Free MHI-09 Solved Assignment | July 2024 and January 2025 | INDIAL NATIONAL MOVEMENT | IGNOU

Question Details

Aspect	Details
Programme Title
Course Code
Course Title
Assignment Code	MEG-01
University	Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU)
Type	Free IGNOU Solved Assignment
Language	English
Session	July 2024 – January 2025
Submission Date	31st March for July session, 30th September for January session

MHI-09 Free Solved Assignment

Question:-1

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

Answer: 1. Introduction to Marxist and Subaltern Studies Perspectives on Indian Nationalism

The study of Indian nationalism has been approached from various historiographical perspectives, with Marxist and Subaltern Studies historians offering two influential yet contrasting frameworks. Marxist historians emphasize the role of class struggle, economic exploitation, and the dynamics of colonial capitalism in shaping Indian nationalism. They view the national movement as a complex interaction between the bourgeoisie and the working classes, shaped by material conditions and economic interests. On the other hand, Subaltern Studies historians critique the elitist and class-centered narratives of nationalism, focusing instead on the role of marginalized groups such as peasants, workers, tribals, and women. They highlight how these subaltern groups, often ignored in mainstream historiography, played a significant part in shaping the nationalist struggle. This comparison will explore the key tenets of both schools of thought and how they interpret Indian nationalism.

2. Marxist Historians’ View of Indian Nationalism

Marxist historians, beginning with figures like R. P. Dutt and later Bipan Chandra, see Indian nationalism through the lens of class struggle and economic exploitation under colonialism. They argue that Indian nationalism was a response to the exploitative economic policies of British colonialism, which led to the impoverishment of the Indian masses. For Marxist historians, the colonial economy, driven by capitalist interests, systematically drained India’s wealth, deindustrialized its economy, and subordinated its development to the needs of British capitalism.

A core aspect of Marxist analysis is the role of the bourgeoisie in the national movement. R. P. Dutt, in his influential work India Today (1940), argued that the Indian nationalist movement was essentially led by the emerging Indian bourgeoisie, who sought political power to further their own class interests. According to Dutt, while the Indian bourgeoisie opposed British economic policies, they did not intend to radically alter the socio-economic structures that benefited them. As a result, the bourgeoisie was seen as pursuing a limited form of nationalism that sought political independence but did not challenge the class-based exploitation of the masses.

Marxist historians also highlight the role of the working class and peasantry in the national movement. They argue that these groups were often at the forefront of resistance against colonial exploitation, particularly during periods of mass mobilization like the Non-Cooperation Movement (1920-1922) and the Quit India Movement (1942). However, Marxists contend that the bourgeois leadership of the Congress Party frequently co-opted and suppressed these radical movements, preventing a more transformative, socialist-oriented nationalism from emerging.

In sum, Marxist historians see Indian nationalism as a bourgeois-led movement that, while opposing British colonial rule, ultimately served the interests of the capitalist class in India. The working class and peasantry, though crucial to the movement, were often sidelined or co-opted by the leadership, leading to a compromised form of independence.

3. Subaltern Studies Historians’ Critique of Elitist Nationalism

The Subaltern Studies historians, emerging in the 1980s with scholars like Ranajit Guha, Dipesh Chakrabarty, and Partha Chatterjee, critiqued both colonialist and nationalist narratives of Indian history. They argued that existing accounts of Indian nationalism had primarily focused on elite actors—whether British officials, Indian leaders, or the bourgeoisie—while neglecting the role of subaltern groups such as peasants, tribals, workers, and women.

Ranajit Guha, in his seminal work Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India (1983), argued that Indian historiography had portrayed the nationalist movement as a product of elite political initiatives, failing to recognize the autonomous political consciousness and resistance of subaltern groups. Guha and his colleagues in the Subaltern Studies collective sought to recover the voices and agency of these marginalized groups, who, in their view, participated in the nationalist struggle independently of elite leadership.

Subaltern historians emphasize that subaltern groups had their own modes of resistance and political action, often rooted in local grievances, cultural practices, and traditional forms of authority. For example, peasant revolts, tribal uprisings, and workers’ strikes were often driven by specific economic and social conditions, such as land dispossession, unfair taxation, or labor exploitation. These actions were not necessarily aligned with the goals of the Indian National Congress or the bourgeois leadership, and Subaltern Studies scholars argue that the elites often misunderstood or misrepresented these movements.

Unlike Marxist historians, Subaltern Studies scholars focus less on class as the primary lens for understanding nationalism and more on the fragmentation of Indian society along lines of caste, gender, religion, and regional identities. For them, Indian nationalism was not a monolithic phenomenon but a complex and often fragmented process in which different groups pursued their own visions of freedom and justice. While Marxists critique the bourgeois leadership for co-opting the working classes, Subaltern historians go further, arguing that elite-led nationalism often silenced the voices and agency of marginalized communities altogether.

4. Points of Divergence: Elite vs. Subaltern Agency

One of the key differences between Marxist and Subaltern Studies historians lies in their interpretation of agency within the national movement. Marxist historians tend to focus on class dynamics and see the bourgeoisie as the dominant force in the nationalist movement. They emphasize how class interests shaped the trajectory of nationalism, often at the expense of more radical, socialist-oriented movements from below. While they acknowledge the contributions of the working class and peasants, they argue that these groups were ultimately subsumed under the leadership of the bourgeoisie.

In contrast, Subaltern Studies historians reject the idea that elite actors were the primary agents of change in Indian nationalism. They argue that subaltern groups—peasants, tribals, workers, and others—had their own forms of political consciousness and resistance. For Subaltern scholars, nationalism cannot be understood solely through the actions of elites; instead, it must be seen as a contested and pluralistic process, shaped by the agency of marginalized groups. They critique Marxist historians for focusing too narrowly on class dynamics and for overlooking the importance of other social divisions such as caste, religion, and gender.

5. Points of Convergence: Critique of Colonialism and Class Exploitation

Despite their differences, both Marxist and Subaltern Studies historians share a critique of colonialism and recognize the exploitative nature of British rule in India. Both schools of thought emphasize that colonial policies led to the economic impoverishment of India and the subjugation of its people. Marxist historians focus on how colonial capitalism drained Indian wealth and subordinated Indian development to British economic interests, while Subaltern Studies scholars highlight the ways in which colonialism exacerbated existing social divisions and intensified the marginalization of subaltern groups.

Both perspectives also recognize the limits of bourgeois-led nationalism. Marxist historians critique the bourgeois leadership for pursuing a narrow, class-based form of nationalism that failed to address the needs of the working class and peasantry. Similarly, Subaltern Studies historians critique the elitist nature of nationalism, arguing that it marginalized and silenced subaltern voices.

Conclusion

The Marxist and Subaltern Studies approaches to Indian nationalism offer distinct yet complementary perspectives. While Marxist historians emphasize the role of class struggle and the dominance of the bourgeoisie in shaping the national movement, Subaltern Studies historians critique this elitist narrative and highlight the agency of marginalized groups. Together, these perspectives provide a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of Indian nationalism, revealing the complex interplay of class, caste, gender, and regional identities in the struggle for independence. Both schools of thought underscore the need to recognize the diverse and often overlooked contributions of subaltern groups in shaping the nationalist movement, offering a more inclusive account of India’s path to freedom.

Question:-2

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

Answer: 1. Introduction to Economic Nationalism in India

Economic nationalism refers to the ideology and policies that prioritize national control over the economy, aiming to reduce dependence on foreign powers and promote self-reliance. In the context of India’s freedom struggle, economic nationalism was a critical aspect of the broader nationalist movement, particularly as Indian thinkers and leaders recognized the exploitative nature of British colonial rule. The colonial economy was structured to benefit Britain at the expense of India, leading to widespread poverty, deindustrialization, and economic stagnation. In response, Indian leaders developed the concept of economic nationalism to challenge colonial economic exploitation and lay the groundwork for a self-sufficient and independent India. This note explores the key ideas of Indian thinkers who contributed to the development of economic nationalism.

2. Dadabhai Naoroji and the Drain Theory

One of the earliest and most significant proponents of economic nationalism in India was Dadabhai Naoroji, often referred to as the "Grand Old Man of India." Naoroji’s analysis of the colonial economy was grounded in what became known as the Drain Theory. According to this theory, British colonial policies systematically drained India’s wealth and resources, transferring them to Britain while impoverishing the Indian population.

Naoroji argued that the British were exploiting India by extracting economic surplus in the form of taxes, profits from British-owned enterprises, and the salaries of British officials paid for by Indian revenues. He famously calculated that a significant portion of India’s wealth was being siphoned off to Britain without any corresponding benefits for India. Naoroji’s work, particularly in his book Poverty and Un-British Rule in India (1901), highlighted the economic causes of Indian poverty and underdevelopment, framing the demand for independence in economic terms.

His advocacy for economic nationalism was not just a critique of British rule but also a call for the development of indigenous industries and the promotion of Indian entrepreneurship to rebuild the nation’s economy. Naoroji’s work laid the foundation for later economic nationalist movements and influenced other thinkers and leaders of the freedom struggle.

