Colonialism is a way of domination or subordination where one country establishes an administrative

hold over another country. the Oxford English Dictionary defines it a country or area under the full
and partial control of another country typically a distant one and occupied by settlers from that
country. The Collins English Dictionary also seems to support the exploitative aspect of colonialism
by defining colonialism as “the policy of acquiring and maintaining colonies, especially for
exploitation.”

In the present scenario, we can look into colonialism from an Indian historical perspective where
India was been colonialized for more than 200 years. The British can be said to have exploited the
political weakness of the Mughal state, and, tried to bring change the traditional society and
economy by incorporating various administrative majors.

Consequences of Colonialism:

Colonialism had both positive and negative effects on Indian growth and development. According to
Rupert Emerson, a few salient features of colonialism can be drawn and put forward as a conclusion:

1. Colonialism imposes alien and authoritarian regimes on subordinate societies. The regimes trained
a few of their subjects in bureaucratic management and required passive submission.

2. It had a major purpose to exploit colonies economically. Colonies were used as sources and
suppliers of raw materials and markets of the finished good.

3. In course of time, the core that is the UK became economically powerful and developed, and India
as a periphery remained underdeveloped.

4. The authoritative attitude of the British Raj stimulated national liberation movements in India.
However, colonialism remained a historical agent of change and transformation as well as spread
liberal educational ideologies

Nationalism can be said to be the expression of collective identity by a group of people living in a
certain geographical territory who socially, culturally and economically, and politically identify
themselves as one nation to be governed as such and by themselves. Nationalism emphasizes the
collective identity were to be a nation a group of people must be autonomous politically, united
significantly and substantially, and express a single national culture to a large extent. However, some
nationalists have argued individualism can be an important part of that culture in some nations and
thus be central to that nation’s natio nal identity.

There are mainly three perspectives to understanding Colonialism and Nationalism in India

• Liberalism • Marxism • Postcolonialism

The liberal perspective generally accepts that colonialism is a normal phase of economic and political
relationships which is rational. It brings changes in colonies which perhaps promote freedom, life,
and liberty and protect individual rights in colonies. Many of the world's political systems are based
on the values and concepts evident in liberalism.

1.3.1 Liberals see it as part of Capitalist expansion Colonialism came into world history as part of the
global political-economic world order, that has been taking shape since the sixteenth century.
Colonial power like Britain, France, and Italy tried to search markets for their finished good after
industrialization in their respective states. As soon as the industrial revolution in Britain went to
peak, India is been considered a big market for finished goods and a supplier of raw materials like
cotton, indigo, coffee, and sugarcane. So, liberals see the colonial expansion of the British in India as
part of Capitalist expansion.

It is been seen as a totality and a unified structure of the world system India's economy and society
were completely and intricately integrated into the global capitalist system during colonialism, which
was carried out for roughly 200 years in a subordinate or passive position. It should be noted that the
colonial economy and society's dependence or subservience was the most important or determining
factor, "not mere linkage or integration with world capitalism or the world market."

Drain of wealth is the natural phenomenon of colonialism which comes along with natural foreign
and foreign domination of colonies Economic drain is the natural phenomenon of East India
company’s administrative and economic policies. The colonial power utilized the Indian revenue,
infrastructures, and natural resources to strengthen the British administrative system. Even though
the company had profited from oppressive land policies, unequal bullion trade, and acquisition of
rare objects like diamonds and exporting them to Britain remain the priority of British rule in India.
As it is been mentioned by Naroj and Gandhi that British rule was squarely responsible for the total
ruination of the rural life of India, leading to the mass popularisation of the peasantry, handloom,
and other handicraft industries

