Character of the National Movement
The Indian freedom struggle was perhaps the greatest mass movement in world history . After
1919, it was built around the basic notion that the people had to and could play an active role in
politics and in their own liberation, and it succeeded in politicizing, and drawing into political
action a large part of the Indian people. Gandhiji, the leader who moved and mobilized millions
into politics, all his life propagated the view that the people and not leaders created a mass
movement, whether for the overthrow of the colonial regime or for social transformation. He
added, though, that the success or failure of a movement depended a great deal on the quality of
its leadership.
Saty agraha, as a form of struggle, was based on the active participation of the people and on
the sy mpathy and support of the non-participating millions. In fact, unlike a violent revolution,
which could be waged by a minority of committed cadres and fighters, a non-violent revolution
needed the political mobilization of millions and the passive support of the vast majority .
It may be pointed out, parenthetically , that it was because of the long experience of this kind of
political participation by common people that the founders of the Indian republic, who also led the
freedom struggle in its last phase, could repose full faith in their political capacity . The leaders
unhesitatingly introduced adult franchise despite widespread poverty and illiteracy .
The Indian national movement was fully committed to a polity based on representative
democracy and the full range of civil liberties for the individual. It provided the experience
through which these two could become an integral part of Indian political thinking.
From the very beginning the movement popularized democratic ideas and institutions among
the people and struggled for the introduction of parliamentary institutions on the basis of popular
elections. Starting from the turn of the twentieth century , the nationalists demanded the
introduction of adult franchise. Much attention was also paid to the defence of the freedom of the
Press and speech against attacks by the colonial authorities besides the promotion of other political
and economic policies. Throughout, the movement struggled to expand the semi-democratic
political arena and prevent the rulers fron limiting the existing space within which legal political
activities and peaceful political agitations and mass struggle could be organized.
Congress ministries, formed in 1937, visibly extended civil liberties to the resurgent peasants’,
workers’ and students’ movements as also to radical groups and parties such as the Congress
Socialist party and Communist Party .
From its foundation in 1885, the Indian National Congress, the main political organ of the
national movement, was organized on democratic lines. It relied upon discussion at all levels as
the chief mode for the formation of its policies and arriving at political decisions. Its policies and
resolutions were publicly discussed and debated and then voted upon. Some of the most important
decisions in its history were taken after rich and heated debates and on the basis of open voting.
For example, the decision in 1920 to start the Non-Cooperation Movement was taken with 1,336
voting for and 884 voting against Gandhiji’s resolution. Similarly , at the Lahore Congress in 1929,
where Gandhiji was asked to take charge of the coming Civil Disobedience movement, a
resolution sponsored by him condemning the bomb attack on the Viceroy ’s train by the
revolutionary terrorists was passed by a narrow majority of 942 to 794. During the Second World
War, Gandhiji’s stand on cooperation with the war effort was rejected by Congress in January
1942.
Congress did not insist on uniformity of viewpoints or policy approach within its ranks. It
allowed dissent and not only tolerated but encouraged different and minority opinions to be
openly held and freely expressed. In fact, dissent became a part of its sty le. At independence,
Congress, thus, had the experience of democratic functioning and struggle for civil liberties for
over sixty y ears. Furthermore, the democratic sty le of functioning was not peculiar to Congress.
Most other political organizations such as the Congress Socialist Party , trade unions and Kisan
Sabhas, students’, writers’ and women’s organizations, and professional associations functioned in
the manner of political democracies.
The major leaders of the movement were committed wholeheartedly to civil liberties. It is
worth quoting them. For example, Lokamany a Tilak proclaimed that ‘liberty of the Press and
liberty of speech give birth to a nation and nourish it’.1 Gandhiji wrote in 1922: ‘We must first
make good the right of free speech and free association . . . We must defend these elementary
rights with our lives.’ And again in 1939: ‘Civil liberty consistent with the observance of nonviolence
is the first step towards Swaraj. It is the breath of political and social life. It is the
foundation of freedom. There is no room there for dilution or compromise. It is the water of life.
