text
stringlengths 25
2.05k
| text_pr
stringlengths 41
2.06k
|
|---|---|
movement. Broadly speaking , this vision was that of bourgeois or
capitalist independent economic development and a se cular,
republican, democratic, civil libertarian political order, both the
economic and political order to be based on principles of social
equality. Interestingly, this vision was to remain unquestioned
throughout the only controversy was confined to the capitalist
character of the economic order, which was questioned in a
serious manner after 1920. | <s>[INST]movement. Broadly speaking , this vision was that of bourgeois or
capitalist independent economic development and a se cular,
republican, democratic, civil libertarian political order, both the
economic and political order to be based on principles of social
equality. Interestingly, this vision was to remain unquestioned
throughout the only controversy was confined to the capitalist
character of the economic order, which was questioned in a
serious manner after 1920.[/INST] |
529 | The Indian National Movement —the Ideological Dimension
The national movement was fully committed to
parliamentary democrac y and civil liberties. It provided the soil
and climate in which these two could root themselves at a time
when the colonial rulers were preaching that because of India’s
climate, the historical traditions of the Indian people and the
nature of their relig ious and social institutions, democracy was
not suited to India — that Indians’ must be ruled in an
authoritarian and despotic manner. The British also increasingly
tampered with and attack ed the freedoms of speech and the
Press.
Consequently, it was left to the national movement to fight
for democracy and to internalize and indigenize it, that is to root
it in the Indian soil. From the beginning it fought for the
introduction of a representative form of government on the basis
of popular elections. Tilak a nd other nationalists before 1920
and, then, Gandhiji and the Congress demanded the introduction
of adult franchise so that all adult men and women could vote.
From its inception, the Indian National Congress was organized
along democratic lines. All its r esolutions were publicly debated
and then voted upon. The Congress permitted and encouraged
minority opinion to freely express itself.
Some of the most important decisions in its history were
taken after heated debates and on the basis of open voting. For
example, the decision to start the Non -Cooperation Movement
was taken in 1920 at Calcutta with 1886 voting for and 884
against Gandhiji’s resolution. Similarly, at the Lahore Congress
in 1929, a resolution sponsored by Gandhiji condemning the
Revolutionar y Terrorists’ bomb attack on the Viceroy’s train was
passed by a narrow majority of 942 to 794. In 1942, thirteen
Communist members of the AICC voted against the famous Quit
India resolution. But instead of condemning these thirteen,
Gandhiji, at the very beginning of his famous ‘Do or Die’ speech, | <s>[INST]529 | The Indian National Movement —the Ideological Dimension
The national movement was fully committed to
parliamentary democrac y and civil liberties. It provided the soil
and climate in which these two could root themselves at a time
when the colonial rulers were preaching that because of India’s
climate, the historical traditions of the Indian people and the
nature of their relig ious and social institutions, democracy was
not suited to India — that Indians’ must be ruled in an
authoritarian and despotic manner. The British also increasingly
tampered with and attack ed the freedoms of speech and the
Press.
Consequently, it was left to the national movement to fight
for democracy and to internalize and indigenize it, that is to root
it in the Indian soil. From the beginning it fought for the
introduction of a representative form of government on the basis
of popular elections. Tilak a nd other nationalists before 1920
and, then, Gandhiji and the Congress demanded the introduction
of adult franchise so that all adult men and women could vote.
From its inception, the Indian National Congress was organized
along democratic lines. All its r esolutions were publicly debated
and then voted upon. The Congress permitted and encouraged
minority opinion to freely express itself.
Some of the most important decisions in its history were
taken after heated debates and on the basis of open voting. For
example, the decision to start the Non -Cooperation Movement
was taken in 1920 at Calcutta with 1886 voting for and 884
against Gandhiji’s resolution. Similarly, at the Lahore Congress
in 1929, a resolution sponsored by Gandhiji condemning the
Revolutionar y Terrorists’ bomb attack on the Viceroy’s train was
passed by a narrow majority of 942 to 794. In 1942, thirteen
Communist members of the AICC voted against the famous Quit
India resolution. But instead of condemning these thirteen,
Gandhiji, at the very beginning of his famous ‘Do or Die’ speech,[/INST] |
said: ‘I congratulate the thirteen friends who voted against the
resolution, in doing so they had nothing to be ashamed of. For
the last twenty years we have tried to learn not to lose courage
even when we are in a hopeless minority and are laughed at. We
have learned to hold on to our beliefs in the confidence that we
are in the right. It behoves us to cultivate this courage of
conviction, for it ennobles man and raises his moral stature. I
was, therefore, glad to see that these friends had imbibed the | <s>[INST]said: ‘I congratulate the thirteen friends who voted against the
resolution, in doing so they had nothing to be ashamed of. For
the last twenty years we have tried to learn not to lose courage
even when we are in a hopeless minority and are laughed at. We
have learned to hold on to our beliefs in the confidence that we
are in the right. It behoves us to cultivate this courage of
conviction, for it ennobles man and raises his moral stature. I
was, therefore, glad to see that these friends had imbibed the[/INST] |
530 | India’s Struggle For Independence
principle which I have tried to follow for the last fifty years and
more.”