3. M. G. Ranade and Indian Economic Self-Reliance

Another key figure in the development of economic nationalism was Mahadev Govind Ranade, an economist, social reformer, and nationalist. Ranade emphasized the need for India to focus on its own economic development and self-reliance, rather than depending on British industry and capital. He believed that India’s economic backwardness could be overcome through the promotion of indigenous industries, infrastructure development, and education.

Ranade’s views were centered around the idea that economic progress was integral to India’s social and political advancement. He argued that India’s dependence on British manufactured goods and capital had stunted its economic growth and that industrialization, driven by Indian capital and labor, was essential for the country’s future. Ranade was a proponent of state intervention in the economy, advocating for protective tariffs and subsidies to support Indian industries.

Though he was more moderate than later economic nationalists, Ranade’s ideas influenced the Swadeshi movement and the broader demand for economic self-sufficiency. His belief in gradual reform, the promotion of industry, and the role of the state in economic development made him an important early advocate of Indian economic nationalism.

4. Swadeshi Movement and Economic Nationalism

The Swadeshi Movement, which began as a response to the partition of Bengal in 1905, marked a significant moment in the development of economic nationalism in India. The movement aimed to promote the use of indigenous goods (swadeshi) and boycott British goods as a means of both economic resistance and national assertion. The Swadeshi Movement was a practical application of the economic nationalist ideas that thinkers like Naoroji and Ranade had been advocating.

The leaders of the Swadeshi Movement, including Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Lala Lajpat Rai, and Bipin Chandra Pal, believed that economic independence was essential for political freedom. They encouraged the development of local industries, the use of Indian-made goods, and the rejection of foreign products. The movement also led to the establishment of indigenous enterprises, such as textile mills, that sought to compete with British imports.

The Swadeshi Movement highlighted the role of economic nationalism in the broader struggle for independence. It demonstrated how economic actions, such as boycotting British goods, could be a powerful tool in challenging colonial rule. Moreover, it fostered a sense of pride in Indian products and industries, encouraging Indians to take control of their own economic destiny.

5. Mahatma Gandhi’s Vision of Economic Nationalism

Mahatma Gandhi was one of the most influential figures in the promotion of economic nationalism in India. Gandhi’s concept of swadeshi went beyond the Swadeshi Movement’s emphasis on indigenous goods and became a broader philosophy of self-reliance and non-violence. For Gandhi, economic nationalism was inseparable from his vision of political and social independence.

Gandhi’s swadeshi focused on the revival of traditional Indian industries, particularly hand-spinning and weaving (khadi). He believed that mass production by machines, especially under British control, had impoverished India’s rural economy and displaced millions of artisans and weavers. By promoting khadi and the use of locally made products, Gandhi sought to empower India’s rural population and resist the exploitative practices of British industrial capitalism.

Gandhi’s economic nationalism also had a moral and ethical dimension. He advocated for a decentralized, self-sufficient economy that prioritized the needs of rural communities. His emphasis on small-scale industries, simplicity, and local production was a rejection of both colonial exploitation and the materialism of Western industrial society. Gandhi’s vision of swadeshi and economic nationalism became a central part of his broader philosophy of swaraj (self-rule).

6. Jawaharlal Nehru and the Vision of Industrial Development

While Gandhi’s economic nationalism focused on rural self-sufficiency, Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister, had a different vision of economic nationalism rooted in industrial development and modernization. Nehru believed that industrialization was key to India’s future economic progress and independence. His vision of economic nationalism was heavily influenced by socialist ideas, and he saw the state as playing a central role in planning and directing economic development.

Nehru’s economic policies, both before and after independence, aimed to establish heavy industries, modern infrastructure, and technological advancement. He was a strong advocate of state-led industrialization and believed that economic nationalism required India to build its own industries and reduce its reliance on foreign technology and capital.

Though Nehru and Gandhi had differing approaches to economic nationalism, both emphasized the importance of self-reliance and the need to break free from the economic dominance of colonial powers. Nehru’s industrial policies laid the groundwork for India’s post-independence economic development, with a focus on building a modern, industrialized nation.

Conclusion

Economic nationalism played a crucial role in India’s struggle for independence, as Indian thinkers and leaders recognized that political freedom could not be achieved without economic self-sufficiency. From Dadabhai Naoroji’s Drain Theory to Gandhi’s swadeshi and Nehru’s vision of industrialization, the concept of economic nationalism evolved to encompass a wide range of strategies aimed at challenging colonial exploitation and promoting Indian development. These ideas not only fueled the nationalist movement but also shaped India’s economic policies after independence, leaving a lasting legacy on the nation’s path to self-reliance and modernization.

Question:-3

Discuss the ideologies and activities of the revolutionary nationalists during the 1920s and 1930s.

Answer: 1. Introduction to Revolutionary Nationalism in the 1920s and 1930s

The 1920s and 1930s marked a critical phase in India’s struggle for independence, with revolutionary nationalism gaining significant momentum alongside the broader, more moderate non-violent movement led by Mahatma Gandhi. Dissatisfied with the slow pace of constitutional reforms and the perceived ineffectiveness of non-violent methods, a group of young, radical nationalists turned to armed resistance, seeking to overthrow British rule through direct action, including assassinations, bombings, and raids on colonial establishments. Revolutionary nationalism during this period was characterized by a combination of militant patriotism, anti-imperialist ideology, and a commitment to armed struggle as a means of securing India’s freedom.

2. Ideological Foundations of Revolutionary Nationalism

Revolutionary nationalists in the 1920s and 1930s were driven by a deep sense of patriotism and a belief in the necessity of violent resistance to end British colonial rule. Unlike the Gandhian approach, which was based on non-violence (ahimsa) and civil disobedience, the revolutionary nationalists believed that armed struggle was the only effective way to achieve independence. They drew inspiration from earlier revolutionary movements, such as the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the Irish Republican movement, which had demonstrated the potential of violent rebellion to bring about political change.

The ideology of revolutionary nationalism was often influenced by socialist and anarchist ideas, as many of the revolutionaries were disillusioned not only with colonialism but also with economic and social inequalities. The concept of freedom for them extended beyond political independence and included the creation of a just and equitable society. This radical ideology was embodied in groups like the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association (HSRA), which sought to combine the struggle for national liberation with socialist principles of equality and social justice.

3. Activities of the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association (HSRA)

The HSRA, formed in 1928, was one of the most significant revolutionary organizations of the time. It was founded by a group of young nationalists, including Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad, Sukhdev, Rajguru, and Bhagwati Charan Vohra, who were committed to overthrowing British rule through violent means. The HSRA aimed to inspire mass uprisings against the colonial government by conducting acts of revolutionary violence, including targeted assassinations of colonial officials and attacks on British institutions.

One of the HSRA’s most famous acts was the assassination of British police officer J.P. Saunders in 1928. This was in retaliation for the brutal lathi charge that led to the death of Lala Lajpat Rai during a protest against the Simon Commission. Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, and Sukhdev carried out the assassination, believing that such direct action would serve as a powerful symbol of resistance and inspire others to join the revolutionary cause.

The HSRA also orchestrated the famous bombing of the Central Legislative Assembly in Delhi in 1929, carried out by Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt. The purpose of the bombing was not to cause casualties but to make a dramatic statement against repressive colonial laws, such as the Public Safety Bill. Bhagat Singh and Dutt deliberately threw non-lethal bombs into the assembly and allowed themselves to be arrested, using the subsequent trial as a platform to promote their revolutionary ideology and condemn British imperialism.

4. Ideals of Bhagat Singh and the Call for Martyrdom

Bhagat Singh, perhaps the most iconic revolutionary nationalist of this era, played a crucial role in shaping the ideology and tactics of the HSRA. His writings, speeches, and actions reflected a deep commitment to both political freedom and social justice. Influenced by Marxist and socialist thought, Bhagat Singh envisioned a free India that would not only be free from British rule but also rid itself of exploitation, poverty, and inequality.

One of Bhagat Singh’s key contributions to revolutionary nationalism was his emphasis on the concept of martyrdom. He believed that revolutionary acts, even when followed by capture and execution, would inspire future generations to continue the struggle for independence. Bhagat Singh’s defiant stance during his trial, his refusal to seek clemency, and his ultimate execution by hanging in 1931 made him a martyr for the Indian cause. His sacrifice became a symbol of courage and resistance for millions of Indians, particularly the youth.

Bhagat Singh also sought to raise political consciousness among the masses, especially workers and peasants. His writings, such as the famous essay “Why I am an Atheist,” reflected his desire to encourage Indians to think critically about their political and social circumstances, moving beyond religious and traditional forms of authority. His intellectual and revolutionary legacy remains influential in Indian political thought to this day.

5. The Role of Bengal Revolutionaries

In parallel with the activities of the HSRA in northern India, Bengal emerged as another hotbed of revolutionary nationalism during the 1920s and 1930s. Influenced by earlier revolutionary groups such as the Anushilan Samiti and Jugantar, Bengal revolutionaries conducted a series of daring acts of resistance, including assassinations, bombings, and robberies to fund their activities. These revolutionaries believed in guerrilla tactics to strike at the colonial administration.

