Nationalist and Imperialist interpretations of Indian Nationalism

Each historiography of Indian nationalism agrees upon a fact that emergence of India as a modern
nation state is an outcome of colonial modernity. They supports this idea that imagination of India as
modern, unified, dominant, singular, entity has been developed during anti- colonial struggle. Beyond
this point, historiographers have their different ideological, theoretical and intellectual alignments and
social commitment. This is this different alignment which shape their different perspectives. At this
point I would like to introduce the four major perspectives on historiography of Indian nationalism

• Colonial/ Imperialist/ Cambridge School

Colonial/Imperial/Cambridge School denies the fact that nationalism in India had emerged, developed
and strengthen itself against social, political, cultural, and economic exploitation of colonial power. This
school believes that imperialism introduced Indians to the basic theories and principles of modernity
and enlightenment, bringing along civilisation and social reforms. According to imperialist school,
nationalist movement was not a people’s movement but a product of the need of the elite groups who
used it to serve their own narrow interests or their group interests. Nationalist according to this school
are people, who formed group on the basis of caste and religious identities and they used nationalism
as an ideology to mobilise masses for their own selfish interest.

Nationalist school of historiography perceived nationalism as a major force and sentiment which
strengthen the spirit of freedom and liberty. This school revealed the exploitative nature of imperialist
ideology. This school explain Indian independence movement as a national movement and the
movement of people. The Marxist school emerged in the horizon of historiography quite later. This
school developed itself on the basis fundamental ideas of Karl Marx. Marxism understand imperialism
and colonialism as an outcome of capitalism that developed in Europe due to industrial revolution.
Vladimir Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg propounded this school. They explained imperialism as a most
exploitative system. Marxist school analyses nationalism as an ideology of upperclass native
bourgeoisies. R. Palme Dutt and A. R. Desai were founder of Marxist historiography of nationalism in
India. They critiqued the class character of Indian nationalism. They argued that peasantry and other
lower class people were widely ignored by nationalist elite during India’s national movement. This
school explains Indian independent movement as a movement of Indian elite. They argues that
nationalism in India is full of contradiction and ambivalence.

The fourth school of nationalist historiography, Subaltern school also explained nationalism as an
exploitative and dominant ideology. Like Marxist school, this school also criticises the exploitative nature
of both imperialist and nationalist ideology. This school was highly influenced by Marxist school though
there is a slight difference between Marxist and subaltern school. Subaltern school believes in the
Marxist interpretation that Indian nationalism was dominant, and exploitative in nature. It was not
homogeneous and unified as it tried to portray itself. But Subalterns slightly differ from the Marxist, on
the basis and nature of this exploitation. This school argues that Indian society could not be defined in
terms of class only because capitalism in India at that point of time was its very initial stage, thus this
school argues that rather than explaining Indian nationalism in terms of bourgeoisies class we would
have to understand that Indian nationalism was exploitative in nature on the basis of caste, gender,
religious and creed based division and divides. Subaltern School claims that Indian Nationalism had
eschewed this internal contradiction within nation and ignored the marginal voices within its larger
narrative of unified glorious past of India. This school claims that nationalist historiographer has
completely ignored the small voices of history, history of Dalits, Women, and tribal people. Subaltern
School in way tried to bring forward the history from below and history of subaltern.

Imperialist/ Cambridge/ Colonial School:

In post-enlightenment world as Bipan Chandra argues imperialist perspective first emerged in the
writings, pronouncements, and declarations of the Viceroys, Lord Dufferin, Curzon, and Minto, and the
secretary of state George Hamilton. It was firstly put forward by V. Chirol, the Rowlett Committee
(sedition) report. American scholar Bruce T. McCully attempted to theorise this approach in 1940.
Further this school split into liberal and conservatives. Its conservative wing further developed itself as
Cambridge school. Anil Seal and J.A. Gallagher developed this school in India after 1968.

This School developed its interpretation of Indian past on the basis of imperial needs. Purpose of this
school of history writing is to interpret Indian past in a manner so that it could facilitate British Empire.
This school deny the exploitative nature of colonialism. They do not recognize the fact that Indian’s anti-
colonial struggle was an outcome of British Colonialism and its economic, social, cultural and political
exploitation of India. They see the Indian Struggle against imperialism as mock battle or mimic warfare.
They completely overpassed the imperial contradictions as a reason of for India’s struggle for
Independence. The imperialist writer deny that India was in a process of becoming nation rather they
understood India as a group different caste, religions, creeds, and communities. They argue that political
organisations in India is based upon group mobilisation according to these groups and these groups are
using Nationalism as a cover to their selfish, and individual interests. National movement according to
this school was not a people’s movement but a product of the needs and interests of the elite groups.
Thus, the elite groups and their private interests provided an idea, ideology and movement of
nationalism. Two main constitutive element of this group were, caste and religious identities or political
connection built around patronage. They argues that each group had their very narrow selfish interests
and they used nationalism as an ideology for mass mobilisation and to gain public support.

