Approaches to study nationalism in india: nationalist, imperialist, Marxist, subaltern

Nationalism is said to be an expression of collective identity by a group of people living in a certain

geographical territory and those who socially, culturally economically and politically identifies as
one nation to be governed as such and by themselves. Ernest Gellner says that “Nationalism is a
theory of political legitimacy, it requires that ethnic boundaries should not cut across political ones.”
“Nationalism” has been remained an ambivalent concept in the history of political thought and ideas
and its ambivalence lies in its dual nature. As Peter Alter suggests, nationalism work as a force of
social, economic, and political oppression as well as emancipation. If we look at Indian context,
nationalism in india emerged during independence struggle upon which A. R Desai comments,”
extreme social and religious divisions of the hindus in particular and Indians in general presented a
peculiar background for the gowth of nationalism in india.” But it is an undeniable fact that
emergence of India as a modern, unified, dominant, singular, entity has been developed during anti-
colonial struggle.

Appoches to the study of nationalism in india

There are 4 major approaches to the study of Indian nationalism. They are:

 Colonial/ Imperialist/ Cambridge School

 Nationalist School
 Marxist School
 Subaltern School

Imperialist/ Cambridge/ Colonial approach:

The imperialist/colonial approach was theorised for the first time by bruce t MacCully an American
scholar in 1940. Further this school split into liberal and conservatives. Its conservative wing further
developed itself as Cambridge school in which they studied British Empire from imperialist pointof
view and supported British Empire as a source of civilization in India. Anil Seal and J.A. Gallagher
developed this school in India after 1968.

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. Moreover
this school deny the exploitative nature of colonialism and sees the Indian Struggle against
imperialism as mock battle or mimic warfare.

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. The nationalism that was
expressed was merely a cover for political organization who were formed basically along caste and
community lines. Anil seal writes that,” what from a distance appear as their poliyical strivings were
often on close examination their efforts to conserve or improve their position of their own
prescriptive groups. Thus, 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.

Anil seal in his book Emergence of Indian Nationalism 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.
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.

Romila Thapar in her article interpretation of Indian History: Colonial Nationalist and Post-Colonial,
discusses that modern historiography of India has been inaugurated by British power. She argues
that, the colonial belief went, that, ‘knowledge is power’, the history of India was being shaped in a
way, so as to help in legitimising the European control over the sub-continent. These ideological
intentions of imperial power inaugurated a whole range of debates, discussion about “the orient”.
Thapar in this essay understands colonial historiography within two major sub schools. Those two
sub-schools are:

 Orientalist School-This school tried to link the history of India to the history of Europe. They started
making connection between Indian and European languages and established a linguistic connection
between Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin and by doing that he made a connection between Indo-European
families of languages. They also tried to link the biblical texts of India like the Dharmashastras to
those present in Europe, to establish a fact that Indian history is as old as European and Indian too
have a glorious antique past as Europeans.
Romila Thapar in her essay argues that this school of historiography also made racial connection
between Asian and Europeans. They made Aryan connection between European and Asian societies
to unify Indian and European past. but in that process they intermingled caste with race and tried to
established the fact that upper caste Indians are basically people of Aryan Race. Thus they
introduced Indian society to the category of race.
Thomas Trautmann argues that the orientalist historiography had different political project. He has
suggested that by the promoting the kinship relationship between Indians and Europeans (racial
connection)coloniser were trying to morally bind the colonized to the colonial rule through a
rhetoric of love.
Main purpose of their project was to create an exotic image of India. Through historical
representation of India they constructed a metaphysical and spiritual imagination of India. In this
process orientalist, somehow conveyed the message that India is a completely different land than
the Europe. India is spiritual, and believe in transcendental while Europe is scientific and believe in
fact and realities. Thus they created India as an “other” of European self.
There were two factions of orientalists: EVANGELICAL and administrative. Those who believed in
glorious past of India but found contemporary India in decaying status were in favour of
evangelisation of the administration of contemporary India e.g Lord Cornwallis. He was in favour of
intervention in Indian society but there are other faction of administrators like Thomas Munro who
defended the customs and traditions of Indian society and supported the policy of non-intervention.
 Utilitarian School- James Mill took In his book “History of British India” published in 1817,
very first time he argued that, people like Sir William Jones created a myth about India’s glorious
past. He denied all glorious interpretation of India’s cultural, spiritual and traditional richness.  He
emphasized that the Indian society lacked rationality and individualism and hence the European
civilisation was needed to make the ‘stagnant’ Indian society ‘progressive’. This was a departure
from the oriental school’s non-interventionist policies and thus utilitarian school of thinking
developed their school along this line.This school was prominently represented by James Mill, Lord
William Bentinck, and Lord Dalhousie.
. J. s mill divided Indian history into three separate periods, namely, Hindu, Muhammaden and
British .It was a deliberate attempt by him to designate the ancient and medieval periods of Indian
history as Hindu and Muslim .He skilfully avoided designating the modern period as Christian,
instead he used the term British.
Utilitarian theorist created a concept of “oriental despotism” for India’ which again was used to
legitimise the colonial conquest of the sub-continent.

Thus likewise Orientalist School, Utilitarian School too helped in “essentialisation” of India. They also
wanted to gain legitimacy like the orientalist, both school wanted to portray India as other of Europe
but there is a thin difference between both. Utilitarian school dismantled the fact that Indian past
had never been as glorious as Orientalist portrayed it. Secondly, they established the fact that only
colonial administrative practices could bring change, unified identity, and social reforms in Indian
Society.

Criticisms
1. This approach denies the existence and legitimacy of exploitative nature of British rule and
of Nationalism as a movement of the Indian people to overthrow imperialism.
2. Categories such as nation,class,mobilization,ideology etc which are generally used by
historians to analyse colonialism and nationalism are missing from this approach.
3. It deliberately misses the economic exploitation,under development,racialism and the role
of the masses in the anti-imperialistic struggle.

NATIONALIST APPROACH
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. Nationalist
school of historiography perceived nationalism as a major force and sentiment which strengthen the
spirit of freedom and liberty. This initially began with as being anti colonial but later deeply national.
Prof bipin Chandra comments that, the national movement played a pivotal role in the historical
process through which the Indian people got formed into a nation or a people. This school revealed
the exploitative nature of imperialist ideology.