Prominent figures from Bengal’s revolutionary movement included Surya Sen, who led the Chittagong Armoury Raid in 1930. This was one of the most audacious attacks on British military infrastructure, where Sen and his comrades sought to capture arms and disrupt communication networks. Though the raid ultimately failed and many of the revolutionaries were captured or killed, it became an iconic moment in the revolutionary struggle.

Women also played an active role in Bengal’s revolutionary activities. Leaders like Pritilata Waddedar and Kalpana Dutta participated in armed attacks and raids, challenging both British rule and traditional gender norms. Their involvement demonstrated that the revolutionary movement had a broader social appeal, attracting both men and women to the cause of armed resistance.

6. Decline of Revolutionary Nationalism and its Legacy

The revolutionary nationalist movement faced increasing repression from the British authorities, who used harsh measures to suppress armed resistance. Many of the key leaders, including Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad, and Surya Sen, were either executed, imprisoned, or killed in encounters. The movement also struggled with internal divisions and a lack of resources, which limited its ability to sustain prolonged armed struggle.

However, despite its decline, the legacy of revolutionary nationalism lived on in the broader Indian independence movement. The courage and sacrifices of revolutionaries like Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad, and others inspired future generations of freedom fighters and became an integral part of India’s nationalist narrative. Their emphasis on direct action, sacrifice, and the pursuit of both political and social justice influenced the post-independence trajectory of Indian political thought.

Conclusion

The revolutionary nationalists of the 1920s and 1930s played a crucial role in India’s struggle for independence, offering an alternative vision of resistance to British rule. While their methods of armed struggle and violent resistance differed from the non-violent approach of the Indian National Congress, their commitment to freedom and justice resonated with many Indians, particularly the youth. Figures like Bhagat Singh and Surya Sen became symbols of defiance and martyrdom, leaving a lasting impact on India’s nationalist movement and inspiring future generations in the fight for freedom and social equality.

Question:-4

Write a note on the Non-cooperation movement.

Answer: 1. Introduction to the Non-Cooperation Movement

The Non-Cooperation Movement (1920-1922) was one of the most significant mass movements in India’s struggle for independence, led by Mahatma Gandhi and the Indian National Congress (INC). It marked a turning point in the freedom struggle, as it mobilized millions of Indians across different social, economic, and religious backgrounds to participate in the fight against British colonial rule. The movement was characterized by its focus on non-violent resistance (satyagraha) and aimed to achieve swaraj (self-rule) through the refusal to cooperate with the British government. The movement emerged in response to growing dissatisfaction with British policies, especially following the Jallianwala Bagh massacre in 1919 and the repressive Rowlatt Act. The Non-Cooperation Movement represented a shift from constitutional agitation to mass civil disobedience, fundamentally altering the course of India’s nationalist movement.

2. Causes of the Non-Cooperation Movement

The Non-Cooperation Movement was fueled by a variety of political, social, and economic factors that culminated in widespread discontent with British rule. One of the primary causes was the disillusionment of Indian nationalists with the repressive policies of the British government. The passing of the Rowlatt Act in 1919, which allowed the government to detain political prisoners without trial, angered the Indian populace. This act was seen as an assault on civil liberties, and Gandhi’s call for non-violent opposition to the law gained significant support.

The Jallianwala Bagh massacre, where hundreds of unarmed civilians were killed by British forces under General Dyer’s orders, further intensified anti-British sentiment. This tragic event galvanized the Indian population, convincing many that peaceful protests and petitions were insufficient to achieve political change. Gandhi, deeply affected by the massacre, began to advocate for a total withdrawal of Indian support for the British government.

Another important factor behind the movement was the Khilafat issue. Indian Muslims were upset over the British decision to dismantle the Ottoman Empire after World War I, which they viewed as a betrayal of promises made during the war. The Khilafat Movement, led by leaders like Maulana Mohammad Ali and Maulana Shaukat Ali, aimed to preserve the authority of the Caliph, the spiritual leader of the global Muslim community. Gandhi saw an opportunity to unite Hindus and Muslims under the banner of non-cooperation, thereby strengthening the nationalist cause.

Economic grievances also played a crucial role in sparking the Non-Cooperation Movement. British economic policies had impoverished Indian peasants, artisans, and workers. The exploitative land revenue system, the decline of traditional industries, and the overall drain of wealth from India to Britain created widespread economic hardship. Gandhi’s call for the boycott of British goods and the revival of Indian industries, particularly through the promotion of khadi (homespun cloth), resonated with large sections of society.

3. Objectives of the Non-Cooperation Movement

The primary objective of the Non-Cooperation Movement was to achieve swaraj (self-rule) for India. Gandhi believed that by refusing to cooperate with the British government, Indians could undermine the legitimacy of colonial rule and hasten its collapse. The movement called for mass non-violent non-cooperation, which included boycotts of British goods, institutions, and services. The specific objectives were:

Boycott of Foreign Goods: The movement urged Indians to boycott British-made goods, particularly textiles, and instead promote indigenous industries such as hand-spinning and weaving of khadi. This was intended to hurt British economic interests and promote self-reliance.
Boycott of British Institutions: The Non-Cooperation Movement called for the boycott of British educational institutions, law courts, and legislative councils. Gandhi believed that by withdrawing from these institutions, Indians could create alternative systems that would prepare the nation for self-rule.
Resignation from Government Jobs: Indians working in the colonial administration were encouraged to resign from their positions to show their discontent with British rule and weaken the functioning of the colonial government.
Refusal to Pay Taxes: The refusal to pay taxes, especially in rural areas, was seen as a direct challenge to the economic foundation of British rule. Peasants were urged to withhold taxes, particularly land revenue, as a form of protest.
Promotion of Hindu-Muslim Unity: Gandhi’s involvement in the Khilafat Movement reflected his desire to unite Hindus and Muslims in a common struggle against British imperialism. The Non-Cooperation Movement sought to transcend religious divisions and build a united nationalist front.

4. Spread and Impact of the Non-Cooperation Movement

The Non-Cooperation Movement quickly spread across the country and attracted participants from all sections of society. Urban areas saw boycotts of British goods and institutions, with students leaving government schools and colleges, lawyers refusing to practice in colonial courts, and traders refusing to import British goods. Khadi became a symbol of national pride, and spinning wheels were distributed widely as part of Gandhi’s campaign for economic self-sufficiency.

In rural areas, peasants engaged in acts of defiance by refusing to pay taxes and staging protests against landlords and colonial officials. The movement resonated particularly strongly in regions like Bengal, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh, where agrarian distress was severe. Although Gandhi stressed the need for non-violence, the movement occasionally turned violent, as seen in the Chauri Chaura incident of 1922, where a mob attacked and burned a police station, killing 22 policemen. This event shocked Gandhi and led him to suspend the movement, fearing that it had deviated from its non-violent principles.

The Non-Cooperation Movement had a profound impact on Indian politics and society. For the first time, it brought millions of ordinary Indians into the freedom struggle, creating a sense of national unity and political awakening. The movement also strengthened the Indian National Congress, transforming it from an elite organization into a mass political party with a broad base of support. The boycotts of British goods hurt British trade and demonstrated the economic power of mass mobilization.

5. Suspension and Aftermath of the Movement

Despite its widespread appeal and success in mobilizing large sections of the population, the Non-Cooperation Movement was suspended by Gandhi in February 1922 following the Chauri Chaura incident. Gandhi felt that the movement was losing its non-violent character and feared that further escalation of violence would undermine its moral foundation.

The suspension of the movement led to disappointment and frustration among many of its participants, particularly younger radicals who had hoped for a more confrontational approach to British rule. Leaders like Subhas Chandra Bose and Jawaharlal Nehru were initially disillusioned by the abrupt end of the movement, though they later became key figures in the Indian nationalist movement. The Khilafat Movement also lost momentum, especially after the abolition of the Caliphate in Turkey in 1924.

Conclusion

The Non-Cooperation Movement was a landmark event in India’s struggle for independence, as it marked the beginning of mass participation in the nationalist movement and showcased the power of non-violent resistance. While the movement did not achieve immediate independence, it set the stage for future civil disobedience campaigns and laid the foundation for a stronger, more united nationalist movement. The ideals and strategies developed during the Non-Cooperation Movement would continue to influence India’s freedom struggle in the years to come.

Question:-5

Write short notes in about 250 words each on any two of the following:

a) Modernist theories on nationalism
b) Swadeshi movement
c) Political Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi
d) Political mobilisation in the Princely States.

Answer:

a) Modernist theories on nationalism ->1. Introduction to Modernist Theories on Nationalism

Modernist theories on nationalism offer a framework for understanding how nations and nationalism emerged as phenomena closely tied to modernity. These theories argue that nationalism is a product of social, political, and economic transformations that took place in the modern era, particularly during the 18th and 19th centuries. Unlike primordialist views, which posit that nations are natural and ancient, modernist theorists see nations as constructed entities that arose in response to the needs of modern societies. Modernist theories focus on the impact of industrialization, capitalism, state formation, and mass communication in creating a sense of shared identity and collective belonging. This section will explore the key ideas of prominent modernist thinkers, including Ernest Gellner, Benedict Anderson, and Eric Hobsbawm, and their contributions to the understanding of nationalism.

