by issue, they began to draw the conclusion
that since the British Indian administration was ‘only the
handmaid to the task of exploitation,’ pro -Indian and
developmental policies would be followed only by a reg ime in
which Indians had control over political power.
The result was that even though most of the early
nationalist leaders were moderate in politics and political
methods, and many of them still professed loyalty to British rule,
they cut at the politic al roots of the empire and sowed in the land
the seeds of disaffection and disloyalty and even sedition. This
was one of the major reasons why the period 1875 to 1905
became a period of intellectual unrest and of spreading national
consciousness — the seed -time of the modem Indian national
movement.
While until the end of the 19th century, Indian nationalists
confined their political demands to a share in political power and
control over the purse, by 1905 most of the prominent
nationalists were putting fo rward the demand for some form of
self-government. Here again, Dadabhai Naoroji was the most
advanced. Speaking on the drain at the International Socialist
Congress in 1904, he put forward the demand for ‘self -
government’ and treatment of India ‘like other British Colonies.”
A year later in 1905, in a message to the Benares session of the
Indian National Congress, Dadabhai categorically asserted: ‘Self -
government is the only remedy for India’s woes and wrongs.’ And,
then, as the President of the 1906 sessio n of the Congress at[/INST] |
then, as the President of the 1906 sessio n of the Congress at
Calcutta, he laid down the goal of the national movement as “self -
government or Swara j,” like that of the United Kingdom or the
Colonies.’ | <s>[INST]then, as the President of the 1906 sessio n of the Congress at
Calcutta, he laid down the goal of the national movement as “self -
government or Swara j,” like that of the United Kingdom or the
Colonies.’[/INST] |
78 | India’s S truggle for Independence
While minds were being prepared and the goal formed, the
mass struggle for the political emanci pation of the country was
still in the womb of time. But the early nationalists were laying
Strong and enduring foundations for the national movement to
grow upon. They sowed the seeds of nationalism well and deep.
They did not base their nationalism prima rily on appeals to
abstract or shallow Sentiments or on obscurantist appeals to the
past. They ro oted their nationalism in a bri lliant scientific
analysis of the complex economic mechanism of modern
colonialism and of the chief contradiction between the in terests of
the Indian people and British rule.
The nationalists of the 20th century were to rely heavily on
the main themes of their economic critique of colonialism. These
themes were then to reverberate in Indian cities, towns and
villages, carried ther e by the youthful agitators of the Gandhian
era. Based on this firm foundation, the later nationalists went on
to stage powerful mass agitations and mass movements. At the
same time, because of this firm foundation, they would not,
unlike in China, Egypt a nd many other colonial and semi -colonial
countries, waver in their an ti-imper ialism. | <s>[INST]78 | India’s S truggle for Independence
While minds were being prepared and the goal formed, the
mass struggle for the political emanci pation of the country was
still in the womb of time. But the early nationalists were laying
Strong and enduring foundations for the national movement to
grow upon. They sowed the seeds of nationalism well and deep.
They did not base their nationalism prima rily on appeals to
abstract or shallow Sentiments or on obscurantist appeals to the
past. They ro oted their nationalism in a bri lliant scientific
analysis of the complex economic mechanism of modern
colonialism and of the chief contradiction between the in terests of
the Indian people and British rule.
The nationalists of the 20th century were to rely heavily on
the main themes of their economic critique of colonialism. These
themes were then to reverberate in Indian cities, towns and
villages, carried ther e by the youthful agitators of the Gandhian
era. Based on this firm foundation, the later nationalists went on
to stage powerful mass agitations and mass movements. At the
same time, because of this firm foundation, they would not,
unlike in China, Egypt a nd many other colonial and semi -colonial
countries, waver in their an ti-imper ialism.[/INST] |
79 | The Fight to Secure Press Freedom
CHAPTER 8. THE FIGHT TO SECURE
PRESS FREEDOM
Almost from the beginning of the 19th century, politically
conscious Indians had been attracted to mo dem civil rights,
especially the freedom of the Press. As early as 1824, Raja
Rammohan Roy had protested against a regulation restricting the
freedom of the Press. In a memorandum to the Supreme Court,
he had said that every good ruler ‘will be anxious to afford every
individual the readiest means of bringing to his notice whatever
may require his interference. To secure this important object, the
unrestricted liberty of publication is the only effectual means that
can be employed.’
In the period from 1870 to 1918, the national movement
had not yet resorted to mass agitation through thousands of
small and large maidan meetings, nor did political work consist
of the active mobilization of people in mass struggles. The main
political task still was that of po liticization, political propaganda
and education and formation and propagation of nationalist
ideology. The Press was the chief instrument for carrying out this
task, that is, for arousing, training, mobilizing and consolidating
nationalist public opinion.
Even the work of the National Congress was accomplished
during these years largely through the Press. The Congress had
no organization of its own for carrying on political work. Its
resolutions and proceedings had to be propagated through
newspapers. Int erestingly, nearly one -third of the founding
fathers of the Congress in 1885 were journalists.
Powerful newspapers emerged during these years under
distinguished and fearless journalists. These were the Hindu and
Swade samitra n under the editorship of G. S ubramaniya Iyer,
Kesari and Mahratta under B.G. Tilak, Bengalee under
Surendranath Banerjea, Amrita Bazar Patrika under Sisir Kumar
Ghosh and Motilal Ghosh, Sudharak under G.K. Gokhale, Indian
Mirror under N.N. Sen, Voice of India under Dadabhai Naoroji, | <s>[INST]79 | The Fight to Secure Press Freedom
CHAPTER 8. THE FIGHT TO SECURE
PRESS FREEDOM
Almost from the beginning of the 19th century, politically
conscious Indians had been attracted to mo dem civil rights,
especially the freedom of the Press. As early as 1824, Raja
Rammohan Roy had protested against a regulation restricting the
freedom of the Press. In a memorandum to the Supreme Court,
he had said that every good ruler ‘will be anxious to afford every
individual the readiest means of bringing to his notice whatever
may require his interference. To secure this important object, the
unrestricted liberty of publication is the only effectual means that
can be employed.’
In the period from 1870 to 1918, the national movement
had not yet resorted to mass agitation through thousands of
small and large maidan meetings, nor did political work consist
of the active mobilization of people in mass struggles. The main
political task still was that of po liticization, political propaganda
and education and formation and propagation of nationalist
ideology. The Press was the chief instrument for carrying out this
task, that is, for arousing, training, mobilizing and consolidating
nationalist public opinion.
Even the work of the National Congress was accomplished
during these years largely through the Press. The Congress had
no organization of its own for carrying on political work. Its
resolutions and proceedings had to be propagated through
newspapers. Int erestingly, nearly one -third of the founding
fathers of the Congress in 1885 were journalists.
Powerful newspapers emerged during these years under
distinguished and fearless journalists. These were the Hindu and
Swade samitra n under the editorship of G. S ubramaniya Iyer,
Kesari and Mahratta under B.G. Tilak, Bengalee under
Surendranath Banerjea, Amrita Bazar Patrika under Sisir Kumar
Ghosh and Motilal Ghosh, Sudharak under G.K. Gokhale, Indian
Mirror under N.N. Sen, Voice of India under Dadabhai Naoroji,[/INST] |
80 | India’s S truggle for Independence
Hindustani and Advocate under G.P. Varma and Tribune and
Akhbar -i-Am in Punjab, Indu Prakash, Dnyan Prakash, Kal and
Gujarati in Bombay, and Som Prakash, Banganivasi, and
Sadharani in Bengal. In fact, there hardly existed a major
political leader in India w ho did not possess a newspaper or was
not writing for one in some capacity or the other.
The influence of the Press extended far beyond its literate
subscribers. Nor was it confined to cities and large towns. A
newspaper would reach remote villages and wo uld then be read
by a reader to tens of others. Gradually library movements
sprung up all over the country. A local ‘library’ would e organized
around a single newspaper. A table, a bench or two or a charpoy
would constitute the capital equipment. Every pi ece of news or
editorial comment would be read or heard and thoroughly
discussed. The newspaper not only became the political educator;
reading or discussing it became a form of political participation.
Newspapers were not in those days business enterpris es,
nor were the editors and journalists professionals. Newspapers
were published as a national or public service. They were often
financed as objects of philanthropy. To be a journalist was often
to be a political worker and an agitator at considerable se lf-
sacrifice. It was, of course, not very expensive to start a
newspaper, though the editor had usually to live at a semi
starvation level or earn his livelihood through a supplementary
source. The Amrita Bazar Patrika was started in 1868 with
printing equ ipment purchased for Rs. 32. Similarly,
Surendranath Banerjea purchased the goodwill of the Bengalee
in 1879 for Rs. 10 and the press for another Rs. 1600.
Nearly all the major political controversies of the day were
conducted through the Press. It also p layed the institutional role
of opposition to the Government. Almost every act and every
policy of the Government was subjected to sharp criticism, in | <s>[INST]80 | India’s S truggle for Independence
Hindustani and Advocate under G.P. Varma and Tribune and
Akhbar -i-Am in Punjab, Indu Prakash, Dnyan Prakash, Kal and
Gujarati in Bombay, and Som Prakash, Banganivasi, and
Sadharani in Bengal. In fact, there hardly existed a major
political leader in India w ho did not possess a newspaper or was
not writing for one in some capacity or the other.
The influence of the Press extended far beyond its literate
subscribers. Nor was it confined to cities and large towns. A
newspaper would reach remote villages and wo uld then be read
by a reader to tens of others. Gradually library movements
sprung up all over the country. A local ‘library’ would e organized
around a single newspaper. A table, a bench or two or a charpoy
would constitute the capital equipment. Every pi ece of news or
editorial comment would be read or heard and thoroughly
discussed. The newspaper not only became the political educator;
reading or discussing it became a form of political participation.
Newspapers were not in those days business enterpris es,
nor were the editors and journalists professionals. Newspapers
were published as a national or public service. They were often
financed as objects of philanthropy. To be a journalist was often
to be a political worker and an agitator at considerable se lf-
sacrifice. It was, of course, not very expensive to start a
newspaper, though the editor had usually to live at a semi
starvation level or earn his livelihood through a supplementary
source. The Amrita Bazar Patrika was started in 1868 with
printing equ ipment purchased for Rs. 32. Similarly,
Surendranath Banerjea purchased the goodwill of the Bengalee
in 1879 for Rs. 10 and the press for another Rs. 1600.
Nearly all the major political controversies of the day were
conducted through the Press. It also p layed the institutional role
of opposition to the Government. Almost every act and every
policy of the Government was subjected to sharp criticism, in[/INST] |
policy of the Government was subjected to sharp criticism, in
many cases with great care and vast learning backing it up.
‘Oppose, oppose, oppose’ was the motto of the Indian Press.
Regarding the role of the nationalist Press, Lord Dufferin, the
Viceroy, wrote as early as March 1886: ‘Day after day, hundreds
of Sharp -witted babus pour forth their indignation against their
English Oppressors in very pungent and effective diatribe.’ And
again in May: ‘In this way there can be no doubt there is | <s>[INST]policy of the Government was subjected to sharp criticism, in
many cases with great care and vast learning backing it up.
‘Oppose, oppose, oppose’ was the motto of the Indian Press.
Regarding the role of the nationalist Press, Lord Dufferin, the
Viceroy, wrote as early as March 1886: ‘Day after day, hundreds
of Sharp -witted babus pour forth their indignation against their
English Oppressors in very pungent and effective diatribe.’ And
again in May: ‘In this way there can be no doubt there is[/INST] |
81 | The Fight to Secure Press Freedom
generated in the minds of those who read these papers. . . a
sincere conviction that we are all enemies of mankind in general
and of India in particular .‘
To arouse political consc iousness, to inculcate nationalism,
to expose colonial rule, to ‘preach disloyalty’ was no easy task, for
there had existed since 1870 Section 124A of the Indian Penal
Code according to Which ‘whoever attempts to excite feelings of
disaffection to the Gove rnment established by law in British
India’ was to be punished with transportation for life or for any
term or with imprisonment upto three years. This clause was,
moreover, later supplemented with even more strident measures.
Indian journalists adopted se veral clever strategems and
evolved a distinctive style of writing to remain outside the reach
of the law. Since Section 124A excluded writings of persons
whose loyalty to the Government was undoubted, they invariably
prefaced their vitriolic writing with effusive sentiments of loyalty
to the Government and the Queen. Another strategem was to
publish anti -imperialist extracts from London -based socialist and
Irish newspapers or letters from radical British citizens knowing
that the Indian Government could no t discriminate against
Indians by taking action against them without touching the
offending Britishers. Sometimes the extract from the British
newspaper would be taken without quotation marks and
acknowledgement of the source, thus teasing the British -Indian
bureaucracy into contemplating or taking action which would
have to be given up once the real source of the comment became
known. For example, a sympathetic treatment of the Russian
terrorist activities against Tsarism would be published in such a
way t hat the reader would immediately draw a parallel between
the Indian Government and the Revolutionary Terrorists of
Bengal and Maharashtra. The officials would later discover that it
was an extract from the Times, London, or some such other | <s>[INST]81 | The Fight to Secure Press Freedom
generated in the minds of those who read these papers. . . a
sincere conviction that we are all enemies of mankind in general
and of India in particular .‘
To arouse political consc iousness, to inculcate nationalism,
to expose colonial rule, to ‘preach disloyalty’ was no easy task, for
there had existed since 1870 Section 124A of the Indian Penal
Code according to Which ‘whoever attempts to excite feelings of
disaffection to the Gove rnment established by law in British
India’ was to be punished with transportation for life or for any
term or with imprisonment upto three years. This clause was,
moreover, later supplemented with even more strident measures.