Post-colonial Scholar Gyanpraksh10 in his famous article “Writing Post-Orientalist Histories of Third
World: Perspectives on Indian Historiography argues that Nationalist Historiography was an attempt
of writing post-orientalist history of India and they 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.
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. although Nationalist Historiographers dismantled the concept of “oriental
despotism” but they agreed with the imperialists, the periodization of Indian History into Hindu,
Muslim and the British Period. This school was also responsible for the rise of religious nationalism
based on the classification of the Hindu and Muslim civilisations. It has been argued that this was the
period where the concept of separate countries for hindu’s and muslims was conceptualised.
Nationalist approach is futher divided into 3 parts:
Secular nationalist perspective- it emerged in response of specific identification of India’s Past with
certain specific religion [Hindu]. India according to Nehru, was a land of “unity in diversity”.
He denied any specific relationship between Hindu religion and India’s ancient past.
Religious nationalist perspective- this was based upon Hindu revivalism. Proponets of this
perspective argued that India was essentially a Hindu nation. They further 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.
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.

Crticisms
They tended to ignore inner contradictions within Indian society. They suffered from an upper caste
and male chauvinist cultural and social bias. Above all they tended to accept the theory of Indian
exceptionalism that Indian historical development was entirely different from that of the rest of the
world. They missed a historical evaluation of Indian social institutions in an effort to prove India’s
superiority in historical development. Especially negative and harmful both to the study of India’s
history and the political development of modern India was their acceptance of James Mill’s
periodisation of Indian history into Hindu and Muslim periods

MARXIST APPROACH
Marxist approach can be said to have been pioneered by r pamle dutt and later carried on by A R
Desai. The focus of Marxist historiography is on social and economic history and it has challenged
the prevailing periodisation of Indian history as enunciated by Mills. The writings of the conventional
Marxist school analysed the class character of the Indian national movement in terms of the
economic developments of the colonial period, such as rise of industrial capitalism and development
of a market society. According to this scholarship, the bourgeois leadership of the movement fought
to shape the movement to suit their own interestsat the cost of the interests of the masses.
Dutta statement

Marxism understand imperialism and colonialism as an outcome of capitalism that developed in

Europe due to industrial revolution. They explained imperialism as a most exploitative system. While
they agree with the nationalist analysis that the bristish rule resulted in mass poverty because of its
exploitative nature, they also see it as having caused some good as it caused a structural
transformation in the Indian society. Rajani Palme Dutta, in his book India Today (1949) described it
as both „destructive‟ and „regenerative‟.
They highlight and bring out the difference in interests of the elite class and the poorer classes and
intergrate that into their analysis of the development of Indian nationalism and the rsistence of
colonialism.They argue that the Indian national movement was a movement of the bourgoues
basically. To add on 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. Dutta calls the Indian national congress a safety valve of the britishers to prevent any
possible insurgency against the British.
AR Desai in his book Social Background Of Indian Nationalism Desai discusses five developmental
phases of the 9-Indian national movement, and identifies the particular class base of the
movement in each of these periods. Desai argues that the basic character of the Indian national
movement throughout , remained bourgeoisie.
Criticisms
The Marxist approach has thus been criticised for having ignored the mass aspects of the national
movement and the emotive religious and cultural aspects and reactions. Professor Bipan Chandra
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.
SN Mukherjee argued that Indian nationalism was a complex process with multiple
layers and meanings, and cannot be understood by a reductionist class analysis. He
pointed out the importance of caste as a crucial factor along with that of class, and
showed that traditional languages of politics was simultaneously used with the modern
ones, in organizing the national movement of India.
Sumit Sarkar another Marxist who is critical of Dutt‟s paradigm suggests that Dutt‟s form of Marxist
interpretation has the defect of “assuming too direct or crude an economic motivation for political
action and ideals”

SUBALTERN APPROACH
The subaltern approach or school is the most recent and was mainly developed by historian Ranajit
Guha who had been deeply influenced by the writings of Gramsci, an Italian thinker. Subsequently
others like Partho Chatterjee and Sumit Sarkar also did notable work following this approach. The
Subaltern Studies Collective, founded in 1982, was begun with the goal of establishing a new critique
of both colonialist and nationalist perspectives in the historiography of colonized countries. They
focused on the course of 'subaltern history or the history of ordinary people by studying peasant
revolts, popular insurgencies etc to the complex processes of domination and subordination in a
variety of the changing institutions and practices of evolving modernity.

The subaltern approach seeks to study the development of history and the evolution of Indian
nationalism from the viewpoint of subordinate masses like poor peasants, tribals, women.
untouchables and other non-elite powerless dispossessed sections of Indian society. They argued
Indian society had always been divided into the elite and the subaltern. There had always exited a
fundamental contradiction between the interests of these two groups. They argued history had
always been studied and recorded or written for posterity from the point of view of the elite
dominant classes and groups. They also argued there was no real conflict of interest between the
Indian elite (or the elite of Indian origin like zamindars and industrialists) and the British elite
(whether business or bureaucratic) and the Indian National Congress was only a cover under which
the real battle for power was being fought by the competing elite groups. It was actually the
subaltern groups who were the real victims of colonial rule and many of the Indian elite actually
gained.

The subaltern school rested their analytical structure on some Gramscian concepts: (a) that the state
is a combination of official coercion plus elite hegemony and (b) there is a struggle for power for this
hegemony or domination and for assuming the moral and intellectual leadership of the new evolving
nation which (c) would be in the nature of a kind of passive revolution of the owners of capital and
productive resources.
The subaltern thinkers argue recognizing the structural split between elite and subaltern is
fundamental to the study of colonial history, politics and culture in India. The subalterns also
reject the 'spurious claims' by Indian elite readings of nationalism as people's consent to a rule
of their own' bourgeoisie in the anti-colonial movements led by the Indian nationalist elite.
They provide empirical evidence to claim "how on one occasion after another and in region after
region the initiative of such campaigns passed from elite leaderships to the mass of subaltern
participants, who defied high command and headquarters to make these struggles their own by
framing them in codes specific to traditions of popular resistance and phrasing them in idioms
derived from the communitarian experience of working and living together". (Source: Ibid.)

Ranajit Guha concludes: "The co-existence of these two domains or streams, which can be
sensed by intuition and proved by demonstrations as well, was the index of an important
historical truth, that is, the failure of the Indian bourgeoisie to speak for the nation."

Criticisms
Javeed Alam criticised Subaltern Studies for its insistence on an autonomous domain of the
subaltern. According to Alam, the autonomy of the subaltern politics is predicated on perpetuity of
rebellious action, on a consistent tendency towards resistance and a propensity to rebellion on the
part of the peasant masses. Extending the implications of the inherent logic of such a theoretical
construction, it is a matter of indifference if it leads to communal rioting or united anti-feudal actions
that overcome the initial limitations.