The national movement was from the beginning zealous in
defence of civil liberties. From the beginning, the nationalists
fought against a ttack by the colonial authorities on the freedom
of the Press, speech and association and other civil liberties.
Lokamanya Tilak, for instance, often claimed that ‘liberty of the
Press and liberty of speech give birth to a nation and nourish it.’
Gandhiji’ s commitment to civil liberties was also total. At
the height of the Non -Cooperation Movement, he wrote in the
Young India in January 1922: ‘Swaraj, the Khilafat , the Punjab
occupy a subordinate place to the issue sprung upon the country
by the Government. We must first make good the right of free
speech and free association before we can make any further
progress towards our goal . . . We must defend these elementary
rights with our lives.’ In another article soon after, he went on to
explain these rights: ‘Liberty of speech means that it is
unassailed even when the speech hurts; liberty of the Press can
be said to be truly respected only when the Press can comment in
the severest terms upon and even misrepresent matters .
Freedom of association is truly re spected when assemblies of
people can discuss even revolutionary projects.’3 One other
quotation from Gandhiji on the subject is of great relevance: ‘Civil
liberty consistent with the observance of non -violence is the first
step towards Swaraj. It is the b reath of political and social life. It
is the foundation of freedom. There is no room there for dilution
or compromise. It is the water of life.’
Jawaharlal Nehru was, perhaps the strongest champion of
civil liberties He assigned as much importance to them as he did
to economic equality and socialism. The resolution on
fundamental rights, passed by the Karachi Congress in 1931 and
drafted by him, guaranteed the rights of free expression of | <s>[INST]530 | India’s Struggle For Independence
principle which I have tried to follow for the last fifty years and
more.”
The national movement was from the beginning zealous in
defence of civil liberties. From the beginning, the nationalists
fought against a ttack by the colonial authorities on the freedom
of the Press, speech and association and other civil liberties.
Lokamanya Tilak, for instance, often claimed that ‘liberty of the
Press and liberty of speech give birth to a nation and nourish it.’
Gandhiji’ s commitment to civil liberties was also total. At
the height of the Non -Cooperation Movement, he wrote in the
Young India in January 1922: ‘Swaraj, the Khilafat , the Punjab
occupy a subordinate place to the issue sprung upon the country
by the Government. We must first make good the right of free
speech and free association before we can make any further
progress towards our goal . . . We must defend these elementary
rights with our lives.’ In another article soon after, he went on to
explain these rights: ‘Liberty of speech means that it is
unassailed even when the speech hurts; liberty of the Press can
be said to be truly respected only when the Press can comment in
the severest terms upon and even misrepresent matters .
Freedom of association is truly re spected when assemblies of
people can discuss even revolutionary projects.’3 One other
quotation from Gandhiji on the subject is of great relevance: ‘Civil
liberty consistent with the observance of non -violence is the first
step towards Swaraj. It is the b reath of political and social life. It
is the foundation of freedom. There is no room there for dilution
or compromise. It is the water of life.’
Jawaharlal Nehru was, perhaps the strongest champion of
civil liberties He assigned as much importance to them as he did
to economic equality and socialism. The resolution on
fundamental rights, passed by the Karachi Congress in 1931 and
drafted by him, guaranteed the rights of free expression of[/INST] |
drafted by him, guaranteed the rights of free expression of
opinion through speech and the Press and the freedom of
association. In August 1936 , as a result of his efforts, the Indian
Civil Liberties Union was formed on non -parts , non-sectarian
lines to mobilize public opinion against all encroachments on civil
liberties. He declared at this time: ‘If civil liberties are
suppressed , a nation loses all vitality and becomes impotent for
anything substantial.’ And again in March 1940: ‘The freedom of | <s>[INST]drafted by him, guaranteed the rights of free expression of
opinion through speech and the Press and the freedom of
association. In August 1936 , as a result of his efforts, the Indian
Civil Liberties Union was formed on non -parts , non-sectarian
lines to mobilize public opinion against all encroachments on civil
liberties. He declared at this time: ‘If civil liberties are
suppressed , a nation loses all vitality and becomes impotent for
anything substantial.’ And again in March 1940: ‘The freedom of[/INST] |
531 | The Indian National Movement —the Ideological Dimension
the Press does not consist in our permitting such things as we
like to appear. Even a tyrant is agreeable to this type of freedom.
Civil liberty and freedom of the Press consist in our permitting
what we do not like, in our putting up with criticisms of
ourselves, in our allowing public expression of views which seem
to us even to be injurious to our cause itself.’