Indian journalists adopted se veral clever strategems and
evolved a distinctive style of writing to remain outside the reach
of the law. Since Section 124A excluded writings of persons
whose loyalty to the Government was undoubted, they invariably
prefaced their vitriolic writing with effusive sentiments of loyalty
to the Government and the Queen. Another strategem was to
publish anti -imperialist extracts from London -based socialist and
Irish newspapers or letters from radical British citizens knowing
that the Indian Government could no t discriminate against
Indians by taking action against them without touching the
offending Britishers. Sometimes the extract from the British
newspaper would be taken without quotation marks and
acknowledgement of the source, thus teasing the British -Indian
bureaucracy into contemplating or taking action which would
have to be given up once the real source of the comment became
known. For example, a sympathetic treatment of the Russian
terrorist activities against Tsarism would be published in such a
way t hat the reader would immediately draw a parallel between
the Indian Government and the Revolutionary Terrorists of
Bengal and Maharashtra. The officials would later discover that it
was an extract from the Times, London, or some such other[/INST] |
was an extract from the Times, London, or some such other
British newspape r.
Often the radical expose would take the form of advice and
warning to the Government as if from a well -wisher, as if the
writer’s main purpose was to save the authorities from their own
follies! B.G. Tilak and Motilal Ghosh were experts at this form of
writing. Some of the more daring writers took recourse to irony,
sarcasm, banter, mock -seriousness and burlesque. | <s>[INST]was an extract from the Times, London, or some such other
British newspape r.
Often the radical expose would take the form of advice and
warning to the Government as if from a well -wisher, as if the
writer’s main purpose was to save the authorities from their own
follies! B.G. Tilak and Motilal Ghosh were experts at this form of
writing. Some of the more daring writers took recourse to irony,
sarcasm, banter, mock -seriousness and burlesque.[/INST] |
82 | India’s S truggle for Independence
In all cases, nationalist journalists, especially of Indian
language newspapers, had a difficult task to perform, for they
had to combine si mplicity with subtlety — simplicity was needed
to educate a semi -literate public, subtlety to convey the true
meaning without falling foul of the law. They performed the task
brilliantly, often creatively developing the languages in which
they were willing , including, surprisingly enough, the English
language.
The national movement from the beginning zealously
defended the freedom of the Press whenever the Government
attacked it or tried to curtail it. In fact, the struggle for the
freedom of the Press bec ame an integral part of the struggle for
freedom.
*
Indian newspapers began to find their feet in the 1870s.
They became highly critical of Lord Lytton’s administration,
especially regarding its inhuman approach towards the victims of
the famine of 1876 -77. As a result the Government decided to
make a sudden strike at the Indian language newspapers, since
they reached beyond the middle class readership. The Vernacular
Press Act of 1878, directed only against Indian language
newspapers, was conceived in gre at secrecy and passed at a
single sitting of the Imperial Legislative Council. The Act provided
for the confiscation of the printing press, paper and other
materials of a newspaper if the Government believed that it was
publishing seditious materials and h ad flouted an official
warning.
Indian nationalist opinion firmly opposed the Act. The first
great demonstration on an issue of public importance was
organized in Calcutta on this question when a large meeting was
held in the Town Hall. Various public bod ies and the Press also
campaigned against the Act. Consequently, it was repealed in
1881 by Lord Ripon.
The manner in which the Indian newspapers cleverly fought
such measures was brought out by a very amusing and dramatic
incident. The Act was in particu lar aimed at the Amrita Bazar | <s>[INST]82 | India’s S truggle for Independence
In all cases, nationalist journalists, especially of Indian
language newspapers, had a difficult task to perform, for they
had to combine si mplicity with subtlety — simplicity was needed
to educate a semi -literate public, subtlety to convey the true
meaning without falling foul of the law. They performed the task
brilliantly, often creatively developing the languages in which
they were willing , including, surprisingly enough, the English
language.
The national movement from the beginning zealously
defended the freedom of the Press whenever the Government
attacked it or tried to curtail it. In fact, the struggle for the
freedom of the Press bec ame an integral part of the struggle for
freedom.
*
Indian newspapers began to find their feet in the 1870s.
They became highly critical of Lord Lytton’s administration,
especially regarding its inhuman approach towards the victims of
the famine of 1876 -77. As a result the Government decided to
make a sudden strike at the Indian language newspapers, since
they reached beyond the middle class readership. The Vernacular
Press Act of 1878, directed only against Indian language
newspapers, was conceived in gre at secrecy and passed at a
single sitting of the Imperial Legislative Council. The Act provided
for the confiscation of the printing press, paper and other
materials of a newspaper if the Government believed that it was
publishing seditious materials and h ad flouted an official
warning.
Indian nationalist opinion firmly opposed the Act. The first
great demonstration on an issue of public importance was
organized in Calcutta on this question when a large meeting was
held in the Town Hall. Various public bod ies and the Press also
campaigned against the Act. Consequently, it was repealed in
1881 by Lord Ripon.
The manner in which the Indian newspapers cleverly fought
such measures was brought out by a very amusing and dramatic
incident. The Act was in particu lar aimed at the Amrita Bazar[/INST] |
incident. The Act was in particu lar aimed at the Amrita Bazar
Patrika which came out at the time in both Bengali aa1d English. | <s>[INST]incident. The Act was in particu lar aimed at the Amrita Bazar
Patrika which came out at the time in both Bengali aa1d English.[/INST] |
83 | The Fight to Secure Press Freedom
The objective was to take summary action against it. But when
the officials woke up the morning after the Act was passed, they
discovered to their dismay that th e Patrika had foxed them;
overnight, the editors had converted it into an English
newspaper!
*
Another remarkable journalistic coup occurred in 1905.
Delivering the Convocation Address at Calcutta University, Lord
Curzon, the Viceroy said that ‘the highes t ideal of truth is to a
large extent a Western conception. Undoubtedly, truth took a
high place in the moral codes of the West before it had been
similarly honored in the East.’ The insinuation was that the
British had taught this high Conception of truth to Indians.
Next day, the Amrita Bazar Patrika came out with this
speech on the front page along with a box reproducing an extract
from Curzon’s book the Problems of the East in which he had
taken credit for lying while a visit to Korea. He had written t hat
he had told the President of the Korean Foreign Office that he
was forty when he was actually thirtyj.ije because he had been
told that in the East respect went with age. He has ascribed his
youthful appearance to the salubrious climate of Korea! Curzo n
had also recorded his reply to the President’s question whether
he was a near relation of Queen Victoria as follows: ‘“No,” I
replied, “I am not.” But observing the look of disgust that passed
over his countenance, I was fain to add, “I am, however, as y et an
unmarried man,” with which unscrupulous suggestion I
completely regained the old gentleman’s favour.’
The whole of Bengal had a hearty laugh at the discomfiture
of the strait -laced Viceroy, who had not hesitated to insult an
entire people and who wa s fond of delivering homilies to Indians.
The Weekly Times of London also enjoyed the episode. Lord
Curzon’s ‘admiration for truth,’ it wrote, ‘was perhaps acquired
later on in life, under his wife’s management. It is pre -eminently | <s>[INST]83 | The Fight to Secure Press Freedom
The objective was to take summary action against it. But when
the officials woke up the morning after the Act was passed, they
discovered to their dismay that th e Patrika had foxed them;
overnight, the editors had converted it into an English
newspaper!
*
Another remarkable journalistic coup occurred in 1905.
Delivering the Convocation Address at Calcutta University, Lord
Curzon, the Viceroy said that ‘the highes t ideal of truth is to a
large extent a Western conception. Undoubtedly, truth took a
high place in the moral codes of the West before it had been
similarly honored in the East.’ The insinuation was that the
British had taught this high Conception of truth to Indians.
Next day, the Amrita Bazar Patrika came out with this
speech on the front page along with a box reproducing an extract
from Curzon’s book the Problems of the East in which he had
taken credit for lying while a visit to Korea. He had written t hat
he had told the President of the Korean Foreign Office that he
was forty when he was actually thirtyj.ije because he had been
told that in the East respect went with age. He has ascribed his
youthful appearance to the salubrious climate of Korea! Curzo n
had also recorded his reply to the President’s question whether
he was a near relation of Queen Victoria as follows: ‘“No,” I
replied, “I am not.” But observing the look of disgust that passed
over his countenance, I was fain to add, “I am, however, as y et an
unmarried man,” with which unscrupulous suggestion I
completely regained the old gentleman’s favour.’
The whole of Bengal had a hearty laugh at the discomfiture
of the strait -laced Viceroy, who had not hesitated to insult an
entire people and who wa s fond of delivering homilies to Indians.
The Weekly Times of London also enjoyed the episode. Lord
Curzon’s ‘admiration for truth,’ it wrote, ‘was perhaps acquired
later on in life, under his wife’s management. It is pre -eminently[/INST] |
a Yankee quality.’ (Curz on’s wife was an American heiress).
* | <s>[INST]a Yankee quality.’ (Curz on’s wife was an American heiress).
*[/INST] |
84 | India’s S truggle for Independence
Surendranath Banerjea, one of the founding fathers of the
Indian national movement, was the first Indian to go to jail in
performance of his duty as a journalist. A dispute concerning a
family idol, a saligram, had co me up before Justice Norris of the
Calcutta High Court. To decide the age of the idol, Norris ordered
it to be brought to the Court and pronounced that it could not be
a hundred years old. This action deeply hurt the sentiments of
the Bengali Hindus. Baner jea wrote an angry editorial in the
Bengalee of 2 April 1883. Comparing Norris with the notorious
Jeffreys and Seroggs (British judges in the 17th century,
notorious for infamous conduct as judges), he said that Norris
had done enough ‘to show how unworthy he is of his high office.’
Banerjea suggested that ‘some public steps should be en to put a
quietus to the wild eccentricities of this young and raw Dispenser
of Justice’.
Immediately, the High Court hauled him up for contempt of
court before a bench of five judges, four of them Europeans. With
the Indian judge, Romesh Chandra Mitra, dissenting, the bench
convicted and sentenced him to two months imprisonment.
Popular reaction was immediate and angry. There was a
spontaneous hartal in the Indian part of C alcutta. Students
demonstrated outside the courts smashing windows and pelting
the police with stones. One of the rowdy young men was Asutosh
Mukherjea who later gained fame as a distinguished Vice
Chancellor of Calcutta University. Demonstrations were hel d all
over Calcutta and in many other towns of Bengal as also in
Lahore, Amritsar, Agra, Faizabad , Poona and other cities.
Calcutta witnessed for the first time several largely attended
open-air meetings.
*
But the man who is most frequently associated w ith the
struggle for the freedom of the Press during the nationalist
movement is Bal Gangadhar Tilak, the outstanding leader of
militant nationalism. Born in 1856, Tilak devoted his entire life to | <s>[INST]84 | India’s S truggle for Independence
Surendranath Banerjea, one of the founding fathers of the
Indian national movement, was the first Indian to go to jail in
performance of his duty as a journalist. A dispute concerning a
family idol, a saligram, had co me up before Justice Norris of the
Calcutta High Court. To decide the age of the idol, Norris ordered
it to be brought to the Court and pronounced that it could not be
a hundred years old. This action deeply hurt the sentiments of
the Bengali Hindus. Baner jea wrote an angry editorial in the
Bengalee of 2 April 1883. Comparing Norris with the notorious
Jeffreys and Seroggs (British judges in the 17th century,
notorious for infamous conduct as judges), he said that Norris
had done enough ‘to show how unworthy he is of his high office.’
Banerjea suggested that ‘some public steps should be en to put a
quietus to the wild eccentricities of this young and raw Dispenser
of Justice’.
Immediately, the High Court hauled him up for contempt of
court before a bench of five judges, four of them Europeans. With
the Indian judge, Romesh Chandra Mitra, dissenting, the bench
convicted and sentenced him to two months imprisonment.
Popular reaction was immediate and angry. There was a
spontaneous hartal in the Indian part of C alcutta. Students
demonstrated outside the courts smashing windows and pelting
the police with stones. One of the rowdy young men was Asutosh
Mukherjea who later gained fame as a distinguished Vice
Chancellor of Calcutta University. Demonstrations were hel d all
over Calcutta and in many other towns of Bengal as also in
Lahore, Amritsar, Agra, Faizabad , Poona and other cities.
Calcutta witnessed for the first time several largely attended
open-air meetings.
*
But the man who is most frequently associated w ith the
struggle for the freedom of the Press during the nationalist
movement is Bal Gangadhar Tilak, the outstanding leader of
militant nationalism. Born in 1856, Tilak devoted his entire life to[/INST] |
the service of his country. In 1881, along with G.G. Agarka r, he
founded the newspaper Kesari (in Marathi) and Mahratta (in
English). In 1888, he took over the two papers and used their
columns to spread discontent against British rule and to preach | <s>[INST]the service of his country. In 1881, along with G.G. Agarka r, he
founded the newspaper Kesari (in Marathi) and Mahratta (in
English). In 1888, he took over the two papers and used their
columns to spread discontent against British rule and to preach[/INST] |
85 | The Fight to Secure Press Freedom
national resistance to it. Tilak was a fiery and courageous
journ alist whose style was simple and direct and yet highly
readable.
In 1893, he started the practice of using the traditional
religious Ganapati festival to propagate nationalist ideas through
patriotic songs and speeches. In 1896, he started the Shivaji
festival to stimulate nationalism among young Maharashtrians.
In the same year, he organized an all -Maharashtra campaign for
the boycott of foreign cloth in protest against the imposition of
the excise duty on cotton. He was, perhaps the first among the
natio nal leaders to grasp the important role that the lower middle
classes, peasants, artisans and workers could play in the
national movement and, therefore, he saw the necessity of
bringing them into the Congress fold. Criticizing the Congress for
ignoring th e peasant, he wrote in the Kesari in early 1897: ‘The
country’s emancipation can only be achieved by removing the
clouds of lethargy and indifference which have been hanging over
the peasant, who is the soul of India. We must remove these
clouds, and for t hat we must completely identify ourselves with
the peasant --- we must feel that he is ours and we are his.’ Only
when this is done would ‘the Government realize that to despise
the Congress is to despise the Indian Nation. Then only will the
efforts of th e Congress leaders be crowned with success.’