Sumit Sarkar, who was earlier associated with the project, later on criticised it for moving towards
post colonialism. . In his two essays, ‘The Decline of the Subaltern in Subaltern Studies‘ and
Orientalism Revisited‘, he argues that this shift may have been occasioned due to various reasons,
but, intellectually, there is an attempt to have the best of both worlds : critiquing others for
essentialism, teleology and related sins, while claiming a special immunity from doing the same
oneself
Conclusion

In closing, clear similarities and differences exist between historians and their interpretations
regarding the Indian nationalist movement. Understanding these differences is essential for
understanding the diverse historiographical trends that surround the field of Indian history in the
modern era. Only through an exposure to these various interpretations and accounts can one
actively engage with the diverse literature available. While historians may never agree on the details
surrounding the nationalist movement in India, their interpretations of the past offer unique
approaches to the field that should not be ignored.
. India being a plural society,
and people‟s participation in the national movement influenced by their social-cultural
and economic contexts, no matter which strand of the movement they were active in,
no historiographical attempt to paint a complete and general picture of the national
movement is ever completely successful. For a nuanced understanding of an event like
the Indian national movement, we have to keep our minds open to acknowledge the
interplay of various forms of struggle and resistance, with varied social backgrounds
and differences in paths and particular goals, working at the same time, which come
to be known as the Indian national movement.
Romila thapar says that The modern historiography of India is a continuing dialogue between
colonial, nationalist and post-colonial interpretations. This has enriched historical theory and has
also sharpened the debate and evaluation of comprehending the Indian past. She opines that this
will provide for a more perceptive understanding of the past, which she thinks is essential on order
to understand the present.

POST COLONIAL PERSPECTIVE

After the Second World War, post-colonial school of thought developed in response to the
Liberal and Marxist understanding of colonialism. Postcolonial theory is a theoretical approach that
attempts to disrupt the dominant discourse of colonial power. Put simply, postcolonial theory is
about colonialism, emphasizing the effects of colonialism on both the colonized and the colonizer.
While postcolonial theory has taken many forms, there are basic ideas that have guided the theory
since its major development in the 1970s. some of the key concepts of postcolonial theory and some
of the major works that comprise the common canon are given below:

ORIENTALISM
Post-colonialist theorist primarily criticised the argument of the Liberal school, which believes that
the countries of ‘Orient’ are uncivilized, barbaric and savage and their justification of colonial
occupation as ‘civilising mission’ was a farce and an ethnocentric idea. Basically, Edward Said
criticised the whole project of “civilizing mission” of colonial countries and argued through the
notion of civilizing mission, Imperial historians tried to depict a picture of eastern countries as
‘backward’ and ‘pre-modern’, so that they can legitimize their rule over the countries of the Orient
(East). The founding work in this tradition was brought by the Edward Said’s book, ‘Orientalism’.

Post-colonial school argues that the portrayal about the ‘Orient’ is not a true discourse about the
‘Orient’. Infact, it is all about the relationship of power, domination and hegemony between the
Occident[west] and Orient[east]. Edward Said argues that beyond the physical and economic aspects
of colonialism, there was another aspect present: the defining of the "Other." The Other, Said
contends, is the result of a binary worldview, in which the world was divided into an us-and-them
structure. Said uses the term Orientalism to describe the process of "Othering" of the Eastern
colonies by the Western metropole, the European colonizers' home nation. Orientalism is the
European definition of all things related to the colonies as wild, emotional, backward, powerless,
and fundamentally different from the (purported) Occidental qualities of civilized behavior, rational
thought, modernism, and (justifiably) powerful.
postcolonialism tried to draw the attention to the relationship between ‘knowledge’ and ‘power’.
Edward Said was able to “undermine the ideological assumption of value-free knowledge” of the
colonial powers as part of their dominating project. Edward Said has used Michael Foucault’s
understanding of discourses as a “form of knowledge that is not used instrumentally in service of
power but rather is itself a form of power”. Therefore, according to Said, by representation of the
‘oriental’ culture as ‘other’ was nothing but the product of “western epistemology and colonial
projects of power”
THE SUBALTERN SUBJECT
The subaltern, according to a founder of the idea, Ranajit Guha, was the colonized subject who was
not only completely absent from colonial-produced accounts of the colonized period, but in fact
operated on a completely different and often utterly separate level from the colonizer and the elite
indigenous class. Another major contribution to this post-colonialist theory is related with the Gyatri
Spivak’s writings. In her famous work ‘Can subaltern Speak’, Spivak tries to question the
‘autonomous voice’ of subaltern people, independent from the mainstream voice. Spivak tried to
point out that how the culture and language of dominant power shaped mainstream voice, where
there is no say of subaltern or the marginalised.
ASSIMILATION AND HYBRIDITY
Another post colonial theorists Homi Bhabha has taken up further the importance of the written
text as an instrument of control. He argued that the “emblem of the English book is one of the most
important of signs taken for wonders by which the coloniser controled the imagination and the
aspirations of the colonised, because the book assumes a greater authority than the experience of
the colonised peoples themselves. Bhabha’s term ‘Hybridity’, which means “colonial discourse with
the threat of recognition; the other is like, but only partially” like, self-“almost the same but not
quite/white”. He argues that on the one hand, it strove to “domesticate-to assimilate- the native; on
the other, it was undone-de-authorized, disavowed-by the partial resemblance”, the “difference
between being English and being Anglicized” that was thus produced. It was nothing but a kind of
racial essence that underpinned the domination of colonial power.

Post-Colonial theory in the context of India

If one views the British policy towards its Indian colony then one can see that their belief in
savageness of the Easterners led to the bitter oppression of the latter’s cultural and social practices
during colonial occupation. The so-called ‘social-reforms’, like bringing legislation against Sati system
(1829) or for the cause of widow remarriage (1856) were reforms guided by a superiority complex of
the colonial administrators.
For them, education was one of the strategies of control like war and conquest. The purpose of
introducing English education can be seen in the statement of Lord Macaulay: to make “poor and
rude Indian into a class of persons. Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in
morals, and in intellect”. In a way, through their education policy, they colonised the mind of
Indian people and gradually the knowledge of English became synonymous of “modernity”.
Apart from that, their ‘knowing the orient project’ and Establishment of the ‘Asiatic society’ in
1784, by Sir William Jones, for the learning of orient culture had also helped in the consolidation of
empire in India. At the Asiatic Society, many of the varied Indian religious texts were translated first
in Persian and later into English, just for the sake of Indian culture and society. Colonial scholars
criticised the concept of ‘absolute monarchical’ culture of ancient India, where people had no right
against monarchy. By doing this, the coloniser tried to defy the ancient Indian culture. Against the
colonial narrative, the nationalist historiographer tried to show that in ancient India, Monarchy was
not ‘absolute’-- in fact, there was ‘limited monarchy’, where the ‘king’ was bound by performing his
dharma. Not only this, by conducting census, Britishers came to know more about Indian society and
one can see how their knowledge of Indian society (caste structure) due to census, helped in their
recruiting policies. So, one can see how their knowledge of the Orient, consolidated their empire in
India.