Dufferin, Curzon, Chirol, Lovett, McCully and B.B. Misra argues that India’s educated middle class used
nationalism to fight against ‘benevolent Raj’. Anil seal in his book Emergence of Indian Nationalism
develops an almost similar view like this. He argues that Indian national movement had not been fought
against British imperialism rather it represented the struggle of one elite group against another elite
group for British support. Thus Anil Seal interpreted Indian National Movement in terms of mutual
rivalry and jealousiesness. Along caste and religious identities, Anil Seal and John Gallagher interpreted
that Indian elite groups had been formed on the basis of Patron-Client relationship. They theorise that,
as the British Imperialism extended its administrative, economic and political power to the localities and
provinces, local elites started organising politics by acquiring clients and patrons whose interest they
served, and who in turn served their interest. Thus Indian politics began to be formed on the basis of
this client-patron relationship. These historian argues that later bigger leader emerged who acted as a
brokers and worked as a link between local population and British Raj. Anil Seal says that Chief political
brokers were Gandhi Nehru and Patel. This believes that local people on whose behalf these political
brokers acted, they associated themselves to this movement only after 1918. This school also believes
that Indian national movement had nothing to do with exploitative nature of British colonialism rather it
developed itself due to their own grievances such as war, inflation, disease, drought and depression and
it is these grievances which were cleverly used by nationalist to convince them to participate into
struggle against British Empire.

Nationalist Perspective:

Nationalist perspective on Indian historiography was an outcome of reinterpretation of her past by the
leaders of freedom movement. This school emerged as a juxtaposition of Imperialist school. Social
reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy, and counter reformer like Dayanand Saraswati were the prominent
people who contributed in formation of nationalistic perspective in India. They played a major role in
formation of pan-Indian identity of India. Early nationalist were trying to hegemonies over various
regional and provincial identities and later nationalist were trying to hegemonies the whole south-east
Asian identities and try to manipulate and subordinate those identities into pan-Indian identity. Post-
colonial Scholar Gyanpraksh in his famous article “Writing PostOrientalist Histories of Third World:
Perspectives on Indian Historiography” argues that Nationalist Historiography was an attempt of writing
post-orientalist history of India. They emerged to affirm their voice against imperialist view that India is
an unchanging, and static society. He argues that, in their attempt of taking a break from Imperialist
Historiography, Nationalist Historiographer bring both continuity and change from the orientalist
history. Nationalist continued the “Essentialisation process” as projecting the image of India as spiritual,
metaphorical land as compare to scientific West. Thus as imperialistic perspective they also see India as
an “other” of The West, but then there is a rupture. Nationalist Historiography in opposition to
imperialist perspective constructed transformed India as an object of knowledge, from a passive to an
active subject, from an inert to a sovereign territory. They deny the Imperialist claim that only colonial
administration can bring change in Indian Territory. Thus Nationalist Historiographer contested the
imperialist claim that India as a modern nation state could be emerged only through colonial
administration. Gyanpraksh quoted some Nationalist-Historian like H.C. Raichoudhary, Beniprasad, R.
C.Mazumdar, and says that these historian located the idea of India as a modern nation state in ancient
Indian history, in history of Gupta and Maurya Dynasty. Romila Thapar argues that nationalist
historiographer claimed that everything good in India like spirituality, Aryan Origin, political ideas, art
and rich tradition had its completely Indian origin. Nationalist even claimed that India’s golden age made
strong contribution in development of Southeast Asian culture. Nationalist Historiographers dismantled
the concept of “oriental despotism”.Gyanprakash and Romila Thapar both argues that nationalist
agreed on the periodization of Indian History into Hindu, Muslim and the British Period. Acceptance to
this Imperial divides of Indian past, further inaugurated a birth of religious nationalism in India. In upper
written passage we understood a continuities and ruptures between Imperialistic and Nationalistic
school. Now we will discuss the different strand of nationalist school. Jawahar Lal Nerhru, V.D.Sawarkar,
Dada Bhayi Naoroji, Lala Lajpat Rai, R.C. Majumdar, S.N. Banarjee, and B.R.Nanda were the prominent
scholar and leader of this school, who invented, developed, and discussed the thoughts and
philosophies of this school. We would understand this school in three parts:

1) “Secular” Nationalist Perspective

2) Religious Nationalist Perspective.

3) Economic Nationalist Perspective.

