Scribd
Upload
54 views13 pages

Mhi 09 em 2022 23

Uploaded by

Sahir Raunaque Hussain
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
54 views13 pages

Mhi 09 em 2022 23

Uploaded by

Sahir Raunaque Hussain
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
MHI-09; INDIAL NATIONAL MOVEMENT ‘Course Code: MHI-09 Assignment Code: MHI-09/AST/TMA/2022-23 ‘Total Marks: 100 Note: Attempt any five questions. The assignment is divided into two Sections ‘A’ and "B’. ‘You have to attempt at least two questions from each section in about 500 words each. All questions carry equal marks. SECTION-A 1. Compare the views of the Marxist historians and Subaltern Studies on Indian nationalism. 20 2. Write a note on economic nationalism with special reference to Indian thinkers. 20 3. Write a note on the Non-cooperation movement, 20 4. Analyse the achievements of the Congress ministries between 1937 and 1939. 20 ‘5. Write short notes in about 250 words each on any two of the following: 10+10 a) Non-modernist theories of nationalism b) Swadeshi movement ©) Political ideas of the Swaraj Party 4) Political mobilisation in the Princely States. SECTION-B 6. Describe the various forms which the popular protests took between 1945 and 1947. 20 7. Discuss the views of various historians regarding the relationship between nationalism and peasantry. 20 8, Write a note on the relationship between the nationalist movement and the Dalits. 20 9, Analyse the Gandhian strategy to fight against the colonial state in India. 20 10. Write short notes in about 250 words each on any two of the following: 10+10 4a) Reasons for Congress’ Acceptance of Partition 'b) The Attitude of the Indian Capitalists towards the Congress ¢) The Relations between Congress and Muslims from 1885 to 1914 Si ‘nt Features of the Indian Constitution, Copyright with Kunj Publication only Not for resale Ph. 8006184581 (Call Us) MHI-09: INDIAL NATIONAL MOVEMENT Course Code: MHI-09 Assignment Code: MHI-09/AST/TMA/2022-23 Disclaimer/Special Note: These are just the sample of the Answers/Solutions to some of the Questions given in the Assignments. These Sample Ansivers/Solutions are prepared by Private Teacher/Tutors/Authors for the help and guidance of the student 10 get an idea of how he/she can answer the Questions given the Assignments. We dio not claim 100% aceuracy ofthese sample answers as these are based on the knowledge and capability of Private Teacher/Tutor. Sample answers may be seen as the Guide/Help for the reference to prepare the answers ofthe questions given in the assignment, As these solutions and answers are prepared by the private Teacher/Tutor so the chances of error or mistake cannot be denied. Any Omission or Error is highly regretted though every care has been taken while preparing these Sample Answers/ Solutions. Please consult your own Teacher/Tutor before you prepare a particular Answer and for up-to-date and exact information, data and solution. Student should must read and refer the official study material provided by the university. Note: Attempt Any Five questions. The assignment is divided into two Sections ‘A’ and 'B'. You have to attempt at least.two questions from each section in about 500 words each. All questions’carry equal marks. SECTION-A 1, Compare the yiews of the Marxist historians and Subaltern Studies on Indian nationalism. Marxist historians Both the imperialist and nationalist perspectives ori Indian nationslist have dfawn criticism from Marxist historianssThey criticize the colonialist viewpoint for having a prejudiced image of India and its people, as well as the nationalist commentators for trying to trace the origins of nationalism back to antiquity. In their understanding of the nationalist phenomena, they are criticized for ignoring economic causes and class distinction. The examination of the modes of production and classes is the cornerstone of the Marxist paradigm. According to Marxist historians, there was a fundamental antagonism between imperialism and Indian society. However, they also take note of the socioeconomic disparity that exists in Indian society. They attempt to explain these procedures by making use of the economic transformations brought on by colonialism. And finally, they think that India was not always a nation but rather that the nationalist movement had a significant role in the nation’s creation in contemporary times. M.N. Roy, a significant actor in the national and international communist movement in the 1920s, used these analytical concepts of class and mode of production to situate the Indian nationalist movement within a universalistic framework. He made the case that this movement had emerged at a certain point in the growth of global capitalism in his book India in Transition (1922). He believed that India was advancing toward Copyright with Kunj Publication only Not for resale Ph. 8006184581 (Call Us) capitalism and had already embraced it on a larger scale. Therefore, the bourgeoisie rather than feudal lords were the dominating classes in India. The newly developing national bourgeoisie is frequently revolutionary in the setting of feudal domination. In India, however, because feudalism was coming to an end, the bourgeoisie had changed from a liberal to a conservative and sought to maintain the status quo. Only the workers in this situation would be revolutionaries. Roy held the opinion that Indian nationalism was a product of native capitalism, a political philosophy that emerged in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries under the shadow of imperialism. It developed after the First World War alongside the expansion of domestic capital. The Indian National Congress rose to prominence during this time. As a result, the Indian national movement served as a metaphor for Roy's "young bourgeois political ideology and aspiration.” About 25 years later, in his renowned book India Today, R.P. Dutt developed