Critics of the Post-colonial School of Thought.

 The problem with this school of thought is that in order to establish the equality of the East
and its independence, it refuses the need for any change and becomes an apology for
retaining the status quo. Thus, a critique of the Post-Colonial perspective is it justified
anything and everything in the name of the local or the native and refused the need for
change. In a way, it can be a justification for the status of the oppressed sections in society
and reinforces that values such as equality and democracy have originated in the West.
  By contesting both the old understanding of colonialism, of both the Marxist and the Liberal
tradition, the post-colonial thinkers moved closer to post- modernism. For them, the entire
tradition of progress through rationale was to be rejected as being part of Euro-centrism.
This attitude would obviously thwart the cultural journey of mankind.
 On its theory of knowledge, critics argue that though the cultural dimensions of the post-
colonial approach is laudable, but the human dimension or the struggles of the victims of
colonialism is missing from current discourses of post-colonialists.
 The political dimensions of an economy based on capitalism is totally segregated and left
untouched by this school of thought. This school displays a limited understanding of
capitalism.
 Scholar and critics have argued that by concentrating excessively on the cultural dimension
of colonialism, post –colonial school of thought underplays the role of the revolutionary
movements of that period. Hence some critics call this a past-revolutionary project rather
than a post-colonial school of thought.
 Leading historian, Sumit Sarkar, disagrees with the complete rejection by the post-colonialist
historiography of European Enlightenment and modernity in the mere guise of indigenous
tradition and native culture.

WOMEN’S QUESTION
Women‟s participation in the Indian national movement expanded the base of women’s movement
in India .The basic form of women’s movement was triggered by nineteenth century male reformers.
Later Women also took upon themselves the role of emancipators and fought cudgels for personal
reforms and political rights. Their participation in freedom struggle strengthened not only the
national struggle for freedom, it also provided the forum for women to bring forth the contestation
and contractions of the patriarchal society. The freedom struggle saw the participation of women
from passive to active to an activists role.

It is worth noting that in the Congress there were more women in authoritative position than
Russian and Chinese revolutionary movement put together. Sarojini Naidu was elected as president
of Indian National congress in 1925 and Nellie Sengupta in 1933. But one should not forget that
these women belonged to the privileged strata of society and were free from conditions of social
subjection while most of the Indian women generally had little or no opportunity for self-expression.
However efforts of reformers, both colonial and Indian, Gandhi and above all women themselves
helped in broadening the base of women‟s participation in the freedom struggle and
it also gave voice to many voiceless within the four walls of domesticity.

WOMEN AND REFORMS

A new colonial education purveyed through the state, and Christian Missionaries, altered and
modernized traditional social perceptions; a new religious movement revived and consolidated older
humanitarian impulses and a sudden rise of a pool of human greatness eager to save the weak and
helpless” led to enactment of social legislation by the government. For example : Abolition of Sati
(1829),Widow Remarriage Act. (1856) Child Marriage Act. (1872) Banning of Devdasi (1925).Despite
these positive progressive legislations the women‟s question was far from being answered by the
women themselves.

In the early nineteenth century, the liberal reformers or the revivalists, made women as the
recipient of social change. Different communities started talking about educating women, but not as
a right holder but as serving the bigger male-dominated community. It was the growth of popular
politics of the Gandhian congress mass movements that placed the trajectory of women‟s
participation in a positive trend.

Nationalism and women

“The nationalist expressions of women in the freedom struggle needs to be analyzed from following
standpoints:
1. That Women engaged with Nationalist polities despite constraints of social practices like the
purdah system, backwardness and low level of female literacy.
2. That Women participated in INM through two parallel processes.
a) The domestication of the public sphere - women participated in the streets without compromising
on their domestic values.
b) The politicization of the domestic sphere - women handled situations in their families when
nationalism entered households through the activities of their husbands and sons.
3. That Women used the symbolic repertoire of the INM and the political language
of Gandhi to facilitate their own participation.”(Thapar-Bjorkert,2006,171)

Gandhi and women’s role in the freedom struggle

The participation of women in public domain remained negligible till the arrival of Gandhi, when
women accepted the decision to enter the Congress. It was during Non Cooperation Movement
(NCM) in 1920, that Gandhi sought to mobilize large number of women in the movement. However
the participation of women was passive and in the public sphere was not significant during the Non
Cooperation Movement because, women could participate only from within the domestic sphere.
However the degree and intensity of this control or segregation within the domestic sphere varied
from household to household, community to community, class to class and region to region. In the
absence of the male who would be jailed for his involvement in nationalist activity, woman became
emotional support.

There were five ways in which women participated passively in nationalist activities:-
1. Constructive programmers like spinning khadi.
2. Familial sacrifice
3. Being supportive wives and mothers to activists
4. Being pillars of support and strength.
5. Conducting secret activities.

In the NCM Gandhi consciously involved women in the attempts to link their struggle with the
struggle for national independence. But the programmes for women were devised in away that they
could remain domestic and still contribute. He gave women a sense of mission within their domestic
field. Thus women keeping their traditional role became the base of the freedom movement.

Civil Disobedience Movement

Women‟s public activities were more pronounced during Civil Disobedience Movement. GANDHI
believed that women can play higher role in picketing of liquor and foreign cloth shops. He chose
women for these tasks because of their „inherent‟ capacity for non violence. He maintained that the
agitation of picketing was to be initiated and controlled exclusively by women. They may take and
should get as much assistance as they need from men, but, the men should be in strict subordination
to them.” Kasturba Gandhi initiated women‟s participation in the salt satyagrah by leading 37
women volunteers from Sabarmati ashram. Sarojini Naidu and Manilal Gandhi led the raid on
Dharsana Salt Works. Kamla Devi led procession of 15,000 to raid the Wadala Salt works. Women
thus participated actively in processions, picketing of foreign shops and liquor shops. Women were
organized in Bombay, most militant in Bengal and were limited in Madras. In Bengal some women
also participated in violent revolutionary movement and unlike Swadeshi Movement where they
played a domestic supportive role, now they stood shoulder to shoulder with men with guns and
shooting pistols at magistrates and governors.

women‟s participation in Quit India Movement

The female activism was visible most significantly. The important leaders of congress being behind
bars, made it contingent for the women leaders to take upon themselves the responsibility of
directing and taking forward the national movement. Sucheta Kriplani: coordinated the non- violent
Satyagraha while women also participated in underground revolutionary activities. Aruna Asaf Ali
provided leadership for these activities. The movement also witnessed large participation of rural
women and also women who had joined the communist movement. Mahila Atmaraksha Samiti or
women‟s self defence, was in 1942 in Bengal by leftist women lads, who mobilized the rural
women.
For example, the Tebhaga Movement 1946, saw the formation of women and Brigade as Nari
Bahinis to fight against colonial policies. Subash Chandra Bose also added a women‟s regiment to
his INA (1943) called the Rani of Jhasi Regiment. He believed in the power of mothers and sisters.
Thus assigning a new role to a passive roles of the mythic Sita to a heroic valorous role of the Rani of
Jhansi.

