The Indian national motion was doubtless one of the biggest mass motions modern society has of all time seen. It was a motion which galvanized 1000000s of people of all categories and political orientations into political action and brought to its articulatio genuss a mighty colonial imperium. Consequently, along with the British, Gallic, Russian, Chinese, Cuban and Vietnamese revolutions, it is of great relevancy to those wishing to change the bing political and societal construction.
Assorted facets of the Indian national motion, particularly Gandhian political scheme, are peculiarly relevant to these motions in societies that loosely function within the confines of the regulation of jurisprudence, and are characterized by a democratic and fundamentally civil libertarian civil order. But it is besides relevant to other societies. We know for a fact that even Lech Walesa consciously tried to integrate elements of Gandhian scheme in the Solidarity Movement in Poland.
The Indian national motion, in fact, provides the lone existent historical illustration of a semi-democratic or democratic type of political construction being successfully replaced or transformed. It is the lone motion where the loosely Gramscian theoretical position of a war of place was successfully practiced ; where province power was non seized in a individual historical minute of revolution, but through drawn-out popular battle on a moral, political and ideological degree ; where militias of counter-hegemony were built up over the old ages through imperfect, phases ; where the stages of battle alternated with ‘passive ‘ stages.
The Indian national motion is besides an illustration of how the constitutional infinite offered by the bing construction could be used without acquiring co-opted by it. It did non wholly reject this infinite, as such rejection in democratic societies entails heavy costs in footings of hegemonic influence and frequently leads to isolation – but entered it and used it efficaciously in combination with non-constitutional battle to subvert the bing construction.
The Indian national motion is possibly one of the best illustrations of the creative activity of an highly broad motion with a common purpose in which diverse political and ideological currents could co-exist and work – and at the same time go on to postulate for overall ideological and political hegemony over it. While intense argument on all basic issues was allowed, the diverseness and tenseness did non weaken the coherence and striking power of the motion ; on the contrary, this diverseness and ambiance of freedom and argument became a major beginning of its strength.
Today, over 60 old ages after independency, we are still near adequate to the freedom battle to experience its heat and yet far adequate to be able to analyse it nervelessly, and with the advantage of hindsight. Analyze it as we must, for our yesteryear, present and future are inextricably linked to it. Men and adult females in every age and society make their ain history, but they do non do it in a historical vacuity, de novo. Their attempts, nevertheless advanced, at happening solutions to their jobs in the present and charting out their hereafter, are guided and circumscribed, moulded and conditioned, by their several histories, their familial economic, political and ideological constructions. To do myself clearer, the way that India has followed since 1947 has deep roots in the battle for independency. The political and, ideological characteristics, which have had a decisive impact on post-independence development, are mostly a bequest of the freedom battle. It is a bequest that belongs to all the Indian people, irrespective of which party or group they belong to now, for the ‘party ‘ which led this battle from 1885 to 1947 was non so a party but a motion – all political tendencies from the Right to the Left were incorporated in it.
What are the outstanding characteristics of the freedom battle? A major facet is the values and average ideals on which the motion itself was based and the wide socio-economic-and political vision of its leading ( this vision was that of a democratic, civil libertarian and secular India, based on autonomous, classless societal order and an independent foreign policy ) .
The motion popularized democratic thoughts and instructions in India. The patriots fought for the debut of a representative authorities on the footing of popular election and demanded that elections be based on grownup franchise. The Indian National Congress was organized on a democratic footing and in the signifier of a parliament. It non merely permitted but encouraged free look of sentiment within the party and the motion. Some of the most of import determinations in its history were taken after heated arguments and on the footing of unfastened vote.
From the beginning, the patriots fought against onslaughts by the State on the freedom of the imperativeness, look and association, and made the battle for these freedoms an built-in portion of the national motion. During their brief enchantment in power, from 1937-39, the Congress ministries greatly extended the range of civil autonomies. The defense mechanism of civil autonomies was non narrowly conceived in footings of one political group, but was extended to include the defense mechanism of other groups whose positions were politically and ideologically different. The Moderates defended Tilak, the Extremist, and non-violent Congressmen passionately defended radical terrorists and Communists likewise during their trails. In 1928, the Public Safety Bill and Trade Disputes Bill were opposed non merely by Motilal Nehru but besides by conservativists like Madan Mohan Malaviya and M.R. Jayakar. It was this strong civil libertarian and democratic tradition of the national motion which was reflected in the fundamental law of independent India.
