CHANGE AND CONTINUITY

• The period from 1885 to 1947 marked a significant transition in Indian history, but it remained grievously incomplete.
• The British mindset in 1885 was characterized by an illusion of permanence, backed by an ideology of paternalistic benevolence.
• Political decision-making and administration were dominated by Europeans, with natives having minimal representation in governance.
• The Indian Civil Service was predominantly European, with only 16 of approximately 900 posts held by Indians in the early 1880s.
• The introduction of local self-government was superficial and mainly aimed at financial decentralization, with little real power for Indians.
• British officials dismissed Indian aspirations, as illustrated by Evelyn Baring’s remark about not allowing local discussions on significant issues.
• Indian collaborators were essential for daily administration, but the British felt confident in managing these relationships.
• Post-1857, the British renewed ties with princes, zamindars, and other local notables, reinforcing their power base.
• The English-educated intelligentsia was beginning to disillusion the British by the 1880s, as Macaulay’s vision of a subservient elite started to falter.
• Initial middle-class ambitions led to provincial associations but were still seen as a minor irritation by the British.
• The British underestimated the Congress, viewing it as representing a microscopic minority, with little understanding of the emerging Indian identity.
• Statements by British officials reflected a propaganda mentality, downplaying the potential for a unified Indian nation.
• All-India connections were limited to a small group of English-educated professionals; Congress resolutions did not resonate with the broader population.
• Lower-class discontent was widespread due to extreme poverty, with significant agrarian movements emerging before 1885.
• Anti-zamindari movements in Bengal, anti-moneylender riots in the Maharashtra Deccan, and tribal uprisings in Andhra highlighted growing unrest.
• Many of these movements targeted immediate oppressors rather than the British rulers, indicating a lack of broader nationalist sentiment.
• Class tensions often overlapped with communal divisions, leading to policies of divide and rule by the British.
• Examples included tensions between Muslim peasants and Hindu gentry in Bengal, and conflicts between Moplah cultivators and Hindu landlords in Malabar.
• Such divisions were strategically exploited by the British to maintain control and prevent a unified national movement.
• The national movement expanded beyond its elite origins, with the Congress by 1936 claiming to represent the common people, including large numbers of peasants and cultivators.
• The movement experienced waves of growth and decline, with significant periods of activity from 1905–1908, 1919–1922, 1928–1934, 1942, and 1945–1946.
• Initially focused in regions like Bengal, Maharashtra, and Punjab, the movement spread to Gujarat, Bihar, U.P., Central Provinces, and Andhra.
• The participant base shifted from city intellectuals to small-town lower middle classes, large segments of the peasantry, and influential bourgeois groups.
• New forms of resistance emerged, including swadeshi, boycott, passive resistance, Gandhian satyagraha, and constructive village work, alongside revolutionary actions such as terrorism, strikes, and communal violence.
• By the 1930s, organizations like Kisan Sabhas and trade unions became influential, and popular movements arose in several princely states.
• Despite setbacks and contradictions, the movement marked the entry of the masses into political life, leading to the withdrawal of the British in 1947.
• This withdrawal followed a changed international context and mass pressure, despite previous British assurances about maintaining the Empire.
• The quick elimination of princely states and the abolition of zamindari paved the way for parliamentary democracy based on universal franchise.
• Significant social changes occurred, including the rise of wealthy peasant groups and a bourgeoisie that, while weaker than classic capitalist standards, showed strength relative to other Third World countries.
• The transition to independence was paradoxical, as the Congress, while opposing the Raj, increasingly mirrored its structures and systems, replacing white bureaucrats with brown ones.
• Independence Day was marked by contradictions, such as mass celebrations juxtaposed with communal violence and the departure of Gandhi in a struggle against societal discord.
• The Partition and ensuing riots highlighted the failures of the national movement’s ideals, with many aspirations from the struggle remaining unfulfilled.
• Key aspirations included Gandhi’s vision of Ram-rajya for peasants and leftist ideals of social revolution, both of which were largely unrealized.
• The challenges of achieving a complete bourgeois transformation and successful capitalist development persisted after the transfer of power in 1947.
• The exploration of these contradictions and their roots requires examining the history of anti-imperialist movements in modern India.
• A review of the existing historical literature on the subject is necessary to frame this exploration.