Muslim women
Among Muslims- Women had more intense, fight in the domestic sphere „Purdah” was epitome of
their culture and any contradiction to it was considered to be blasphemy . However the history does
record the defiant efforts of Muslim women leaders like Bi Amman, mother of Shaukat and
Muhammed Ali, who participated in khilafat Non Cooperation Movement at a meeting in Punjab. At
a meeting in Punjab she lifted her veil saying that one does not need a veil in front of her children,
thus giving shape to idea of quaam. In the case of Muslims, the personal laws too, were less
problematic than Hindu social reforms. They did not demand widow immolation and contained no
strictures against widow remarriage.
Similarly with the growth of education, Muslim women, were instigated to eradicate female rites
and customs that Muslims shared with Hindus. By 1930, they started demanding inheritance rights
and by 1939, Muslim women got the right to initiate divorce. In 1938 Muslim league started a
women‟s sub-committee to engage Muslim women. With the emergence of „Pakistan Movement‟
more and more Muslim women got sucked into the political movement. Their participation in this
public spaces itself was moment of emancipation and liberating for them.

Women‟s Organizations
In the early, twentieth century many women‟s organization came into picture who were active in
the public arena and also focused on women‟s political and legal rights.
-Rashtriya Stree Sangha or Das Devika Sangha was started as auxiliary body of Congress.
-1910 Sarala Devi Chaudhurani „Bharat stree Mahanandala‟ tried to spread education
-In 1917, in Madras women‟s Indian Association was started by enlightened European and Indian
ladies – Margaret Cousins and Annie Besant.
-1925, the National Council of Women in India was formed as a branch of the International council
of Women Lady Mehribai Tata was an actives of this society.
-1927, All India, Women Conference came into exsistence which championed for all sorts of women
rights, from franchise to marriage reform and the rights of women laborers..
- In 1920 in Bengal, Bangiya Nari Samaj campaigned for women‟s voting rights.
- All Bengal Women‟s union campaigned for legislation against trafficking of women.

The women‟s fight for suffrage was granted in Government of India Act 1935 where the ratio of
female voters was raised 1:5 and women also got reserved seats in legislative. Similarly, various
social legislations and acts tried to improve gender parity. For example : The Sarda Act. Of 1929 –
which fixed the minimum age of marriage for females at 14 and male at eighteen, laws defining
women‟s, women‟s right to property, inheritance, divorce, to restrain dowry and control position.

Women and Partition

Thus by the pinnacle of INM Indian women across class, caste and religions barriers started
participating in the anti imperialistic and democratic process. According to Sumit Sarkar it was
women and peasants who represented the ultimate site of purity unspoiled by the modern world
and western education. This form of purity, chastity of the female body has been linked to the
nation state. It‟s for reasons like this that women have been seen as the symbol and repositories of
group or communal national identity.

The link between honour of community leads to two forms of control over women‟s labour, their
fertility, their sexuality and their mobility. The first is internal form of control by their own
community itself since the loss of control over their own women is seen as threat to their
masculinity, their family and their community. Secondly women find themselves more vulnerable
of violence by other community. Since they are seen as repositories of their community honour and
their rape, control and other forms of violence against them is seen as a more effective manner of
humiliating and subjugating that community .Women thus become more vulnerable to violence in
communal riots.
The partition of India in 1947 revealed a similar story when women from both sides became victims
of sexual aggression and control in order to avenge the hurt and injury on the community in
question. Thus communal violence has seen the participation of women thereby proving that
women are not necessarily a collective but are well entrenched in their own caste and community
identities. As pointed out by Ritu Menon & Kamla Bhasin, they were caught in „continuum of
violence‟ where they had the choice either to be raped, mutilated and humiliated by the men of the
other community or to commit suicide instigated by their own family members and kinsmen to
prevent the honour of their community from being violated by the enemy. Empirical data
supports this fact when in a span of few months seventy five to one hundred thousand women were
abducted or raped.

GENDER QUESTION
In, Indian society the coming of British rule again led to usage of the ‘women’s question’ which
figured prominently in their colonial discourses. While British rule used the barbaric and pitiable
position of women in India for their supposed role of ‘Civilizing Mission’, the Indian reformers used
the analogy of female goddesses to free bharatmata. The colonized society was considered to be
“effeminate” in character, as opposed to “colonial masculinity” , which was held to be a justification
for its loss of independence. But women role vis a vis the family was looked through the patriarchal
lens. The study of gender and colonialism is thus an interface of two independent fields of study,
which brings to the surface various conflicting questions leading to a confluence of these two
parallel streams. However this journey of confluence and conflict of gender and colonialism in India
was multidimensional and multilayered.

Indian women contested for their legitimate space in society, challenging the overarching patriarchal
set up and also participated in the National Struggle for independence. It was a unique balancing act,
where in they had at times to compromise and console themselves with the partial fruits of their
long and ardors struggle and other times to sacrifice it altogether. The fight from domestic life to
political field was and is a long-drawn battle for women.

Women In Pre-British India

In pre- British Indian society, with the exception perhaps of early periods of the vedic times, woman
was assigned a position subordinate to man. Law and religion did not recognize the equality and
equal rights of men and women. Society permitted man to have rights and freedom from which a
woman was excluded. In the words of Romila Thapar, it varied widely from a “position of
considerable authority and freedom to one of equally considerable subservience”. (Thapar, 1997.)
Their plight began to deteriorate decisively with the development of peasant societies and the
evolution of states.

HINDU WOMEN: In Hindu society, caste hierarchy came to be integrally connected to the ideology of
patriarchy. Both shudras and women were debarred from access to Vedic ritual sites. women were
restricted within the household. However, it was also true that “seclusion of women was not a
universal practice, as there are evidences of high public visibility of women, both rich & poor in
certain regions of eighteenth century.
MUSLIM WOMEN: The Muslim society too put similar restrictions on women. Dominated by religious
preaching’s, the Muslim women were supposed to follow the constructed “sharif culture”. Purdah (A
Persian word, literally meaning curtain) was an essential adjunct of women. It meant their physical
seclusion behind the veil or the walls of the Zenana (the women’s quarter in the inner part of the
house).