Secular Nationalist Perspective:

Though each faction of nationalist perspective challenged Oriental authority on India’s knowledge but
Secularist approach emerged in response of specific identification of India’s Past with certain specific
religion [Hindu]. GyanPrakash suggests that Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru’s “Discovery of India” could be a
major source for development of this faction of Nationalist perspective. In this book Pandit Nehru
argues that “it was undesirable to use Hindu or Hindu religion for Indian Culture. He states in this book
that India is a culturally diverse country. It has been a great combination of religious cultural, and social
diversity. India according to Nehru, was a land of “unity in diversity”. He denied any specific relationship
between Hindu religion and India’s ancient past. “Discovery of India” was according to GyanPraksh is a
documentation of Indian united past through history. Thus he constructed an Image of India as a
secular, and united territory. Though India has witnessed lots of religious creed-based divides but finally
it has achieved a victory over it. Now India is a unified, undivided and glorious territory.

Religious Nationalist Perspective:

This approach of nationalist historiography was based upon Hindu revivalism. They argued that India
was essentially a Hindu nation. It has been a land of Veds and Upnishad. It has been a land of great
Sanskritik tradition and spirituality. They projected India as a fatherland for Hindus. Then they argued
that in later part of history means (Middle Age) Islam came to India and after arrival of Muslims, India’s
history decayed into current status. Their nationalism was based upon religious sentiment and Hindu
Glorification. Indian leader who represented this faction of Indian Nationalist Historiographer were
Vinayak. Damodar. Sawarkar, Bal Ganga Dhar Tilak and others. Leaders like Aurovindo Ghosh
constructed an image of spiritual India as a contrast to material west. They strongly contributed to
glorious spiritual image of India with contrast to imperial interpretation of India as a society full of social
evils like sati, child marriage, and dowry system. These nationalist used religious festivals and tradition
to enhance nationalist feeling among people of colonial India. Further rise, of religious nationalism led
to the rise of communalism in India. This led to the Hindu-Muslim divide in India and facilitated the idea
of religious identity in India. These leaders also supported use of force and coercion to bring revolution
against colonial power.

GyanPraksh further argues that though religious nationalism was violent in nature but they were v
though religious nationalism was violent in nature but like secular nationalist they also very much
supportive of idea of India as a homogenous singular entity. This we can understand with an example.
Vinayak Damodar Sawarkar wrote a book “Indian War of Independence: 1857” in year 1909. In this book
he very strongly condemned the approach of orientalist scholar who called Indian struggle of 1857 as
mutiny. Sawarkar used a word revolt in place of mutiny. He further interpreted that arm struggle of
1857 was actually an all India revolt against colonial exploitation and atrocities.

Though scholar like Christophe Jaffrelott argues that “Hindu nationalism” largely reflected the
Brahminical view of the high caste reformers. He criticises the domination of Hindu nationalism and its
subordination of other ethnic, caste-based, religious struggle that happened during anti-colonial
struggle.

Economic Nationalist Perspective:

Economic nationalism was based on the economic critique of colonialism. Economic nationalist strongly
criticises the economic exploitation of colonial power. DadaBhayi Naoroji, Justice M.G.Ranade and
R.C.Dutt represented this school. Economic nationalist argues that poverty in India is an outcome of
application of the classical economic theory of free trade. British Empire changed its policy of direct
extraction of raw material and

Adopted a less visible policy of exploitation through free trade and foreign capital investment. Now India
became a source of agricultural raw material and turned into a field for British Capital Investment. These
scholar believed that India’s development could only be possible by Industrialisation with Indian capital,
while foreign investment would lead to drainage of wealth by extraction of profit. Dadabhayi’s
conceptualisation of drainage theory became a major explanatory terminology to reveal the hidden
economic exploitation of imperial power.

Economic nationalist recommended that British Empire should reduce expenditure and taxes, a
reallocation of military charges, a protectionist policy to protect Indian industries, reduction of land,
reduction of land revenue assessment, extension of permanent settlement to ryotwari and mahalwari
areas, protection of cottage industries and handicraft. Shekhar Bandyopadhyay argues that by
challenging the whole concept of paternal imperialism, economic nationalist like other nationalist strand
questioned the whole moral authority of colonial power. Economic nationalist argued that India could
only achieve the path of development through promotion of India’s indigenous capitalism. It is this idea
of Indian capitalism had been further immensely criticised by Marxist critique.

Conclusion

At the end of this chapter we would try to understand two three basic character of Nationalist
perspective. Gyanprakash summarises it in a very simple terms. He characterises two strong feature of
nationalist historiography. Firstly he argued that like orientalist scholar nationalist also believed in
glorious past of India but beyond that they differed. For orientalist, India was an “object of knowledge”
but for Nationalist perspective India is an undivided, united, and sovereign territory. Secondly
Nationalist gave India an ontological status, which had been thoroughly denied by orientalist scholar.
Partha Chatterjee further argued that Indian nationalism was different but ‘derivative discourse’ of
European nationalism. Ashish Nandy, also argues that though Indian nationalism emerges as a response
to western imperialism but in that process it also get into the same trap. Nationalistic perspective do not
rejected the exploitative structures of global modernity. It ignored the voices of lower-class, lower-
caste, tribal lives and women in India about which we will discuss in detail under the topic of Marxist
and Subaltern Perspective.