The freedom battle was besides a battle for economic development. In clip an economic political orientation developed which was to rule the positions of independent India. The national motion accepted, with close unanimity, the demand to develop India on the footing of industrialisation which in bend was to be independent of foreign capital and was to trust on the autochthonal capital goods sector. A important function was assigned to the populace sector and, in the 1930 ‘s there was a committedness to economic planning.
From the initial phases, the motion adopted a pro-poor ordination which was strengthened with the coming of Gandhi and the rise of the collectivists who struggled to do the motion follow a societal mentality. The motion besides progressively moved towards a programme of extremist agricultural reform. However, socialism did non, at any phase, go the official end of the Indian National Congress through there was a great trade of argument around it within the National Movement and the Indian National Congress pressing in the 1930s and 1940s. For assorted grounds, despite the being of powerful left-of-center tendency within the nationalist mainstream, the dominant vision within the Congress did non exceed the parametric quantities of a capitalist construct of society.
The national motion was, from its early yearss, to the full committed to secularism. Its leading fought hard to instill secular values among the people and opposed the growing of communalism. And despite the divider of India and the attach toing communal holocaust, it did win in enshrining secularism in the fundamental law of free India.
It was ne’er inward looking. Since the yearss of Raja Rammohan Roy, Indian leaders had developed a wide international mentality. Over the old ages, they evolved a policy of resistance to imperialism on a global graduated table and solidarity with anti-colonial motions in other parts of the universe. They established the rule that Indians should detest British imperialism but non the British people. Consequently, they were supported by a big figure of Englishmen, adult females and political groups. They maintained close links with the progressive, anti-colonial and anti-capitalist forces of the universe. A non-racist, anti-imperialist mentality, which continues to qualify Indian foreign policy, was therefore portion of the bequest of the anti-imperialist battle.
In my position, India ‘s freedom battle was fundamentally the consequence of a cardinal contradiction between the involvements of the Indian people and that of British colonialism. From the get downing itself, India ‘s national leaders grasped this contradiction. They were able to see that India was regressing economically and undergoing a procedure of underdevelopment. In clip they were able to germinate a scientific analysis of colonialism. In fact, they were the first in the nineteenth century to develop an economic review of colonialism and ballad bare its complex construction. They were besides able to see the differentiation between colonial policy and the jussive moods of the colonial construction. Taking the societal experience of the Indian people as colonize topics and acknowledging the common involvements of the Indian people vis- & A ; agrave ; -vis colonials, the national leaders bit by bit evolved a distinct anti-colonial political orientation and review of colonialism were disseminated during the mass stage of the motion.
The national motion besides played a polar function in the historical procedure through which the Indian people got formed into a state or a group of people. National leaders like Dadabhai Naoroji, Surendranath Banerjee, Tilak, Gandhiji and Nehru accepted that India was non yet a to the full structured state but a nation-in-the-making, and that one of the major aims and maps of the motion was to advance the turning integrity of the Indian people through a common battle against colonialism. In other words, the national motion was seen both as a merchandise of the procedure of the nation-in-the-making that was ne’er counter-posed to the diverse regional, lingual and cultural individualities in India. On the contrary, the outgrowth of a national individuality and the blossoming of the narrower individualities were seen as procedures deducing strength from each other.
The pre-nationalist opposition to colonial regulation failed to understand the twin phenomena of colonialism and the nation-in-the-making. In fact, these phenomena were non seeable, or available to be grasped, on the surface. They had to be grasped through difficult analysis. This analysis and political consciousness based on it were so taken to the people by intellectuals who played a important function in eliciting the inherent, natural, nascent, anti-colonial consciousness of the multitudes.