2. Ernest Gellner: Nationalism and Industrial Society

Ernest Gellner is one of the most influential modernist theorists of nationalism. In his seminal work Nations and Nationalism (1983), Gellner argues that nationalism is a product of industrial society. He contends that nations are not ancient or natural entities, but rather are created in response to the social and economic needs of industrialization. According to Gellner, pre-industrial societies were characterized by small, localized communities where people’s identities were shaped by kinship ties, local customs, and agricultural production.

With the advent of industrialization, however, societies required a more mobile, educated, and standardized workforce. Industrial societies needed people to move freely across regions, communicate in a common language, and work in diverse sectors of the economy. This process of modernization required the formation of a centralized state and the creation of a national culture that could integrate individuals into a cohesive social and economic system. Nationalism, in Gellner’s view, emerged as a way to create this standardized national culture, fostering a sense of belonging among individuals who might otherwise be disconnected from each other.

Gellner’s theory emphasizes the role of education in promoting nationalism. He argues that the modern state used educational institutions to instill a common language, history, and set of values in its citizens. This process of cultural homogenization was essential for creating a national identity that could support the functioning of industrial society. For Gellner, nationalism is a product of modernity, arising from the need for social cohesion and communication in an industrialized world.

3. Benedict Anderson: Imagined Communities

Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities (1983) offers another influential modernist theory of nationalism. Anderson defines the nation as an "imagined political community" that is limited and sovereign. According to Anderson, nations are "imagined" because the members of even the smallest nation will never meet or know most of their fellow citizens, yet they still perceive themselves as part of a shared community. This sense of belonging is fostered through shared symbols, such as flags, national anthems, and myths of common history, which create an emotional bond among individuals.

One of Anderson’s key contributions is his emphasis on the role of print capitalism in the rise of nationalism. He argues that the development of printing technology, particularly the printing of books and newspapers in vernacular languages, played a crucial role in creating a shared sense of national identity. The mass production of printed materials allowed people to access information in their own language, breaking down the barriers of local dialects and creating a standardized national language. This enabled people across different regions to imagine themselves as part of a larger community, even though they were geographically distant from each other.

Anderson also highlights the importance of time and history in the construction of national identities. He argues that nations are imagined as having a shared history and destiny, often rooted in the past but oriented toward the future. Nationalism, in Anderson’s view, is a modern phenomenon that emerged in the context of declining religious and dynastic authority. As people’s belief in the divinely ordained rule of monarchs and religious institutions waned, nationalism provided a new way for individuals to connect to a larger collective identity.

4. Eric Hobsbawm: Nationalism and the Invention of Tradition

Eric Hobsbawm, a Marxist historian, provides a modernist interpretation of nationalism that focuses on the role of "invented traditions" in shaping national identities. In his work Nations and Nationalism since 1780 (1990), Hobsbawm argues that nations are not timeless entities but are products of specific historical processes, particularly the rise of capitalism and the modern state. He emphasizes that nationalism is a constructed ideology that serves the interests of the state and the ruling class.

Hobsbawm’s concept of "invented traditions" refers to the ways in which national symbols, rituals, and myths are deliberately created or revived to foster a sense of shared identity among citizens. These traditions often appear to be ancient, but in reality, they are relatively recent inventions designed to legitimize the nation-state and its authority. For example, the celebration of national holidays, the construction of national monuments, and the teaching of national history in schools are all practices that help create a sense of national continuity and unity.

Hobsbawm argues that nationalism was instrumental in mobilizing the masses in the age of industrialization and capitalism. As new social and economic classes emerged, nationalism provided a way for the state to integrate these groups into a cohesive political entity. However, Hobsbawm also contends that nationalism often masked underlying class conflicts and inequalities. By promoting a sense of national unity, the ruling class could maintain control over the working class and prevent social unrest.

Hobsbawm’s analysis highlights the role of elites in constructing national identities and the ways in which nationalism can be used as a tool of political control. He sees nationalism as a response to the challenges of modernity, including industrialization, urbanization, and the need for mass political participation.

5. Tom Nairn: Nationalism as a Response to Uneven Development

Tom Nairn, a Scottish political theorist, offers a modernist perspective on nationalism that focuses on its relationship to economic development and global capitalism. In his work The Break-Up of Britain (1977), Nairn argues that nationalism arises in response to uneven economic development between regions and nations. He contends that nationalism is a form of resistance to the dominance of capitalist powers, particularly in peripheral or colonized regions.

According to Nairn, nationalism is not only a product of modernity but also a reaction to the inequalities generated by global capitalism. In his view, nationalism provides a means for oppressed or marginalized groups to assert their political and economic autonomy. Nairn’s theory is particularly relevant in the context of anti-colonial nationalism, where colonized peoples used nationalism as a tool to resist imperial domination and seek self-determination.

Nairn’s emphasis on the economic dimensions of nationalism aligns with Marxist interpretations, but he also recognizes that nationalism has an emotional and cultural appeal that goes beyond purely material interests. He argues that nationalism is a complex and contradictory force, capable of both progressive and reactionary outcomes, depending on the historical context.

Conclusion

Modernist theories of nationalism, as articulated by thinkers like Ernest Gellner, Benedict Anderson, Eric Hobsbawm, and Tom Nairn, offer valuable insights into the emergence and development of nations in the modern era. These theorists emphasize that nationalism is a constructed phenomenon, shaped by the social, economic, and political transformations of modernity, including industrialization, state formation, and global capitalism. By focusing on the historical and material conditions that give rise to nationalism, modernist theories provide a framework for understanding how nations are imagined, invented, and maintained in the modern world. These perspectives continue to influence contemporary debates on the nature of nationalism and its role in shaping global politics.

b) Swadeshi movement -> Swadeshi Movement: A Short Note

The Swadeshi Movement, which began in 1905 as a response to the partition of Bengal by the British colonial administration, was a significant chapter in India’s freedom struggle. The movement aimed to promote indigenous goods and boycott British products as a means of economic and political resistance. Swadeshi, meaning "of one’s own country," encouraged Indians to reject British-manufactured goods and adopt locally produced items, particularly khadi (homespun cloth). This movement played a pivotal role in fostering a sense of national identity and unity among the Indian population.

The partition of Bengal by Lord Curzon, intended to divide the Bengali population along religious lines, was viewed by Indian nationalists as a deliberate attempt to weaken the growing nationalist sentiment. In response, leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal, Lala Lajpat Rai, and Aurobindo Ghose advocated for the Swadeshi Movement as a form of protest. The movement quickly spread across India, particularly in Bengal, and became a mass campaign involving students, women, and workers.

The Swadeshi Movement had multiple dimensions—economic, political, and cultural. Economically, it aimed to boost Indian industries and reduce reliance on British imports, thereby undermining the colonial economy. Politically, it mobilized Indians to assert their opposition to British rule and fostered the idea of self-reliance (swaraj). Culturally, it emphasized the revival of Indian crafts and traditions, encouraging Indians to take pride in their heritage.

The movement also saw the rise of national education institutions, as British-run schools and colleges were boycotted. Despite facing brutal repression from the colonial government, the Swadeshi Movement laid the foundation for later mass nationalist campaigns. Though the movement eventually lost momentum, it left a lasting legacy, inspiring future struggles for independence and promoting the ideals of self-sufficiency and national pride.

c) Political Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi ->Political Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi: A Short Note

Mahatma Gandhi’s political philosophy, rooted in the principles of non-violence (ahimsa) and truth (satya), was a unique and revolutionary approach to both personal and political life. His ideas were influenced by a blend of Indian spiritual traditions, especially Jainism and Hinduism, as well as Western thinkers like Leo Tolstoy, John Ruskin, and Henry David Thoreau. Gandhi’s philosophy centered on the idea that the means used to achieve an end must be as pure as the end itself.

Non-Violence (Ahimsa): The cornerstone of Gandhi’s political thought was non-violence. He believed that true resistance to oppression could only be achieved through peaceful means. Non-violence, for Gandhi, was not merely the absence of physical violence but a proactive force of love and truth that could transform society. He applied this principle in various mass movements, such as the Non-Cooperation Movement and the Salt March, advocating that India could achieve independence through non-violent civil disobedience.

Satyagraha (Truth Force): Gandhi’s concept of satyagraha was central to his political strategy. It involved the idea of holding onto truth and using non-violent resistance to challenge injustice. For Gandhi, satyagraha was a moral weapon, which he believed could awaken the conscience of the oppressor and lead to change without violence.

Swaraj (Self-Rule): Gandhi’s vision of swaraj went beyond political independence; it also encompassed self-discipline, self-reliance, and moral autonomy. He believed that true freedom could only be achieved when individuals and communities were self-governing, responsible, and spiritually awakened.

Decentralization and Village Economy: Gandhi advocated for a decentralized form of governance and the promotion of local self-sufficiency through the revival of village industries, particularly khadi. He envisioned a society where power and resources were distributed equitably, and people lived in harmony with nature.

In essence, Gandhi’s political philosophy combined ethical principles with practical politics, emphasizing moral responsibility, non-violence, and the pursuit of truth in all aspects of life. His ideas continue to inspire political movements worldwide.

d) Political mobilisation in the Princely States.-> Political Mobilisation in the Princely States: A Short Note

Political mobilization in the princely states of India during the colonial period was a critical yet often overlooked aspect of the Indian freedom struggle. Unlike British India, which was directly administered by the British, the princely states were semi-autonomous regions governed by Indian rulers who had pledged allegiance to the British Crown. While these states enjoyed some degree of internal sovereignty, they were under significant British influence and control. This arrangement created unique challenges and opportunities for political mobilization.

