Hello everyone,
Today we cover perspectives of Indian National movement. There are 5 ten-mark, 0 fifteen-mark, and 1 twenty-mark questions in the last 12 years PYQs.
COLONIALIST PERSPECTIVE
Key historians
- James Mill – History of India
- Mountstuart Elphinstone
- Henry M. Elliot & John Dowson
- William Wilson Hunter
- Vincent Arthur Smith
- Additional advocates: John Strachey, Sir John Robert Seeley, W. W. Hunter, Herbert Hope Risley, Valentine Chirol
Main arguments
- Denied India’s nationhood; called it only a “geographical expression.”
- Stressed caste, tribe, religion and language as permanent barriers to unity.
- Claimed British “benevolent despotism” alone prevented “sanguinary strife.”
- Vincent Arthur Smith: without outside authority India would break into “mutually repellent molecules.”
- National movement dismissed as a selfish “Bengali Babu” agitation lacking a genuine national base.
NATIONALIST RESPONSES
Two explanatory lines
- Western-influence thesis – English education and liberal ideas awakened modern nationalism.
- Indigenous-roots thesis – Cultural-political unity long pre-dated colonial contact.
Representative scholars and claims
- Surendranath Banerjea – India a “nation-in-the-making”; middle class tasked with unification.
- Bisheshwar Prasad – Anti-colonial resentment visible in uprisings culminating in 1857.
- R. C. Majumdar – Early vacuum of national identity filled by the Indian National Congress.
- Tara Chand – Nationhood arose from modern economic-political change.
- Radha Kumud Mookerji – Fundamental Unity of India (1914): enduring geographic-cultural cohesion.
- Har Bilas Sarda – Hindu Superiority (1906): ancient Hindus “the greatest nation.”
- Lala Lajpat Rai – Young India (1916): India has been a nation for 2 000 years.
- K. P. Jayaswal – Hindu Polity (1924): ancient India’s republics matched modern Britain.
- Rabindranath Tagore – Nationalism as inclusive, assimilative civilisation.
- Mahatma Gandhi – Spiritual-moral unity rooted in past.
- Subhas Chandra Bose – The Indian Struggle: “fundamental unity” despite diversity.
- Jawaharlal Nehru – “Unity in diversity”; a cultural mosaic.
Factors cited by nationalists
- Economic exploitation (high land revenue, indigo coercion, drain of wealth, military charges).
- Discriminatory policies (Lord Lytton, Ilbert Bill controversy, Partition of Bengal 1905).
- Rise of an educated middle class leading politics (underlined by Banerjea, Lajpat Rai, C. F. Andrews & Girija Mukerji).
Idealism and leadership
- Leaders portrayed as patriotic, selfless, transcending caste, class, religion and uniting a pan-Indian anti-imperialist front.
MARXIST APPROACHES
Early Marxists
- M. N. Roy – India in Transition (1922): nationalism grows from world capitalism; bourgeois dominance; only the working class can be truly revolutionary.
- R. P. Dutt – India Today (1947): 1857 feudal; Congress first a “safety-valve” of British policy, later a bourgeois-led national force.
- R. Desai’s five phases
- Intelligentsia (Rammohan Roy) to 1885
- Bourgeoisie 1885-1905
- Lower-middle class 1905-1918 (Swadeshi)
- Peasants & workers 1918-1934 – elite still in charge
- 1934-1939 – Congress Socialists (petty bourgeois); rise of communalism
Common Marxist themes
- Fundamental conflict with imperialism plus inner class contradictions.
- Bourgeois “vacillation”: backed nationalism yet feared radical mass action.
- R. P. Dutt dubbed Gandhi “mascot of the bourgeoisie”; halts of 1922 and 1934 seen as bourgeois safeguards.
Later refinements
- Bipan Chandra (1966): autonomy of ideas; leaders not mere class agents.
- Bipan Chandra (1988): adopts Gramsci, views movement as “war of position”; Gandhian non-violence a mobilisation strategy.
- Sumit Sarkar: uses Trotsky’s “substitutionism” and Gramsci’s “organic vs. traditional intellectuals.” Gandhi sometimes overlaps but is not a puppet.
CAMBRIDGE SCHOOL
Principal historians
John Gallagher, Ronald Robinson, Anil Seal, Gordon Johnson, C. A. Bayly, David Washbrook, C. J. Baker, B. R. Tomlinson
Core propositions
- Main conflicts lay within Indian society, not between Indians and British.
- Politics driven by elite rivalry for scarce offices created by the Raj.
- Mobilisation “horizontal” along caste/community lines; later work stresses “vertical” factional patronage networks.
- Movements such as Non-Co-operation and Civil Disobedience labelled “mimic warfare” or “simulated combat.”
- Nationalist rhetoric used to bargain with the colonial state; leaders motivated by self-interest.
Criticisms
- Accused of echoing colonial denials of anti-imperialism and of ignoring popular agency and ideological commitment.
SUBALTERN STUDIES
Founders and contributors
Ranajit Guha, Gyanendra Pandey, Shahid Amin, David Hardiman, Sumit Sarkar (initially); later Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Partha Chatterjee
Tenets
- Elitist historiography (colonial & nationalist) excluded the “politics of the people.”
