Much has been written about the nature of our freedom movement. As per many, the party which led the national movement, the Indian National Congress (INC), was constituted as a club by a British man (Lord A.O. Hume), and it was later converted into an organisation engaged in India’s freedom struggle. Many think the INC was a loose body bereft of any ideological commitment, except that of anti colonialism. These beliefs are superficial and are a distorted presentation of the complexity of the origin and struggles of this party, which led the national movement.
The rise of the educated class
With the British introducing modern transport, education and industrialisation, the society started transforming quickly, and newer social classes, industrialists, industrial workers and educated classes started coming up. These groups gradually could see that the British policies were aimed at enriching England at the cost of this land; they also could see that adequate facilities which could enhance the potential of this land were not being promoted. This led to the formation of many organisations, like Dadabhoy Naworji’s ‘East India Association’ (1866), Anand Mohan and Surendra Mohan Bose’s ‘Indian Association’ (1876), Justice Ranade’s ‘Pune Sarvajanik Sabha’ (1870), and Viraraghavachari’s ‘Madras Mahajan Sabha’ (1884), among others.
It is these organisations which felt the need for an all-India organisation. At the same time, Lord Hume, also thought of an all India organisation for Indians. Many feel that he was keen to provide a ‘safety valve’ for letting off the anger of Indians. These emerging organisations representing interests of an emerging India, cooperated with Hume in the formation of the Congress, with the clear idea of setting up a platform which could intensify the Indian national consciousness for political and economic enhancement. As per historian Bipin Chandra, Indian nationalists in a way used Hume as a lightning conductor by using this as a platform for an emerging India consciousness.
The national movement was based on aspirations of the rising classes, while the roots of the communal organisations lay in the declining sections of landlords and ‘Raja-Nawabs’. So rather than just being the fantasy of the British officer as many think, Hume’s initiative was the best option for Indian nationalists to express their political ambitions. The national movement, in practice, was being founded on the grounds of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. In the process, we see people of all religions, castes and regions overwhelmingly associating with this organisation.
Rather than an organisation bereft of principles, the national movement and the Congress were firmly rooted in Indian nationalism, secularism and democracy. It is true that Hindu and Muslim communalists were allowed in the party till 1934, after that the Congress did take a decision to keep them out. It is also true that some mild communal elements continued to be in the Congress, but their prominent ideology was Indian nationalism.
The national movement focused on the arousal of national feelings. This was in contrast to the sectarian-communal organisations, who wanted a nation in the name of religion, a Muslim or a Hindu nation.
The national movement was strongly critical of economic policies which were keeping the country poor. The proactive part of this movement led by the INC was to unite the nation, cutting across the boundaries of religion, region and caste. It is interesting that while the INC united most of the Hindus and Muslims, bringing them into the national movement, Hindu and Muslim communal organisations had a following among the elite upper caste of those societies only.
The national movement also addressed the major issues of social reforms. Ambedkar’s agitations for social justice and Gandhi’s campaign against untouchability shook the very foundations of caste-based practices. While the struggle for these issues were within the framework of the colonial system to begin with, later this assumed the form of an anti-colonial movement. The national movement led to the formation of the Indian nation, so the process was called ‘India is a Nation in the making’. This was in contrast to the Muslim League’s assertion that ‘We are a Muslim nation since the time of Mohammad bin Kasim’, and the assertion of Hindu nationalists that ‘We are a Hindu nation since times immemorial’.
With a communal vision today, Hindu nationalists hold Gandhi as responsible for emboldening Muslims and weakening the Hindu nation, and the partition of the country. It was their formulation and hatred for Mahatma, which led one of them, Nathuram Godse, to murder him. This hatred was expressed in Hindu communalists distributing sweets after Gandhi’s murder. (Letter of Sardar Patel, September 11, 1948). Today, for electoral reasons, they cannot speak the language of Godse so openly, still, to oppose Indian nationalism, they have been giving pinpricks to undermine the Indian nationalism.
Gandhi’s vision
The leader of the national movement Gandhi, is called as a bania by many. Through his life actions he overcame his caste. This got manifested in his interaction with people of all caste, living in bhangi colony and doing the manual scavenging himself. He gave shelter to a dalit family in his ashram despite opposition from many inmates of the ashram. He put forward a version of Hinduism where people of all religions are respected.
These were the life principles of Gandhi, due to which he could unite the scattered communities, into a single overarching identity of being an Indian. Cutting across all the divisions, Indian society emerged as a single fraternity. The process was incomplete without the coming into mainstream of the poor, the untouchables and the women. His very concept of national movement was to involve all the people through Satyagrah (invocation of truth). All the major movements launched by him, from Non Co-operation to Quit India had participation from people of all religions, all regions, all castes, and men and women both.
His drive against untouchablility shook the age old foundation of the caste system. The parallel streams which helped build India into a nation pertained to the initiatives taken by Jyoti Rao Phule, Babasaheb Ambedkar and Periyar E.V. Ramasamy, who worked for social justice and for a society with values of equality. Starting with Savitribai Phule, many a women came forward for the dignity and rights of women. Industrial workers and peasants also saw in the national movement a path for their betterment. Barring the declining sections of Raja-Nawabs, landlords and the upper caste; most people came to identify with the concept of ‘India as a nation in the making’.
The principles of this movement got enshrined in the Indian Constitution, which underlined the values of ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity’, with social justice as the guiding principle. It recognised the pluralism and upheld the diversity in matters of customs, languages and food habits. This unique document is the apt representation of what India stood for, and what it should aspire for, in the future. The spirit of this document should guide our actions in times to come. Our path for future should be clear, a journey from formal equality to that of substantive equality through a democratic process, which is the core guiding principle of India!
[/column][column size=”4/5″]
Ram Puniyani
Ram Puniyani a former Professor at IIT, Mumbai, is also involved with social issues, particularly, those related to preservation of democratic and secular ethos in our life. [/column]