Thus, over the years, th e nationalist movement successfully
created an ideology and culture of democracy and civil liberties
based on respect for dissent, freedom of expression, the majority
principle, and the right of minority opinions to exist and grow.
Secularism was from the beginning made a basic
constituent of the nationalist ideology and a strong emphasis was
laid on Hindu -Muslim unity. Although the national movement
failed to eradicate communalism and prevent the partition of the
country, this was due not to its deviance from a secular ideology
but to weaknesses in its strategy for fighting communalism and
its failure to fully grasp the socio -economic and ideological roots
of communalism. The national movement also opposed caste
oppression and after 1920 made abolition of untouchability a
basic constituent of its programme and political work, though in
this aspect, too, serious ideological flaws remained. In particular,
a strong anti -caste ideology was not formed and propagated. The
cause of women’s liberation was also not taken up seriously.
The national movement fully recognized the multifaceted
diversity of the Indian people. That India was not yet a developed
or structured nation, but a nation -in-the-making, was accepted
and made the basis of political and ideological w ork and
agitation. It was fully grasped that common subjection to colonial
rule provided the material and emotional basis for nation -making
and that one of the functions of the movement was to structure
the nation through a common struggle against colonial ism. It was | <s>[INST]531 | The Indian National Movement —the Ideological Dimension
the Press does not consist in our permitting such things as we
like to appear. Even a tyrant is agreeable to this type of freedom.
Civil liberty and freedom of the Press consist in our permitting
what we do not like, in our putting up with criticisms of
ourselves, in our allowing public expression of views which seem
to us even to be injurious to our cause itself.’
Thus, over the years, th e nationalist movement successfully
created an ideology and culture of democracy and civil liberties
based on respect for dissent, freedom of expression, the majority
principle, and the right of minority opinions to exist and grow.
Secularism was from the beginning made a basic
constituent of the nationalist ideology and a strong emphasis was
laid on Hindu -Muslim unity. Although the national movement
failed to eradicate communalism and prevent the partition of the
country, this was due not to its deviance from a secular ideology
but to weaknesses in its strategy for fighting communalism and
its failure to fully grasp the socio -economic and ideological roots
of communalism. The national movement also opposed caste
oppression and after 1920 made abolition of untouchability a
basic constituent of its programme and political work, though in
this aspect, too, serious ideological flaws remained. In particular,
a strong anti -caste ideology was not formed and propagated. The
cause of women’s liberation was also not taken up seriously.
The national movement fully recognized the multifaceted
diversity of the Indian people. That India was not yet a developed
or structured nation, but a nation -in-the-making, was accepted
and made the basis of political and ideological w ork and
agitation. It was fully grasped that common subjection to colonial
rule provided the material and emotional basis for nation -making
and that one of the functions of the movement was to structure
the nation through a common struggle against colonial ism. It was[/INST] |
also seen that the political and ideological practices of the
movement would play a crucial role in the process of nation -in-
the-making. Furthermore, it was clearly understood that the
objective of unif ying the Indian people into a nation would have
to be realized by taking into account regional, religious, caste,
ethnic and linguistic differences. The cultural aspirations of the
different linguistic groups were given full recognition. From 1921,
the Congress organized its provincial or area com mittees along | <s>[INST]also seen that the political and ideological practices of the
movement would play a crucial role in the process of nation -in-
the-making. Furthermore, it was clearly understood that the
objective of unif ying the Indian people into a nation would have
to be realized by taking into account regional, religious, caste,
ethnic and linguistic differences. The cultural aspirations of the
different linguistic groups were given full recognition. From 1921,
the Congress organized its provincial or area com mittees along[/INST] |
532 | India’s Struggle For Independence
linguistic lines and not according to the British -created multi -
lingual provinces.
The Indian national movement accepted from the beginning,
and with near unanimity, the objective of a complete economic
transformation of the country on the b asis of modem industrial
and agricultural development. From Justice Ranade onwards, the
nationalists were agreed that industrialization was the only
means of overcoming the poverty of the people. Gandhiji was to
some extent an exception to this unanimous o pinion, but not
wholly so. Nor did he counterpose his opinion to that of the rest
of the national leadership. Moreover, his stand on the use of
machines and large -scale industry has been grossly distorted. He
was opposed to machines only when they displace d the labour of
the many or enriched the few at the expense of the many. On the
other hand, he repeatedly said that he would prize every
invention of science made for the benefit of all.’ He repeatedly
said that he was not opposed to modem large -scale indu stry so
long as it augmented, and lightened the burden of, human labour
and not displaced it. Moreover, he laid down another condition:
All large -scale industry should be owned and controlled by the
state and not by private capitalists.
The nationalists we re fully committed to the larger goal of
independent self -reliant economic development to be based on
independence from foreign capital, the creation of an indigenous
capital goods or machine - making sector and the foundation and
development of independent science and technology. Ever since
the 1840s, British economists and administrators had argued for
the investment of foreign capital as the major instrument for the
development of India. The Indian nationalists, from Dadabhai
Naoroji and Tilak to Gandhiji and Nehru, disagreed vehemently.