By the early 20th century, the growing nationalist sentiment in British India began to influence political activism in the princely states. Nationalist leaders and organizations, such as the Indian National Congress, recognized that for true independence, the princely states also needed to be integrated into the broader freedom movement. Political mobilization in these states primarily focused on issues of governance, civil liberties, and representation, as many of the rulers were seen as autocratic and unresponsive to popular demands.

The All-India States People’s Conference (AISPC), established in 1927, played a crucial role in organizing and coordinating political activities in the princely states. The AISPC sought to bring about democratic reforms within these states, promote civil rights, and secure the participation of the people in governance. It worked closely with the Indian National Congress, especially under the leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru, to align the aspirations of the people in the princely states with the broader nationalist movement.

The political mobilization within the princely states varied widely depending on the region and the attitude of the rulers. In states like Mysore and Baroda, reformist rulers were more open to democratic governance and reforms, while in others, such as Hyderabad and Kashmir, political agitation was met with strong resistance from the ruling authorities.

As the freedom struggle gained momentum, the question of the future of the princely states became increasingly urgent. By 1947, with the support of nationalist leaders and the efforts of local political organizations, most princely states acceded to the newly independent India, ensuring a united and democratic nation.

Question:-6

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

Answer: 1. Introduction to Popular Protests (1945-1947)

The years between 1945 and 1947 were a critical period in Indian history, marked by intense political agitation, popular protests, and communal unrest as the country approached independence from British rule. The end of World War II in 1945 saw a resurgence of anti-colonial movements, fueled by growing frustrations with British policies and the realization that India’s independence was imminent. This period witnessed various forms of protests, including mass strikes, demonstrations, and communal riots, reflecting the diverse demands of different sections of Indian society. These protests were influenced by the political instability in Britain, the weakening hold of the British Raj, and the rising tensions between Hindus and Muslims, which eventually culminated in the Partition of India in 1947.

2. Workers’ Strikes and Industrial Protests

One of the prominent forms of popular protests during this period was the wave of strikes and industrial unrest led by workers across India. The post-war period saw a sharp rise in inflation, food shortages, and deteriorating working conditions, which affected the urban working class. Workers in key industries such as textiles, railways, and shipping organized large-scale strikes to demand better wages, improved working conditions, and recognition of their unions.

In 1946, the All-India Railway Strike, one of the largest industrial actions in colonial India, brought the nation’s rail transport system to a halt. Over two million railway workers participated in this strike, led by the All India Railwaymen’s Federation. Their demands included higher wages, better working conditions, and dearness allowances to cope with inflation. This strike was part of a broader wave of labor unrest that demonstrated the workers’ growing discontent with both the colonial government and capitalist exploitation.

The strikes of this period were not just economic but also political, as many workers were inspired by the broader nationalist movement. The Communist Party of India (CPI) played a significant role in organizing industrial strikes, seeking to connect workers’ demands with the larger struggle for independence. These protests signaled the increasing political consciousness of the working class and their demands for social justice alongside political freedom.

3. Naval Mutiny of 1946

One of the most significant events in this period of popular protest was the Royal Indian Navy (RIN) mutiny of February 1946. The mutiny began as a strike by ratings (sailors) in the RIN against poor working conditions, racial discrimination, and inadequate pay. Initially confined to the naval base in Bombay (now Mumbai), the mutiny quickly spread to other naval bases across India, with around 20,000 sailors joining the protest. The mutineers raised political slogans, demanding the release of Indian National Army (INA) prisoners and calling for an end to British rule.

The RIN mutiny was notable not only for its scale but also for the way it cut across communal lines. Both Hindu and Muslim sailors participated in the strike, raising the slogan of unity: "Hindus and Muslims unite!" Despite this, the mutiny faced harsh repression by the British authorities, who responded with force, resulting in the deaths of several sailors.

The RIN mutiny had a profound impact on the Indian political landscape, signaling the growing discontent within the British Indian armed forces. Although the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League distanced themselves from the mutiny, fearing its violent overtones, the event demonstrated the fragility of British control over India and the potential for military unrest to accelerate the push for independence.

4. Peasant Movements and Agrarian Unrest

The years between 1945 and 1947 also witnessed a surge in peasant movements and agrarian protests, particularly in regions like Telangana, Bengal, and Bihar. These protests were driven by the extreme exploitation of peasants by landlords, rising rents, and oppressive revenue systems imposed by the colonial state.

The Telangana Rebellion (1946-1951) was one of the most significant peasant uprisings during this period. It began in the princely state of Hyderabad, where peasants, led by the Communist Party of India, rose against the oppressive feudal landlords and the Nizam’s autocratic rule. The peasants demanded land redistribution, an end to forced labor, and relief from exorbitant rents. The movement grew rapidly, with peasants seizing control of large rural areas and establishing self-rule in some villages. The Telangana Rebellion was met with brutal repression by the Nizam’s forces and, later, by the Indian government, but it remained a powerful example of the intersection between agrarian and political struggles.

In Bengal, the Tebhaga Movement (1946-1947) was another significant agrarian protest. Sharecroppers (known as bargadars) in the Bengal region, supported by the Kisan Sabha (Peasant Association), demanded that they be allowed to keep two-thirds of the crop they harvested, instead of the one-third share they traditionally received. The movement gained widespread support among the rural poor but faced violent repression from landlords and the colonial government. Despite its failure to achieve immediate success, the Tebhaga Movement laid the foundation for future agrarian struggles in post-independence India.

5. Communal Riots and Religious Tensions

Another tragic and violent form of popular protest during this period was the eruption of communal riots between Hindus and Muslims, which intensified as Partition became increasingly likely. Tensions between the Hindu and Muslim communities, exacerbated by the divide-and-rule policies of the British, reached a breaking point in the mid-1940s, leading to horrific violence across the country.

The Great Calcutta Killings of August 1946, triggered by the Muslim League’s call for Direct Action Day, saw widespread rioting and massacres in Calcutta (now Kolkata). Over 4,000 people were killed, and many more were injured or displaced. The violence quickly spread to other parts of India, including Noakhali, Bihar, and the Punjab, as Hindu-Muslim clashes escalated in response to the impending partition of the country.

The communal violence during this period reflected the deep divisions within Indian society over the question of political identity and the future of the nation. While nationalist leaders had long emphasized unity, the communal riots revealed the extent to which religious identities had become politicized, ultimately leading to the partition of India in 1947.

6. Role of Nationalist Leaders and Organizations

Throughout the period from 1945 to 1947, nationalist leaders and organizations played a key role in channeling popular protests into the broader struggle for independence. The Indian National Congress, led by figures such as Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, and Sardar Patel, sought to maintain a non-violent approach while continuing to demand immediate independence from British rule. Gandhi’s leadership during this period focused on quelling communal violence and emphasizing Hindu-Muslim unity, though his efforts were ultimately overwhelmed by the political realities of Partition.

The Muslim League, under the leadership of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, also played a central role during this period, particularly as it mobilized Muslim communities in support of the demand for a separate Muslim state. The League’s call for Direct Action in 1946, however, contributed to the worsening communal tensions.

Conclusion

The period between 1945 and 1947 was marked by a variety of popular protests, reflecting the complex and often conflicting demands of different sections of Indian society. From industrial strikes and peasant uprisings to military mutinies and communal riots, these protests reflected both the strength of the nationalist movement and the deep divisions within Indian society. As India approached independence, these protests underscored the urgency of addressing social, economic, and communal grievances, while also highlighting the challenges of building a united and democratic nation.

Question:-7

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

Answer: 1. Introduction to Nationalism and the Peasantry

The relationship between nationalism and the peasantry in colonial India has been a subject of considerable debate among historians. Peasants formed the largest section of Indian society during the colonial period, and their role in the national movement has often been examined through various lenses, including economic, political, and social perspectives. While some historians argue that peasants were primarily motivated by economic grievances, others see their participation in the nationalist struggle as a reflection of their political consciousness and engagement with broader nationalist ideologies. The debate revolves around whether peasant involvement in the nationalist movement was driven by immediate material concerns or a genuine commitment to the cause of Indian independence. This essay will explore the views of various historians on the relationship between nationalism and the peasantry.

2. Marxist Historians: Peasantry as Economically Motivated

Marxist historians have typically viewed the relationship between nationalism and the peasantry through the lens of class struggle and economic exploitation. For them, the peasant’s involvement in the national movement was primarily driven by economic hardships caused by colonial policies, rather than a deep sense of nationalist identity.

Prominent Marxist historian, Bipan Chandra, argues that peasant participation in the nationalist movement was largely motivated by economic factors such as high land revenue, oppressive landlords, and the exploitation of agricultural labor. He contends that peasants often joined the nationalist movement when it coincided with their material interests, particularly when it provided an opportunity to challenge colonial taxation or oppressive land systems. In this view, the peasants were less concerned with the larger ideological goals of nationalism and more focused on immediate economic gains, such as the reduction of taxes or protection from landlords.

