Script

Rakib: Assalamualaikum. .. . . . . . . . . Welcome to our presentation. Now we are going to discuss an interesting
topic, the origin of Indian Nationalism, historical debate, and perspective. On behalf of my Group, I am Rakib
Hossain.

*F/S/J= and I am ……… . Firstly, we have to know what nationalism is. Nationalism is an ideology and
movement holding that the nation, a group sharing culture, language, or values, should be congruent with the state.
so, Nationalism refers to a group of people united by the same ideology.
❖ According to Joya Chatterji, she defines in his book, Bengal Divided: Hindu Communalism and Partition,
1932–1947, Indian nationalism was not strictly secular. She argues that nationalist campaigns "often
manipulated religious imagery and issues to win popular support.

Rakib: and kk aziz he define in his book, Nationalism can be a sentiment, a policy, a myth, a dogma, or a doctrine.
It is a sentiment when it is the love of a common soil, race, language, or culture.

See this poster, I refer to the many types of nationalism. Including

Now, I will discuss the major factors behind the Origins of Indian Nationalism. Including in

• Political Organizations, 2. Leadership and Mobilization.

❖ The growth of Indian nationalism started in the nineteenth century. Political unification of India, the fall
of India's old social and economic system, the beginning of modern trade and industry, and the rise of
new social classes laid the basis of nationalism.

They began to apply these political ideas to their own country and started to resent the two centuries of British rule.
❖ Two groups were formed to liberate India from foreign rule. The Indian National Congress or Congress
Party, in 1885, and the Muslim League in 1906.

❖ Until World War II, the vast majority of Indians had little interest in nationalism. The situation changed
as over a million Indians enlisted in the British army. In return for their service, the British government
promised reforms that would eventually lead to self-government.

The Origins of the Controversy:

The debate over nationalism originated in the essay of James Mill ("History of India") in which he said that India
was not a nation but a geographical expression. There was no universal consciousness among the people living in
India, and Indians were divided along lines of caste, religion, and language. This interpretation was supported by
British administrators such as Lord Curzon, Herbert Risley, and V Shirol.
Cambridge School historians, such as Anil Seal in his book "The Emergence of Indian Nationalism," insisted that
there was no conflict between the British and the Indians, or between imperial rule and the Indian people. Rather,
the main conflict was between the Indians.

Western View:
❖ Benedict Anderson (“Imagined Communities”), argues that Indian Nationalism emerged because of British rule.

❖ Indian View:

❖ According to Radha Kumud Mukerji, nationalism existed in ancient Indian society, particularly in Hindu
culture. Mukerji states that ancient Indian society had a systematic bureaucracy, rules, and laws. Big
empires were set up by the kings like Chandragupta Maurya, Asoka and the Gupta Kings. Trade and
commerce developed during these empires.

➢ The debate on nationalism originated in the work of James Mill (“History of India”), where he held that
India is not a nation but a geographical expression. There was no universal consciousness among the
people living in India, and that has led to Indians being divided on numerous lines of caste, religion,
ethnicity, and language. This interpretation was supported by British Administrators like Lord Curzon,
Herbert Risley, and V. Chirol.

➢ Historians belonging to the Cambridge school, like Anil Seal, in his book titled “The Emergence of
Indian Nationalism,” asserted that there was no conflict between the British and the Indians or between
imperialist rule and the Indian people. Instead, the main contradiction was among the Indians.

The Debate on Nationalism

I. Jaya Chattopadhyay, in her book Bengal Divided: Hindu Communalism and Partition, 1932–1947 (1994),
discusses Indian nationalism and her transformation into communalism primarily in the introduction.
Indian nationalism was not completely secular. He argues that nationalist campaigns "often
manipulate religious imagery and issues to gain popular support." In fact, Indian nationalism was not
a movement of any particular religion or group, but rather a political process within the framework of
colonial rule. She argues that India did not become independent from the British Empire based on all-India
nationalism. The British left India in 1947 for various reasons. Either they feel that India is no longer
profitable, or they have failed to adapt to it. The Indians wanted the British to be expelled from India, but
they could not drive the British out of the country through an overwhelming mass movement. All-India
nationalism did not follow a linear path. The complex circumstances in which it was born produced some
other competing loyalties and nationalisms that it never fully embraced.