Foreign capital, they argued , did not develop a country but
underdeveloped it. It suppressed indigenous capital and made its | <s>[INST]532 | India’s Struggle For Independence
linguistic lines and not according to the British -created multi -
lingual provinces.
The Indian national movement accepted from the beginning,
and with near unanimity, the objective of a complete economic
transformation of the country on the b asis of modem industrial
and agricultural development. From Justice Ranade onwards, the
nationalists were agreed that industrialization was the only
means of overcoming the poverty of the people. Gandhiji was to
some extent an exception to this unanimous o pinion, but not
wholly so. Nor did he counterpose his opinion to that of the rest
of the national leadership. Moreover, his stand on the use of
machines and large -scale industry has been grossly distorted. He
was opposed to machines only when they displace d the labour of
the many or enriched the few at the expense of the many. On the
other hand, he repeatedly said that he would prize every
invention of science made for the benefit of all.’ He repeatedly
said that he was not opposed to modem large -scale indu stry so
long as it augmented, and lightened the burden of, human labour
and not displaced it. Moreover, he laid down another condition:
All large -scale industry should be owned and controlled by the
state and not by private capitalists.
The nationalists we re fully committed to the larger goal of
independent self -reliant economic development to be based on
independence from foreign capital, the creation of an indigenous
capital goods or machine - making sector and the foundation and
development of independent science and technology. Ever since
the 1840s, British economists and administrators had argued for
the investment of foreign capital as the major instrument for the
development of India. The Indian nationalists, from Dadabhai
Naoroji and Tilak to Gandhiji and Nehru, disagreed vehemently.
Foreign capital, they argued , did not develop a country but
underdeveloped it. It suppressed indigenous capital and made its[/INST] |
future growth difficult . It was also, the nationalists said,
politically harmful because, sooner or later it began to wield an
increasing and dominating influence over the administration.
Starting with Dadabhai Naoroji and Ranade, the
nationalists visualized a crucial role for the public sector in the
building of an independent and modem economy. In t he l930s,
Jawaharlal Nehru , Gandhiji, and the left -wing also argued for the | <s>[INST]future growth difficult . It was also, the nationalists said,
politically harmful because, sooner or later it began to wield an
increasing and dominating influence over the administration.
Starting with Dadabhai Naoroji and Ranade, the
nationalists visualized a crucial role for the public sector in the
building of an independent and modem economy. In t he l930s,
Jawaharlal Nehru , Gandhiji, and the left -wing also argued for the[/INST] |
533 | The Indian National Movement —the Ideological Dimension
public sector, especially in large -scale and key industries, as a
means of preventing the concentration of wealth in a few hands.
In the late 1930s, the objective of economic plann ing was also
widely accepted. In 1938, the Congress, then under the
presidentship of Subhas Chandra Bose, set up the National
Planning Committee under the chairmanship of Nehru, to draw
up a development plan for free India. During World War H,
several othe r plans were devised, the most important being the
Bombay Plan drawn up by the big three of the Indian capitalist
world -— J.R.D. Tata, G.D. Birla and S ri Ram. This plan too
visualized far -reaching land reforms, a large public sector and
massive public and private investment.
As brought out earlier, the world outlook of the national
movement based on anti -colonialism, anti -Fascism, peace and
national independence was a powerful element of its overall
ideology.
From its early days, the national movement ad opted a pro -
poor orientation. The entire economic agitation of the Moderates
and their critique of colonialism was linked to the growing
poverty of the masses. This orientation was immensely
strengthened by the impact of the Russian Revolution of 1917,
the coming of Gandhiji on the political stage and the growth of
powerful left -wing parties and groups during the 1920s and I
930s. The movement adopted policies and a programme of
reforms during various stages of the struggle that were quite
radical by contem porary standards.
Compulsory primary education, the lowering of taxation on
the poor and middle classes, the reduction of the salt tax, land
revenue and rent, relief from indebtedness and the provision of
cheap credit to peasants, the protection of tenant s’ rights,
workers’ right to a living wage and a shorter working day, higher
wages for low -paid government servants, including policemen,
the defence of the right of workers’ and peasants’ to organize | <s>[INST]533 | The Indian National Movement —the Ideological Dimension
public sector, especially in large -scale and key industries, as a
means of preventing the concentration of wealth in a few hands.
In the late 1930s, the objective of economic plann ing was also
widely accepted. In 1938, the Congress, then under the
presidentship of Subhas Chandra Bose, set up the National
Planning Committee under the chairmanship of Nehru, to draw
up a development plan for free India. During World War H,
several othe r plans were devised, the most important being the
Bombay Plan drawn up by the big three of the Indian capitalist
world -— J.R.D. Tata, G.D. Birla and S ri Ram. This plan too
visualized far -reaching land reforms, a large public sector and
massive public and private investment.