the most important Marxist explanation of Indian nationalism (1947). According to Dutt, the 1857 uprising "was fundamentally the insurrection of the old conservative and feudal forces and dethroned potentates" and"had a strong leadership.” Dutt did not pinpoint the start of the Indian national movement till the last quarter of the 19th century. The primary organization of this movement was the Indian National Congress, which was founded in 1885. The Congress was created, in Dutt's opinion, "through the initiative and under the guidance of ditect British goverhmental policy, ona plan secretly pre= arranged with the Viceroy as an intended weapon for safeguarding British rule against the rising forces of popular unrest and anti-British feeling,” even though the previous activities of the Indian middle classes provided the background. Dutt contends that the Congress gradually gave up its loyalistidentity and took on a national,role,as a result of pressure from public nationalist sentiment: Asa result; it underwent a transformation into a potent anti-colonial force that started to take the lead in the populace's campaign agaifist colonial rule. Subaltern Studies The academics affiliated with the magazine Subaltern Studies rose to renown in the later half of the 20th century by aggressively denouncing all other types of Indian history-writing. They presented their own version of Indian nationalism in particular as well as the entirety of modern Indian history. With the release of the first volume of Subaltern Studies in 1982, this interpretation of Indian nationalism started to gain a lot of traction among some sectors of Indian historians in the early 1980s. In modern Indian history, which sought to disassociate itself from all prior viewpoints on the Indian national movement, it was hailed as a radical departure. The very first edition of the Subaltern Studies contains a statement by Ranajit Guha that can be seen as the project's manifesto: "The historiography of Indian nationalism has for a long time been dominated by elitism - colonialism elitism and bourgeois-nationalist elitism." Guha asserts that the absence of the people's politics from all elitist history’ narratives is a common characteristic, He criticized the three main trends in Indian historiography: (1) colonialism, which saw colonial rule as the accomplishment of a Copyright with Kunj Publication only Not for resale Ph. 8006184581 (Call Us) mission to educate the ignorant people; (2) nationalism, which saw all protests as contributing to the establishment of the nation-state; and (3) marxism, which subsumed the struggles of the populace under the march towards revolution and a socialist state. He claims that there are no attempts made in these works to comprehend and describe the worldview and political practices of the subaltern communities. In the past, historians have come under fire for embracing the official unfavourable portrayal of the rebel and the uprising while dismissing the public initiative. Ranajit Guha attacked the existing peasant and tial histories in India in his essay "The Prose of Counter-Insurgency" for viewing the peasant rebellions as "purely spontaneous and unpremediated happenings" and for neglecting the rebels’ own consciousness. He charged that all narratives of uprisings—from the first official reports to the histories penned by left-wing radicals—were written in a way that refused to accept the people's agency and "to identify the insurgent as the subject of his own history.” Guha claims that they all disregarded the existence of a separate subaltern world of politics that was tinaffected by elite politics and had its own independent, self-generating dynamics: The pre-colonial popular social and political tems served as its foundation. Even so, this field was not antiquated: "It was distinguished by its considerably larger depth in time as well as in structure. It was as modern as indigenous elite politics." He believed that it was urgently necessary to cOrréét the|Fcord by looking /at history from the perspective Of the lower classes, Because it was an independent realm that "neither sprang from elite polities nor did its existence depend on the latter." the politics of the people was-essential. People's polities and elite polities diverged in a number of significant ways. One reason is because its foundations are found in the people's long-standing social structures including caste and kinship networks, tribal cohesion, territoriality, etc. Second, while popular mobilizations were horizontal in nature, elite mobilizations were vertical in nature. Thirdly, the subaltern mobilization was comparatively violent in contrast to the legalistic and calm elite mobilization. Fourthly, the subaltern mobilization was more impulsive whereas the elite mobilization was more cautious and regulated 2. Write a note on economic nationalism with special reference to Indian thinkers. India’s economic nationalism emerged in the midst of its dependence on Britain, This was related to two other events: colonial building of India as a territorially defined region and global capitalist expansion that has been referred to as "the first globalization.” By the middle of the nineteenth century, Britain had begun to industrialize, expanding throughout the world in search of food for its labouring people, raw materials for its industries, and relatively safe markets for its manufactured goods. In the nineteenth century, a few other European nations began industrializing as well, preventing Britain from expanding into their borders and posing as rivals in less developed European and global nations. Therefore, the Copyright with Kunj Publication only Not for resale Ph. 8006184581 (Call Us) European industrialization was opening up the world in unprecedented and unexpected ways, resulting in a tremendous rise in international trade that was fundamentally unequal in nature and