I have never heard of water being diluted.’2 It thus becomes clear that Gandhiji was fully
committed to liberal, democratic values—only he also saw their deficiencies and believed that
the existing liberal democratic structure, as prevailing in the West, was not adequate in enabling
the people to control the wielders of political power. Jawaharlal Nehru wrote in 1936: ‘If civil
liberties are suppressed a nation loses all vitality and becomes impotent for any thing substantial.’3
Further, the resolution on Fundamental Rights, passed by the Karachi Congress in 1931,
guaranteed the rights of free expression of opinion through speech or the Press, and freedom of
association.
The consensus on the practice of non-violence during the national movement also contributed
to the creation of a temper of democracy in the country . Discussion, debate and persuasion,
backed by public opinion, was emphasized for bringing about political and social change as
opposed to glorification of violence which lies at the heart of authoritarianism.
The defence of civil liberties was also not narrowly conceived in terms of a single group or
viewpoint. Political trends and groups otherwise critical of each other and often at opposite ends
of the political or ideological spectrum vigorously defended each other’s civil rights. The
Moderates—Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Surendranath Banerjea and others—defended the Extremist
leader Tilak’s right to speak and write what he liked. And Congressmen, votaries of non-violence,
defended Bhagat Singh and other revolutionary terrorists being tried in the Lahore and other
conspiracy cases as also the Communists being tried in the Meerut Conspiracy Case. In 1928, the
Public Safety Bill and the Trade Disputes Bill, aimed at suppressing trade unions, the left wing and
the Communists, were opposed in the Central Legislative Assembly not only by Motilal Nehru but
also by Conservatives such as Madan Mohan Malaviy a and M.R. Jay akar, besides political
spokespersons of Indian capitalists such as Ghanshy am Das Birla and Purshottamdas Thakurdas.
The basic notions of popular sovereignty , representative government and civil liberties to be
exercised even against the rulers were not part of India’s tradition nor were they , as some
wrongly hold, ‘the lasting contribution of colonialism’. It was the national movement and not the
bureaucratic, authoritarian colonial state that indigenized, popularized and rooted them in India.
As pointed out earlier, the colonial administration and ideologies not only tampered with civil
liberties and resisted the nationalist demand for the introduction of a parliamentary sy stem based
on popular elections but, from the middle of the nineteenth century , promoted the view that for
geographical, historical and socio-cultural reasons India was unfit for democracy . It was in
opposition to this colonial ideology and practice that the national movement, influenced deeply by
democratic thought and traditions of the Enlightenment, succeeded in making democracy and
civil liberty basic elements of the Indian political ethos. If free India could start and persist with a
democratic polity , it was because the national movement had already firmly established the civil
libertarian and democratic tradition among the Indian people. It was this tradition which was
reflected in the Indian constitution and which proved wrong the Cassandras who had repeatedly
predicted that democracy and civil liberties would not survive in a society so divided by
language, religion, caste and culture and in the absence of a minimum of prosperity or economic
development and literacy as was the case in western Europe and the United States. It is this
tradition which explains why multi-party democracy and civil liberties have met different fates
in India and Pakistan, though both equally constituted colonial India. The political party that
brought about Pakistan was not known for its defence of civil liberties, or its functioning on
democratic lines, or its tolerance towards its political opponents. Democracy was not a significant
part of its political culture. Besides, the national movement and its political culture were weak
precisely in the areas which came to constitute Pakistan.
To conclude, over the y ears, the nationalist movement successfully created an alternative to
colonial and precolonial political culture based on authoritarianism, bureaucratism, obedience and
paternalism. Its ideology and culture of democracy and civil liberties were based on respect for
dissent, freedom of expression, the majority principle, and the right of minority opinion to exist
and develop.