In pursuance of this objective, he initiated a no -tax
Campaign in Maharashtra during 1896 -97 with the help of the
young workers of the Poona Sarvajanik Sabha. Referring to the
official famine code whose copies h e got printed in Marathi and
distributed by the thousand, he asked the famine -stricken
peasants of Maharashtra to withhold payment of land revenue if
their crops had failed.
In 1897, plague broke out in Poona and the Government
had to undertake severe mea sures of segregation and house -
searches. Unlike many other leaders, Tilak stayed in Poona, | <s>[INST]85 | The Fight to Secure Press Freedom
national resistance to it. Tilak was a fiery and courageous
journ alist whose style was simple and direct and yet highly
readable.
In 1893, he started the practice of using the traditional
religious Ganapati festival to propagate nationalist ideas through
patriotic songs and speeches. In 1896, he started the Shivaji
festival to stimulate nationalism among young Maharashtrians.
In the same year, he organized an all -Maharashtra campaign for
the boycott of foreign cloth in protest against the imposition of
the excise duty on cotton. He was, perhaps the first among the
natio nal leaders to grasp the important role that the lower middle
classes, peasants, artisans and workers could play in the
national movement and, therefore, he saw the necessity of
bringing them into the Congress fold. Criticizing the Congress for
ignoring th e peasant, he wrote in the Kesari in early 1897: ‘The
country’s emancipation can only be achieved by removing the
clouds of lethargy and indifference which have been hanging over
the peasant, who is the soul of India. We must remove these
clouds, and for t hat we must completely identify ourselves with
the peasant --- we must feel that he is ours and we are his.’ Only
when this is done would ‘the Government realize that to despise
the Congress is to despise the Indian Nation. Then only will the
efforts of th e Congress leaders be crowned with success.’
In pursuance of this objective, he initiated a no -tax
Campaign in Maharashtra during 1896 -97 with the help of the
young workers of the Poona Sarvajanik Sabha. Referring to the
official famine code whose copies h e got printed in Marathi and
distributed by the thousand, he asked the famine -stricken
peasants of Maharashtra to withhold payment of land revenue if
their crops had failed.
In 1897, plague broke out in Poona and the Government
had to undertake severe mea sures of segregation and house -
searches. Unlike many other leaders, Tilak stayed in Poona,[/INST] |
searches. Unlike many other leaders, Tilak stayed in Poona,
supported the Government and organized his own measures
against the plague. But he also criticized the harsh and heartless
manner in which the officials dealt with t he plague - stricken
people. Popular resentment against the official plague measures
resulted in the assassination of Rand, the Chairman of the | <s>[INST]searches. Unlike many other leaders, Tilak stayed in Poona,
supported the Government and organized his own measures
against the plague. But he also criticized the harsh and heartless
manner in which the officials dealt with t he plague - stricken
people. Popular resentment against the official plague measures
resulted in the assassination of Rand, the Chairman of the[/INST] |
86 | India’s S truggle for Independence
Plague Committee in Poona, and Lt. Ayerst by the Chaphekar
brothers on 27 June 1898.
The anti -plague measures wer en’t the only practices that
made the people irate. Since 1894, anger had been rising against
the Government because of its tariff, currency and famine policy.
A militant trend was rapidly growing among the nationalists and
there were hostile comments in t he Press. The Government was
determined to check this trend and teach a lesson to the Press.
Tilak was by now well -known in Maharashtra, both as a militant
nationalist and as a hostile arid effective journalist. The
Government was looking for an opportunit y to make an example
of him. The Rand murder gave them the opportunity. The British -
owned Press and the bureaucracy were quick to portray the Rand
murder as a conspiracy by the Poona Brahmins led by Tilak.
The Government investigated the possibility of di rectly involving
Tilak in Rand’s assassination. But no proof could be found.
Moreover, Tilak had condemned the assassination describing it
as the horrible work of a fanatic, though he would not stop
criticizing the Government, asserting that it was a basic function
of the Press to bring to light the unjust state of affairs and to
teach people how to defend their rights. And so, the Government
decided to arrest him under Section 124A of the Indian Penal
Code on the charge of sedition, that is, spreading disa ffection and
hatred against the Government.
Tilak was arrested on 27 July 1879 arid tried before Justice
Strachey and a jury of six Europeans and three Indians. The
charge was based on the publication in the Kesari of 15 June of a
poem titled ‘Shivaji’s U tterances’ ‘read out by a young man at the
Shivaji Festival and on a speech Tilak had delivered at the
Festival in defence of Shivaji’s killings of Afzal Khan.
In ‘Shivaji’s Utterances,’ the poet had shown Shivaji
awakening in the present and telling his countrymen: ‘Alas! Alas! | <s>[INST]86 | India’s S truggle for Independence
Plague Committee in Poona, and Lt. Ayerst by the Chaphekar
brothers on 27 June 1898.
The anti -plague measures wer en’t the only practices that
made the people irate. Since 1894, anger had been rising against
the Government because of its tariff, currency and famine policy.
A militant trend was rapidly growing among the nationalists and
there were hostile comments in t he Press. The Government was
determined to check this trend and teach a lesson to the Press.
Tilak was by now well -known in Maharashtra, both as a militant
nationalist and as a hostile arid effective journalist. The
Government was looking for an opportunit y to make an example
of him. The Rand murder gave them the opportunity. The British -
owned Press and the bureaucracy were quick to portray the Rand
murder as a conspiracy by the Poona Brahmins led by Tilak.
The Government investigated the possibility of di rectly involving
Tilak in Rand’s assassination. But no proof could be found.
Moreover, Tilak had condemned the assassination describing it
as the horrible work of a fanatic, though he would not stop
criticizing the Government, asserting that it was a basic function
of the Press to bring to light the unjust state of affairs and to
teach people how to defend their rights. And so, the Government
decided to arrest him under Section 124A of the Indian Penal
Code on the charge of sedition, that is, spreading disa ffection and
hatred against the Government.
Tilak was arrested on 27 July 1879 arid tried before Justice
Strachey and a jury of six Europeans and three Indians. The
charge was based on the publication in the Kesari of 15 June of a
poem titled ‘Shivaji’s U tterances’ ‘read out by a young man at the
Shivaji Festival and on a speech Tilak had delivered at the
Festival in defence of Shivaji’s killings of Afzal Khan.
In ‘Shivaji’s Utterances,’ the poet had shown Shivaji
awakening in the present and telling his countrymen: ‘Alas! Alas![/INST] |
I now see with my own eyes the ruin of my country . . .
Foreigners are dragging out Lakshmi violently by the hand (kar in
Marathi which also means taxes) and by persecution. . . The
wicked Akabaya (misfortune personified) stalks wi th famine
through the whole country. . . How have all these kings (leaders)
become quite effeminate like helpless figures on the chess -
board?’ | <s>[INST]I now see with my own eyes the ruin of my country . . .
Foreigners are dragging out Lakshmi violently by the hand (kar in
Marathi which also means taxes) and by persecution. . . The
wicked Akabaya (misfortune personified) stalks wi th famine
through the whole country. . . How have all these kings (leaders)
become quite effeminate like helpless figures on the chess -
board?’[/INST] |
87 | The Fight to Secure Press Freedom
Tilak’s defence of Shivaji’s killing of Afzal Khan was
portrayed by the prosecution as an incitement to kill Bri tish
officials. The overall accusation was that Tilak propagated the
views in his newspaper, that the British had no right to stay in
India and any and all means could be used to get rid of them.
Looking back, it is clear that the accusation was not wrong.
But the days when, under Gandhiji’s guidance, freedom fighters
would refuse to defend themselves and openly proclaim their
sedition were still far off. The politics of sacrifice and open
defiance of authority were still at an early stage. It was still
necessary to claim that anti -colonial activities were being
conducted within the limits of the law. And so Tilak denied the
official charges and declared that he had no intention of
preaching disaffection against alien rule. Within this ‘old’ style of
facing the rulers, Tilak set a high example of boldness and
sacrifice. He was aware that he was initiating a new kind of
politics which must gain the confidence and faith of the people by
the example of a new type of leader, while carefully avoiding
premature rad icalism which would invite repression by the
Government and lead to the cowing down of the people and,
consequently, the isolation of the leaders from the people.
Pressure was brought upon Tilak by some friends to
withdraw his remarks and apologise. Tilak ’s reply was: My
position (as a leader) amongst the people entirely depends upon
my character . . . Their (Government’s) object is to humiliate the
Poona leaders, and I think in me they will not find a “kutcha”
(weak) reed... Then you must remember beyond a certain stage
we are all servants of the people. You will be betraying and
disappointing them if you show a lamentable Want of courage at
a critical time.’
Judge Strachey’s partisan summing up to the jury was to
gain notoriety in legal circles, for he de fined disaffection as | <s>[INST]87 | The Fight to Secure Press Freedom
Tilak’s defence of Shivaji’s killing of Afzal Khan was
portrayed by the prosecution as an incitement to kill Bri tish
officials. The overall accusation was that Tilak propagated the
views in his newspaper, that the British had no right to stay in
India and any and all means could be used to get rid of them.
Looking back, it is clear that the accusation was not wrong.
But the days when, under Gandhiji’s guidance, freedom fighters
would refuse to defend themselves and openly proclaim their
sedition were still far off. The politics of sacrifice and open
defiance of authority were still at an early stage. It was still
necessary to claim that anti -colonial activities were being
conducted within the limits of the law. And so Tilak denied the
official charges and declared that he had no intention of
preaching disaffection against alien rule. Within this ‘old’ style of
facing the rulers, Tilak set a high example of boldness and
sacrifice. He was aware that he was initiating a new kind of
politics which must gain the confidence and faith of the people by
the example of a new type of leader, while carefully avoiding
premature rad icalism which would invite repression by the
Government and lead to the cowing down of the people and,
consequently, the isolation of the leaders from the people.
Pressure was brought upon Tilak by some friends to
withdraw his remarks and apologise. Tilak ’s reply was: My
position (as a leader) amongst the people entirely depends upon
my character . . . Their (Government’s) object is to humiliate the
Poona leaders, and I think in me they will not find a “kutcha”
(weak) reed... Then you must remember beyond a certain stage
we are all servants of the people. You will be betraying and
disappointing them if you show a lamentable Want of courage at
a critical time.’
Judge Strachey’s partisan summing up to the jury was to
gain notoriety in legal circles, for he de fined disaffection as[/INST] |
‘simply the absence of affection’ which amounted to the presence
of hatred, enmity, disloyalty and every other form of ill-will
towards the Government! The jury gave a 6 to 3 verdict holding
Tilak guilty, the three dissenters bein g its Indian members. The
Judge passed a barbarous sentence of rigorou s imprisonment for
eighteen months, and this when Tilak was a member of the
Bombay Legislative Council! Simultaneously several other editors | <s>[INST]‘simply the absence of affection’ which amounted to the presence
of hatred, enmity, disloyalty and every other form of ill-will
towards the Government! The jury gave a 6 to 3 verdict holding
Tilak guilty, the three dissenters bein g its Indian members. The
Judge passed a barbarous sentence of rigorou s imprisonment for
eighteen months, and this when Tilak was a member of the
Bombay Legislative Council! Simultaneously several other editors[/INST] |
88 | India’s S truggle for Independence
of Bombay Presidency were tried and given sim ilar harsh
sentences.
Tilak’s imprisonment led to widespre ad protests all over the
county Nationalist newspapers and political associations,
including those run by Tilak’s critics like the Moderates,
organized a countrywide movement against this attack on civil
liberties and the fiefdom of the Press. Many n ewspapers came out
with black borders on the front page. Many published special
supplements hailing Tilak as a martyr in the battle for the
freedom of the Press. Addressing Indian residents in London,
Dadabhai Naoroji accused the Government of initiating Russian
(Tsarist) methods of administration and said that gagging the
Press was simply suicidal.
Overnight Tilak became a popular all -India leader and the
title of Lokamanya (respected and honored by the people) was
given to him. He became a hero, a living symbol of the new spirit
of self -sacrifice a new leader who preached with his deeds. When
at the Indian National Congress session at Amraoti in December
1897, Surendranath Banerjea made a touching refere nce to Tilak
and said that ‘a whole nation is in tears,’ the entire audience
stood up and enthusiastically cheered.
In 1898, the Government amended Section 124A and added
a new Section 153A to the penal code, making it a criminal
offence for anyone to attempt ‘to bring into contempt’ the
Government of India or to create hatred among different classes,
that is vis -a-vis Englishmen in India. This once again led to
nation -wide protest.
*
The Swadeshi and Boycott Movement, which we shall look
at in more detai l later on in Chapter 10, led to a new wave of
repression in the country. The people once again felt angry and
frustrated. This frustration led the youth of Bengal to take to the
path of individual terrorism. Several cases of bomb attacks on
officials Occu rred in the beginning of 1908. The Government felt
unnerved. Once again newspapers became a major target Fresh | <s>[INST]88 | India’s S truggle for Independence
of Bombay Presidency were tried and given sim ilar harsh
sentences.
Tilak’s imprisonment led to widespre ad protests all over the
county Nationalist newspapers and political associations,
including those run by Tilak’s critics like the Moderates,
organized a countrywide movement against this attack on civil
liberties and the fiefdom of the Press. Many n ewspapers came out
with black borders on the front page. Many published special
supplements hailing Tilak as a martyr in the battle for the
freedom of the Press. Addressing Indian residents in London,
Dadabhai Naoroji accused the Government of initiating Russian
(Tsarist) methods of administration and said that gagging the
Press was simply suicidal.
Overnight Tilak became a popular all -India leader and the
title of Lokamanya (respected and honored by the people) was
given to him. He became a hero, a living symbol of the new spirit
of self -sacrifice a new leader who preached with his deeds. When
at the Indian National Congress session at Amraoti in December
1897, Surendranath Banerjea made a touching refere nce to Tilak
and said that ‘a whole nation is in tears,’ the entire audience
stood up and enthusiastically cheered.
In 1898, the Government amended Section 124A and added
a new Section 153A to the penal code, making it a criminal
offence for anyone to attempt ‘to bring into contempt’ the
Government of India or to create hatred among different classes,
that is vis -a-vis Englishmen in India. This once again led to
nation -wide protest.
*
The Swadeshi and Boycott Movement, which we shall look
at in more detai l later on in Chapter 10, led to a new wave of
repression in the country. The people once again felt angry and
frustrated. This frustration led the youth of Bengal to take to the
path of individual terrorism. Several cases of bomb attacks on
officials Occu rred in the beginning of 1908. The Government felt
unnerved. Once again newspapers became a major target Fresh[/INST] |
unnerved. Once again newspapers became a major target Fresh
laws for Controlling the Press were enacted, prosecutions against
a large number of newspapers and their editors were launched | <s>[INST]unnerved. Once again newspapers became a major target Fresh
laws for Controlling the Press were enacted, prosecutions against
a large number of newspapers and their editors were launched[/INST] |
89 | The Fight to Secure Press Freedom
and the Press was almost completely Suppressed In this
atmosphere it was inevitable that the Government’s attention
would turn towards Lokamanya Tilak, the mainstay of the
Boycott movement and militant politics outside Bengal.
Tilak wrote a series of articles on the arriva l of the ‘Bomb’ on the
Indian scene. He condemned the use of violence and individual
killings he described Nihilism as ‘this Poisonous tree’ — but,
simultaneously, he held the Government responsible for
suppressing criticism and dissent and the urge of the people for
greater freedom. In such an atmosphere, he said ‘violence,
however deplorable, became inevitable.’ As he wrote in one of his
articles: ‘When the official class begins to overawe the people
without any reason and when an endeavour is made to pro duce
despondency among the people b unduly frightening them, then
the sound of the bomb is spontaneously produced to impart to
the authorities the true knowledge that the people have reached a
higher stage than the vapid one in which they pay implicit rega rd
to such an illiberal policy of repression.’
Once again, on 24 June 1908, Tilak was arrested and tried
on the charge of sedition for having published these articles.
Once again Tilak pleaded not guilty and behaved with exemplary
courage. A few days befor e his arrest, a friendly police officer
warned him of the coming event and asked Tilak to take
precautionary steps. Tilak laughed and said: The Government
has converted the entire nation into a prison and we are all
prisoners. Going to prison only means th at from a big cell one is
confined to a smaller one.”In the court, Tilak posed the basic
question: ‘Tilak or no Tilak is not the question. The question is,
do you really intend as guardians of the liberty of the Press to
allow as much liberty here in India as is enjoyed by the people of
England?”
Once again the jury returned a verdict of guilty with only | <s>[INST]89 | The Fight to Secure Press Freedom
and the Press was almost completely Suppressed In this
atmosphere it was inevitable that the Government’s attention
would turn towards Lokamanya Tilak, the mainstay of the
Boycott movement and militant politics outside Bengal.
Tilak wrote a series of articles on the arriva l of the ‘Bomb’ on the
Indian scene. He condemned the use of violence and individual
killings he described Nihilism as ‘this Poisonous tree’ — but,
simultaneously, he held the Government responsible for
suppressing criticism and dissent and the urge of the people for
greater freedom. In such an atmosphere, he said ‘violence,
however deplorable, became inevitable.’ As he wrote in one of his
articles: ‘When the official class begins to overawe the people
without any reason and when an endeavour is made to pro duce
despondency among the people b unduly frightening them, then
the sound of the bomb is spontaneously produced to impart to
the authorities the true knowledge that the people have reached a
higher stage than the vapid one in which they pay implicit rega rd
to such an illiberal policy of repression.’
Once again, on 24 June 1908, Tilak was arrested and tried
on the charge of sedition for having published these articles.
Once again Tilak pleaded not guilty and behaved with exemplary
courage. A few days befor e his arrest, a friendly police officer
warned him of the coming event and asked Tilak to take
precautionary steps. Tilak laughed and said: The Government
has converted the entire nation into a prison and we are all
prisoners. Going to prison only means th at from a big cell one is
confined to a smaller one.”In the court, Tilak posed the basic
question: ‘Tilak or no Tilak is not the question. The question is,
do you really intend as guardians of the liberty of the Press to
allow as much liberty here in India as is enjoyed by the people of
England?”
Once again the jury returned a verdict of guilty with only[/INST] |
Once again the jury returned a verdict of guilty with only
the two Indian members opposing the verdict. Tilak’s reply was:
‘There are higher powers that rule the destiny of men and
nations; and it may be the will of Providence that the cause
which I represent may prosper more by my sufferings than by my
remaining free.’ Justice Davar awarded him the sentence of six
years’ transportation and after some time the Lokamanya was
sent to a prison in Mandalay in Burma. | <s>[INST]Once again the jury returned a verdict of guilty with only
the two Indian members opposing the verdict. Tilak’s reply was:
‘There are higher powers that rule the destiny of men and
nations; and it may be the will of Providence that the cause
which I represent may prosper more by my sufferings than by my
remaining free.’ Justice Davar awarded him the sentence of six
years’ transportation and after some time the Lokamanya was
sent to a prison in Mandalay in Burma.[/INST] |
90 | India’s S truggle for Independence
The public reaction was massive. Newspapers proclaimed
that they would defend the freedom of the Press by following
Tilak’s example. All markets in Bombay city were closed on 22
July, the day his was announced, and remained closed for a
week. The Workers of all the textile mills and railway workshops
went on strike for six days. Efforts to force them to go back to
work led to a battle between them and the Police. The army was
called out and at the end of the battle sixteen workers lay dead in
the streets wit h nearly fifty others seriously injured. Lenin hailed
this as the entrance of the Indian working class on the political
stage.’
Echoes of Tilak’s trial were to be heard in another not-so-
distant court when Gandhiji, his political successor, was tried in
1922 for the same offence of sedition under the same Section
124A for his articles in Young India. When the Judge told him
that his offence was similar to Tilak’s and that he was giving him
the same sentence of six years’ imprisonment Gandhiji replied:
‘Since you have done me the honor of recalling the trial of the late
Lokamanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak, I just want to say that I
consider it to be proudest privilege and honor to be associated
with his name.”
The only difference between the two tr ials was that Gan dhiji
had pleaded guilty to the charges. This was also a measure of the
distance the national movement had travelled since 1908. Tilak’s
contribution to this change in politics and journalism had been
momentous. | <s>[INST]90 | India’s S truggle for Independence
The public reaction was massive. Newspapers proclaimed
that they would defend the freedom of the Press by following
Tilak’s example. All markets in Bombay city were closed on 22
July, the day his was announced, and remained closed for a
week. The Workers of all the textile mills and railway workshops
went on strike for six days. Efforts to force them to go back to
work led to a battle between them and the Police. The army was
called out and at the end of the battle sixteen workers lay dead in
the streets wit h nearly fifty others seriously injured. Lenin hailed
this as the entrance of the Indian working class on the political
stage.’
Echoes of Tilak’s trial were to be heard in another not-so-
distant court when Gandhiji, his political successor, was tried in
1922 for the same offence of sedition under the same Section
124A for his articles in Young India. When the Judge told him
that his offence was similar to Tilak’s and that he was giving him
the same sentence of six years’ imprisonment Gandhiji replied:
‘Since you have done me the honor of recalling the trial of the late
Lokamanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak, I just want to say that I
consider it to be proudest privilege and honor to be associated
with his name.”
The only difference between the two tr ials was that Gan dhiji
had pleaded guilty to the charges. This was also a measure of the
distance the national movement had travelled since 1908. Tilak’s
contribution to this change in politics and journalism had been
momentous.[/INST] |
91 | Propaganda in the legislatures
CHAPTER 9. PROPAGANDA IN THE
LEGISLATURES
Legislative Councils in India had no real official power till
1920. Yet, work done in them by the nationalists helped the
growth of the national movement.
*
The Indian Councils Act of 1861 enlarged the Governor -
General’s Executive Co uncil for the purpose of making laws. The
Governor -General could now add from six to twelve members to
the Executive Council. At least half of these nominations had to
be non -officials, Indian or British. This council came to be known
as the Imperial Legis lative Council. It possessed no powers at all.
It could not discuss the budget or a financial measure or any
other important bill without the previous approval of the
Government. It could not discuss the actions of the
administration. It could not, therefo re, be seen as some kind of
parliament, even of the most elementary kind. As if to underline
this fact, the Council met, on an average, for only twenty -five
days in a year till 1892.
The Government of India remained, as before 1858, an alien
despot. Nor w as this accidental. While moving the Indian
Councils Bill of 1861, the Secretary of State for India, Charles
Wood, said: All experience reaches us that where a dominant race
rules another, the mildest form of Government is despotism.’ A
year later he wrote to Elgin, the Viceroy, that the only
government suitable for such a state of things as exists in India a
despotism controlled from home.” This ‘despotism controlled from
home’ was to remain the fundamental feature of the Government
of India till 15 August 1947.
What was the role of Indian members in this Legislative
Council? The Government had decided to add them in order to
represent Indian views, for many British officials and statesmen
had come to believe that one reason for the Revolt of 1857 was | <s>[INST]91 | Propaganda in the legislatures
CHAPTER 9. PROPAGANDA IN THE
LEGISLATURES
Legislative Councils in India had no real official power till
1920. Yet, work done in them by the nationalists helped the
growth of the national movement.
*
The Indian Councils Act of 1861 enlarged the Governor -
General’s Executive Co uncil for the purpose of making laws. The
Governor -General could now add from six to twelve members to
the Executive Council. At least half of these nominations had to
be non -officials, Indian or British. This council came to be known
as the Imperial Legis lative Council. It possessed no powers at all.
It could not discuss the budget or a financial measure or any
other important bill without the previous approval of the
Government. It could not discuss the actions of the
administration. It could not, therefo re, be seen as some kind of
parliament, even of the most elementary kind. As if to underline
this fact, the Council met, on an average, for only twenty -five
days in a year till 1892.
The Government of India remained, as before 1858, an alien
despot. Nor w as this accidental. While moving the Indian
Councils Bill of 1861, the Secretary of State for India, Charles
Wood, said: All experience reaches us that where a dominant race
rules another, the mildest form of Government is despotism.’ A
year later he wrote to Elgin, the Viceroy, that the only
government suitable for such a state of things as exists in India a
despotism controlled from home.” This ‘despotism controlled from
home’ was to remain the fundamental feature of the Government
of India till 15 August 1947.
What was the role of Indian members in this Legislative
Council? The Government had decided to add them in order to
represent Indian views, for many British officials and statesmen
had come to believe that one reason for the Revolt of 1857 was[/INST] |
92 | India’s Struggle For Independence
that Indian views were not known to the rulers. But, in practice,
the Council did not serve even this purpose. Indian members
were few in number — in thirty years, from 1862 to 1892, only
forty-five Indians were nominated to it. Moreover, the
Government invari ably chose rulers of princely states or their
employees, big zamindars, big merchants or retired high
government officials as Indian members. Only a handful of
political figures and independent intellectuals such as Syed
Ahmed Khan (1878 -82), Kristodas Pal (1883), V.N. Mandlik
(1884 -87), K.L. Nulkar (1890 -91) and Rash Behari Ghosh (1892)
were nominated. The overwhelming majority of Indian nominees
did not represent the Indian people or emerging nationalist
opinion. It was, therefore, not surprising that the y completely
toed the official line. There is the interesting story of Raja Dig
Vijay Singh of Balarampur — nominated twice to the Council —
who did not know a word of English. When asked by a relative
how he voted one way or the other, he replied that he kept
looking at the Viceroy and when the Viceroy raised his hand he
did so too and when he lowered it he did the same!
The voting record of Indian nominees on the Council was
poor. When the Vernacular Press Bill came up before the Council,
only one Indian member, Maharaja Jotendra Mohan Tagore, the
leader of the zamindari -dominated British Indian Association was
present. He voted for it. In 1885, the two spokesmen of the
zamindars in the Council helped emasculate the pro -tenant
character of the Bengal Tena ncy Bill at a time when nationalist
leaders like Surendranath Banerjea were agitating to make it
more pro -tenant. In 1882, Jotendra Mohan Tagore and Durga
Charan Laha, the representative of Calcutta’s big merchants,
opposed the reduction of the salt tax an d recommended the
reduction of the licence tax on merchants and professionals
instead. The nationalists were demanding the opposite. In 1888, | <s>[INST]92 | India’s Struggle For Independence
that Indian views were not known to the rulers. But, in practice,
the Council did not serve even this purpose. Indian members
were few in number — in thirty years, from 1862 to 1892, only
forty-five Indians were nominated to it. Moreover, the
Government invari ably chose rulers of princely states or their
employees, big zamindars, big merchants or retired high
government officials as Indian members. Only a handful of
political figures and independent intellectuals such as Syed
Ahmed Khan (1878 -82), Kristodas Pal (1883), V.N. Mandlik
(1884 -87), K.L. Nulkar (1890 -91) and Rash Behari Ghosh (1892)
were nominated. The overwhelming majority of Indian nominees
did not represent the Indian people or emerging nationalist
opinion. It was, therefore, not surprising that the y completely
toed the official line. There is the interesting story of Raja Dig
Vijay Singh of Balarampur — nominated twice to the Council —
who did not know a word of English. When asked by a relative
how he voted one way or the other, he replied that he kept
looking at the Viceroy and when the Viceroy raised his hand he
did so too and when he lowered it he did the same!