WOMEN AND BRITISH LEGISLATION

In the initial stages, the colonial rule followed a policy of non interference. For example Warren
Hastings, Governor-of Bengal, decreed in 1772, that the basis of all legal laws for Hindus would be
Brahmin’s written law. This law thus subjected subject lower- caste women to same strictures that
earlier was applicable to only the women of higher castes.
According to Ruby Lal, scholarly write-up on the “women’s question” in India are full of references to
“child wives”, “child- brides” and “infant marriages”. Increasing the age for consent in marriages was
another central issue. “The evidence used by the British to demonstrate the liberalizing influence of
Western culture consisted of number of legal initiatives outlawing certain abuses and removing
certain restrictions on women. For example sati (widow –burning) was prohibited in 1829 and
widow remarriage was allowed in 1856. The age of consummation of marriage was fixed at 10 in
1860 but it was raised to 12 in 1891. Female infanticide was prohibited in the Acts of 1795, 1804
and 1870, and child marriage forbidden in 1929. Various laws improving women’s inheritance rights
were passed in 1874, 1929 and 1937, culminating in the Hindu Women’s Rights to Property Act. This
gave limited rights to widows only. Additional laws were enacted within particular provinces.
On all of these issues, the British had the support of Indian liberals and reformers.”

SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS REFORMS IN INIA AND WOMEN

The coming of British rule brought in western modern ideas like secularism , democracy, equality and
rights to the individual. Alongside, there also developed indigenous ideas of nationalism. This paved
the way for social reform movements especially related to gender relation in early nineteenth
century. In contrast to western feminist movement, in India the movement was initiated by men.
The reform movements were not homogeneous and varied a lot in terms of the ideas and changes
that was to be fostered. They did however share a common concern for rooting out the social evils,
partly in response to charges of barbarity from the colonial rulers. This was a period of the
hegemonic control and influence of colonial ideology. This was a time of transition, one of the
emerging bourgeois society and values of new modes of thought. The colonial intervention in the
19th century intruded into the areas of our culture and society and this affected transformation in
our social fabric. This potential threat was sensed by the Indian intellectual reformers, exposed to
western ideas and values. At this juncture, the Indian intellectual reformer sensitive to the power of
colonial domination and responding to Western ideas of rationalism and liberalism sought ways and
means of resisting this colonial hegemony by resorting to what K. N. Panniker (Presidential address,
Indian History Congress, 1975) refers to as cultural defense.

the reformers tried to create a new society, modern yet rooted in Indian tradition. They began a
critical appraisal of Indian society in an attempt to create a new ethos devoid of all overt social
aberrations like polytheism, polygamy, casteism, sati, child marriage, illiteracy etc. all of which they
believed were impediments to progress of women. All the social reformers shared a belief common
to many parts of the world in the 19th century that no society could progress if its women were
backward. To the reformers, the position of Indian women, as it was in the 19th century was
abysmally low and hence their efforts were directed at an overall improvement in the status of
women through legislation, political action and propagation, of education. This was mainly spurred
by the first wave feminism of the west and concentrated on basic rights for women. The reformers
took up issues, such as, sati, female infanticide, polygamy, child marriage, purdah, absence of
education among women etc.
Initiatives
There were two groups of social reformers, 1) Liberal Reformers- the former group on the basis of
liberal philosophy put forth their work for the cause of women and 2) The Revivalists- work was
based on a programme of the revival at the Vedic society in modern India. But Both the groups
undoubtedly recognised the oppressive social institutions’ .
While arguing in favour of equal rights for women appealed to logic, reason, history, the principal of
individual freedom and the requirements of social programme, social reformers such as Raja Ram
Mohan Roy, Keshab Chandra Sen, Iswarachandra Vidya Sagar, Kandukuri Veeresalingam Panthulu,
M. G. Ranade, Karve, Swami Vivekanantia, Swami Dayanand Saraswathi and others provided
leadership to the women’s movement by frankly acknowledging the degraded position of Indian
women. The social reformers concentrated their attention on important aspects of women like sati,
age of marriage the sad plight of widows and their right to remarry. The social reformers
established a number of societies like Bramho Samaj, Ramakrishna Mission and others for the
cause of Indian women.

RAJARAM MOHAN ROY AND BRAHMO SAMAJ

The best exponent of liberalism was Raja Ram Mohan Roy who was the first Indian to initiate a social
reform movement and campaign for the cause of women. He advocated equality between the two
sexes and declared that women were not inferior to men morally and intellectually. Roy’s attention
was drawn towards the inhuman practice of sati, after female infanticide. From 1818 onwards he
began his active propaganda through speeches and writings against sati. Largely because of his effort
and persuasion, the East India Company declared the sati practice illegal and a punishable offence in
1829. Raja Ram Mohan Roy also opposed other evils like early marriage, polygamy etc. He supported
female education and widow and inter-caste marriage. He wanted that women should have the right
of inheritance and property. Roy’s Brahmo Samaj played a significant role in the reform activities
concerning women.
The Brahmo Samaj, soon after its inception became a vigorous social reform movement first in
Bengal which then quickly spread to other parts of the country and added to the volume and
strength of similarly aimed local reformist movements. The members of the Brahmo Samaj opposed
the caste system and they concentrated greatly on improving the low conditions of women and
played a very important role in the introduction of several beneficial measures.

ISHWAR CHANDRA VIDHYASAGA

Ishwara Chandra Vidya Sagar also helped women. He did so by propagating widow remarriage. The
child marriage evil resulted in large numbers of young girls ending up as widows whose lives were
miserable due to the severe restrictions imposed on them. He argued in favour of widow remarriage
and published his work on “Widow Remarriage” in 1853

ARYA SAMAJ AND PRARTHANA SAMAJ

Arya Samaj was established by Dayanand Saraswathi in 1875. Dayanand Saraswathi emphasised
compulsory education of both boys and girls. A series of schools for women- Arya Kanya Patasalas -
were the first concerted effort of the Samaj to promote women’s education in a systematic way.
Prarthana Samaj founded by some Maharashtra Brahmins in 1867 had leaders like M. G. Ranade, N.
G. Chandrasarkar and R. G. Bhandarkar. It concentrated more on sponsoring education for women.
Both Brahmo Samaj and Prarthana Samaj made forceful efforts to prove that Hindu religious tradition
were not the source of legitimacy for the sorrowful condition of women in society.