OLD AND NEW APPROACHES

• Writing a general history of the last sixty years of British rule has become both more exciting and more challenging due to the abundance of recent studies on the national movement.
• Up until a decade ago, literature consisted mainly of studies on Viceroys, constitutional developments, biographies of Indian leaders, and general surveys of nationalism.
• The earlier works relied heavily on published secondary sources, as access to official archives was limited, and systematic searches for private papers were rare.
• A rough consensus existed among scholars like Chirol, Sitaramayya, Tarachand, and R.C. Majumdar, depicting an English-educated ‘middle class’ nurtured by British rule that ultimately turned against their rulers.
• Interpretations of nationalism varied, with imperialist scholars emphasizing divisions within Indian society and the limited appeal of the Gandhian Congress, while nationalist historians viewed the movement as a natural uprising against foreign domination.
• Nationalist historians often lacked depth, with professional Indian scholars shying away from the freedom movement until the 1950s, focusing instead on regional movements against Mughal rule.
• Distortions were evident, particularly in R.C. Majumdar’s works, which presented a cult of the educated Bengali Hindu and accepted the two-nation theory, oversimplifying Hindu-Muslim relations.
• Nationalist writing frequently glorified a few leaders while neglecting the socio-economic roots of the national movement, with imperialist scholars avoiding these themes.
• Although some early Marxist works offered valuable insights, they often lacked depth and sometimes employed overly simplistic class analyses.
• The current state of historical research benefits from the greater availability of archival material, private papers, and local sources discovered through field studies.
• Government archives are now accessible for the entire colonial period, with significant collections available at places like the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library.
• Historians increasingly recognize the value of field studies and interviews, enriching their understanding of the period.
• New hypotheses have emerged, particularly from the Cambridge school, which interprets nationalism through the lens of uneven development and competition among provincial elites.
• Scholars like Anil Seal, Broomfield, and Judith Brown suggest that patriotism was often a rationalization for narrow material motives, paralleling views held by imperialists like Valentine Chirol.
• In 1973, the Cambridge school declared that the elite approach had failed and called for a shift from province and elite to locality and faction.
• This shift was explained by a combination of administrative pressures and opportunities as the British sought new collaborators amid constitutional reforms.
• Notable scholars such as Washbrook, Baker, and Bayly applied this approach to various regions, yielding valuable new data.
• However, certain continuities with the earlier Cambridge approach persist, particularly in downplaying the roles of ideology and patriotic motivation.
• Cynicism can be a healthy corrective to the hero-worship often found in nationalist historiography, yet it is crucial to distinguish between the significance of ideas and the possibly selfish motives behind them.
• The economic and racist dimensions of the colonial situation are often overlooked, as exemplified by Washbrook’s analysis of south Indian rural-local bosses, who were products of the colonial economy.
• The disparity between the salaries of British officials and the average Indian in the early 20th century highlights the contradictions within the colonial system.
• The patron-client model may be overextended when applied to diverse political contexts, suggesting a tendency to equate politics with factionalism.
• The approach based on Namier’s studies of mid-eighteenth century England may not adequately address major conflicts involving large masses, as seen in Bayly’s abrupt end to his study of Allahabad in 1920.
• Recently, historians like Bayly, Washbrook, and Baker have begun to focus more on straightforward economic history, moving away from patron and faction studies.
• Despite the notoriety of the Cambridge School, significant work by other historians, both Indian and foreign, should not be overlooked.
• Scholars from Sussex and Canberra, associated with D.A. Low, have offered open ideas and valuable insights into periods of mass upsurge and peasant movements.
• Studies on British Labour attitudes to imperialism and the federal experiment provide further context for understanding this historical period.
• American contributions include studies of Arya Samaj, caste politics, and peasant movements, enriching the discourse on nationalism.
• Among writings on Muslims, notable authors include Aziz Ahmed, Ziya-ul Hasan Faruki, and Gail Minault, contributing to understanding social and political trends.
• Indian Marxist historians have sometimes mirrored nationalist sentiments, oscillating between negative estimates and hero-worship of leaders like Tilak, Gandhi, and Nehru.
• Marxists have produced detailed studies of Moderate economic ideology and political movements, along with literature on Left movements.
• Both Marxist and non-Marxist scholars are increasingly engaging in grass-roots studies, emphasizing a history from below.
• Fieldwork brings historians closer to sociology and social-anthropology, encouraging interaction between disciplines that has been largely absent in India.
• Indian anthropology’s focus has shifted from tribal studies to caste structures, yet modern historians should integrate valuable data from such research.
• As Andre Beteille noted, while detailed studies of caste associations exist, there is a scarcity of research on peasant organizations.
• Social history in India remains neglected, often equated with social reform efforts.
• Research on class formation and class consciousness is just beginning, with limited scientific historical or sociological analysis of vernacular literatures, which are crucial to modern Indian history.
• Literature reflects the ideas of a minority in a largely illiterate society; hence, methods to study folk culture (songs, dances, proverbs, etc.) proposed by historians like Eugene Weber are still needed in India.
• Historians of modern India need support from economists, but there is sometimes contempt from formalist and mathematically inclined economists towards economic history.
• Understanding the colonial economy often requires revisiting nationalist economists from the early 20th century, whose insights, while groundbreaking at the time, may seem dated now.
• Historians have done significant work on eighteenth and nineteenth-century trade, finance, revenue policies, and agrarian relations but less on the post-1900 period, where economic training is increasingly necessary due to growing complexities and data.
• Contributions from economists have proven valuable, as seen in works by the Thorners, George Blyn, and Amiya Bagchi, along with various research papers in relevant journals.
• The recent expansion of research on modern India has rendered existing textbooks and studies outdated, necessitating a synthesis of new material, which is a goal of this volume.
• The author acknowledges inherent bias in historiography and outlines their principal assumptions:
  • Colonial exploitation and resistance are central themes.
  • Internal tensions within Indian society should not be ignored, as often done by nationalist historiography.
  • Class tensions are more decisive in the long run, but class and class-consciousness must be analyzed skillfully.
  • There is a common elitist approach in nationalist, communalist, Cambridge, and some Marxist historiography, which overlooks the populist level of anti-imperialism.
• The interaction of elite and populist levels is crucial for understanding the historical pattern of continuity through change.
• In 1890, when Moderate Congress politics dominated nationalism, a Bombay Governor expressed ignorance about the sentiments of the uneducated, highlighting disconnects between elites and the masses.
• Mahatma Gandhi later mobilized a nationwide movement around issues of salt and land revenue, indicating underlying tensions that merit deeper exploration.