The voting record of Indian nominees on the Council was
poor. When the Vernacular Press Bill came up before the Council,
only one Indian member, Maharaja Jotendra Mohan Tagore, the
leader of the zamindari -dominated British Indian Association was
present. He voted for it. In 1885, the two spokesmen of the
zamindars in the Council helped emasculate the pro -tenant
character of the Bengal Tena ncy Bill at a time when nationalist
leaders like Surendranath Banerjea were agitating to make it
more pro -tenant. In 1882, Jotendra Mohan Tagore and Durga
Charan Laha, the representative of Calcutta’s big merchants,
opposed the reduction of the salt tax an d recommended the
reduction of the licence tax on merchants and professionals
instead. The nationalists were demanding the opposite. In 1888,[/INST] |
Peary Mohan Mukherjea and Dinshaw Petit, representatives of
the big zamindars and big merchants respectively, supp orted the
enhancement of the salt tax along with the non -official British
members representing British business in India.
By this time nationalists were quite active in opposing the
salt tax and reacted strongly to this support. In the newspapers
and from the Congress platform they described Mukherjea and
Petit as ‘gilded shams’ and magnificient non -entities.’ They cited | <s>[INST]Peary Mohan Mukherjea and Dinshaw Petit, representatives of
the big zamindars and big merchants respectively, supp orted the
enhancement of the salt tax along with the non -official British
members representing British business in India.
By this time nationalists were quite active in opposing the
salt tax and reacted strongly to this support. In the newspapers
and from the Congress platform they described Mukherjea and
Petit as ‘gilded shams’ and magnificient non -entities.’ They cited[/INST] |
93 | Propaganda in the legislatures
their voting behavior as proof of the nationalist contention that
the existing Legislative Councils were unrepresentative of Indian
opinio n. Madan Mohan Malaviya said at the National Congress
session of 1890: ‘We would much rather that there were no non -
official members at all on the Councils than that there should be
members who are not in the least in touch with people and
who...betray a c ruel want of sympathy with them’ Describing
Mukherjea and petit as ‘these big honourable gentlemen,
enjoying private incomes and drawing huge salaries,’ he asked
rhetorically: ‘Do you think, gentlemen, such members would be
appointed to the Council if the people were allowed any voice in
their selection?’ The audience shouted ‘No, no, never.’
However, despite the early nationalists believing that India
should eventually become self -governing, they moved very
cautiously in putting forward political demands r egarding the
structure of the state, for they were afraid of the Government
declaring their activities seditious and disloyal and suppressing
them. Till 1892, their demand was limited to the expansion and
reform of the Legislative Councils. They demanded w ider
participation in them by a larger number of elected Indian
members as also wider powers for the Councils and an increase
in the powers of the members to ‘discuss and deal with’ the
budget and to question and criticize the day -to-day
administration.
*
The nationalist agitation forced the Government to make
some changes in legislative functioning by the Indian Councils
Act of 1892. The number of additional members of the Imperial
and Provincial Legislative Councils was increased from the
previous six to ten to ten to sixteen. A few of these members
could be elected indirectly through municipal committees, district
boards, etc., but the official majority remained. The members
were given the right to discuss the annual budget but they could | <s>[INST]93 | Propaganda in the legislatures
their voting behavior as proof of the nationalist contention that
the existing Legislative Councils were unrepresentative of Indian
opinio n. Madan Mohan Malaviya said at the National Congress
session of 1890: ‘We would much rather that there were no non -
official members at all on the Councils than that there should be
members who are not in the least in touch with people and
who...betray a c ruel want of sympathy with them’ Describing
Mukherjea and petit as ‘these big honourable gentlemen,
enjoying private incomes and drawing huge salaries,’ he asked
rhetorically: ‘Do you think, gentlemen, such members would be
appointed to the Council if the people were allowed any voice in
their selection?’ The audience shouted ‘No, no, never.’
However, despite the early nationalists believing that India
should eventually become self -governing, they moved very
cautiously in putting forward political demands r egarding the
structure of the state, for they were afraid of the Government
declaring their activities seditious and disloyal and suppressing
them. Till 1892, their demand was limited to the expansion and
reform of the Legislative Councils. They demanded w ider
participation in them by a larger number of elected Indian
members as also wider powers for the Councils and an increase
in the powers of the members to ‘discuss and deal with’ the
budget and to question and criticize the day -to-day
administration.
*
The nationalist agitation forced the Government to make
some changes in legislative functioning by the Indian Councils
Act of 1892. The number of additional members of the Imperial
and Provincial Legislative Councils was increased from the
previous six to ten to ten to sixteen. A few of these members
could be elected indirectly through municipal committees, district
boards, etc., but the official majority remained. The members
were given the right to discuss the annual budget but they could[/INST] |
neither vote on it nor move a motion to amend it. They could also
ask questions but were not allowed to put supplementary
questions or to discuss the answers. The ‘reformed’ Imperial
Legislative Council met, during its tenure till 1909, on an average | <s>[INST]neither vote on it nor move a motion to amend it. They could also
ask questions but were not allowed to put supplementary
questions or to discuss the answers. The ‘reformed’ Imperial
Legislative Council met, during its tenure till 1909, on an average[/INST] |
94 | India’s Struggle For Independence
for only thirteen da ys in a year, and the number of unofficial
Indian members present was only five out of twenty - four!
The nationalists were totally dissatisfied with the Act of
1892. They saw in it a mockery of their demands. The Councils
were still impotent; despotism st ill ruled. They now demanded a
majority for non -official elected members with the right to vote on
the budget and, thus, to the public purse. They raised the slogan
‘no taxation without representation.’ Gradually, they raised their
demands. Many leaders — for example Dadabhai Naoroji in 1904,
G.K. Gokhale in 1905 and Lokamanya Tilak in 1906 began to put
forward the demand for self government the model of the self -
governing colonies of Canada and Australia.
*
Lord Dufferin, who had prepared the outline of th e Act of
1892, and other British statesmen and administrators, had seen
in the Legislative Cou ncil a device to incorporate the more vocal
Indian political leaders into the colonial political structure where
they could, in a manner of Speaking let off their political steam.
They knew that the members of the Councils enjoyed no real
powers; they could only make wordy speeches and indulge in
empty rhetorics, and the bureaucracy could afford to pay no
attention to them.
But the British policy makers had reckoned without the
political capacities of the Indian leaders who soon transformed
the powerless and impotent councils, designed as mere machines
for the endorsement of government policies, and measures and as
toys to appease the emerging political leadership, in to forums for
ventilating popular grievances, mercilessly exposing the defects
and shortcomings of the bureaucratic administration, criticizing
and opposing almost every government policy and proposal, and
raising basic economic issues, especially relating to public
finance. They submitted the acts and policies of the Government
to a ruthless examination regarding both their intention and their | <s>[INST]94 | India’s Struggle For Independence
for only thirteen da ys in a year, and the number of unofficial
Indian members present was only five out of twenty - four!
The nationalists were totally dissatisfied with the Act of
1892. They saw in it a mockery of their demands. The Councils
were still impotent; despotism st ill ruled. They now demanded a
majority for non -official elected members with the right to vote on
the budget and, thus, to the public purse. They raised the slogan
‘no taxation without representation.’ Gradually, they raised their
demands. Many leaders — for example Dadabhai Naoroji in 1904,
G.K. Gokhale in 1905 and Lokamanya Tilak in 1906 began to put
forward the demand for self government the model of the self -
governing colonies of Canada and Australia.
*
Lord Dufferin, who had prepared the outline of th e Act of
1892, and other British statesmen and administrators, had seen
in the Legislative Cou ncil a device to incorporate the more vocal
Indian political leaders into the colonial political structure where
they could, in a manner of Speaking let off their political steam.
They knew that the members of the Councils enjoyed no real
powers; they could only make wordy speeches and indulge in
empty rhetorics, and the bureaucracy could afford to pay no
attention to them.
But the British policy makers had reckoned without the
political capacities of the Indian leaders who soon transformed
the powerless and impotent councils, designed as mere machines
for the endorsement of government policies, and measures and as
toys to appease the emerging political leadership, in to forums for
ventilating popular grievances, mercilessly exposing the defects
and shortcomings of the bureaucratic administration, criticizing
and opposing almost every government policy and proposal, and
raising basic economic issues, especially relating to public
finance. They submitted the acts and policies of the Government
to a ruthless examination regarding both their intention and their[/INST] |
method and c onsequence. Far from being absorbed by the
Councils, the nationalist members used them to enhance thei r
own political stature in the county and to build a national
movement. The safety valve was transformed into a major
channel for nationalist propaganda. By sheer courage, debating | <s>[INST]method and c onsequence. Far from being absorbed by the
Councils, the nationalist members used them to enhance thei r
own political stature in the county and to build a national
movement. The safety valve was transformed into a major
channel for nationalist propaganda. By sheer courage, debating[/INST] |
95 | Propaganda in the legislatures
skill, fearless criticism, deep knowledge and careful marshalling
of data they kept up a constant campaign against the
Government in the Councils undermining its political and moral
influence and generating a powerful anti -imperialist sentiment.
Their speeches began to be reported at length in the
newspapers and widespread publi c interest developed in the
legislative proceedings.
The new Councils attracted some of the most prominent
nationalist leaders. Surendranath Banerjea, Kalicharan Banerjee,
Ananda Mohan Bose, Lal Mohan Ghosh, W.C. Bonnerji and Rash
Beha Ghosh from Bengal, Ananda Charlu, C. Sankan Nair and
Vijayaraghavachariar from Madras, Madan Mohan Malaviya,
Ayodhyanath and Bishambar Nath from U.P., B.G. Tilak,
Pherozeshah Mehta, R.M. Sayani, Chimanlal Setalvad, N.G.
Chandravarkar and G.K. Gokhale from Bombay, and G.M.
Chitnavis from Central Provinces were s ome of served as
members of the Provincial or Central Legislative Councils from
1893 to 1909.
The two men who were most responsible for putting the
Council to good use and introducing a new spirit in them were
Pherozesh ah Mehta and Gopal Krishna Gokhale. Both men were
political Moderates. Both became famous for being fearlessly
independent and the bete noir of British officialdom in India.
*
Born in 1845 in Bombay, Pherozeshah Mehta came under
Dadabhai Naoroji’s influen ce while studying law in London
during the 1860s. He was one of the founders of the Bombay
Presidency Association as also the Indian National Congress.
From about the middle of the 1890s till his death in 1915 he was
a dominant figure in the Indian Nationa l Congress and was often
accused of exercising autocratic authority over it. He was a
powerful debater and his speeches were marked by boldness,
lucidity, incisiveness, a ready wit and quick repartee, and a
certain literary quality.
Mehta’s first major intervention in the Imperial Legislative | <s>[INST]95 | Propaganda in the legislatures
skill, fearless criticism, deep knowledge and careful marshalling
of data they kept up a constant campaign against the
Government in the Councils undermining its political and moral
influence and generating a powerful anti -imperialist sentiment.
Their speeches began to be reported at length in the
newspapers and widespread publi c interest developed in the
legislative proceedings.
The new Councils attracted some of the most prominent
nationalist leaders. Surendranath Banerjea, Kalicharan Banerjee,
Ananda Mohan Bose, Lal Mohan Ghosh, W.C. Bonnerji and Rash
Beha Ghosh from Bengal, Ananda Charlu, C. Sankan Nair and
Vijayaraghavachariar from Madras, Madan Mohan Malaviya,
Ayodhyanath and Bishambar Nath from U.P., B.G. Tilak,
Pherozeshah Mehta, R.M. Sayani, Chimanlal Setalvad, N.G.
Chandravarkar and G.K. Gokhale from Bombay, and G.M.
Chitnavis from Central Provinces were s ome of served as
members of the Provincial or Central Legislative Councils from
1893 to 1909.
The two men who were most responsible for putting the
Council to good use and introducing a new spirit in them were
Pherozesh ah Mehta and Gopal Krishna Gokhale. Both men were
political Moderates. Both became famous for being fearlessly
independent and the bete noir of British officialdom in India.
*
Born in 1845 in Bombay, Pherozeshah Mehta came under
Dadabhai Naoroji’s influen ce while studying law in London
during the 1860s. He was one of the founders of the Bombay
Presidency Association as also the Indian National Congress.
From about the middle of the 1890s till his death in 1915 he was
a dominant figure in the Indian Nationa l Congress and was often
accused of exercising autocratic authority over it. He was a
powerful debater and his speeches were marked by boldness,
lucidity, incisiveness, a ready wit and quick repartee, and a
certain literary quality.
Mehta’s first major intervention in the Imperial Legislative[/INST] |
Mehta’s first major intervention in the Imperial Legislative
Council came in January 1895 on a Bill for the amendment of | <s>[INST]Mehta’s first major intervention in the Imperial Legislative
Council came in January 1895 on a Bill for the amendment of[/INST] |
96 | India’s Struggle For Independence
the Police Act of 1861 which enhanced the power of the local
authorities to quarter a punitive police force in an area and to
recover its cost from selected sections of the inhabitants of the
area. Mehta pointed out that the measure was an attempt to
convict and punish individuals without a judicial trial under the
garb of preserving law and order. He argued: ‘I cannot conceive of
legislation more empirical, m ore retrograde, more open to abuse,
or more demoralizing. It is impossible not to see that it is a piece
of that empirical legislation so dear to the heart of executive
officers, which will not and cannot recognize the scientific fact
that the punishment and suppression of crime without injuring
or oppressing innocence must be controlled by judicial
procedure.’ Casting doubts on the capacity and impartiality of the
executive officers entrusted with the task of enforcing the Act,
Mehta said: ‘It would be idl e to believe that they can be free from
the biases, prejudices, and defects of their class and position.’