As brought out earlier, the world outlook of the national
movement based on anti -colonialism, anti -Fascism, peace and
national independence was a powerful element of its overall
ideology.
From its early days, the national movement ad opted a pro -
poor orientation. The entire economic agitation of the Moderates
and their critique of colonialism was linked to the growing
poverty of the masses. This orientation was immensely
strengthened by the impact of the Russian Revolution of 1917,
the coming of Gandhiji on the political stage and the growth of
powerful left -wing parties and groups during the 1920s and I
930s. The movement adopted policies and a programme of
reforms during various stages of the struggle that were quite
radical by contem porary standards.
Compulsory primary education, the lowering of taxation on
the poor and middle classes, the reduction of the salt tax, land
revenue and rent, relief from indebtedness and the provision of
cheap credit to peasants, the protection of tenant s’ rights,
workers’ right to a living wage and a shorter working day, higher
wages for low -paid government servants, including policemen,
the defence of the right of workers’ and peasants’ to organize[/INST] |
the defence of the right of workers’ and peasants’ to organize
themselves, the protection and promotion of village ind ustries,
the promotion of modern science and technical education, the
eradication of the drink evil, the improvement of the social
position of women including their right to work and education
and to equal political rights, the initiation of legal and soci al
measures for the abolition of untouchability, and the reform of | <s>[INST]the defence of the right of workers’ and peasants’ to organize
themselves, the protection and promotion of village ind ustries,
the promotion of modern science and technical education, the
eradication of the drink evil, the improvement of the social
position of women including their right to work and education
and to equal political rights, the initiation of legal and soci al
measures for the abolition of untouchability, and the reform of[/INST] |
534 | India’s Struggle For Independence
the machinery of law and order were some of the major reforms
demanded by the Indian national movement.
The basic pro -people or pro -poor orientation of the national
movement and the notion that politics must be based on the
people, who must be politicized, activized and brought into
politics, also made it easier to give it a socialist orientation.
But still, as pointed out earlier, the nationalist developmental
perspective was confined wit hin bourgeois parameters, that is,
independent economic development was visualized within a
capitalist framework. After 1919 , when the national movement
became a mass movement, Gandhiji evolved and propagated a
different, non -capitalist, basically peasanti st-artisanist outlook
but his socio -economic programme and thought were not capable
of challenging the basic hegemony of bourgeois ideology over the
national movement.
It is true that the national movement, as an anti -colonial
movement in a colony in whic h the primary contradiction pitted
the entire society against colonialism, was a popular, people’s
movement it was a multiclass movement which represented the
interests of the different classes and strata of Indian society.
However, the Indian people, thou gh unified against colonialism
and in the anti -imperialist struggle, were at the same time
divided into social classes which had their own contradictions
with colonialism as well as with each other. Different classes and
strata had different levels and deg rees of contradiction with
colonialism as also different extent and manner of participation
in the anti -imperialist struggle. The result vas that the anti -
colonial struggle could have several different class consequences.
The final outcome of the struggle could see several different
balances of class or political and ideological forces. This balance
of forces would help decide in whose class interests would the
primary contradiction get resolved as a result of the anti - | <s>[INST]534 | India’s Struggle For Independence
the machinery of law and order were some of the major reforms
demanded by the Indian national movement.
The basic pro -people or pro -poor orientation of the national
movement and the notion that politics must be based on the
people, who must be politicized, activized and brought into
politics, also made it easier to give it a socialist orientation.
But still, as pointed out earlier, the nationalist developmental
perspective was confined wit hin bourgeois parameters, that is,
independent economic development was visualized within a
capitalist framework. After 1919 , when the national movement
became a mass movement, Gandhiji evolved and propagated a
different, non -capitalist, basically peasanti st-artisanist outlook
but his socio -economic programme and thought were not capable
of challenging the basic hegemony of bourgeois ideology over the
national movement.
It is true that the national movement, as an anti -colonial
movement in a colony in whic h the primary contradiction pitted
the entire society against colonialism, was a popular, people’s
movement it was a multiclass movement which represented the
interests of the different classes and strata of Indian society.
However, the Indian people, thou gh unified against colonialism
and in the anti -imperialist struggle, were at the same time
divided into social classes which had their own contradictions
with colonialism as well as with each other. Different classes and
strata had different levels and deg rees of contradiction with
colonialism as also different extent and manner of participation
in the anti -imperialist struggle. The result vas that the anti -
colonial struggle could have several different class consequences.
The final outcome of the struggle could see several different
balances of class or political and ideological forces. This balance
of forces would help decide in whose class interests would the
primary contradiction get resolved as a result of the anti -[/INST] |
primary contradiction get resolved as a result of the anti -
imperialist struggle , that is , what so rt of India would come into
existence after freedom. In other words , freedom could result in a
socialist or a capitalist societal order.