consisted of flow of primary products into Europe, particularly its Northern and Western parts, and manufactured goods out of Europe. Intense competition between the European powers over the acquisition of this unfair trade in the late nineteenth century gave rise to what has been referred to as the “partition of the world” into various spheres of influence, either as directly controlled territories or spheres of indirect influence. On the other hand, imperialist European powers made increasingly more efforts to eliminate internal trade obstacles inside specific colonial territories and administrative unity of a defined territorial space. After 1858, the colonial state in India was, strengthened, and its institutional framework was greatly expanded. It was also working to implement "distinctively modem kinds of social, economic, and geographical closure.” at the same time. The removal of internal customs barriers, the establishment of a unified legal system, a centralized monetary system, the construction of a network of roadsytailways, post offices, and telephones, the institution of decennial censuses for the enumeration of people, various survey agencies for measuring land and people, and a modem bureaucracy and police for administering the land revenue, upholding law and order, and generating revenue were all included in this. The deterritorialized nature of the global-imperial economy and the territorialization of space were inextricably intertwined. Accordingly. "the\colonial ercation of space involved techniques that simultaneously constrained indigenous culture inside a territorialized particularity and universalized social relations.” This.allowed:colonial India’s limited economic and territorial system to be included into the deterritorializing dynamics of the global market (Goswami 1998: 612-13). The nationalist answer was developed and made popular in this environment of constrained Colonial space, a larger global market, and international division of labor. Early Thoughts Between the 1870s and 1905, the primary school of nationalist economic theory was developed. However, a small group of individuals in Maharashtra had already written and spoken about some of the problems related to the British Empire's economic exploitation of India. In reality, Raja Rammohan Roy's writings from the early 1830s show that people were aware of the detrimental economic effects of British colonial control in India. He expressed his displeasure with the "tribute" paid to Britain and his worry for the situation of the self-sufficient peasants. However, in the 1840s, a number of Maharashtrian intellectuals—including Bhau Mahajan, Govind thal Kunte, and Ramkrishna Vishwanath—criticized the British occupation for economically abusing India, notably by siphoning off her resources. They believed that British colonial authority was "the most terrible scourge India has ever been plagued with," rather than being beneficial to the country. They criticized British control on political and social grounds as well, but their economic criticism was the Copyright with Kunj Publication only Not for resale Ph. 8006184581 (Call Us) harshest. In order to drain India of its wealth and plunge it into poverty, Bhaskar Tarkhadkar stated that he wished to "demonstrate how severe the present policy of the British has been in operation." He contended that the artisans in Maharashtra and throughout India were left in poverty and misery as a result of the loss of the indigenous industries. Additionally, between the Plassey conflict in 1757 and 1815, “approximately 1,000 million pounds" of India's riches was stolen. Additionally, he criticized the colonial government's no-tariff policy under which "British goods were thrust onto [India] without paying any duty." In addition to killing the domestic handicrafts sector, this had the effect of restricting the potential for modern industry to expand in India. In a same vein, Bhau Mahajan criticized imperialist policies that involved launching wars and taxing the Indian treasury, saying that "after emptying the Indian treasury on ill-conceived wars, the government issued bonds." Ramkrishna Viswanath said that the negative trade balance and wealth drain were the key causes of India's poverty. He also urged Indians to put forth effort and invest in contemporary national industry (Naik 2001). As a result, the Indian intelligentsia has been outspoken about the unfair and exploitative treatment of Indians by colonial authorities since the 1840s, Even though it was brief, their criticisin touched on a few facets of this economic discrimination.that were later addressed in much more detail. Economic Critique of Colonial Rule AbrSad anid thoréagh nationalist critiqi® of British rule in India ‘arose Curing the 1870s and 1880s. Dadabhai Naoroji (1825-1917), Mahadev Govind Ranade (1842— 1901), Romesh Chunder Dutt (1848-1909), Gopal Krishna Gokhale (1866-1915). G. Subramaniya Iyer (1855-1916), GV. Joshi (1851-1911), Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1856 1920), and Surendranath Banerjea were the most significant proponents of (1848- 1925). They became aware of India's submissive integration into the global capitalist system. This role was described by Ranade as a "dependent colonial economy.” He said that it was becoming’ "plantation, cultivating raw product to be shipped by British Agents in British ships, to be wrought into Fabrics by British talent and capital, and to be re-exported to the Dependency by British merchants to their corresponding British firms" [quoted in Goswami, 615]. The "ruralization" and "de- industrialization” processes to which India was subjected were also criticized by these nationalist intellectuals. Additionally, Naoroji’s "drain of wealth" theory continued to be the most widely accepted nationalist economic tenet used to criticize British control. Bipan Chandra explores in depth the early nationalist