- Subaltern classes (peasants, tribals, workers) possessed an autonomous political domain: informal, horizontal, often spontaneous and violent, rooted in local solidarities.
- Bourgeois and colonial ideologies failed to achieve hegemony over this domain.
Influential essays
- Guha: “On Some Aspects…”, “Prose of Counterinsurgency.”
- Pandey: Awadh peasant revolt independent of Congress.
- Amin: “Gandhi as Mahatma” – popular magical interpretation of Gandhi.
- Hardiman: Tribal politics in Gujarat.
- Sarkar: Subaltern militancy often out-paced leaders.
Later direction
- Post-modern turn: Spivak (“Can the subaltern speak?”), Chatterjee (“subalternity of the elite”); scepticism about nationalism; preference for “fragments” and discourse analysis.
Main criticisms
- Overstated autonomy of subalterns; later work seen as losing focus on material conditions; “subaltern” category arguably too broad.
DALIT PERSPECTIVES
Leading reformers
- Jyotirao Phule – Satyashodhak Samaj; Aryan invasion thesis.
- Narayana Guru – “One caste, one religion, one god.”
- B. R. Ambedkar – Mahad Satyagraha 1927; demand for separate electorates; Independent Labour Party; drafting of constitutional safeguards; mass conversion to Buddhism 1956.
Critique of mainstream nationalism
- Congress prioritised political over social emancipation; dominated by upper castes (“Brahmin-Baniya party”).
- Poona Pact 1932 forced withdrawal of separate electorate demand.
- Political freedom meaningless without annihilation of caste.
Impact
- Inserted caste justice into national agenda; won constitutional guarantees (Articles 15-17); broadened meaning of Indian freedom.
RADICAL HUMANIST PERSPECTIVE (M. N. Roy)
Philosophical foundations
- Primacy of the individual; freedom and truth as biological drives.
- Humans inherently rational and moral; ethics stem from reason.
- History shaped by ideas as well as material forces; introduces “Physical Realism.”
Critique of Indian National Movement
- Collectivist nationalism stifles individual liberty; risks new authoritarianism.
- Sought political, not ethical, revolution; compromised with religion and conservatism; left superstition intact.
Critique of Marxism
- Over-emphasis on economics; dialectical materialism dispensable; communist regimes authoritarian; ethics neglected.
Alternative programme
- Philosophical renaissance before social change.
- Decentralised radical democracy via people’s committees; party-less politics.
- Economic re-organisation to foster individual development.
- Ethical-moral culture built on rationality.
Objections raised
- Vision branded impractical and overly idealistic; underestimates collective identity; hard to implement without existing structures.
COMPARATIVE SNAPSHOT
| Perspective | Unity of India | Motor of struggle | View of leadership | Place of the masses |
| Colonialist | Denied | – | British guardians | Largely invisible |
| Nationalist | Real, ancient or emerging | Patriotism + economic grievance | Idealist patriots | Essential but led |
| Marxist (early) | Secondary to class | Bourgeoisie vs. imperialism | Bourgeois manipulators | Growing yet curbed |
| Marxist (later) | Cultural-ideological war | Multi-class “war of position” | Organic/traditional intellectuals | Centre of hegemony |
| Cambridge | Product of elite bargains | Factional competition | Self-interested office-seekers | Mobilised via patrons |
| Subaltern | Many local unities | Peasant/tribal agency | Often irrelevant | Primary historical subject |
| Dalit | Unity irrelevant without caste justice | Anti-caste + anti-colonial twin agenda | Often oppressive elites | Dalits self-mobilise |
| Radical Humanist | Secondary to individual liberty | Ethical-rational awakening | Should dissolve elite power | Empowered individuals |
Practice Questions (Write before 4 p.m.)
Question 1. Analyse the Marxist perspective of the nature of Indian National Movement. [2021/10m]
Question 2. Critically examine the Radical Humanist perspective on Indian National movement. [2016/10 m]
Question 3. Discuss the contribution of the Dalit struggle to establish egalitarianism in Indian society during freedom movement. [2024/20m]
📌 Model answers drop this evening on the Telegram channel: https://t.me/psirbyamitpratap – keep notifications on.
See you tomorrow on Day 17. Keep practicing!
—Amit Pratap Singh & Team
A quick note on submissions of copies and mentorship
- 2025 Mains writers: Cohort 1 of O-AWFG started on 12 June and ATS on 15 June. The above practice set will serve as your revision tool, just do not miss booking your mentorship sessions for personalised feedback especially for starting tests. Come with your evaluated test copies.
- 2026 Mains writers – keep uploading through your usual dashboard. Act on the feedback and improve consistently.
- Alternate between mini-tests (O-AWFG) and full mocks (ATS) has been designed to tackle speed, content depth, and structured revision—line-by-line evaluation pinpoints your weaknesses and errors. Follow your PSIR O-AWFG & ATS schedule and use the model answers to enrich your content, as rankers recommended based on their own success.