Nobody would today consider this language and these remarks
very strong or censorious. But they were like a bomb thrown into
the ranks of a civil service which considered itself above such
criticism. How dare a mere ‘native’ lay his sacrilegious hands on
its fair name and reputation and that too in the portals of the
Legislative Council? James Westland, the Finance Member, rose
in the house and proteste d against ‘the new spirit’ which Mehta
‘had introduced into the Council.’ He had moreover uttered
‘calumnies’ against and ‘arraigned’ as a class as biased,
prejudiced, utterly incapable of doing the commonest justice . . .
a most distinguished service,’ which had ‘contributed to the
framing and consolidation of the Empire.’ His remarks had
gravely detracted ‘from the reputation which this Council has
justly acquired for the dignity, the calmness and the
consideration which characterize its deliberations.’ I n other | <s>[INST]96 | India’s Struggle For Independence
the Police Act of 1861 which enhanced the power of the local
authorities to quarter a punitive police force in an area and to
recover its cost from selected sections of the inhabitants of the
area. Mehta pointed out that the measure was an attempt to
convict and punish individuals without a judicial trial under the
garb of preserving law and order. He argued: ‘I cannot conceive of
legislation more empirical, m ore retrograde, more open to abuse,
or more demoralizing. It is impossible not to see that it is a piece
of that empirical legislation so dear to the heart of executive
officers, which will not and cannot recognize the scientific fact
that the punishment and suppression of crime without injuring
or oppressing innocence must be controlled by judicial
procedure.’ Casting doubts on the capacity and impartiality of the
executive officers entrusted with the task of enforcing the Act,
Mehta said: ‘It would be idl e to believe that they can be free from
the biases, prejudices, and defects of their class and position.’
Nobody would today consider this language and these remarks
very strong or censorious. But they were like a bomb thrown into
the ranks of a civil service which considered itself above such
criticism. How dare a mere ‘native’ lay his sacrilegious hands on
its fair name and reputation and that too in the portals of the
Legislative Council? James Westland, the Finance Member, rose
in the house and proteste d against ‘the new spirit’ which Mehta
‘had introduced into the Council.’ He had moreover uttered
‘calumnies’ against and ‘arraigned’ as a class as biased,
prejudiced, utterly incapable of doing the commonest justice . . .
a most distinguished service,’ which had ‘contributed to the
framing and consolidation of the Empire.’ His remarks had
gravely detracted ‘from the reputation which this Council has
justly acquired for the dignity, the calmness and the
consideration which characterize its deliberations.’ I n other[/INST] |
consideration which characterize its deliberations.’ I n other
words, Mehta was accused of changing the role and character of
the colonial legislatures.
The Indian reaction was the very opposite. Pherozeshah
Mehta won the instant approval of political Indians, even of his
political opponents like Tilak, who r eadily accepted Westland’s
description that ‘a new spirit’ had entered the legislatures. People
were accustomed to such criticism coming from the platform or
the Press but that the ‘dignified’ Council halls could reverberate
with such sharp and fearless cr iticism was a novel experience.
The Tribune of Lahore commented: ‘The voice that has been so | <s>[INST]consideration which characterize its deliberations.’ I n other
words, Mehta was accused of changing the role and character of
the colonial legislatures.
The Indian reaction was the very opposite. Pherozeshah
Mehta won the instant approval of political Indians, even of his
political opponents like Tilak, who r eadily accepted Westland’s
description that ‘a new spirit’ had entered the legislatures. People
were accustomed to such criticism coming from the platform or
the Press but that the ‘dignified’ Council halls could reverberate
with such sharp and fearless cr iticism was a novel experience.
The Tribune of Lahore commented: ‘The voice that has been so[/INST] |
97 | Propaganda in the legislatures
long shut out from the Council Chamber — the voice of the
people has been admitted through the open door of election . . .
Mr. Mehta speaks as the representative o f the people... Sir James
Westland’s protest is the outcry of the bureaucrat rapped over
the knuckles in his own stronghold.’
The bureaucracy was to smart under the whiplash of
Mehta’s rapier - like wit almost every time he spoke in the
Council. We may give a few more examples of the forensic skill
with which he regaled the Indians and helped destroy the moral
influence and prestige of the British Indian Government and its
holier -than-thou bureaucracy. The educated Indians and higher
education were major bug bears of the imperialist administrators
then as they are of the imperialist schools of historians today.
Looking for ways and means of Cutting down higher education
because it was producing ‘discontended and s editious babus,’ the
Government hit upon the expedient of counterposing to
expenditure on primary education of the masses that on the
college education of the elites.
Pointing to the real motives behind this move to check the
spread of higher education, Mehta remarked: It is very well to
talk of “raisi ng the subject to the pedestal of the rule?’ but when
the subject begins to press close at your heels, human nature is
after all weak, and the personal experience is so intensely
disagreeable that the temptation to kick back is almost
irresistible.’ And so , most of the bureaucrats looked upon ‘every
Indian college (as) a nursery for hatching broods of vipers; the
less, therefore, the better.’
In another speech, commenting on the official desire to
transfer public funds from higher to primary education, he s aid
he was reminded of ‘the amiable and well-meaning father of a
somewhat numerous family, addicted unfortunately to slipping
off a little too often of an evening to the house over the way, who,
when the mother appealed to him to do something for the | <s>[INST]97 | Propaganda in the legislatures
long shut out from the Council Chamber — the voice of the
people has been admitted through the open door of election . . .
Mr. Mehta speaks as the representative o f the people... Sir James
Westland’s protest is the outcry of the bureaucrat rapped over
the knuckles in his own stronghold.’
The bureaucracy was to smart under the whiplash of
Mehta’s rapier - like wit almost every time he spoke in the
Council. We may give a few more examples of the forensic skill
with which he regaled the Indians and helped destroy the moral
influence and prestige of the British Indian Government and its
holier -than-thou bureaucracy. The educated Indians and higher
education were major bug bears of the imperialist administrators
then as they are of the imperialist schools of historians today.
Looking for ways and means of Cutting down higher education
because it was producing ‘discontended and s editious babus,’ the
Government hit upon the expedient of counterposing to
expenditure on primary education of the masses that on the
college education of the elites.
Pointing to the real motives behind this move to check the
spread of higher education, Mehta remarked: It is very well to
talk of “raisi ng the subject to the pedestal of the rule?’ but when
the subject begins to press close at your heels, human nature is
after all weak, and the personal experience is so intensely
disagreeable that the temptation to kick back is almost
irresistible.’ And so , most of the bureaucrats looked upon ‘every
Indian college (as) a nursery for hatching broods of vipers; the
less, therefore, the better.’
In another speech, commenting on the official desire to
transfer public funds from higher to primary education, he s aid
he was reminded of ‘the amiable and well-meaning father of a
somewhat numerous family, addicted unfortunately to slipping
off a little too often of an evening to the house over the way, who,
when the mother appealed to him to do something for the[/INST] |
when the mother appealed to him to do something for the
educa tion of the grown -up boys, begged of her with tears in his
eyes to consider if her request was not unreasonable, when there
was not even enough food and clothes for the younger children.
The poor woman could not gainsay the fact, with the hungry eyes
staring before her; but she could not help bitterly reflecting that
the children could have food and clothes, and education to boot, | <s>[INST]when the mother appealed to him to do something for the
educa tion of the grown -up boys, begged of her with tears in his
eyes to consider if her request was not unreasonable, when there
was not even enough food and clothes for the younger children.
The poor woman could not gainsay the fact, with the hungry eyes
staring before her; but she could not help bitterly reflecting that
the children could have food and clothes, and education to boot,[/INST] |
98 | India’s Struggle For Independence
if the kindly father could be induced to be good enough to spend
a little less on drink and cards. Similarly, gentlemen, when we
are reminded of the crying wants Of the poor masses for
sanitation and pure water and medical relief and primary
education, might we not respectfully venture to submit that there
would be funds, and to spare, for all these things, and higher
education too, if the enormous and growing resources of the
country were not ruthlessly squandered on a variety of whims
and luxuries, on costly residences and Sumptuous furniture, on
summer trips to the hills, on little holiday excursions to the
frontiers, but above and beyond all, on the lavish and insatiable
humours of an irresponsible military policy, enforced by the very
men whose view and opinions of its necessity cannot but
accommodate themselves to their own interests and ambitions.”
The officials were fond of blaming the Indian peasant’s
poverty and indebtedness on his propensity to spend recklessly
on marriages and festivals. In 1901, a Bill was brought in the
Bombay Legislative to take away the peasant’s right of ownership
of land to prevent him from barterin g it away because of his
thriftlessness. Denying this charge and opposing the bill, Mehta
defended the right of the peasant to have some joy, colour, and
moments of brightness in his life. In the case of average Indian
peasant, he said, ‘a few new earthenw are a few wild flowers, the
village tom -tom, a stomach -full meal, bad arecanut and betel
leaves and a few stalks of cheap tobacco, and in some cases a few
cheap tawdry trinkets, exhaust the joys of a festive occasion in
the life of a household which has known only an unbroken period
of unshrinking labour from morn to sunset.”° And when the
Government insisted on using its official majority to push
through the Bill, Mehta along. With Gokhale, G.K. Parekh,
Balachandra Krishna and D.A. Khare took the unprecede nted | <s>[INST]98 | India’s Struggle For Independence
if the kindly father could be induced to be good enough to spend
a little less on drink and cards. Similarly, gentlemen, when we
are reminded of the crying wants Of the poor masses for
sanitation and pure water and medical relief and primary
education, might we not respectfully venture to submit that there
would be funds, and to spare, for all these things, and higher
education too, if the enormous and growing resources of the
country were not ruthlessly squandered on a variety of whims
and luxuries, on costly residences and Sumptuous furniture, on
summer trips to the hills, on little holiday excursions to the
frontiers, but above and beyond all, on the lavish and insatiable
humours of an irresponsible military policy, enforced by the very
men whose view and opinions of its necessity cannot but
accommodate themselves to their own interests and ambitions.”
The officials were fond of blaming the Indian peasant’s
poverty and indebtedness on his propensity to spend recklessly
on marriages and festivals. In 1901, a Bill was brought in the
Bombay Legislative to take away the peasant’s right of ownership
of land to prevent him from barterin g it away because of his
thriftlessness. Denying this charge and opposing the bill, Mehta
defended the right of the peasant to have some joy, colour, and
moments of brightness in his life. In the case of average Indian
peasant, he said, ‘a few new earthenw are a few wild flowers, the
village tom -tom, a stomach -full meal, bad arecanut and betel
leaves and a few stalks of cheap tobacco, and in some cases a few
cheap tawdry trinkets, exhaust the joys of a festive occasion in
the life of a household which has known only an unbroken period
of unshrinking labour from morn to sunset.”° And when the
Government insisted on using its official majority to push
through the Bill, Mehta along. With Gokhale, G.K. Parekh,
Balachandra Krishna and D.A. Khare took the unprecede nted[/INST] |
Balachandra Krishna and D.A. Khare took the unprecede nted
step of organizing the first walk -out in India’s legis1atj history.
Once again officialdom was furious with Mehta. The Times of
India, then British -owned even suggested that these members
should be made to resign their seats!
Criticizing the Governme nt’s excise policy for encouraging
drinking in the name of curbing it, he remarked in 1898 that the
excise department ‘seems to follow the example of the preacher
who said that though he was bound to teach good principles, he
was by no ‘means bound to prac tice them.” | <s>[INST]Balachandra Krishna and D.A. Khare took the unprecede nted
step of organizing the first walk -out in India’s legis1atj history.
Once again officialdom was furious with Mehta. The Times of
India, then British -owned even suggested that these members
should be made to resign their seats!
Criticizing the Governme nt’s excise policy for encouraging
drinking in the name of curbing it, he remarked in 1898 that the
excise department ‘seems to follow the example of the preacher
who said that though he was bound to teach good principles, he
was by no ‘means bound to prac tice them.”[/INST] |
99 | Propaganda in the legislatures
Pherozeshah Mehta retired from the Imperial Legislative
Council in 1901 due to bad health. He got elected in his place
thirty -five-year-old Gokhale, who had already made his mark as
the Secretary of the Poona Sarvajanik Sabha and the editor of the
Sudharak. In 1897, as a witness in London before the Royal
Commission on Expenditure in India, Gokhale had outshone
veterans like Surendranath Banerjea, D.E. Wacha, G.
Subramaniya Iyer and Dadabhai Naoroji. Gokhale was to prove a
more than worthy succ essor to Mehta.
*
Gopal Krishna Gokhale was an outstanding intellectual who
had been carefully trained in Indian economics by Justice
Ranade and G.V. Josh’. He was no orator. He did not use strong
and forceful language as Tilak, Dadabhai Naoroji and R.C. Dun
did. Nor did he take recourse, as Mehta did, to humour, irony
and courteous, sarcasm. As a speaker he was gentle, reasonable,
courteous, non -flamboyant and lucid. He relied primarily upon
detailed knowledge and the careful data. Consequently, while his
speeches did no t entertain or hurt, they gradually took hold of
the listeners’ or readers’ attention by their sheer intellectual
power.
Gokhale was to gain great fame for his budget speeches
which used to be reported extensively by the newspapers and
whose readers would wait eagerly for their morning copy. He was
to transform the Legislative Council into an open univ ersity for
imparting political education to the people.
His very first budget speech on 26 March 1902 established
him as the greatest parliam entarian that India has produced. The
Finance Member, Edward Law, had just presented a budget with
a seven -crore -rupees surplus for which he had received with
great pride the congratulations, of the house. At this point
Gokhale rose to speak. He could not, he said, ‘conscientiously
join in the congratulations’ because of the huge surplus. On the
contrary, the surplus budget ‘illustrated the utter absence of a | <s>[INST]99 | Propaganda in the legislatures
Pherozeshah Mehta retired from the Imperial Legislative
Council in 1901 due to bad health. He got elected in his place
thirty -five-year-old Gokhale, who had already made his mark as
the Secretary of the Poona Sarvajanik Sabha and the editor of the
Sudharak. In 1897, as a witness in London before the Royal
Commission on Expenditure in India, Gokhale had outshone
veterans like Surendranath Banerjea, D.E. Wacha, G.