Similarly, historian R.P. Dutt viewed peasant involvement as a response to colonial exploitation rather than a true commitment to the cause of nationalism. Dutt argues that the nationalist leadership, especially the Indian National Congress, co-opted peasant movements for their own political purposes without addressing the fundamental economic issues that affected the rural population. Marxist historians emphasize the material conditions of the peasantry and often see their participation in nationalist movements as episodic and driven by immediate grievances.

3. Subaltern Studies Historians: Peasant Agency and Autonomous Political Consciousness

In contrast to Marxist historians, scholars from the Subaltern Studies school emphasize the agency of peasants and their independent political consciousness in the nationalist movement. Subaltern historians critique the view that peasants were passive participants, arguing instead that they had their own vision of politics and resistance, often separate from or even in opposition to elite nationalist leaders.

Ranajit Guha, a key figure in Subaltern Studies, argues that peasant participation in the nationalist movement cannot be reduced to economic grievances alone. Guha contends that peasants had their own forms of resistance, rooted in traditional village structures and local forms of authority, and that they were capable of understanding and acting upon larger political ideas, including nationalism. According to Guha, peasants often adapted the nationalist rhetoric to their own struggles, viewing the movement as an opportunity to assert their autonomy from both colonial and local feudal authorities.

In his influential work Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India, Guha highlights the autonomous nature of peasant rebellions and their role in shaping the nationalist movement. He argues that while peasants may have had their own grievances related to land, taxes, and labor, they were also capable of understanding the broader context of colonial rule and nationalism. The Subaltern Studies approach thus emphasizes the political agency of peasants and their capacity to contribute to the nationalist cause on their own terms.

4. Nationalist Historians: Peasantry as Integral to Nationalism

Nationalist historians, on the other hand, tend to view the peasantry as an integral part of the broader nationalist struggle for independence. These historians argue that peasant participation in the national movement was not merely a response to economic hardships, but also reflected their commitment to the idea of a free and sovereign India.

Historians like Sumit Sarkar highlight the role of peasants in mass movements such as the Non-Cooperation Movement (1920-1922) and the Quit India Movement (1942), where rural populations played a central role in organizing protests, boycotting British goods, and resisting colonial authorities. Sarkar contends that the involvement of peasants in these movements was driven by a combination of economic grievances and nationalist sentiment. He suggests that nationalist leaders, particularly Mahatma Gandhi, were able to connect the economic concerns of the peasantry with the broader goal of independence, thereby mobilizing rural masses in support of the nationalist cause.

Nationalist historians argue that peasants were not passive followers of elite-led movements but active participants who contributed to the success of mass mobilization efforts. They emphasize that the nationalist movement resonated with the peasantry, not only because it addressed their material concerns but also because it offered them a vision of a free and just society.

5. Peasant Nationalism and Gandhian Mobilization

Mahatma Gandhi’s role in mobilizing the peasantry has been a key focus of historians examining the relationship between nationalism and the rural population. Gandhi’s strategies, particularly during the Non-Cooperation Movement, Civil Disobedience Movement, and Quit India Movement, were aimed at involving the peasantry in non-violent resistance against British rule. Gandhi recognized that without the participation of rural India, the nationalist movement would lack the mass support necessary to succeed.

Historians like Judith Brown and David Hardiman have explored how Gandhi’s emphasis on issues such as land revenue, salt taxes, and the promotion of khadi appealed directly to the economic and social concerns of peasants. Gandhi’s campaigns often addressed the everyday struggles of the peasantry, linking their immediate material grievances with the larger goal of independence. For example, the Salt March in 1930 mobilized rural communities by focusing on an issue that directly affected their livelihood, while also symbolizing the broader fight against British economic control.

Hardiman, in particular, emphasizes how Gandhi’s concept of swaraj (self-rule) resonated with peasants, who interpreted it as a call for local autonomy and the restoration of traditional village-based forms of governance. Gandhi’s emphasis on non-violence and self-reliance also appealed to the moral and ethical values of many rural communities, making his form of nationalism accessible to the peasantry.

6. Conclusion

The relationship between nationalism and the peasantry in colonial India has been interpreted in various ways by different schools of thought. Marxist historians view peasant participation as driven primarily by economic factors, while Subaltern Studies scholars highlight the agency and independent political consciousness of the rural population. Nationalist historians, on the other hand, emphasize the integral role of peasants in the success of mass movements and their commitment to the broader goals of the independence struggle. Gandhi’s ability to connect the economic concerns of the peasantry with the larger goal of swaraj played a crucial role in mobilizing rural India. Ultimately, the participation of peasants in the nationalist movement was shaped by a complex interplay of economic, political, and social factors, making them an indispensable part of India’s fight for independence.

Question:-8

Write a note on the relationship between the nationalist movement and the Dalits.

Answer: 1. Introduction to the Nationalist Movement and the Dalits

The relationship between the Indian nationalist movement and the Dalits (formerly referred to as "Untouchables") is a complex and multifaceted issue that has been subject to considerable debate. While the Indian National Congress (INC) and Mahatma Gandhi made efforts to include Dalits in the national movement, there were tensions between the nationalist leadership and Dalit leaders like Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who prioritized social equality and the eradication of caste discrimination. The Dalits, constituting the lowest rung in the hierarchical caste system, experienced severe social, economic, and political marginalization. As a result, their relationship with the broader nationalist struggle for independence was shaped by the question of whether political freedom would address their systemic exclusion from Indian society.

2. Dalits and the Early Nationalist Movement

In the early phases of the Indian nationalist movement, Dalit issues were largely overlooked by the mainstream leadership. The focus of the Indian National Congress during the late 19th and early 20th centuries was on political reforms, economic independence, and achieving self-rule (swaraj) from British colonialism. Social issues, including caste-based discrimination, were not given as much attention, and Dalits were often excluded from the early nationalist leadership’s priorities.

The INC, composed largely of upper-caste elites, was slow to address the structural inequalities faced by Dalits. Despite the Congress’ call for unity, the inclusion of Dalits was often symbolic, and their real social grievances, such as untouchability and access to education, were left unaddressed. The early nationalist movement’s lack of focus on caste oppression led to a disconnect between the Dalits and the mainstream struggle for independence.

3. Gandhi’s Approach to Dalit Inclusion

Mahatma Gandhi, as the leader of the national movement, recognized the importance of addressing caste inequalities to achieve national unity. Gandhi referred to the Dalits as Harijans ("children of God") and advocated for the eradication of untouchability as a part of his broader vision for swaraj. He saw the inclusion of Dalits in the national movement as essential to building a united and free India.

Through his campaigns, Gandhi sought to improve the status of Dalits by promoting social reforms and urging upper-caste Hindus to end the practice of untouchability. His efforts included encouraging Dalits to participate in nationalist activities, opening temples to them, and supporting their access to education and public resources, such as wells and roads.

However, Gandhi’s approach to Dalit issues faced criticism. His paternalistic attitude and insistence on referring to Dalits as Harijans was seen by many Dalit leaders, especially Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, as patronizing and insufficient to address the deep-rooted structural inequalities of the caste system. While Gandhi’s efforts raised awareness about untouchability, they did not fundamentally challenge the caste hierarchy or offer concrete political solutions for Dalit emancipation.

4. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and Dalit Political Mobilization

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, one of the most prominent Dalit leaders and intellectuals, had a different vision for the upliftment of Dalits. Ambedkar argued that political independence alone would not improve the condition of Dalits unless accompanied by social reforms that directly challenged caste-based oppression. He believed that without the eradication of caste discrimination, the Dalits would continue to be marginalized even in a free India.

Ambedkar advocated for the political mobilization of Dalits as a distinct group, independent from the mainstream nationalist movement. He founded the Independent Labour Party in 1936, which later evolved into the Scheduled Castes Federation, to represent the interests of Dalits and ensure their political representation. Ambedkar sought separate electorates for Dalits in order to protect their political rights and prevent them from being dominated by upper-caste Hindus within the nationalist movement.

The disagreement between Ambedkar and Gandhi over the issue of separate electorates came to a head during the Poona Pact of 1932. The British government, under the Communal Award, had granted separate electorates to Dalits, which Gandhi opposed, fearing that it would divide Hindu society. After Gandhi went on a hunger strike, a compromise was reached through the Poona Pact, which replaced separate electorates with reserved seats for Dalits in joint electorates. While the Poona Pact ensured political representation for Dalits, Ambedkar felt that it did not go far enough in addressing their unique social and political concerns.

5. Dalits and the Congress Party

While the Congress Party under Gandhi’s leadership made efforts to include Dalits in its activities, tensions remained over the extent to which the party addressed Dalit concerns. Many Dalit leaders and activists felt that the Congress was primarily focused on securing political independence from British rule, with limited attention paid to the issue of caste-based discrimination and the marginalization of Dalits.

During the 1940s, as the national movement gained momentum, the Congress leadership sought to create a broad coalition of social groups to support the demand for independence. This included attempts to integrate Dalits into the broader nationalist cause. Despite these efforts, Dalits remained divided in their support for the Congress Party. While some Dalits participated in the national movement, many remained skeptical about whether independence would lead to substantive social change for them.