Beginning with the 1920s, a powerful socialist trend
developed in the national movement. The bourgeois
developmental p erspective of the national movement was
challenged in a serious manner by early Communist groups, | <s>[INST]primary contradiction get resolved as a result of the anti -
imperialist struggle , that is , what so rt of India would come into
existence after freedom. In other words , freedom could result in a
socialist or a capitalist societal order.
Beginning with the 1920s, a powerful socialist trend
developed in the national movement. The bourgeois
developmental p erspective of the national movement was
challenged in a serious manner by early Communist groups,[/INST] |
535 | The Indian National Movement —the Ideological Dimension
Jawaharlal Nehru, Subhas Chandra Bose, and a large number of
socialist -minded groups and individuals. The struggle for the
spread of socialist ideas was inten sified in the 1930s when these
were joined by the Congress Socialist Party, a reorganized
Communist Party and the Royists. The Great Depression of the 1
930s in the capitalist world, the Russian Revolution and the
success of the Soviet Five Year Plans, and the anti - fascist wave
the world over during the 1930s made socialist ideas attractive.
Most of the leaders of the youth movement of the late I 920s and
a large number of Revolutionary Terrorists also made the turn to
socialism. Throughout the 1920s, 1930 s, and 1940s, the
youthful nationalist cadres were increasingly turning to socialist
ideas.
The left -wing tried to popularize the idea that constant class
struggles were going on within India between peasants and
landlords and workers and capitalists. It tried to organize these
struggles through their class organizations — kisan sabhas and
trade unions. But above all, it struggled to transform the national
movement in a leftward, socialist ideological direction, to impart
to the movement’ a “ision of socia list India after independence.
Jawaharlal Nehru played a very important role in
popularizing the vision of a socialist India both within the
national movement and in the country at large. Nehru argued
that political freedom must mean the economic emancipat ion of
the masses. Throughout the 1 930s, he pointed to the inadequacy
of the existing nationalist ideology and the hegemony of
bourgeois ideology over the national movement, and stressed the
need to inculcate a new socialist or basically Marxist ideology,
which would enable the people to study their social condition
scientifically and to give the Congress a new socialist ideological
orientation.
The 1930s were highly favourable to socialist ideas, and | <s>[INST]535 | The Indian National Movement —the Ideological Dimension
Jawaharlal Nehru, Subhas Chandra Bose, and a large number of
socialist -minded groups and individuals. The struggle for the
spread of socialist ideas was inten sified in the 1930s when these
were joined by the Congress Socialist Party, a reorganized
Communist Party and the Royists. The Great Depression of the 1
930s in the capitalist world, the Russian Revolution and the
success of the Soviet Five Year Plans, and the anti - fascist wave
the world over during the 1930s made socialist ideas attractive.
Most of the leaders of the youth movement of the late I 920s and
a large number of Revolutionary Terrorists also made the turn to
socialism. Throughout the 1920s, 1930 s, and 1940s, the
youthful nationalist cadres were increasingly turning to socialist
ideas.
The left -wing tried to popularize the idea that constant class
struggles were going on within India between peasants and
landlords and workers and capitalists. It tried to organize these
struggles through their class organizations — kisan sabhas and
trade unions. But above all, it struggled to transform the national
movement in a leftward, socialist ideological direction, to impart
to the movement’ a “ision of socia list India after independence.
Jawaharlal Nehru played a very important role in
popularizing the vision of a socialist India both within the
national movement and in the country at large. Nehru argued
that political freedom must mean the economic emancipat ion of
the masses. Throughout the 1 930s, he pointed to the inadequacy
of the existing nationalist ideology and the hegemony of
bourgeois ideology over the national movement, and stressed the
need to inculcate a new socialist or basically Marxist ideology,
which would enable the people to study their social condition
scientifically and to give the Congress a new socialist ideological
orientation.
The 1930s were highly favourable to socialist ideas, and[/INST] |
The 1930s were highly favourable to socialist ideas, and
they spread widely and rapidly. But though the left -wing and
socialist ideas grew in geometric proportions, they did not
succeed in becoming the dominant ideological trend within the
national movement. They did, however, succeed in becoming a
basic constituent of the national movement and in constant
shifting it leftward. The national movement continuously defined
itself further and further in a radical direction in terms of the | <s>[INST]The 1930s were highly favourable to socialist ideas, and
they spread widely and rapidly. But though the left -wing and
socialist ideas grew in geometric proportions, they did not
succeed in becoming the dominant ideological trend within the
national movement. They did, however, succeed in becoming a
basic constituent of the national movement and in constant
shifting it leftward. The national movement continuously defined
itself further and further in a radical direction in terms of the[/INST] |
536 | India’s Struggle For Independence
popular clement. Increasing, freedom was defined in socio -
economic terms which went far beyond the mere absence of
foreign rule. By th e late 1930s , the Indian national movement
was one of the most radical of the national liberation movements.