The Marxist look at colonialism as the contradiction and conflict that developed between the
interests of the Indian people and the British rulers and see that as the principal reason for the
development of nationalism but they also recognize the inner contradictions and conflict of interests
between the various economic classes. They highlight and bring out the difference in the interests of
the Indian rich elite and the poorer classes and integrate that into their analysis of the development
of Indian nationalism and the resistance to colonialism. They argue the Indian national movement
was a movement of the bourgeois. Indeed while agreeing with the nationalist analysis that the
British rule resulted in mass poverty because of the exploitative destruction of the rural economy of
agriculture and handicrafts they also see it as having caused some good as it also caused a structural
transformation of the Indian society by destroying the feudal systems and modes of production and
replaced that by a capitalist machine led mode of production. As Bipin Chandra says: the Capitalist
state is the instrument for enforcing the rule and domination of one class over another, and the
colonial state is the organized power of the metropolitan ruling class for dominating the entire
colonial society
Postcolonialism is the critical academic study of the cultural, political, and economic legacies of
colonialism and imperialism. With an emphasis on the effects of human control and exploitation of
colonized people and their territories, A critical theory analysis of the history, culture, literature, and
rhetoric of (mostly European) imperial power is what it is particularly. The postcolonial ideas mainly
questioned the generalized understanding that colonial powers are superior in their culture and
tradition. Ultimately they wanted to destroy the main parts of native tradition and culture.
Furthermore, they wanted to continuously reform the existing traditional pattern of life in colonies.
The post-colonialist in the real sense oppose the change offered by British power and other colonial
powers. Some of the eminent postcolnial theorists are Edward Said, Frantz Fannon , Gayatri Spivak
Chakravorty. The ultimate goal of postcolonialism is to finish the enduring effects of colonial cultures.
It vehemently opposes the western countries that had described all the ex-colonial countries under a
uniform umbrella label such as the ‘ third world’ or ‘global south. However, postcolonialism
demonstrated a culture of heterogeneity. It can be summarized that colonialism has an uneven
impact in different places and on different cultures and places. Postcolonialism recognizes that there
is still resistance to the west among various nations. This resistance is practiced by many including
subalterns, marginalized groups, and other least powerful strata. Thus, the main objective of
postcolonialist theories is to clear the space for multiple voices. The main objective of postcolonial
writings is ‘to speak their voices’. Many writers like Frantz Fanon from Martinique or M. K. Gandi
from India had contributed to Post Colonialism. Anti Colonial thinkers emphasized what they called ‘
subaltern perspectives. The perspective talks about the tales of ordinary people and their cultural
impact on them. However, by colonial rule, all cultures have become increasingly mixed and
hybridized. Anti-colonial thinkers had always insisted that decolonization had to begin by changing
mentality. How we can also summarize that the impact of colonial rule still exists.

To sum up, we can conclude that both colonialism and the emergence of nationalism in India have
been drastic outcomes on Indian history. There are three perspectives to look at it; Liberalism,
Marxism, and Postcolonialism. All these perspectives have their way of looking at colonialism in
India. So, students are required to take multiple peaspecives to understand better about colonialism
and its impact on Socio-economic and political aspects of colonialism.

Nationalism can be said to be the expression of a collective identity by a group of people living in a
certain geographical territory who socially, culturally, economically, and politically identify
themselves to one nation possibly governed by a government. Nationalism emphasizes the collective
identity where to be a nation a group of people must be autonomous politically, united significantly
and substantially, and express a single national culture. However, some nationalists have argued
individualism can be an important part of that culture in some nations and thus be central to that
nation's national identity. In the modem world national flags (like the tri-colour in India), national
anthems, and other symbols of national identity are very often regarded as sacred as if they were
religious rather than political symbols. Historically before the emergence of nationalism in India,
people were generally loyal to a city or to a particular king, ruler, or leader rather than to their
nation. Indeed they often had no notions of belonging to a nation. According to the Encyclopaedia
Britannica nationalism in a true sense developed with the late-18th century American Revolution and
French Revolution. Let us find out who coined the word , nationalism? Anyway, the term nationalism
it is believed was coined by Johann Gottfried Herder (who used the word nationalismus) during the
late 1770s. Thus it is impossible to pinpoint where and when nationalism emerged but its
development can be said to have happened alongside the emergence of the modern
westphelianstate . The notion of rule by the people by popular will that were the underlying themes
of the French Revolution and later the American Revolution in the late 18th century. Thus like other
social phenomenon nationalism also evolved historically. Along with the emergence of social and
historical conditions communities came up in various parts of the world. They often came up through
tribal, slave and feudal phases of social existence. Nations came into being at a certain stage of
social, economic and cultural development.

It was distinguished by certain specific characteristics such as:

(a) an organic whole of the members of the nation living in a distinct territory

(b) a single economy

(c) a consciousness of a common economic existence

(d) a common language and

(e) naturally a common culture which evolved.

And this process developed from sixteenth century onwards as a part of the development of human
history. Generally speaking development of nationalism in various countries was a prolonged
historical process. It is in the development of historical conditions that nation states developed and
development of nationalism in different countries was determined by its social and cultural history –
its political, economic and social structures. The character of its various classes also assumed
importance often played the role of the vanguard in the struggle for a national social existence.
Therefore every nation was born and forged in unique way.