leaders’ caustic criticism of colonial economic practices in his ground-breaking and authoritative analysis of the economic ideas of the early Indian national isses a number of nationalist criticisms, such as economic outflow, the collapse of indigenous industry, high taxes, unfair international commerce, etc. We will briefly go over a few significant points pertaining to this extensive analysis in this part. 5. Write short notes in about 250 words each on any two of the following: Copyright with Kunj Publication only Not for resale Ph. 8006184581 (Call Us) a) Non-modernist theories of nationalism The difference between modernist and non-modernist nationalism theories is likely the most significant one in terms of nationalism ideologies. According to modemists, nationalism just emerged in the previous three centuries and is a modern phenomenon. On the opposing side of the divide are the non-modernists, who prefer to examine a wider range of historical periods in order to comprehend nationalism rather than prioritizing the modern era. They contend that a phenomenon as profoundly ingrained and involved in human life as nationalism could not have just emerged in such a brief period of time and must have developed over a significant period of time. At this point, it is important to emphasize the internal diversity of both modernist and non-modernist viewpoints. Modernists do not all share the same opinions and have few things in common beyond this. Similarly, non-modernists also appear in a wide variety of forms. It would be simple to categorize them as evolutionists, naturalists, or perennialists. Naturalists frequently view the country as something innately human and anchored in nature. They consider nationalism to be a very basic human emotion. With this perspective, becoming anationalist seems almost natural. They do not need to give an explanation since they view it as natural. For example, a renowned academic described nationalism as a “state of mind." Naturalists avoid words like “rising,” "growing," or "birth of nationalism." They only discuss the persistent, ehiduiring présence of nationalist Sentimientin| people's Minds /and hearts, This, nationalism does not require justification. According to this nationalist viewpoint, the explanation for nationalism must be found in its absence! The perennialist position is very similar to that of the naturalists: This is frequently. observed in nationalists’ methods. Nationalism’s proponents and ideologues frequently hold the belief that their particular kind of nationalism has existed in its entirety throughout history. As an illustration, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the leader of Pakistani nationalism and its chief ideological proponent, frequently stated starting in the 1940s that a Mustim nation was not the result of recent political changes but had already existed in its entirety in the Middle Ages. When asked where exactly his Muslim homeland was located and when it was founded, Jinnah gave an intriguing response: Pakistan has been around for a very long time; it was not just formed. In a speech, he added more clarification: "Pakistan... was not the result of Hindu behavior or wrongdoing, Even though it had always been there, only they [Muslims] were aware of it. Long before the Muslims established their power, Pakistan began the moment the first non-Muslim converted to Islam. According to Jinnah's speech in Aligarh, March 1944, which was edited by Khurshid Ahmad Khan Yusufi and published in Speeches, Statements and Messages of the Quaid-e-Azam, Vol. III, pp. 1840-1841, “Throughout the ages, Hindus had remained Hindus and Muslims had remained Muslims, and they had not merged their entities. That was the foundation for Pakistan.” This provided a perfect illustration of nationalism as a "manufactured heritage." b) Swadeshi movement Copyright with Kunj Publication only Not for resale Ph. 8006184581 (Call Us) However, the anti-partition movement helped to bring the Bengalis together rather than divide them as a result of the partition. The Curzonian administration had disregarded Bengal's emergence of a Bengali identity that cut across specialized interest groups, social classes, and geographic barriers. A horizontal solidarity had emerged as a result of geographic mobility and the advancement of contemporary communication, Another unstable factor was Bengal's deplorable economic position The public’s faith in the benevolent connections to Britain was weakened. The middle classes’ lives were made wretched by the decline in opportunities for educated Bengalis and a string of terrible seasons in the early twentieth century. Rajat Ray has stated that the Swadeshi collection, which was founded on a political alliance between the elites of Calcutta and their supporters in East Bengal, revolutionized the political system of Bengali society. The anti-partition movement had begun in 1903, but after the plan was eventually revealed and put into action in 1905, it gained momentum and organization. Its initial goal was to ensure the annulment of the split, but it quickly grew into the Swadeshi movement, which had a wider scope. A wide range of political and social topics were included inthe Swadeshi movement itself. The moderate tendency, constructive Swadeshi, political radicalism, and revolutionary nationalism are the four primary trends that Sumit Sarkar has recognized in the Swadeshi community. All these patterns, in Sarkar's opinion, persisted largely during this time. Sine thé division plan's aihounGeniént 1/1903, the moderates have "been Criticizing it, At first, they believed that the British would agree with their views, which they expressed through petitions, prayers, and public gatherinigs. They were the first to come up With a larger Swadeshi movement in 1905, however, when the division was announced. Ata conference in Calcuttaon July 17, 1905

You might also like