The Indian freedom struggle was perhaps the greatest mass movement in world history . After
1919, it was built around the basic notion that the people had to and could play an active role in
politics and in their own liberation, and it succeeded in politicizing, and drawing into political
action a large part of the Indian people. Gandhiji, the leader who moved and mobilized millions
into politics, all his life propagated the view that the people and not leaders created a mass
movement, whether for the overthrow of the colonial regime or for social transformation. He
added, though, that the success or failure of a movement depended a great deal on the quality of
its leadership.
Saty agraha, as a form of struggle, was based on the active participation of the people and on
the sy mpathy and support of the non-participating millions. In fact, unlike a violent revolution,
which could be waged by a minority of committed cadres and fighters, a non-violent revolution
needed the political mobilization of millions and the passive support of the vast majority .
It may be pointed out, parenthetically , that it was because of the long experience of this kind of
political participation by common people that the founders of the Indian republic, who also led the
freedom struggle in its last phase, could repose full faith in their political capacity . The leaders
unhesitatingly introduced adult franchise despite widespread poverty and illiteracy .
The Indian national movement was fully committed to a polity based on representative
democracy and the full range of civil liberties for the individual. It provided the experience
through which these two could become an integral part of Indian political thinking.
From the very beginning the movement popularized democratic ideas and institutions among
the people and struggled for the introduction of parliamentary institutions on the basis of popular
elections. Starting from the turn of the twentieth century , the nationalists demanded the
introduction of adult franchise. Much attention was also paid to the defence of the freedom of the
Press and speech against attacks by the colonial authorities besides the promotion of other political
and economic policies. Throughout, the movement struggled to expand the semi-democratic
political arena and prevent the rulers fron limiting the existing space within which legal political
activities and peaceful political agitations and mass struggle could be organized.
Congress ministries, formed in 1937, visibly extended civil liberties to the resurgent peasants’,
workers’ and students’ movements as also to radical groups and parties such as the Congress
Socialist party and Communist Party .
From its foundation in 1885, the Indian National Congress, the main political organ of the
national movement, was organized on democratic lines. It relied upon discussion at all levels as
the chief mode for the formation of its policies and arriving at political decisions. Its policies and
resolutions were publicly discussed and debated and then voted upon. Some of the most important
decisions in its history were taken after rich and heated debates and on the basis of open voting.
For example, the decision in 1920 to start the Non-Cooperation Movement was taken with 1,336
voting for and 884 voting against Gandhiji’s resolution. Similarly , at the Lahore Congress in 1929,
where Gandhiji was asked to take charge of the coming Civil Disobedience movement, a
resolution sponsored by him condemning the bomb attack on the Viceroy ’s train by the
revolutionary terrorists was passed by a narrow majority of 942 to 794. During the Second World
War, Gandhiji’s stand on cooperation with the war effort was rejected by Congress in January
1942.
Congress did not insist on uniformity of viewpoints or policy approach within its ranks. It
allowed dissent and not only tolerated but encouraged different and minority opinions to be
openly held and freely expressed. In fact, dissent became a part of its sty le. At independence,
Congress, thus, had the experience of democratic functioning and struggle for civil liberties for
over sixty y ears. Furthermore, the democratic sty le of functioning was not peculiar to Congress.
Most other political organizations such as the Congress Socialist Party , trade unions and Kisan
Sabhas, students’, writers’ and women’s organizations, and professional associations functioned in
the manner of political democracies.
The major leaders of the movement were committed wholeheartedly to civil liberties. It is
worth quoting them. For example, Lokamany a Tilak proclaimed that ‘liberty of the Press and
liberty of speech give birth to a nation and nourish it’.1 Gandhiji wrote in 1922: ‘We must first
make good the right of free speech and free association . . . We must defend these elementary
rights with our lives.’ And again in 1939: ‘Civil liberty consistent with the observance of nonviolence
is the first step towards Swaraj. It is the breath of political and social life. It is the
foundation of freedom. There is no room there for dilution or compromise. It is the water of life.