6. Post-Independence Role of Dalits and Ambedkar

Following India’s independence in 1947, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar played a crucial role in shaping the Indian Constitution as the chairman of the drafting committee. The Constitution included provisions to safeguard the rights of Dalits and other marginalized communities, including the abolition of untouchability (Article 17) and the establishment of reservations in government jobs and educational institutions for Scheduled Castes.

While the post-independence period saw legal reforms aimed at improving the condition of Dalits, the social and economic realities of caste-based discrimination persisted. Ambedkar’s vision of a society based on equality, liberty, and fraternity continued to influence Dalit politics and social movements long after his death. His legacy inspired future generations of Dalits to organize for their rights and resist caste oppression through movements like the Dalit Panthers and the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP).

Conclusion

The relationship between the nationalist movement and the Dalits was marked by both cooperation and tension. While leaders like Gandhi sought to include Dalits in the broader nationalist struggle, their efforts were often seen as insufficient by Dalit leaders like Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who prioritized social justice and the dismantling of caste-based oppression. The Dalits’ participation in the national movement was influenced by their unique social and economic circumstances, and their demands for political representation and social equality were often at odds with the priorities of the mainstream nationalist leadership. The struggle for Dalit rights continued after independence, shaping the political landscape of modern India and highlighting the ongoing need to address caste-based inequalities.

Question:-9

Analyse the Gandhian strategy to fight against the colonial state in India.

Answer: 1. Introduction to Gandhian Strategy

Mahatma Gandhi’s strategy to fight against British colonial rule in India was unique in its emphasis on non-violence (ahimsa) and civil disobedience (satyagraha). His approach was not only political but also deeply moral and ethical, designed to empower the masses, encourage self-reliance, and challenge the legitimacy of British authority. Gandhi’s strategy combined elements of mass mobilization, grassroots activism, and spiritual principles, making it one of the most distinctive and influential methods of resistance against colonialism. By focusing on non-violent means, Gandhi was able to inspire millions of Indians to participate in the struggle for independence, making the nationalist movement more inclusive and broad-based.

2. Non-Violence (Ahimsa) as a Core Principle

At the heart of Gandhi’s strategy was the principle of non-violence (ahimsa). Gandhi believed that violence only perpetuated hatred, oppression, and cycles of revenge, whereas non-violence could transform the oppressor by appealing to their conscience. He saw non-violence not as a passive stance, but as an active force for change, requiring immense discipline, courage, and moral strength.

Gandhi’s emphasis on ahimsa was crucial in making the Indian nationalist movement accessible to the masses, as it offered a way for people to resist oppression without taking up arms. This strategy was particularly important in a country as diverse as India, where various social, economic, and religious groups could unite under the shared commitment to non-violence. Gandhi believed that by demonstrating the moral superiority of non-violence, India could not only achieve political independence but also set an example for the rest of the world.

3. Civil Disobedience and Satyagraha

The concept of satyagraha, or truth-force, was Gandhi’s method of non-violent resistance. Satyagraha involved the active refusal to obey unjust laws and policies, coupled with the willingness to accept the legal and physical consequences of such defiance. This strategy was designed to challenge the moral and political legitimacy of the colonial state by demonstrating the power of truth and justice.

Gandhi’s first major application of satyagraha was during the Champaran movement in 1917, where he organized indigo farmers to resist oppressive plantation policies. This marked the beginning of Gandhi’s national leadership, as he demonstrated how non-violent resistance could achieve tangible results.

One of the most famous examples of satyagraha was the Salt March of 1930, during which Gandhi and his followers walked 240 miles to the coastal town of Dandi to protest the British monopoly on salt production and taxation. By openly defying the British salt laws, Gandhi symbolized the broader struggle against British exploitation. The Salt March galvanized widespread support for the nationalist cause and demonstrated the power of civil disobedience as a tool for mass mobilization.

4. Mass Mobilization and Inclusivity

A key element of Gandhi’s strategy was his ability to mobilize large sections of Indian society, including those who had been traditionally marginalized, such as peasants, women, and the urban poor. Unlike previous nationalist leaders who primarily represented the interests of the urban elite, Gandhi sought to make the freedom struggle a truly mass movement. He encouraged people from all walks of life to participate in acts of non-violent resistance, such as boycotting British goods, spinning khadi (homespun cloth), and engaging in peaceful protests.

Gandhi’s approach also emphasized inclusivity, particularly in terms of caste and religion. He worked to promote unity between Hindus and Muslims, though this goal faced challenges in the later years of the movement. Gandhi’s efforts to include the Dalits, whom he referred to as Harijans (children of God), were aimed at ending the social exclusion of the lowest castes. His campaigns against untouchability were intertwined with the larger nationalist struggle, as he believed that India could not achieve true independence without social and moral reform.

5. Economic Self-Reliance and the Promotion of Swadeshi

Economic self-reliance was a central component of Gandhi’s strategy to undermine British colonial rule. He believed that India’s economic dependence on Britain, particularly through the importation of British goods, was a key source of colonial exploitation. To combat this, Gandhi promoted the Swadeshi movement, which encouraged Indians to boycott British goods and revive indigenous industries.

Gandhi’s promotion of khadi, or homespun cloth, became a symbol of the Swadeshi movement. By spinning their own cloth, Indians could reject British textiles, which were manufactured from Indian raw materials and sold back to India at inflated prices. The khadi movement was more than an economic boycott; it was a form of self-empowerment that emphasized the dignity of labor and the importance of self-reliance. By wearing khadi, Indians could make a political statement against colonialism and express their solidarity with the nationalist cause.

6. Constructive Programs and Village Reconstruction

In addition to his focus on political independence, Gandhi also emphasized the importance of social and economic reform through his constructive programs. He believed that India’s future lay in its villages and that true swaraj (self-rule) could only be achieved by revitalizing rural communities. Gandhi advocated for the development of village industries, the improvement of sanitation, and the promotion of education in rural areas.

Gandhi’s vision of swaraj was not limited to political independence; it also involved moral and ethical self-governance. He urged Indians to practice simplicity, self-discipline, and self-sufficiency. By promoting a return to traditional village life, Gandhi sought to counter the alienating effects of industrialization and Western materialism. His constructive programs were aimed at creating a just and egalitarian society, free from both colonial rule and social oppression.

7. Negotiation and Non-Cooperation

Gandhi’s strategy also included a willingness to negotiate with the British when possible, though he remained steadfast in his commitment to non-cooperation as a form of pressure. His approach combined non-violent resistance with pragmatic diplomacy, allowing him to maintain dialogue with colonial authorities while mobilizing the masses for direct action.

One of the notable instances of Gandhi’s negotiation strategy was the 1931 Gandhi-Irwin Pact, which resulted in the temporary suspension of the Civil Disobedience Movement in exchange for the release of political prisoners and the recognition of the right to make salt. Although this agreement did not achieve full independence, it demonstrated Gandhi’s ability to use both resistance and negotiation to advance the nationalist cause.

Conclusion

Mahatma Gandhi’s strategy to fight against the colonial state in India was revolutionary in its combination of non-violence, civil disobedience, mass mobilization, and economic self-reliance. By appealing to the moral conscience of both the oppressors and the oppressed, Gandhi was able to unite millions of Indians in the struggle for independence. His emphasis on inclusivity, self-reliance, and ethical governance helped shape not only the Indian freedom movement but also the broader discourse on resistance to oppression worldwide. Gandhi’s strategy remains a powerful example of how non-violent action can challenge and ultimately dismantle systems of injustice.

Question:-10

Write short notes in about 250 words each on any two of the following:

a) Reasons for Congress’ Acceptance of Partition
b) The Attitude of the Indian Capitalists towards the Congress
c) The Relations between Congress and Muslims from 1885 to 1914
d) Salient Features of the Indian Constitution.

Answer:

a) Reasons for Congress’ Acceptance of Partition -> Congress’ Acceptance of Partition: A Short Note

The Indian National Congress’ acceptance of the partition of India in 1947 was the result of a combination of political, social, and communal factors that made it seem like the only viable solution to the growing unrest and communal violence. While Congress had long advocated for a united India, the deteriorating political situation in the 1940s forced its leadership to reconsider their position.

1. Escalating Communal Violence:
The years leading up to 1947 witnessed increasing communal tensions between Hindus and Muslims. The Muslim League’s demand for a separate Muslim state, articulated through the Lahore Resolution of 1940, and the subsequent Direct Action Day in 1946, resulted in widespread riots and communal violence. By 1946-47, communal violence had spiraled out of control, particularly in provinces like Bengal and Punjab, making the Congress leadership believe that partition was necessary to prevent further bloodshed.

2. The Failure of the Cabinet Mission Plan:
The Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946, which sought to provide a federal solution with maximum autonomy for provinces, was initially accepted by both Congress and the Muslim League. However, the League’s insistence on a separate Muslim state and its refusal to cooperate with a united federal India led to the collapse of the plan. The breakdown of this last attempt at a compromise pushed Congress closer to accepting partition.

