Anti-Colonial Nationalism in British India - Essay Example

Anti-colonial Nationalism in British India Introduction Anti colonial nationalism in India began as early as 1885, the time when the Indian National Congress was established. The anti colonial groups in India were not pleased with the British rule. The groups organized civil disobedience and negotiations to the British colonialists. Anti colonial nationalism in India had the competence to produce popular cultural and religious legitimacy for the Indian secularism. In the history of India, Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru are regarded as the anti-colonialists of India since they played crucial roles in liberating India from the British colonialists to attaining self independence. Gandhi became famous in the world for fighting for independence in India from the British colonialists in the early 20th century. The emergence of the communal consciousness between the Muslims and the Hindus was as a result of the British colonial rule, particularly the colonial legislation and administrative division of Indians into religious classes. During the colonial period, communalism and separatism were restricted only to certain regions and groups. Politics of the Indian National Congress, anti colonial nationalists’ parties, the Muslim League and the British legislation brought about the thought that the interests of the Muslim community were different from those of the Hindu community in India (Khan 234). The anti colonial struggle in India took place in three different stages, which is the proto-nationalism stage as the first stage, the rise of new leadership as the second stage and finally mass movement as the third stage. Proto-nationalism is the earliest period of anti-colonial struggle in British India. The local people did not have any knowledge about their rights and their independence during this era. The local people accepted the colonial rule of the British during this period. However, political movements and social groups demanded reforms within the British colonial rule system. When the National Congress of India was established in 1885, it was not anti British colonial rule because it believed that the British colonialists had some sense of justice and fair play in their ruling (Guha 102). The rise of new leadership in India was regarded as the second stage of anti colonial struggle. New patriotic and dedicated leaders in India took control of the movements. During this stage, leaders such as Gokhale, Mahatma Gandhi, Lala Lajpat Rai, Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Patel and Maulana Azad emerged (Guha 78). The third and final stage of anti colonial struggle in British India was mass movements. These national movements dominated in India in that the British colonialists were forced to use brutal force in order to maintain their power. The movements took their information to the locals in remote areas of India under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi. This final stage started with civil disobedience movements whose main aim was to sensitive the locals to disobey some of the rules of the British colonialists that were unjust. The British colonialists in turn arrested the leaders of the movements sending them to jail (Guha 34). With the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, peaceful non-violent struggles were adopted as a method of anti colonial struggle. National Congress of India was established in 1885 as a platform for the educated Indians to express their aspirations and was generally received by the British. The Congress later became anti British. Among the leaders of the Congress included Gopal Krishna Gokhale and Surendra Nath Banerjee who sought for reforms that would allow some Indians to participate in the Legislative Councils but after approximately two decades, it became anti British. The main objective of the Congress was the defeat of the British raj. In India, the freedom movement was split into two factions, that is, a less militant faction and a more militant faction. The less militant faction was represented by Gokhale and later by Mahatma Gandhi whose main objective was reforms. The more militant faction was headed by Lajpat Rai, Tilak and B.C. Pal whose main objective was the defeat of the British rule. At large, the National Congress of India used the non-violent methods with Mahatma Gandhi as their leader. Mahatma Gandhi established the non-cooperation movement with the use of non violence struggle after the Jalianwala Bagh Massacre of 1919. He initiated the movement on conditions that it would remain non-violent, and that Indians were to stay away from the British educational institutions, courts and goods. Though the movement was running smoothly, Mahatma had to withdraw it in 1922 as it turned out to be violent when an angry mob set a police station ablaze in Uttar Pradesh killing some of the police officers at the station. To stop the infamous salt law of the British rulers, his peaceful Dandi March started the civil disobedience movement. The movement was supposed to remain non-violent as the Indians were to disobey the British rules that were not just. In 1942, another movement that was supposed to remain non violent was initiated, The Quit India Movement. However before the movement was officially launched, the British colonialists arrested all the outstanding leaders of the movement, leaving the Indian people leaderless. This action by the British colonialists of arresting the leaders of the movement provoked violence from the local people of India. Some of the young revolutionaries of India who contributed to the freedom struggle of India who did not follow non violence method of Mahatma included Ashfaq Ullah Khan, Ram Prasad Bismil and Shaheed Bhagat Singh. Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru and Patel who were Indian leaders were many times sent to jail. Myanmar also known as Burma was part of British India until when the Government of India Act of 1935 was enforced in the year 1937. Burma was associated with the non-violent struggle of India. Apart from the non-violent struggles for anti colonialism in British India, some of the nationalists used armed struggle. Young revolutionaries such as Ullah Khan Ashfaq and Ram Prasad Bismil together with their friends set ablaze government’s treasury in Uttar Pradesh. The revolutionists were later arrested, arraigned to court and were hanged to death. Afterwards other revolutionists, Shaheed Bhagat Singh and Raj Guru together with their friends, threw a bomb in the central legislature. Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose set up the national Indian army to fight for the freedom of India after escaping from jail during World War II and arrived in Japan via Germany. In their anti colonial struggle, India used national independence movements that were headed by the main anti colonialists. The main aim of the national independence movements was to eliminate the foreign rulers who were the British colonialists and get their own political independence. It was believed that the main concern of the freedom movements’ leadership was the transfer of power from the British colonialists to the local people of India. These movements did not actually seek social and economic change. The anti colonial struggle in India was successful with India attaining its independence in 1947. The British colonial rule was brought to an end.The British colonial rule and Western culture and civilization had an impact on the culture and religion of the Indians. Various educated and concerned Indians responded differently to this issue. The responses started being evident in India when the policies of the British colonialists began to undergo changes. Some of the various responses include: Spiritualization of politics goals and methods. This was done by use of the traditional approach to social reform, mobilizing by use of Hindu religious symbols and opposing the British rule. A political outlook whereby the western principles of government are given a priority. This was combined with active and peaceful methods of protest, innovative and freedom as a primary goal. Constitutionalist and loyalist in political approach. In this response, mobilization had its basis on appeal the protection of the Muslim interests and the Muslim religion at large. Modernization of the social reforms and politics based on the rational principles of the west Aurobindo and Tilak believed that an appeal on quasi-religious would strengthen the nationalism of India. In the 20th century, militants in Bengal had two types of activities. The first ones were concerned with the throwing of bombs and terrorizing the British officials. The second group on the other hand dealt mainly with organizing rebellion and developing grounds for guerilla warfare and revolts. They had no belief in looting and assassinations. Tilak went ahead in representing the radical nationalism in Maharashtra by use of interpretations from the scriptures and religious events. In 1919-1924, there was an achievement in India by the Khilafat movement on the unity level. The unity level achieved was between religious forces and secular as well as between Muslims and Hindus as a campaign against the British choice to partition the Ottoman Empire after World War I. The Khilafat cause received support from Mahatma Gandhi putting together with the nationalist imperative of swaraj also known as self-rule in his non-violent campaign against the British rule. The Khilafat movement supporters disputed that pan-Islamism was compatible with nationalism. The Khilafat movement depended on demonstrations and represented a national-level alliance known as the Congress Khilafat Muslim League. The demonstrations that the movement depended on were of political unity between Muslims and Hindus, harmonious inter-faith relations and the support of smaller movements. In supporting the cause, the ulama actually played a decisive role by legalizing a movement that would have not been feasible under Western educated Muslims leadership. The Khilafat movement released other divisive forces. In 1921, some ulama challenged in a conference that it was necessary for the Hindus to form a coalition and there was a need for greater conformity with Shari’a in Khilafat movement direction. The Indians nationality was compromised when they exploited the Khilafat movement as an example of extra territorial loyalty of Muslims. Some of the Muslim leaders and institutions issued a call for riots and jihad in south India in 1921. This call led to the withdrawal of Mahatma Gandhi from the civil disobedience movement opposing the violence. After that, Mustafa Kemal did away with the Ottoman Khilafat in Turkey and this made the issue controversial for the Indian supporters. The partition of the Hindus and the Muslims is sometimes featured in the ideas of Saiyid Ahmad Khan at Aligarh. The partition was also caused by some of the events that took place in the history of India. The events include the partition of Bengal in 1905 and the creation of the All India Muslim League in 1906. These historical events not only contributed to the partition but also led to “imaginable” provision of the structural basis for the two-nation theory by the British legislation (Guha 112). The colonial point of view was legalized on the Indian society as fundamentally divided on religious grounds by the 1909 Morley-Minto reforms that granted the Muslims separate electorates. Mohammad Iqbal had also recommended the thought of a Muslim state in 1930, a state that would be in the northwestern areas of India where the Muslims are the majority. Around the time of World War II, the major drive for Pakistan can be featured in the great failure of Congress Leadership. A coalition with the Muslim League and reverberation of a firm of its commitment to a composite nationhood unified the attempts of both parties towards independence. Congress policies at that moment though replicated recognitions to the sympathizers of the Hindu nationalist in the right wing of the party. Due to the increased number of the Muslims activists joining the party, the right wing of the Congress was suspicious (Khan 212). The Congress League Coalition received opposition from the Hindu nationalist organizations that were powerful among sections of the Congress. The opposition also came from the Muslims who were in the Congress. The oppositions made the Muslim League under the leadership of Jinnah to achieve credibility for its claim to represent the community of the Indian Muslim (Khan 234). The Congress League British negotiations should not be seen as the only cause of Indian nation division but also factors such as the position of the league that was shared by some of Deobandi ulama and the Jamaat-i-Islami that led to the establishment of an Islamic society. The league's position dealt with the interests of professional groups, landowners, social classes and the privileged in the society in the formation of an Islamic society. In 1919, the Jamiyat-i-ulama was established and it strongly opposed the partition in 1940’s; it proposed a composite nationalism. However, when the Jamaat-i-Islami was established in 1941, it committed itself in the establishment of an Islamic State in Pakistan. On the other hand, it actually is essential to know the relationship between the Hindu nationalism and the anti colonial Indian nationalism. The Hindu nationalists did not support the struggle for the Congress (Guha 120). On the side of the Muslims, not all the Muslims religious leaders supported the two-nation theory or did not propose of how the nation was to be governed, they supported Indian unity. However, some of the Muslim religious leaders suggested the two-nation theory. The Muslims of India were antagonized by the nationalism of the Bengal school and Maharashtra and this led to the rise of Muslim communal separatism. In the early stages of Bengal militant nationalism, Muslims were in militant ranks though not in large numbers (Guha 123). Conclusion The anti colonial struggle in the British India brought about achievements in the nation. India attained its independence in 1947 when the British colonial rule was brought to an end even though the anti colonialists such as Mahatma Gandhi did not experience the independence they had fought for so long. The British colonialists’ efforts to separate the Indians in terms of religion and to use them against each other received another expression through the dogma of communal representation. Communal representation was meant to strengthen communalism and introduce political discrimination. The national Congress opposed the principle of communal representation and the representation that was given to the Muslims. Works cited Khan, Yasmin. “The Great Partition: The Making of India and Pakistan,” New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2007. Guha, Ramachandra. “India After Gandhi: The History of the World’s Largest Democracy,” Bangalore: Harper Collins, 2007. Read More