Subramaniya Iyer and Dadabhai Naoroji. Gokhale was to prove a
more than worthy succ essor to Mehta.
*
Gopal Krishna Gokhale was an outstanding intellectual who
had been carefully trained in Indian economics by Justice
Ranade and G.V. Josh’. He was no orator. He did not use strong
and forceful language as Tilak, Dadabhai Naoroji and R.C. Dun
did. Nor did he take recourse, as Mehta did, to humour, irony
and courteous, sarcasm. As a speaker he was gentle, reasonable,
courteous, non -flamboyant and lucid. He relied primarily upon
detailed knowledge and the careful data. Consequently, while his
speeches did no t entertain or hurt, they gradually took hold of
the listeners’ or readers’ attention by their sheer intellectual
power.
Gokhale was to gain great fame for his budget speeches
which used to be reported extensively by the newspapers and
whose readers would wait eagerly for their morning copy. He was
to transform the Legislative Council into an open univ ersity for
imparting political education to the people.
His very first budget speech on 26 March 1902 established
him as the greatest parliam entarian that India has produced. The
Finance Member, Edward Law, had just presented a budget with
a seven -crore -rupees surplus for which he had received with
great pride the congratulations, of the house. At this point
Gokhale rose to speak. He could not, he said, ‘conscientiously
join in the congratulations’ because of the huge surplus. On the
contrary, the surplus budget ‘illustrated the utter absence of a[/INST] |
due correspondence between the Condition of the country and
the condition of the finances of the co untry.’ In fact, this surplus
coming in times of serious depression and suffering, constituted
‘a wrong to the community.’ The keynote of his speech was the | <s>[INST]due correspondence between the Condition of the country and
the condition of the finances of the co untry.’ In fact, this surplus
coming in times of serious depression and suffering, constituted
‘a wrong to the community.’ The keynote of his speech was the[/INST] |
100 | India’s Struggle For Independence
poverty of the people. He examined the problem in all its aspects
and came to the conclusion that t he material condition of the
mass of the people was ‘steadily deteriorating’ and that the
phenomenon was ‘the saddest in the whole range of the economic
history of the world.’ He then set out to analyze the budget in
detail. He showed how land revenue and the salt tax had been
going up even in times of drought and famine. He asked for the
reduction of these two taxes and for raising the minimum level of
income liable to income tax to Rs. 1,000 so that the lower middle
classes would not be harassed. He conde mned the large
expenditure on the army and territorial expansion beyond Indian
frontiers and demanded greater expenditure on education and
industry instead. The management of Indian finances, he said,
revealed that Indian interests were invariably subordin ated to
foreign interests. He linked the poor state of Indian finances and
the poverty of the people with the colonial status of the Indian
economy and polity. And he did all this by citing at length from
the Government’s own blue books.’
Gokhale’s first budget speech had ‘an electrifying effect’
upon the people. As his biographer, B.R. Nanda, has put it: ‘Like
Byron, he could have said that he woke up one fine morning and
found himself famous”. He won instant praise even from his
severest critics and was applauded by the entire nationalist
Press. It was felt that he had raised Indian pride many notches
higher. The Amrita Bazar Patrika, which had missed no
opportunity in the past to berate and belittle him, gave unstinted
expression to this pride: ‘We had ev er entertained the ambition of
seeing some Indian member openly and fearlessly criticizing the
Financial Statement of the Government. But this ambition was
never satisfied. When members had ability, they had not the
requisite courage. When they had the req uisite courage, they had | <s>[INST]100 | India’s Struggle For Independence
poverty of the people. He examined the problem in all its aspects
and came to the conclusion that t he material condition of the
mass of the people was ‘steadily deteriorating’ and that the
phenomenon was ‘the saddest in the whole range of the economic
history of the world.’ He then set out to analyze the budget in
detail. He showed how land revenue and the salt tax had been
going up even in times of drought and famine. He asked for the
reduction of these two taxes and for raising the minimum level of
income liable to income tax to Rs. 1,000 so that the lower middle
classes would not be harassed. He conde mned the large
expenditure on the army and territorial expansion beyond Indian
frontiers and demanded greater expenditure on education and
industry instead. The management of Indian finances, he said,
revealed that Indian interests were invariably subordin ated to
foreign interests. He linked the poor state of Indian finances and
the poverty of the people with the colonial status of the Indian
economy and polity. And he did all this by citing at length from
the Government’s own blue books.’
Gokhale’s first budget speech had ‘an electrifying effect’
upon the people. As his biographer, B.R. Nanda, has put it: ‘Like
Byron, he could have said that he woke up one fine morning and
found himself famous”. He won instant praise even from his
severest critics and was applauded by the entire nationalist
Press. It was felt that he had raised Indian pride many notches
higher. The Amrita Bazar Patrika, which had missed no
opportunity in the past to berate and belittle him, gave unstinted
expression to this pride: ‘We had ev er entertained the ambition of
seeing some Indian member openly and fearlessly criticizing the
Financial Statement of the Government. But this ambition was
never satisfied. When members had ability, they had not the
requisite courage. When they had the req uisite courage, they had[/INST] |
not the ability. . . For the first time in the annals of British rule in
India, a native of India has not only succeeded in exposing the
fallacies which underlie these Government statements, but has
ventured to do it in an uncompro mising manner.” All this well -
deserved acclaim did not go to Gokhale’s head. He remained
unassuming and modest as before. To G.V. Joshi (leading
economist and one of his gurus), he wrote: ‘Of course it is your
speech more than mine and I almost feel I am p racticing a fraud
on the public in that I let all the credit for it come to me.” | <s>[INST]not the ability. . . For the first time in the annals of British rule in
India, a native of India has not only succeeded in exposing the
fallacies which underlie these Government statements, but has
ventured to do it in an uncompro mising manner.” All this well -
deserved acclaim did not go to Gokhale’s head. He remained
unassuming and modest as before. To G.V. Joshi (leading
economist and one of his gurus), he wrote: ‘Of course it is your
speech more than mine and I almost feel I am p racticing a fraud
on the public in that I let all the credit for it come to me.”[/INST] |
101 | Propaganda in the legislatures
In the next ten years, Gokhale was to bring this ‘mixture of
courage, tenacity and ability’ to bear upon every annual budget
and all legislation, highlighting in the process the misery and
poverty of the peasants, the drain of wealth from India, the
Government neglect of industrial development, the taxation of the
poor, the lack of welfare measures such as primary education
and health and medical facilities, the official effor ts to suppress
the freedom of the Press and other civil liberties, the enslavement
of Indian labourers in British colonies, the moral dwarfing of
Indians, the underdevelopment of the Indian economy and the
complete neglect and subordination of Indian interests by the
rulers.
Officials from the Viceroy downwards squirmed with
impotent fury under his sharp and incisive indictments of their
policies. In 1904, Edward Law, the Finance Member, cried out in
exasperation: ‘When he takes his seat at this Council ta ble he
unconsciously perhaps adopts the role and demeanour of the
habitual mourner, and his sad wails and lamentations at the
delinquencies of Government are as piteous as long practice and
training can make them.” Such was the fear Gokhale’s budget
speech es aroused among officials that in 1910, Lord Minto, the
Viceroy, asked the Secretary of State to appoint R.W. Carlyle as
Revenue Member because he had come to know privately of ‘an
intended attack in which Gokhale i s interested on the whole of
our revenue system and it is important that we should be well
prepared to meet it.
Gokhale was to be repaid in plenty by the love and
recognition of his o wn people. Proud of his legislative
achievement they were to confer him the title of ‘the leader of the
oppositio n’. Gandhiji was to declare him his political guru. And
Tilak, his lifelong political opponent, said at his funeral: ‘This
diamond of India, this jewel of Maharashtra, this prince of
workers, is taking eternal rest on the funeral ground. Look at him | <s>[INST]101 | Propaganda in the legislatures
In the next ten years, Gokhale was to bring this ‘mixture of
courage, tenacity and ability’ to bear upon every annual budget
and all legislation, highlighting in the process the misery and
poverty of the peasants, the drain of wealth from India, the
Government neglect of industrial development, the taxation of the
poor, the lack of welfare measures such as primary education
and health and medical facilities, the official effor ts to suppress
the freedom of the Press and other civil liberties, the enslavement
of Indian labourers in British colonies, the moral dwarfing of
Indians, the underdevelopment of the Indian economy and the
complete neglect and subordination of Indian interests by the
rulers.
Officials from the Viceroy downwards squirmed with
impotent fury under his sharp and incisive indictments of their
policies. In 1904, Edward Law, the Finance Member, cried out in
exasperation: ‘When he takes his seat at this Council ta ble he
unconsciously perhaps adopts the role and demeanour of the
habitual mourner, and his sad wails and lamentations at the
delinquencies of Government are as piteous as long practice and
training can make them.” Such was the fear Gokhale’s budget
speech es aroused among officials that in 1910, Lord Minto, the
Viceroy, asked the Secretary of State to appoint R.W. Carlyle as
Revenue Member because he had come to know privately of ‘an
intended attack in which Gokhale i s interested on the whole of
our revenue system and it is important that we should be well
prepared to meet it.
Gokhale was to be repaid in plenty by the love and
recognition of his o wn people. Proud of his legislative
achievement they were to confer him the title of ‘the leader of the
oppositio n’. Gandhiji was to declare him his political guru. And
Tilak, his lifelong political opponent, said at his funeral: ‘This
diamond of India, this jewel of Maharashtra, this prince of
workers, is taking eternal rest on the funeral ground. Look at him[/INST] |
and tr y to emulate him.” | <s>[INST]and tr y to emulate him.”[/INST] |
102 | India’s Struggle For Independence
CHAPTER 10. THE SWADESHI
MOVEMENT — 1903 -08
With the start of the Swadeshi Movement at the turn of the
century, the Indian national movement took a major leap
forward. Women, students and a large section of the urban and
rural population of Bengal and other parts of India became
actively involved in politics for the first time. The next half a
decade saw the emergence of almost all the major political trends
of the Indian national movement. From conservative mod eration
to political extremism, from terrorism to incipient socialism, from
petitioning and public speeches to passive resistance and
boycott, all had their origins in the movement. The richness of
the movement was not confined to politics alone. The perio d saw
a breakthrough in Indian ã1 literature, music, science and
industry. Indian society, as a ‘hole, was experimenting and the
creativity of the people expanded in every direction.
*
The Swadeshi Movement had its genesis in the anti -
partition movement w hich was started to oppose the British
decision to partition Bengal There was no questioning the fact
that Bengal with a population of78 million (about a quarter of the
population of British India) had indeed become administratively
unwieldy. Equally there was no escaping the fact that the real
motive or partitioning Bengal was political. Indian nationalism
was gaining in strength and partition expected to weaken what
was perceived as the nerve centre of Indian nationalism at that
time. The attempt, at that time in the words of Lord Curzon, the
Viceroy (1899 -1905) was to ‘dethrone Calcutta’ from its position
as the ‘centre from which the Congress Party is manipulated
throughout Bengal, and indeed w hich the Congress Party centre
of successful intrigue’ and ‘divide ,the Bengali speaking
population.’ Risley, the Home Secretary to the Government of
India, was more blunt. He said on 6 December 1904: ‘Bengal | <s>[INST]102 | India’s Struggle For Independence
CHAPTER 10. THE SWADESHI
MOVEMENT — 1903 -08
With the start of the Swadeshi Movement at the turn of the
century, the Indian national movement took a major leap
forward. Women, students and a large section of the urban and
rural population of Bengal and other parts of India became
actively involved in politics for the first time. The next half a
decade saw the emergence of almost all the major political trends
of the Indian national movement. From conservative mod eration
to political extremism, from terrorism to incipient socialism, from
petitioning and public speeches to passive resistance and
boycott, all had their origins in the movement. The richness of
the movement was not confined to politics alone. The perio d saw
a breakthrough in Indian ã1 literature, music, science and
industry. Indian society, as a ‘hole, was experimenting and the
creativity of the people expanded in every direction.
*
The Swadeshi Movement had its genesis in the anti -
partition movement w hich was started to oppose the British
decision to partition Bengal There was no questioning the fact
that Bengal with a population of78 million (about a quarter of the
population of British India) had indeed become administratively
unwieldy. Equally there was no escaping the fact that the real
motive or partitioning Bengal was political. Indian nationalism
was gaining in strength and partition expected to weaken what
was perceived as the nerve centre of Indian nationalism at that
time. The attempt, at that time in the words of Lord Curzon, the
Viceroy (1899 -1905) was to ‘dethrone Calcutta’ from its position
as the ‘centre from which the Congress Party is manipulated
throughout Bengal, and indeed w hich the Congress Party centre
of successful intrigue’ and ‘divide ,the Bengali speaking
population.’ Risley, the Home Secretary to the Government of
India, was more blunt. He said on 6 December 1904: ‘Bengal[/INST] |
India, was more blunt. He said on 6 December 1904: ‘Bengal
united, is power, Bengal divided, will pull several different ways. | <s>[INST]India, was more blunt. He said on 6 December 1904: ‘Bengal
united, is power, Bengal divided, will pull several different ways.[/INST] |
103 |The Swadeshi Movement ---1903 -08
That is what the Congress leaders feel : their apprehensions are
perfectly correct and they form one of the great merits of the
scheme... in this scheme... one of our main objects is to split up
and thereby weaken a solid body of opponents to our rule.’