This radicalism found reflection in the Congress resolutions
at Karachi, Lucknow and Faizpur (in 1931 and 1936), in the
election manifestoes of 19 36 and 1945 -46 and in the economic
and social reforms of the Congress Ministries from 1937 -39. In
fact, the Congress progressively e volved in a radical socio -
economic -political direction and increasingly adopted most of the
demands put forward by the Left though with a time lag of a few
years. The politics of the Left and w orkers’ and peasants’
struggles, of course, played a crucial role in this evolution. One
result was that even the Congress Right was not only firmly anti -
imperialist but also committed to basic changes in political and
economic power even though it was opposed to socialism. It
remained bourgeois in outlook but with a reformist outlook.
This becomes evident when we study the evolution of the
agrarian policy of the Congress, for after all t he key question in
India was that of the social condition of the peasant. The
Congress had always fought for the peasant demands vis -a-vi the
colonial state. But goaded by the left - wing and the peasant
movements, the Congress accepted at Faizpur in 1936 a
programme of substantial reduction in rent and revenue,
abolition of feudal dues and forced labour, fixity of tenure and a
living wage for agricultural labourers. The Congress Ministries
passed legislation, which varied in its radical content from
provinc e to province, to protect tenants’ rights and prevent
expropriation by the moneylenders. Finally, in 1945, the
Congress Working Committee accepted the policy of the abolition
of landlordism and of land belonging to the tiller when it | <s>[INST]536 | India’s Struggle For Independence
popular clement. Increasing, freedom was defined in socio -
economic terms which went far beyond the mere absence of
foreign rule. By th e late 1930s , the Indian national movement
was one of the most radical of the national liberation movements.
This radicalism found reflection in the Congress resolutions
at Karachi, Lucknow and Faizpur (in 1931 and 1936), in the
election manifestoes of 19 36 and 1945 -46 and in the economic
and social reforms of the Congress Ministries from 1937 -39. In
fact, the Congress progressively e volved in a radical socio -
economic -political direction and increasingly adopted most of the
demands put forward by the Left though with a time lag of a few
years. The politics of the Left and w orkers’ and peasants’
struggles, of course, played a crucial role in this evolution. One
result was that even the Congress Right was not only firmly anti -
imperialist but also committed to basic changes in political and
economic power even though it was opposed to socialism. It
remained bourgeois in outlook but with a reformist outlook.
This becomes evident when we study the evolution of the
agrarian policy of the Congress, for after all t he key question in
India was that of the social condition of the peasant. The
Congress had always fought for the peasant demands vis -a-vi the
colonial state. But goaded by the left - wing and the peasant
movements, the Congress accepted at Faizpur in 1936 a
programme of substantial reduction in rent and revenue,
abolition of feudal dues and forced labour, fixity of tenure and a
living wage for agricultural labourers. The Congress Ministries
passed legislation, which varied in its radical content from
provinc e to province, to protect tenants’ rights and prevent
expropriation by the moneylenders. Finally, in 1945, the
Congress Working Committee accepted the policy of the abolition
of landlordism and of land belonging to the tiller when it[/INST] |
of landlordism and of land belonging to the tiller when it
declared: ‘The reform of the land system involves the removal of
intermediaries between the peasant and the state.”
A major ideological dimension of the national movement was
the overall social outlook of Gandhiji and the Gandhians.
Gandhiji did not accept a class analysis of s ociety and the role of
class struggle. He was also opposed to the use of violence even in
defence of the interests of the poor. But his basic outlook was
that of social transformation. He was committed to basic changes | <s>[INST]of landlordism and of land belonging to the tiller when it
declared: ‘The reform of the land system involves the removal of
intermediaries between the peasant and the state.”
A major ideological dimension of the national movement was
the overall social outlook of Gandhiji and the Gandhians.
Gandhiji did not accept a class analysis of s ociety and the role of
class struggle. He was also opposed to the use of violence even in
defence of the interests of the poor. But his basic outlook was
that of social transformation. He was committed to basic changes[/INST] |
537 | The Indian National Movement —the Ideological Dimension
in the existing system of economic an d political power. Moreover,
he was constantly moving in a radical direction during the 1 930s
and 1940s. In 1933, he agreed with Nehru that ‘without a
material revision of vested interests the condition of the masses
can never be improved.’ He was beginnin g to oppose private
property and thus radicalize his theory of trusteeship. He
repeatedly argued for the nationalization of large -scale industry.
He condemned the exploitation of the masses inherent in
capitalism and landlordism. He was highly critical of the socio -
economic role played by the middle classes .
His emphasis on the removal of distinction and
discrimination between physical and mental labour, his overall
emphasis on social and economic equality and on the self -activity
of the masses, his opposit ion to caste inequality and oppression,
his active support to women’s social liberation, and the general
orientation of his thought and writing towards the exploited, the
oppressed and the down -trodden tended in general to impart a
radical ideological dire ction to the national movement.