II. R.C. Majumdar: He has a slightly different opinion. According to him, not only nationalism but also other
factors (such as World War II, British economic weakness) were important for independence.

9. Contribution to the independence movement:

Nationalism creates a sense of unity and identity among the people. Railways, newspapers, and the English
language all create unity. The Indian National Congress became the centre of the national movement and
gradually became an all-India movement. The anti-British movement intensified immediately after the
passage of the 'Quit India' resolution, which was initiated by Mahatma Gandhi at a session of the All India
Congress Committee in Bombay on 8 August 1942. Gandhi gave the nation the symbolic mantra of "Do or
Die" (Do Ya Marro), which marked the beginning of a final and intense struggle for freedom. In an attempt
to paralyze the movement, the British government responded quickly by arresting all the top Congress
leaders (Gandhi, Nehru, and Patel) in the early hours of 9 August. Despite the leadership vacuum, the
movement became a popular and spontaneous rebellion, which included strikes, protests, and attacks on
symbols of British authority across India.

10. Contribution to the independence movement:

European Nationalism and Indian Nationalism are not the same; there are fundamental differences between
them. European nationalism was primarily based on an ethno-linguistic foundation, where the idea of “one
language, one culture, one state” was central, aiming to create a homogeneous nation. Indian nationalism
was influenced by European ideas, but a distinct political force formed in Indian reality. Countries such as
Germany and Italy were united from small regions to become powerful nation-states. On the other hand,
multinational empires collapsed. In the 19th and 20th centuries, this idea took an aggressive turn, paving
the way for horrific conflicts such as World Wars I and II. And the main goal of Indian nationalism was
freedom from colonial rule.
Moreover, Partha Chatterjee in his “Derivative Discourse” theory argued that Indian nationalism was not
merely a copy of the West; while it adopted Western models in the material domain (such as science and
governance), it preserved its own cultural identity in the spiritual domain.

European nationalism took place through wars and revolutions, i.e., Napoleon's victories, the nationalist
ideology of France spread throughout Europe, while in India, nationalism took place through constitutional
and non-violent movements.

This European nationalism was people-oriented, but in India, it was first the elite, then the people. It is
more multidimensional, constitutional, and anti-colonial than European nationalism.

11. Literature Review:

. N. Gerald Barrier, "A Documentary Study of British Policy Toward Indian Nationalism (1885–1909)" by
B. L. Grover.

This article mainly analyses the attitudes and policies of the British, how the British government viewed the
Indian National Congress, and what policy it adopted towards them. In particular, an attempt has been made
to understand their role in the early stages of Indian nationalism (1885–1909).
Criticism:

According to author B. L. Grover, he did not discuss many important issues, such as the Hindu-Muslim
riots. He has portrayed the Congress as much more united and strong, which in reality is not entirely
correct. Relying solely on British documents, his analysis has become somewhat one-sided.

2. Brij B. Khare, in his book The Indian Journal of Political Science, Oct. - Dec. 1989, Vol. 50, No. 4 (Oct.
- Dec. 1989), pp. 533-559 (Oct. - Dec. 1989), said that the main reason for independence was the strength
of the nationalist movement. Indian nationalism was the driving force of the independence movement, but
it was not fully united.

Conclution:

So, Indian nationalism was not a movement of any particular religion or group, but rather a
political process within the framework of colonial rule. India did not become independent
from the British Empire based on all-India nationalism. The British left India in 1947 for
various reasons. Either they feel that India is no longer profitable, or they have failed to adapt
to it. The Indians wanted the British to be expelled from India, but they could not drive the
British out of the country through an overwhelming mass movement. All-India nationalism
did not follow a linear path. The complex circumstances in which it was born produced some
other competing loyalties and nationalisms that it never fully embraced.