3. Political Realities and British Pressure:
By 1947, the British, eager to leave India, had decided that partition was the fastest way to ensure a smooth transfer of power. Lord Mountbatten, the last Viceroy of India, played a crucial role in convincing Congress leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel that partition was inevitable and preferable to a prolonged civil war.

4. Muslim League’s Demand for Pakistan:
The Muslim League’s adamant demand for a separate Pakistan under the leadership of Muhammad Ali Jinnah and its success in rallying mass support among Muslims left Congress with little choice but to agree to partition as a means of preventing further conflict and securing independence.

Ultimately, Congress accepted partition as a practical compromise, believing it was the only way to prevent civil war and ensure India’s independence.

b) The Attitude of the Indian Capitalists towards the Congress ->The Attitude of Indian Capitalists towards the Congress: A Short Note

The attitude of Indian capitalists towards the Indian National Congress evolved over time, particularly during the struggle for independence. While Indian capitalists were primarily focused on securing their economic interests, they increasingly aligned themselves with the Congress due to their shared opposition to British colonial economic policies and their belief that an independent India would offer more opportunities for industrial and commercial growth.

1. Initial Skepticism and Support for British Rule:
In the early stages of the Indian independence movement, many Indian capitalists were cautious about openly supporting the Congress. The British colonial government provided a stable political environment that allowed businesses to operate, albeit under restrictive and exploitative economic policies. Prominent industrialists such as the Tatas and Birlas initially cooperated with the British, as colonial rule offered protection for their enterprises. However, as British policies increasingly favored British industries and stifled the growth of Indian enterprises, capitalists began to rethink their stance.

2. Shift during the 1920s and 1930s:
By the 1920s, Indian capitalists began to realize that their economic interests would be better served by an independent Indian government rather than under British rule. The exploitation of Indian resources, unfavorable trade policies, and heavy taxation were seen as obstacles to industrial growth. The Congress, with its advocacy for Swadeshi (use of indigenous goods) and its opposition to British economic policies, became a natural ally for the capitalists. G.D. Birla and Purshottamdas Thakurdas were among the prominent industrialists who began supporting the Congress financially and ideologically during this period.

3. Support for the Congress during the Quit India Movement and WWII:
During World War II and the Quit India Movement (1942), Indian capitalists solidified their support for the Congress. The British government’s wartime economic policies were seen as exploitative, and capitalists viewed Congress-led independence as the path to economic freedom and industrial development. Industrialists like J.R.D. Tata and G.D. Birla continued to provide financial backing to the Congress, seeing a symbiotic relationship between a free India and industrial growth.

Ultimately, Indian capitalists supported the Congress, not only for nationalistic reasons but also because they saw it as a vehicle to secure their economic interests in an independent India, free from colonial constraints.

c) The Relations between Congress and Muslims from 1885 to 1914 ->Relations between Congress and Muslims from 1885 to 1914: A Short Note

The relations between the Indian National Congress (INC) and Muslims from 1885 to 1914 were characterized by a mix of cooperation, skepticism, and eventual divergence, largely influenced by evolving political dynamics and the emergence of communal politics.

1. Early Phase of Cooperation (1885-1906):
When the Congress was founded in 1885, it was intended as an inclusive platform to represent all communities in India, including Muslims. Some prominent Muslims, such as Badruddin Tyabji, served as Congress leaders and actively participated in its early sessions. The Congress focused on broad political reforms and economic issues, avoiding religious matters, and its moderate leadership aimed for cooperation with both Hindus and Muslims. The overarching goal was to secure more Indian representation in the British administration through constitutional means.

During this period, many Muslims supported the Congress, seeing it as a platform to advocate for their interests alongside other communities. However, some sections of the Muslim elite, particularly those aligned with British rule, were hesitant to fully engage with the Congress, fearing that it primarily represented the interests of the Hindu majority.

2. Formation of the All-India Muslim League (1906):
The turning point in relations came with the formation of the All-India Muslim League in 1906. The League was established in response to concerns among sections of the Muslim elite that the Congress, particularly with its increasing calls for self-rule, would marginalize Muslim political interests in a predominantly Hindu country. The British, seeking to exploit communal divisions, encouraged the League’s formation to counterbalance Congress’ growing influence.

The Muslim League emphasized the need for separate Muslim representation in politics, especially in legislative bodies. In 1909, the Morley-Minto Reforms introduced separate electorates for Muslims, further institutionalizing communal divisions and widening the gap between the Congress and the Muslim League.

3. Divergence and Growing Alienation (1909-1914):
From 1909 onwards, the relations between the Congress and Muslims began to cool. Congress leaders, although still emphasizing unity, were increasingly seen by the Muslim League as representing primarily Hindu interests. The demand for separate electorates deepened the divide, with Muslims seeking safeguards for their political and religious rights in the face of a growing nationalist movement.

By 1914, the Congress-Muslim relations were strained, with the two groups pursuing increasingly divergent political goals. This divergence set the stage for future communal tensions and the complex relationship between the Congress and the Muslim League leading up to the partition of India in 1947.

d) Salient Features of the Indian Constitution.->Salient Features of the Indian Constitution: A Short Note

The Constitution of India, adopted on January 26, 1950, is the supreme law of the land and provides the framework for governance, rights, and duties of citizens. It is a comprehensive document that reflects the socio-political aspirations of a newly independent nation. Some of the salient features of the Indian Constitution are as follows:

1. Lengthiest Constitution in the World:
The Indian Constitution is the longest written constitution in the world. It originally contained 395 articles in 22 parts and 8 schedules. Over time, numerous amendments have been made, further expanding the document. The length reflects the complexity and diversity of Indian society, addressing the needs of various regions, cultures, and communities.

2. Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic:
The Preamble declares India as a sovereign, socialist, secular, and democratic republic. Sovereignty signifies India’s independence from any external authority. Secularism ensures that the state does not favor any religion and treats all religions equally. Socialism reflects the commitment to reducing inequalities, while democracy guarantees that power rests with the people. Republic implies that the head of state is elected, not hereditary.

3. Fundamental Rights and Duties:
The Constitution guarantees fundamental rights to all citizens, including the right to equality, freedom of speech, right to life and personal liberty, and the right against exploitation. These rights are justiciable, meaning they can be enforced by courts. Additionally, Part IVA includes the Fundamental Duties of citizens, introduced through the 42nd Amendment in 1976.

4. Federal Structure with a Unitary Bias:
India is a federal state with a division of powers between the central and state governments. However, the Constitution provides for a strong center, giving it powers to intervene in state matters under certain circumstances, such as during emergencies.

5. Directive Principles of State Policy:
The Directive Principles, enshrined in Part IV, are non-justiciable guidelines for the government to promote social and economic welfare, aiming to establish a welfare state. While not legally enforceable, they reflect the aspirations of the people.

6. Independent Judiciary and Judicial Review:
The Constitution establishes an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law and protect citizens’ rights. The Supreme Court of India has the power of judicial review, ensuring that laws and executive actions conform to the Constitution.

These salient features highlight the democratic, inclusive, and flexible nature of the Indian Constitution, which serves as the bedrock of India’s democratic governance and legal system.

Draw Abstract

Free MHI-09 Solved Assignment | July 2024 and January 2025 | INDIAL NATIONAL MOVEMENT | IGNOU

MHI-09 Free Solved Assignment

Question:-1

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

Answer: 1. Introduction to Marxist and Subaltern Studies Perspectives on Indian Nationalism

Question:-2

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

Answer: 1. Introduction to Economic Nationalism in India

Question:-3

Discuss the ideologies and activities of the revolutionary nationalists during the 1920s and 1930s.

Answer: 1. Introduction to Revolutionary Nationalism in the 1920s and 1930s

Question:-4

Write a note on the Non-cooperation movement.

Answer: 1. Introduction to the Non-Cooperation Movement

Question:-5

Write short notes in about 250 words each on any two of the following:

Answer:

a) Modernist theories on nationalism ->1. Introduction to Modernist Theories on Nationalism

b) Swadeshi movement -> Swadeshi Movement: A Short Note

c) Political Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi ->Political Philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi: A Short Note

d) Political mobilisation in the Princely States.-> Political Mobilisation in the Princely States: A Short Note

Question:-6

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

Answer: 1. Introduction to Popular Protests (1945-1947)

Question:-7

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

Answer: 1. Introduction to Nationalism and the Peasantry

Question:-8

Write a note on the relationship between the nationalist movement and the Dalits.

Answer: 1. Introduction to the Nationalist Movement and the Dalits

Question:-9

Analyse the Gandhian strategy to fight against the colonial state in India.

Answer: 1. Introduction to Gandhian Strategy

Question:-10

Write short notes in about 250 words each on any two of the following:

Answer:

a) Reasons for Congress’ Acceptance of Partition -> Congress’ Acceptance of Partition: A Short Note

b) The Attitude of the Indian Capitalists towards the Congress ->The Attitude of Indian Capitalists towards the Congress: A Short Note

c) The Relations between Congress and Muslims from 1885 to 1914 ->Relations between Congress and Muslims from 1885 to 1914: A Short Note

d) Salient Features of the Indian Constitution.->Salient Features of the Indian Constitution: A Short Note

Search Free Solved Assignment

Just Type atleast 3 letters of your Paper Code

All Policies

Account

Company

Contact Us