I have never heard of water being diluted.’2 It thus becomes clear that Gandhiji was fully
committed to liberal, democratic values—only he also saw their deficiencies and believed that
the existing liberal democratic structure, as prevailing in the West, was not adequate in enabling
the people to control the wielders of political power. Jawaharlal Nehru wrote in 1936: ‘If civil
liberties are suppressed a nation loses all vitality and becomes impotent for any thing substantial.’3
Further, the resolution on Fundamental Rights, passed by the Karachi Congress in 1931,
guaranteed the rights of free expression of opinion through speech or the Press, and freedom of
association.
The consensus on the practice of non-violence during the national movement also contributed
to the creation of a temper of democracy in the country . Discussion, debate and persuasion,
backed by public opinion, was emphasized for bringing about political and social change as
opposed to glorification of violence which lies at the heart of authoritarianism.
The defence of civil liberties was also not narrowly conceived in terms of a single group or
viewpoint. Political trends and groups otherwise critical of each other and often at opposite ends
of the political or ideological spectrum vigorously defended each other’s civil rights. The
Moderates—Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Surendranath Banerjea and others—defended the Extremist
leader Tilak’s right to speak and write what he liked. And Congressmen, votaries of non-violence,
defended Bhagat Singh and other revolutionary terrorists being tried in the Lahore and other
conspiracy cases as also the Communists being tried in the Meerut Conspiracy Case. In 1928, the
Public Safety Bill and the Trade Disputes Bill, aimed at suppressing trade unions, the left wing and
the Communists, were opposed in the Central Legislative Assembly not only by Motilal Nehru but
also by Conservatives such as Madan Mohan Malaviy a and M.R. Jay akar, besides political
spokespersons of Indian capitalists such as Ghanshy am Das Birla and Purshottamdas Thakurdas.
The basic notions of popular sovereignty , representative government and civil liberties to be
exercised even against the rulers were not part of India’s tradition nor were they , as some
wrongly hold, ‘the lasting contribution of colonialism’. It was the national movement and not the
bureaucratic, authoritarian colonial state that indigenized, popularized and rooted them in India.
As pointed out earlier, the colonial administration and ideologies not only tampered with civil
liberties and resisted the nationalist demand for the introduction of a parliamentary sy stem based
on popular elections but, from the middle of the nineteenth century , promoted the view that for
geographical, historical and socio-cultural reasons India was unfit for democracy . It was in
opposition to this colonial ideology and practice that the national movement, influenced deeply by
democratic thought and traditions of the Enlightenment, succeeded in making democracy and
civil liberty basic elements of the Indian political ethos. If free India could start and persist with a
democratic polity , it was because the national movement had already firmly established the civil
libertarian and democratic tradition among the Indian people. It was this tradition which was
reflected in the Indian constitution and which proved wrong the Cassandras who had repeatedly
predicted that democracy and civil liberties would not survive in a society so divided by
language, religion, caste and culture and in the absence of a minimum of prosperity or economic
development and literacy as was the case in western Europe and the United States. It is this
tradition which explains why multi-party democracy and civil liberties have met different fates
in India and Pakistan, though both equally constituted colonial India. The political party that
brought about Pakistan was not known for its defence of civil liberties, or its functioning on
democratic lines, or its tolerance towards its political opponents. Democracy was not a significant
part of its political culture. Besides, the national movement and its political culture were weak
precisely in the areas which came to constitute Pakistan.
To conclude, over the y ears, the nationalist movement successfully created an alternative to
colonial and precolonial political culture based on authoritarianism, bureaucratism, obedience and
paternalism. Its ideology and culture of democracy and civil liberties were based on respect for
dissent, freedom of expression, the majority principle, and the right of minority opinion to exist
and develop.
No comments:
Post a Comment