Curzon reacted sharply to the almost instan t furore that
was raised in Bengal over the partition proposals and wrote to
the Secretary of State. ‘If we are weak enough to yield to their
clamour n ow, we shall not be able to dismember or reduce
Bengal again: and you will be cementing and solidifying a force
already formidable and certain to be a source of increasing
trouble in the future’. The partition of the state intended to curb
Bengali influence by not only placing Bengalis under two
admininistrations but by reducing them to a minority in Bengal
itself as in the new proposal Bengal proper was to have seventeen
million Bengali and thirty -seven million Oriya and Hindi speaking
people! Also, the partition was meant to foster another kind of
division — this time on the basis of religion. The policy of
propping up Muslim communalists as a counter to the Congress
and the national movement, which was getting increasingly
crystallized in the last quarter of the 19th century. was to be
implemented once again. Curzon’s speech at Dacca, betrayed his
attempt to ‘woo the Muslims’ to support partition. With partition,
he argued, Dacca could become the capital of the new Muslim
majority province (with eighteen million Muslims and twelve
million Hindus) ‘which would Invest the Mohammedans in
Eastern Bengal with a u nity which they have not enjoyed since
the days of the old Mussulman Viceroys and Kings.’ The Muslims
would thus get a ‘better deal’ and the eastern districts would be
freed of the ‘pernicious influence of Calcutta.’
And even Lord Minto, Curzon’s successo r was critical of the
way in which partition was imposed disregarding public opinion | <s>[INST]103 |The Swadeshi Movement ---1903 -08
That is what the Congress leaders feel : their apprehensions are
perfectly correct and they form one of the great merits of the
scheme... in this scheme... one of our main objects is to split up
and thereby weaken a solid body of opponents to our rule.’
Curzon reacted sharply to the almost instan t furore that
was raised in Bengal over the partition proposals and wrote to
the Secretary of State. ‘If we are weak enough to yield to their
clamour n ow, we shall not be able to dismember or reduce
Bengal again: and you will be cementing and solidifying a force
already formidable and certain to be a source of increasing
trouble in the future’. The partition of the state intended to curb
Bengali influence by not only placing Bengalis under two
admininistrations but by reducing them to a minority in Bengal
itself as in the new proposal Bengal proper was to have seventeen
million Bengali and thirty -seven million Oriya and Hindi speaking
people! Also, the partition was meant to foster another kind of
division — this time on the basis of religion. The policy of
propping up Muslim communalists as a counter to the Congress
and the national movement, which was getting increasingly
crystallized in the last quarter of the 19th century. was to be
implemented once again. Curzon’s speech at Dacca, betrayed his
attempt to ‘woo the Muslims’ to support partition. With partition,
he argued, Dacca could become the capital of the new Muslim
majority province (with eighteen million Muslims and twelve
million Hindus) ‘which would Invest the Mohammedans in
Eastern Bengal with a u nity which they have not enjoyed since
the days of the old Mussulman Viceroys and Kings.’ The Muslims
would thus get a ‘better deal’ and the eastern districts would be
freed of the ‘pernicious influence of Calcutta.’
And even Lord Minto, Curzon’s successo r was critical of the
way in which partition was imposed disregarding public opinion[/INST] |
way in which partition was imposed disregarding public opinion
saw that it was good political strategy; Minto argued that ‘from a
political point of View alone, putting aside the administrative
difficulties of the old province, I beli eve partition to have been
very necessary . .‘
The Indian nationalists clearly saw the design behind the
partition and condemned it unanimously. The anti-partition and
Swadeshi Movement had begun. | <s>[INST]way in which partition was imposed disregarding public opinion
saw that it was good political strategy; Minto argued that ‘from a
political point of View alone, putting aside the administrative
difficulties of the old province, I beli eve partition to have been
very necessary . .‘
The Indian nationalists clearly saw the design behind the
partition and condemned it unanimously. The anti-partition and
Swadeshi Movement had begun.[/INST] |
104 | India’s Struggle For Independence
*
In December 1903, the partition proposals became publicl y
known, immediate and spontaneous protest followed. The
strength of this protest can be gauged from the fact that in the
first two months following the announcement 500 protest
meetings were held in East Bengal alone, especially m Dacca,
Mymensingh and Chittagong. Nearly fifty thousand copies of
pamphlets giving a detailed critique of the partition proposals
were distributed all over Bengal. Surendranath Banerjea, Krishna
Kumar Mitra, Prithwishchandra Ray and other leaders launched
a powerful press campaig n against the partition proposals
through journals and newspapers like the Bengalee, Hitabadi and
Sanjibani. Vast protest meetings were held in the town hail of
Calcutta in March 1904 and January 1905, and numerous
petitions (sixty -nine memoranda from the Dacca division alone),
some of them signed by as many as 70,000 people — a very large
number keeping n view the level of politicization in those days —
were sent to the Government of India and the Secretary of State.
Even, the big zamindars who had hithert o been loyal to the Raj,
joined forces with the Congress leaders who were mostly
intellectuals and political workers drawn from journalism, law
and other liberal professions.
This was the phase, 1903 to mid -1905 when moderate
techniques of petitions, memo randa, 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 sufficient 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. It was obvious t o the nationalists that their moderate
methods were not working and that a different kind of strategy as | <s>[INST]104 | India’s Struggle For Independence
*
In December 1903, the partition proposals became publicl y
known, immediate and spontaneous protest followed. The
strength of this protest can be gauged from the fact that in the
first two months following the announcement 500 protest
meetings were held in East Bengal alone, especially m Dacca,
Mymensingh and Chittagong. Nearly fifty thousand copies of
pamphlets giving a detailed critique of the partition proposals
were distributed all over Bengal. Surendranath Banerjea, Krishna
Kumar Mitra, Prithwishchandra Ray and other leaders launched
a powerful press campaig n against the partition proposals
through journals and newspapers like the Bengalee, Hitabadi and
Sanjibani. Vast protest meetings were held in the town hail of
Calcutta in March 1904 and January 1905, and numerous
petitions (sixty -nine memoranda from the Dacca division alone),
some of them signed by as many as 70,000 people — a very large
number keeping n view the level of politicization in those days —
were sent to the Government of India and the Secretary of State.
Even, the big zamindars who had hithert o been loyal to the Raj,
joined forces with the Congress leaders who were mostly
intellectuals and political workers drawn from journalism, law
and other liberal professions.
This was the phase, 1903 to mid -1905 when moderate
techniques of petitions, memo randa, 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 sufficient 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. It was obvious t o the nationalists that their moderate
methods were not working and that a different kind of strategy as[/INST] |
needed. Within days of the government announcement numerous
spontaneous protest meetings were held in mofussil towns such | <s>[INST]needed. Within days of the government announcement numerous
spontaneous protest meetings were held in mofussil towns such[/INST] |
105 |The Swadeshi Movement ---1903 -08
as Dinajpur, Pabna, Faridpur, Tangail, Jessore, Dacca, Birbhum,
and Barisal. It was in these meetings that the pledge to boycott
foreign goods was first taken In Calcutta; students organized a
number of meetings against partition and for Swadeshi.
The formal proclamation of the Swade shi 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 7
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. On September 1, the Government announced that partition
was to be effected on.[6 October’ 1905. The following weeks saw
protest meetings being held almost everyday all over Bengal;
some of these meetings, like the one in Barisal, drew crowds of
ten to twelve thousand. That the message of boycott went home is
evident from the fact that the value of British cloth sold in some
of the mofussil districts fell by five to fifteen times between
September 1904 and September 1905.
The day partition took effect — 16 October 1905 — was
declared a day of mourning throughout Bengal. People fasted and
no fires were lit at the cooking hearth. 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. Later in the day Anandamohan Bose
and Surendranath Banerjea addressed two huge mass meetings
which drew crowds of 50,000 to 75,000 people. These were,
perhaps, the largest mass meetings ever to be held under the
nationalist banner this far. Within a few hours of the meetings, a | <s>[INST]105 |The Swadeshi Movement ---1903 -08
as Dinajpur, Pabna, Faridpur, Tangail, Jessore, Dacca, Birbhum,
and Barisal. It was in these meetings that the pledge to boycott
foreign goods was first taken In Calcutta; students organized a
number of meetings against partition and for Swadeshi.
The formal proclamation of the Swade shi 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 7
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. On September 1, the Government announced that partition
was to be effected on.[6 October’ 1905. The following weeks saw
protest meetings being held almost everyday all over Bengal;
some of these meetings, like the one in Barisal, drew crowds of
ten to twelve thousand. That the message of boycott went home is
evident from the fact that the value of British cloth sold in some
of the mofussil districts fell by five to fifteen times between
September 1904 and September 1905.
The day partition took effect — 16 October 1905 — was
declared a day of mourning throughout Bengal. People fasted and
no fires were lit at the cooking hearth. 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. Later in the day Anandamohan Bose
and Surendranath Banerjea addressed two huge mass meetings
which drew crowds of 50,000 to 75,000 people. These were,
perhaps, the largest mass meetings ever to be held under the
nationalist banner this far. Within a few hours of the meetings, a[/INST] |
sum of Rs. 50,000 was raised for the movement.
It was apparent that the character of the movement in terms
both its goals and social base h ad begun to expand rapidly. As
Abdul Rasul, President of Barisal Conference, April 1906, put it:
‘What we could not have accomplished in 50 or 100 years, the
great disaster, the partition of Bengal, has done for us in six | <s>[INST]sum of Rs. 50,000 was raised for the movement.
It was apparent that the character of the movement in terms
both its goals and social base h ad begun to expand rapidly. As
Abdul Rasul, President of Barisal Conference, April 1906, put it:
‘What we could not have accomplished in 50 or 100 years, the
great disaster, the partition of Bengal, has done for us in six[/INST] |
106 | India’s Struggle For Independence
months. Its fruits have been the great national movement known
as the Swadeshi movement.’
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 Si ngh 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 Swades hi and boycott to a full fledged 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.
*
In Bengal, however, after 1905, the Extremists acquired a | <s>[INST]106 | India’s Struggle For Independence
months. Its fruits have been the great national movement known
as the Swadeshi movement.’
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 Si ngh 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 Swades hi and boycott to a full fledged 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.
*
In Bengal, however, after 1905, the Extremists acquired a[/INST] |
*
In Bengal, however, after 1905, the Extremists acquired a
dominant influence over the Swadeshi Movement. Several new
forms of mobilization and techniques of struggle now began to
emerge a t the popular level. The trend of ‘mendicancy,’
petitioning and memorials was on the retreat. The militant | <s>[INST]*
In Bengal, however, after 1905, the Extremists acquired a
dominant influence over the Swadeshi Movement. Several new
forms of mobilization and techniques of struggle now began to
emerge a t the popular level. The trend of ‘mendicancy,’
petitioning and memorials was on the retreat. The militant[/INST] |
107 |The Swadeshi Movement ---1903 -08
nationalists put forward several fresh ideas at the theoretical,
propagandistic and programmatic plane. Political independence
was to be achieved by converting the movement into a mass
movement through the extension of boycott into a full -scale
movement of non -cooperation and passive resistance. The
technique of extended boycott’ was to include, apart from boycott
of foreign goods, boycott of governmen t schools and colleges
courts, titles and government services and even the organization
of strikes. The aim was to ‘make the administration under
present conditions impossible by an organized refusal to do
anything which shall help either the British Comme rce in the
exploitation of the country or British officialdom in the
administration of it.’ While some, with remarkable foresight, saw
the tremendous potential of large scale peaceful resistance --- . . .
the Chowkidar, the constable; the deputy and the mu nsif and the
clerk, not to speak of the sepoy all resign their respective
functions, feringhee rule in the country may come to an end in a
moment No powder and shot will be needed, no sepoys will have
to be trained... Others like Aurobindo Ghosh (with his growing
links with revolutionary terrorists) kept open the option of violent
resistance if British repression was stepped up.
Among the several forms of struggle thrown up by the
movement, it was the boycott of foreign goods which met with the
greatest v isible success at the practical and popular level. Boycott
and public burning of foreign cloth, picketing of shops selling
foreign goods, all became common in remote corners of Bengal as
well as in many important towns and cities throughout the
country. Wo men refused to wear foreign bangles and use foreign
utensils, washermen refused to wash foreign clothes and even
priests declined offerings which contained foreign sugar.
The movement also innovated with considerable success
different forms of mass mobili zation. Public meetings and | <s>[INST]107 |The Swadeshi Movement ---1903 -08
nationalists put forward several fresh ideas at the theoretical,
propagandistic and programmatic plane. Political independence
was to be achieved by converting the movement into a mass
movement through the extension of boycott into a full -scale
movement of non -cooperation and passive resistance. The
technique of extended boycott’ was to include, apart from boycott
of foreign goods, boycott of governmen t schools and colleges
courts, titles and government services and even the organization
of strikes. The aim was to ‘make the administration under
present conditions impossible by an organized refusal to do
anything which shall help either the British Comme rce in the
exploitation of the country or British officialdom in the
administration of it.’ While some, with remarkable foresight, saw
the tremendous potential of large scale peaceful resistance --- . . .
the Chowkidar, the constable; the deputy and the mu nsif and the
clerk, not to speak of the sepoy all resign their respective
functions, feringhee rule in the country may come to an end in a
moment No powder and shot will be needed, no sepoys will have
to be trained... Others like Aurobindo Ghosh (with his growing
links with revolutionary terrorists) kept open the option of violent
resistance if British repression was stepped up.
Among the several forms of struggle thrown up by the
movement, it was the boycott of foreign goods which met with the
greatest v isible success at the practical and popular level. Boycott
and public burning of foreign cloth, picketing of shops selling
foreign goods, all became common in remote corners of Bengal as
well as in many important towns and cities throughout the
country. Wo men refused to wear foreign bangles and use foreign
utensils, washermen refused to wash foreign clothes and even
priests declined offerings which contained foreign sugar.
The movement also innovated with considerable success
different forms of mass mobili zation. Public meetings and[/INST] |