The efforts of Vidya Sagar, Keshub Chandra Sen and D. K. Karve resulted in the enactment of widow
remarriage act of 1856. In the South Kandukuri Veeresalingam led the widow remarriage movement.
In 1874 he performed 63 widow remarriages throughout the Madras presidency and financially
supported men who married widows by providing them houses and other benefits.

RAISE IN AGE OF MARRIAGE

Another aspect that the reformers worked on was the age of girls at marriage. In the 19th century
the average age of marriage for girls was 8 or 9. The extensive propaganda by Vidya Sagar and other
reformers in this regard led the British government to legislate in order to improve the condition of
minor girls and the age of consent bill was passed in 1860 which made sexual intercourse with a girl
of less than 10 years of age as rape.
Further social reformers like Mahadev Govind Ranade, Behramji Malabari and Tej Bahadur Sapru in
their attempts to raise the age of marriage cited several cases of consummation at the age of 10 or
11 which led to serious physical and psychological disturbances. It was between 1884 and 1889 that
enormous pressure was brought to bear on the government to enact law to further raise the age at
marriage of the girl. At last due to the collective efforts of the reformers in 1891, the Bill known as
the Age of Consent was passed, which rose the marriageable age for girls to 12 years.

FEMALE EDUCATION
Starting from Raja Ram Mohan Roy including the liberal as well as orthodox reformers supported
female education. This resulted in the establishment of schools for girls and homes for widows.
Between 1855 and 1858 while he was inspector of schools, Vidya Sagar established 48 girls’ schools.
M. G. Ranado along with his wife propagated female education and started a girls’ high school in
1884. D. K. Karve, who, therefore, concentrated his efforts on promoting education among widows.
In 1896 Karve along with 15 of his colleagues founded the Ananth Balikashram for the education of
widows, where the courses were drawn up with an idea to make the widows self reliant. He also
started Mahila Vidyalaya in 1907 and S. N. D. T. Women’s University in 1916 a separate educational
institution for women so as to lessen the resistance of orthodox section with regard to women’s
education. The social reform movement in its later phases resulted in producing women social
reformers who worked for their own cause. Pandita Ramabai started Sharda Sadan in Bombay in
1889 to provide an ashram to destitute high caste widows. In 1912-1913 a widow’s home was
established by sister Subbulakshmi, another widow in Madras.
PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR WOMEN
Another important aspect of the social reform movement phase of women in India was that of
property rights for Hindu women. Raja Ram Mohan Roy suggested that the government should enact
and enforce laws to remove these disabilities and bring economic freedom and self reliance. As a
result of such efforts, special marriage act of 1872 with its provision for divorce and succession to
property to women was passed. The married women’s property act of 1874 widened the scope of
stridhan (women’s property) and expanded the right to own and acquire property by women. It also
gave a widow a life interest in her husband’s share of the property and a share equal to that of a son.
MUSLIM WOMEN
Muslim women in India made little progress in their position both in the preBritish period or later
British period. Western education, the major vehicle of progress during the British period did not
reach them, partly because of the existence of Purdah and seclusion of women from external
environment and partly, because education was considered inessential for them. Educated Muslims
formed only a small segment of the population in the 19th century and were confined to urban areas
in the country. Consequently, efforts in education and association formation among Muslim women
did not begin until the 20th century, one notable exception being the Tyabji family of Bombay.
Badruddin Tyabji who graduated from Elphinstone College founded a Muslim self-help association in
1876. His female relatives were later active in starting a Muslim girls school (Amina Binte Badruddin
Tyabji) and running a girls’ orphanage (Begum Nawale Misra) and starting nursing centres (Shareefa
Hamid Ali).
CRITICAL APPRAISAL
The social reform movement did not radically challenge the existing patriarchal structure of society
or question gender relation. They picked up for reform only those issues which the British were
pointing out as evidence of degeneration in the Indian society. Even the women’s institutions and
organisations that sprang up during this period do not reveal the development of an independent
view. As a result even when women were speaking for themselves they were speaking only the
language of the men, defined by male parameters. Women were seen as passive recipients of a more
humanitarian treatment to be given by Western educated elite men. There was thus an attempt to
reform women rather than reform the social conditions which opposed them. There were no
attempts to alter the power structure and the men-women relation in the society. This was but
natural since the change in the status of women was being sought only within questioning patriarchy
itself. The attempt was to create a new Indian woman, truly Indian and yet sufficiently educated and
tutored in the 19th century values to suit the new emerging society. Thus education for girls was not
meant to equip them to be self-sufficient, independent and emancipated and train them to follow
some profession but to be good housewives.

Women also joined in the struggle against colonialism, but while they were encouraged to participate
by leaders like Gandhi, their work in the struggles was just an extension of their domestic work. Very
few women were allowed to join the front ranks with men, and the ones that did, spoke of the
isolation they felt at times (Kumar, 1993). As a form of backlash to these new ideas that colonialism
brought to India, women’s roles were being pushed to a more traditional way of life.

THE CASTE QUESTION: ANTI-BRAHMINICAL POLITICS

The social divisions in society in different parts of colonial India were rooted both in culture and
economy. The emergence of early nationalist feeling among some of the middle to upper class
Indians coincided with the emergence of revolts against the social divisions. Some of the early
social reformers like Jyoitiba Phule and Sri Narayan Guru questioned these social divisions and
became the pioneers of anti-Brahminical politics of early twentieth century in India. The nature of
the movement for social equality became anti-Brahminical because Brahmins were widely perceived
to be both the founders of these divisions and its main beneficiaries.
Caste heirachy in ancient india
Caste has been present in almost all religious groups in India. Though it is difficult to define „caste‟
there is a broader understanding that it was a systemic hierarchal division of social groups on the
basis of purity and birth. it has divided the Hindu society socially into an ever increasing
number of groups and sub-groups. Each of these groups and sub-groups (Jatis) were exclusive.
People were divided on the basis of their profession, marriage and dining. The Vedas have recorded
the existence of the caste system. According to the Rigaveda and Manusmriti, the Hindu society has
been divided into four Vernas on the basis of their professions namely, Brahmins, Khatriya, Vaishyas
and Shudras. the four original Varnas broke up into various smaller castes and sub-castes or what we
today know Jatis.