The most remarkable development was Gandhiji’s shift
towards agrarian radicalism. In 1937, he said: ‘That the land
today does not belong to the people is too true. . . (But) Land and
all property is his who will work it. Un fortunately the workers are
or have been kept ignora nt of this simple fact.” In 1942, he again
declared that ‘the land belongs to those who will work on it and
to no one else.’ Similarly, in June 1942 G andhiji told Louis
Fischer in answer to his question: ‘What is your programme for
the improvement of the lot of the peasantry?’ that ‘the peasants
would take the land. We would not have to tell them to take it.
They would take it.’ And when Fischer asked, ‘Would the
landlords be compensated?’ He replied: ‘No, that would be fiscally
impossible.’ Fischer asked: ‘Well, how do you actually see your | <s>[INST]537 | The Indian National Movement —the Ideological Dimension
in the existing system of economic an d political power. Moreover,
he was constantly moving in a radical direction during the 1 930s
and 1940s. In 1933, he agreed with Nehru that ‘without a
material revision of vested interests the condition of the masses
can never be improved.’ He was beginnin g to oppose private
property and thus radicalize his theory of trusteeship. He
repeatedly argued for the nationalization of large -scale industry.
He condemned the exploitation of the masses inherent in
capitalism and landlordism. He was highly critical of the socio -
economic role played by the middle classes .
His emphasis on the removal of distinction and
discrimination between physical and mental labour, his overall
emphasis on social and economic equality and on the self -activity
of the masses, his opposit ion to caste inequality and oppression,
his active support to women’s social liberation, and the general
orientation of his thought and writing towards the exploited, the
oppressed and the down -trodden tended in general to impart a
radical ideological dire ction to the national movement.
The most remarkable development was Gandhiji’s shift
towards agrarian radicalism. In 1937, he said: ‘That the land
today does not belong to the people is too true. . . (But) Land and
all property is his who will work it. Un fortunately the workers are
or have been kept ignora nt of this simple fact.” In 1942, he again
declared that ‘the land belongs to those who will work on it and
to no one else.’ Similarly, in June 1942 G andhiji told Louis
Fischer in answer to his question: ‘What is your programme for
the improvement of the lot of the peasantry?’ that ‘the peasants
would take the land. We would not have to tell them to take it.
They would take it.’ And when Fischer asked, ‘Would the
landlords be compensated?’ He replied: ‘No, that would be fiscally
impossible.’ Fischer asked: ‘Well, how do you actually see your[/INST] |
impending civil disobedience movement?’ Gandhiji replied: ‘In the
villages, the peasants will stop paying taxes. They will make salt
despite official prohibition. . . Their next step will be to seize the
land.’ ‘With violence?’ asked Fischer. Gandhiji replied: ‘There may
be violence, but then again the landlords may cooperate. . . They
might cooperate by fleeing.’ Fischer said that the landlords ‘might
organize violent r esistance.’ Gandhiji’s reply was. ‘There may be
fifteen days of chaos, but I think we could soon bring that under
Control.’ Did this mean, asked Fischer, that there must be | <s>[INST]impending civil disobedience movement?’ Gandhiji replied: ‘In the
villages, the peasants will stop paying taxes. They will make salt
despite official prohibition. . . Their next step will be to seize the
land.’ ‘With violence?’ asked Fischer. Gandhiji replied: ‘There may
be violence, but then again the landlords may cooperate. . . They
might cooperate by fleeing.’ Fischer said that the landlords ‘might
organize violent r esistance.’ Gandhiji’s reply was. ‘There may be
fifteen days of chaos, but I think we could soon bring that under
Control.’ Did this mean, asked Fischer, that there must be[/INST] |
538 | India’s Struggle For Independence
‘confiscatio n without compensation?’ Gandhiji replied: ‘Of course.
It would be financially impossible for anybody to compensate the
landlords.”
Thus the national movement based itself on a clear -Cut
anti-colonial ideology and the vision of a civil libertarian,
democratic, ‘ secular and socially radical society. The Indian
economy was to be develop ed along independent, self-reliant
lines. It was this vision, combined . With ant i-Colonial ideology
and a pro -poor radical socio-economic orientation that enabled
the national movement to base itself on the politically awakened
and politically active people and to acquire the chara cter of a
popular people’s movement. | <s>[INST]538 | India’s Struggle For Independence
‘confiscatio n without compensation?’ Gandhiji replied: ‘Of course.
It would be financially impossible for anybody to compensate the
landlords.”
Thus the national movement based itself on a clear -Cut
anti-colonial ideology and the vision of a civil libertarian,
democratic, ‘ secular and socially radical society. The Indian
economy was to be develop ed along independent, self-reliant
lines. It was this vision, combined . With ant i-Colonial ideology
and a pro -poor radical socio-economic orientation that enabled
the national movement to base itself on the politically awakened
and politically active people and to acquire the chara cter of a
popular people’s movement.[/INST] |