2.3 Nationalist Approach

The history of 17th, 18th and 19th century in India is primarily the history of formation of a nation and
the struggle against British Colonial rule. Indian nationalism is a historical phenomenon which
happened in modern histrory. Nationalism in India evolved during the British colonial period as a
result of various subjective and objective factors and forces, which developed within the Indian
society under the conditions of British rule and has impactedacross the world.

Pre-British India was unique,differently structured and traditionally set under various princly states
which sharply differed from the pre-capitalist medieval societies of Europe. It was a vast country
inhabited by huge population speaking many languages with different religions. Socially it was
dominated by a population which was Hindu in character, but there was no homogeneity. This
extreme social, and religious division of the Hindus in particular and the Indians in general presents a
peculiar background to the growth of Indian nationalism. It was under the conditions of political
subjection that the British introduced for their own purposes certain changes which introduced new
social forces which radically changed the economic structure of Indian society

It established in particular:

(a) a centralised state (with a modem civil service, centralised administration, a judiciary based on
English common law substantially. new land ownership laws, the zamindari system etc.)

(b) modern education including in western sciences (with the establishment of universities and
colleges)

(c) modern means of transport and communication (postal system, railways, roads etc.)

(d) the modern printing press

(e) mechanised machine based industries Thus, British Raj has tried to brought changes to all social
forces and tried to exploite the Indian society for the benefit of the British Crown. Revolting against
all such exploitative character of British rule Indian nationalism has raise its voice and tried to
manifest into a new nation.

National leaders from DadabhaiNaoroji, Surendranath Banerjea and Tilak to Gandhiji and Nehru
accepted that India was not yet a fully structured nation but a nation-in-the-making and that one of
the major objectives and functions of the movement was to promote the growing unity of the Indian
people through a common struggle against colonialism. In other words, the national movement was
seen both as a product of the process of the nation-in-themaking and as an active agent of the
process. This process of the nation-in-the making was never counter-posed to the diverse regional,
linguistic and ethnic identities in India.

2.4 Imperialist Approach

In many ways India had never been a nation until the British had came and ruled us for centuries. In a
land as vast and inhabited by a population as large and as varied as India's, the process of the growth
of Indian nationalism has been very complex and interesting.The Indian population spoke many
languages, followed many religions and sects (within a religion) and the population of the most
populous faith, Hindus, was divided along caste lines.With the existing diversity, Indian nationalism
simply been strengthened by the anticolonial spirit.

hus many thinkers, particularly many British historians, have taken the view that Indian could not
have seen the development of nationalism and become one united nation unless the British had
come and established (as they did) a colony by uniting the nation into one administrative whole. So,
students its always important to think now, " could India have developed to a greater extent if
colonial rule had not intervened?". Some how we can conclude that the nationalism in India has
ivolved in the back ground to eradicate the exploitative characterstic of British administration.

Let us discuss about the various definition of nationalism and try to find out how and why India
wasn't readily regarded as a nation by various eminent histories. It si been said that India is a state
but "nation in Making". The thinkers British historian E.H. Carr termed nationalism as the term nation
has been used to denote a human group with the fol1owing characteristics:
(a) The idea of a common government whether as a reality in the present or past or as an aspiration
of the future.

(b) A certain size and closeness of contact between all its individual members.

(c) A more or less defined territory.

(d) Certain characteristics (of which the most frequent is language) clearly distinguishing the nation
from other nations and non-nationa1 groups.

(e) Certain interests common to the individual members.

It is evident from the above definition, that India could hardly have been called a nation by them
when they arrived. In fact the early British imperialists before any sort of national fervour bad made
a beginning were convinced that India wasn't a nation. In fact, it is evident that the Britishers found it
difficult to mentally cope with the idea of a national India even as late as the 1930s when the Simon
Commission's Report was published. Even as late as the 1930s the British were holding on to their
belief that India was somehow being held and governed by them and without them would break into
pieces. But in reality that nationalist conception among the masses had set in.

The idea of Indian nationalism has evolved when Raja Ram Mohan Roy, while going to England in
1830, has enthusiasistically supported for the principles of the French Revolution. The idea has also
been strengthened by creation of The Indian National Congress (INC). INC was originally instituted
under official inspiration as an intended instrument of safty valve between the rising movement of
the people and safeguard British rule in India.