The hierarchy of status of all the castes were carefully arranged. Shudras were at the bottom of
formal structure of four Varnas only above untouchables who were not even considered to be a part
of the Hindu society and their touch was polluting. The untouchable or Shudras suffered from
numerous and severe treatment by the caste Hindus and were subject of inhuman restrictions. The
untouchables were deprived any access to education and occupational independence. The rest of the
society preyed on their misery. They were main source of cheap or sometimes slave labour. The
second and third positions in the hierarchy of the castes were occupied by Khatriyas (warriors‟ class)
and Vaishyas (business class). People from Shudra and lower categories lived a life of social,
economic and political deprivation due to the above mentioned exclusions.
The membership to a particular Jatis or castes as occupational groups was determined by birth, and
its exclusiveness had been maintained by rigorous rules and restrictions. Each and every caste
endorsed a ritual rank, which positioned its members in explained hierarchy that captured the whole
society. It has been very clear that instead of Varnas the concept of Jatis has become real defining
feature of the Caste System in India.

Early anti Brahminical movemets

the emergence of a small middle class among the socially deprived and untouchables which created a
pan-India anti-Brahmin movement along with the nationalist movement. Though we cannot say for
sure that when exactly the first voices were raised against the prevalent caste system in colonial
India one can bequite sure that all major social reform movements beginning with the
Brahmo Samaj in Bengal questioned its rationale.
Raja Rammohan Roy the founder of Brahmo Samaj, was of the view that birth based division of
caste system in not only inhuman it is also not sanctioned by the religion. He called the present form
of caste system corrupted and outdated.
Keshab Chandra Sen succeeded Raja Rammohan Roy as leaders of the Samaj. He too was critical of
caste divisions and opposed the relevance of Hindu scriptures itself.
the Prarthana Samaj in Bombay presidency led various movements and propaganda campaigns
opposing caste. The caste system was seen as an undemocratic institution and therefore was
thoroughly opposed.

This gave birth to some reactionary movements. The Arya Samaj started by Swami Dayananda
Saraswati was one such movement. Unlike the previously mentioned movements it propagated the
preservation of the caste system.
Thus, one can see that the early anti-caste movements were primarily divided among two one which
wanted to do away with it (Brahmo Samaj and the Prarthana Samaj) and the other which wanted to
reform it (the Arya Samaj).

In the early twentieth century the movement against caste became more complex and varied. At one
end were organisations like All India Harijan Sangh (AIHS) which was founded by Gandhi and
another was Sri Narayan Guru‟s movement in South India particularly in Kerala.

Anti Brahminical movements

The fight against caste system took its anti-Brahmin from only by the late nineteenth century
simultaneously in Maharashtra and Tamilnadu or Madras. According to Sumit Sarkar, “first signs of
political movement among so called „low caste‟ people began after the first round of census in
India in 1871.” According to him “it first started in south India where some of Shudras started
movements for social recognition and dignity.” He gives the examples of Tamilnadu where newly
emergent mercantile class of among lower ranked Shanans and Pallis castes “claimed Khatriyas
status”
What was different in these movements from the earlier social reform movements is the class and
sections which led it were from the lower castes and classes.

PERIYAR
The tension between the caste groups led to different riots between upper and lower castes. E
Ramaswamy Naikar Periyar‟s led Vaikom Satygraha demanded temple entry to all untouchables in
1924. Periyar later led the Justice Party in Tamilnadu which was struggling against the Brahmin
dominance in government jobs and education sectors. The „self respect movement‟
launched and led by Periyar and his followers was a movement of backward castes for equality in
social, economic and cultural spheres questioning any form of hierarchy and religious privileges
GOPAL BABA WALANGKAR
The Mahars of Maharashtra, later the backbone of Ambedkar‟s movement, were beginning to
organise themselves under Gopal Baba Walangkar, by the end of the nineteenth
century. The nature of Walangkars movement was not anti-Brahmin though. He was more worried
about getting recognition as Khatriyas for his followers and more jobs in the army and services for
this untouchable caste. Most of the Mahars were professionally involved in services like
watchmen, local arbitrators, messengers, sweepers, etc which were considered to be inferior. The
coming of British had already opened the opportunity for Mahars to get better jobs in the army.
JYOTIRAO PHUKE
With rise of educated sections among the middle classes by the end of the 18th century there was
emerging a great anti-Brahmin movement. Its first foundation was led in the 1870s by Jyotirao Phule.
His book, Ghulamgiri (l872) and his organisation, the Satyashodhak Samaj (1873), “proclaimed the
need to save the „lower castes from the hypocritical Brahmins and their opportunistic scriptures”
Phule was one of the first urban-educated members of the „lowly‟ Mali (gardening) caste. The
movement which he started later attracted some other peasant castes such as Marathas. Phule took
out several prose and poetic works which had broad idea regarding the history of toiling castes in the
public life. The main instruments for countering the prevailing cultural hegemony were tracts,
magazines, plays and leaflets. These all were to expose how one particular caste was able to establish
monopoly over education and power. Brilliantly, he projected the history of ancient India as the
continuous battle between Brahmins and Shudra-atishudras. Phule rejected the philosophical
foundations of Brahminism and the doctrine of karma.

By Gulamgiri Phule rejected the Brahminic caste ideology and accepted the Dravidian theory. His idea
was to encounter the Aryan mythology. He gave the idea of Bali-rajya which was based on equality
and justice while rejecting Ram- rajya which was based on the Varna-dharma.

Experiencing the whole sort of oppressions and exploitations by the hegemonic Brahminic
organisations Phule wanted to create a casteless society based on the modern values of rationality
and justice. The idea of Satyashodhak Samaj, was an attempt in that direction. The equality of all
human beings was one of the main principles of the Samaj. Moreover, Samaj rejected any kinds of
ritual performance by the Brahmins to other caste because it would validate the purity of Brahmins.
BR. AMBEDKAR
The spread of education among the depressed castes gradually, in the early twentieth century,
brought forth a group of intellectual such as Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar (1891-1956). Ambedkar,
through his fierce criticisms of the Hindu caste system was able to represent the sufferings of
the lower castes in India. He realised and represented the disabilities caused by the caste
discrimination and passionately fought for the human rights equality and dignity of his community. In
order to fight for these rights he founded the All India Depressed Federation and All India
Depressed Classes Association and led them.

Ambedkar visualised the achievement of the goal of social justice as the first and foremost.
Independence from foreign rule, for Ambedkar, will only mean transferring power to the upper caste
Hindus. These upper caste Hindus will maintain social discrimination depriving majority of the
population from real freedom. Since these upper caste Hindus are equally distant from the people
the real freedom will not come until there is a commitment for the removal of social injustice and
discrimination. It was this belief that led Ambedkar to demand reservation for lower castes in the
legislative assemblies before the 1935 Government of India Act.

The rigid caste system, hierarchical graded and based on birth, was the principal target of umbrella of
the socio-reform movements in which anti- Brahmin (extreme form of non-Brahmin movements)
takes the revolutionary shape under the leadership of the Jyotirao Phule (1827-1890) and Ambedkar.