Nationalism_in_India

Gandhi is viewed today by the high school educated individual as a hero for his nonviolent methods in resisting the British Imperial government and a prophet of peace for the world. However, it is not such common knowledge that he was actually part of a nationalist rising in India that would eventually lead to the fall of British rule in India. And while many see Gandhi as a Saint and flawless in his approach to resistance, these eight sources say that although he was instrumental in the rise of nationalism his methods and the way nationalism evolved was inefficient and set India up for a equally tumultuous few decades after establishing their own government. To understand Gandhi’s role in the rise of nationalism in India, it is essential to first understand what principles he stood behind. His most elementary theory was that of satyagraha, was implemented in all areas of his resistance including opposing an unreasonable agriculture tax, the Salt March and it was the reason there were hardly any violent uprisings against the British rulers. It was a policy of nonviolent resistance in order to achieve truth. In his own words, “to refuse a thing firmly and plainly in the name of truth - that is satyagraha.”[1] He also believed in the concept of swadeshi, which involved limiting the use of material goods to those produced in India, to as great of an extent as possible. The reasons for this are that it would help drive the British out because one of their objectives in keeping India under their control was the huge gain in capital they received as a result of being able to mass sell British goods to Indians. Another reason is that Gandhi valued a simple life so much so that he even started a small community of 70-80 people called Tolstoy Farm where he aimed to be as self-reliant as possible. “Everything, therefore, from cooking to scavenging was done with [their] own hands”[2]; they even built the buildings by themselves. He obviously committed his life to the principles that he believed in, so now we can begin to look at how this related to his role in Indian nationalism. Ironically, it could be argued that the British first gave Indians feelings of nationalism when it introduced capitalism into the economic landscape. Previously there was only agricultural production for the local village, but with capitalism there was much more communication between regions in the country and more developed social networks to accommodate this. The result of this new wave of interaction was a “high sense of patriotism and nationalism, mutual feelings of co-operation as well as a highly developed capacity for organization due to its newly established socio-economic structure.”[3] Although this is an improvement on the way Indians previously felt about their country, it is nevertheless a bad way to lay the base for a countries future. Nationalist feelings began to increase, but only slightly, with the creation of the Indian National Congress in 1885 because the Congress leaders made up a miniscule amount of the population of India and were a horrible group to represent the people. They consisted of men educated and given jobs in English institutions who cited their source of their ideas as “British jurisprudence and constitutional history rather than Indian tradition”[4] and kept it that way for fear of losing their jobs. It was not anything that the Congress was doing to increase nationalism, it was the fact that Indians realized that they now had a medium of expressing their views to the British that was being completely wasted. The Congress was in place for 20 years before having any significant discussions with nationalist feelings. Gandhi’s ideals of nonviolent cooperation are at odds with the nationalistic uprising that was needed to attain self government because it was far too comfortable with merely stating their problems with the ruling power instead of doing something monumental about it. If there are to be feelings of nationalism in a country that is under the rule of another, it almost requires feelings of anger towards their oppressor but Gandhi preaches that “non-cooperation in an angry atmosphere is an impossibility.”[5] As far as it being an impossibility unless Indians “evolve a spirit of mutual toleration for diametrically opposite views”[6], that is preposterous because the British obviously have no toleration for the Indian views, as shown by the fact that Indians are not allowed to express them. His non-violent cooperation may have been the way to achieve freedom that pleases the most humanitarians, but it certainly was not the quickest way. The way that India finally showed its displeasure in a significant way was with the Quit India Movement in 1942. “Ironically enough, it was Gandhi . . . who now wedded the Congress to mass struggle”[7] after every negotiation they had with the British had utterly failed. The massive uprising across the country was the ultimate show of nationalism for a nation that had seemed indifferent to their position of oppression under the British. Even though it appeared initially as if it had failed, “it represented the most serious challenge to British rule in India since the rebellion of 1857, as acknowledged by the Viceroy himself”[8] and it realized it could not ignore this national awakening much longer. As inefficient as Gandhi’s non-cooperation was, there is no denying that it did help India achieve its independence. However, once India became independent most of its citizens engrained with over 20 years of Gandhi preaching that they should “disobey orders which on mature consideration regard as unjust or oppressive”[9] as well as “loyalty to one’s State is always subordinate to loyalty to God.”[10] One could see how the first view could be very useful in resisting an occupying power, but when it comes to democracy the system simply will not work if people do not follow every law that they disagree with. As for loyalty to God being above all, this could prove catastrophic in a State with a Muslim and Hindu population that believe in two very different things. Gandhi was an amazing prophet of peace with influence spanning generations and likely inspiring millions of people to rethink the use of violence in their lives. He will also be known as the man who freed India from the rule of the British Empire, but if the issue is looked at from the purely nationalistic and freedom-seeking sense of India, his job was well below average. His methods were not forceful enough enabled the British to remain in control for many years longer than was necessary. When they finally left, India was reduced to a population that still felt it needed to resist the government even though they were the government. Nationalism in India: The Slow Giant ----------------------- [1] B.K. Ahluwalia, “Kheda Satyagraha” in M.K. Gandhi: Select Speeches, (New Delhi: Sagar Publications, 1969), 118-122 [2] B. Srinivasa Murthy, Mahatma Gandhi and Leo Tolstoy Letters (U.S.: Long Beach Publications, 1987), 63-78 [3] Sukhbir Choudhary, Growth of Nationalism in India (1857-1918) (New Delhi: Trimurti Publications, 1973), 7-8 [4] John R. McLane, Indian Nationalism and the Early Congress (UK: Princeton University Press, 1977), 359 [5] Ahluwalia, M.K. Gandhi: Selected Speeches, 130. [6] Ahluwalia, M.K. Gandhi: Selected Speeches, 130. [7] Arun C. Bhuyan, The Quit India Movement (Delhia: Manas Publications, 1975), 221 [8] Bhuyan, The Quit India Movement, 224. [9] Ram Rattan, Gandhi’s Concept of Political Obligation (India: Temple Press, 1972), 77 [10] Rattan, Gandhi’s Concept of Political Obligation, 72