2.5 The Colonial Approach The colonial approach mainly supported and believed in the benevolent
attitude of British administration . They wished to emphasis the benevolent effect of the British rule
and many of them genuinely believed what they said. The colonial approach was theorised for the
first time by Bruce T. McCully, an American scholar, in 1940. The liberal academic structure to this
approach was developed by Reginald Coupland and after 1947 by Percival Spear who argued the
British proved their benevolent intentions by ultimately agreeing to grant India independence which
they could have easily refused and held on. A new group of neotraditionalist historians who are
referred to as the Cambridge School with prominent thinkers being Anil Seal, John Gallagher, Judith
Brown and others have also argued along essentially adopting the colonial approach when they have
argued that India was not even a 'nation-inmaking' but a conglomeration of castes, religious and
ethnic communities and linguistic groups of masses.

They have argued the national movement was basically a forum for the various divisions to compete
for favours and to strengthen their own positions and pursue their narrow communities. The basic
contradiction between the interests of the Indian people and the British rulers that led to the rise of
the Indian national movement is denied by them. They also vehemently deny or refuse to accept that
the economic, social, cultural and political development of India required the overthrow of
colonialism. They do not agree that India was in the process of unfolding into a nation and insist India
was just a conglomeration of castes and communities. The nationalism that was expressed was
merely a cover for political

organisations who were formed basically along caste and community lines and were competing with
each for favours and gains from the state. Anil Seal of the Imperialist writes: 'What from a distance
appear as their political strivings were often, on close examination, their efforts to conserve or
improve the position of their own prescriptive groups'. ( Anil Seal:342) The colonial approach ignores
the effects of war, inflation, disease, drought, depression etc as causative factors in the rise of Indian
nationalism not to mention spiritual and other reasons and the kinship of religious culture that
existed between peoples from different regions who spoke different languages but shared similar
religious beliefs.The school of analysis that adopts the colonial approach has argued the Indian
national movement was a cover for the struggle for power between various sections of the Indian
elite, and between them and the foreign elite.

2.6 Marxist Approach The Marxist approach can be said to have been pioneered by R. Palme Dutt
and later by A.R. Desai but many others have contributed. The Marxist approach recognises the
contradiction and conflict that developed between the interests of the Indian people and the British
rulers . They have seen that as the principal reason for the development of nationalism but they also
recognise the inner contradictions and conflict of interests between the various economic classes.
They highlight and bring out the difference in the interests of the Indian rich elite and the poorer
classes and integrate that into that into their analysis of the development of Indian nationalism and
the resistance to colonialism. They argued that the Indian national movement of India was a
movement of the bourgeoisie class . Indeed while agreeing with the nationalist analysis that the
British rule resulted in mass poverty because of the exploitative destruction of the rural economy of
agriculture and handicrafts they also see it as having caused some good as it also caused a structural
transformation of the Indian society by destroying the feudal systems and modes of production and
replaced that by a capitalist machine led mode of production. Thus the feudal caste and class
hierarchies of the villages were weakened, and new classes emerged in Indian society particularly as
people migrated to the cities to work in factories. Also a new state structure was created based on a
new administrative and judicial system of the English. 2.6.1 In the words of Prof. Irfan Habib has put
it thus that the unification of the country on an economic plane by the construction of railways and
the introduction of the telegraph in the latter half of the nineteenth century, undertaken for its own
benefit by the colonial regime, and the centralisation of the administration which the new modes of
communications and transport made possible, played their part in making Indians view India as a
prospective single political entity. The modernization of education (undertaken in a large part by
indigenous effort) and the rise of the press disseminated the ideas of India's nationhood and the
need for constitutional reform. A substantive basis for India's nationhood was laid when nationalists
like DadabhaiNaoroji (Poverty and UnBritish Rule in India, 1901) and R.C. Dutt (Economic History of
India, 2 vols., 1901 and 1903) raised the issues of poverty of the Indian people and the burden of
colonial exploitation, which was felt in equal manner throughout India.We see, then, that three
complex processes enmeshed to bring about the emergence of India as a nation:the preceding
notion of India as a country, the influx of modern political ideas, and the struggle against colonialism.
The last was decisive: the creation of the Indian nation can well be said to be one major achievement
of the national movement.' (Irfan Habib, 'The nation that is India'. The little Magazine

The Marxist approach sees the natural uprising of the poor in reaction to British exploitation having
been usurped by the elite bourgeois leadership that develop particularly in the Congress. The Marxist
approach has been criticised for having ignored the mass aspects of the national movement and the
emotive religious and cultural aspects and reactions. Professor Bipan Chandra (and others) for
instance have commented: 'They see the bourgeoisie as playing the dominant role in the movement -
they tend to equate or conflate the national leadership with the bourgeoisie or capitalist class. They
also interpret the class character of the movement in terms of its forms of struggle (i.e., in its non-
violent character) and in the fact that it made strategic retreats and compromises'