Page 121 - DHIS204_DHIS205_INDIAN_FREEDOM_STRUGGLE_HINDI

Indian Freedom Struggle (1707–1947 A.D.)

Notes Similarly, the early national leaders made maintenance of civil liberties and their extension an
integral part of the national movement. They fought against every infringement of the freedom of
the Press and speech and opposed every attempt to curtail them. They struggled for separation of
the judicial and executive powers and fought against racial discrimination.
It was necessary to evolve an understanding of colonialism and then a nationalist ideology based
on this understanding. In this respect, the early nationalist leaders were simultaneously learners
and teachers. No ready-made anti-colonial understanding or ideology was available to them in
the 1870s and 1880s. They had to develop their own anti-colonial ideology on the basis of a
concrete study of the reality and of their own practice.
There could have been no national struggle without an ideological struggle clarifying the concept
of we as a nation against colonialism as an enemy. They had to find answers to many questions.
For example, is Britain ruling India for India’s benefit? Are the interests of the rulers and the ruled
in harmony, or does a basic contradiction exist between the two? Is the contradiction of the Indian
people with British bureaucrats in India, or with the British Government, or with the system of
colonialism as such? Are the Indian people capable of fighting the mighty British empire? And
how is the fight to be waged?
In finding answers to these and other questions many mistakes were made. For example, the early
nationalists failed to understand, at least till the beginning of the 20th century, the character of the
colonial state. But, then, some mistakes are an inevitable part of any serious effort to grapple with
reality. In a way, despite mistakes and setbacks, it was perhaps no misfortune that no ready-made,
cut and dried, symmetrical formulae were available to them. Such formulae are often lifeless and,
therefore, poor guides to action.
True, the early national leaders did not organize mass movements against the British. But they did
carry out an ideological struggle against them. It should not be forgotten that nationalist or anti-
imperialist struggle is a struggle about colonialism before it becomes a struggle against colonialism.
And the founding fathers of the Congress carried out this ‘struggle about colonialism’ in a brilliant
fashion.
From the beginning, the Congress was conceived not as a party but as a movement. Except for
agreement on the very broad objectives discussed earlier, it did not require any particular political
or ideological commitment from its activists. It also did not try to limit its following to any social
class or group. As a movement, it incorporated different political trends, ideologies and social
classes and groups so long as the commitment to democratic and secular nationalism was there.
From the outset, the Congress included in the ranks of its leadership persons with diverse political
thinking, widely disparate levels of political militancy and varying economic approaches.
To sum up: The basic objectives of the early nationalist leaders were to lay the foundations of a
secular and democratic national movement, to politicize and politically educate the people, to
form the headquarters of the movement, that is, to form an all-India leadership group, and to
develop and propagate an anti-colonial nationalist ideology.
History will judge the extent of the success or failure of the early national movement not by an
abstract, historical standard but by the extent to which it was able to attain the basic objectives it
had laid down for itself. By this standard, its achievements were quite substantial and that is why
it grew from humble beginnings in the 1880s into the most spectacular of popular mass movements
in the 20th century. Historians are not likely to disagree with the assessment of its work in the
early phase by two of its major leaders. Referring to the preparatory nature of the Congress work
from 1885 to 1905, Dadabhai Naoroji wrote to D.E. Wacha in January 1905: ‘The very discontent
and impatience it (the Congress) has evoked against itself as slow and non-progressive among the
rising generation are among its best results or fruit. It is its own evolution and progress . . . (the
task is) to evolve the required revolution — whether it would be peaceful or violent. The character
of the revolution will depend upon the wisdom or unwisdom of the British Government and
action of the British people.
And this is how G.K. Gokhale evaluated this period in 1907: ‘Let us not forget that we are at a
stage of the country’s progress when our achievements are bound to be small, and our

116 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY