Introduction
The Indian National Movement has been studied and interpreted differently by scholars over time. Two major perspectives on this subject are the colonialist view and the nationalist view. While both focus on the same historical events, their understanding, motivation, and conclusions differ greatly. In this post, we will discuss the key differences between these two views to help students understand how history can be seen in different ways depending on the background and purpose of the historians.
What is the Colonialist View?
The colonialist view was developed by British or pro-British historians during colonial rule. These historians looked at Indian history from the perspective of the British Empire. They believed that British rule was good for India and portrayed the Indian National Movement as a negative force or as a disturbance to peace and progress.
Main Features of Colonialist View:
- They considered British rule a civilizing mission.
- They believed India was backward and needed British governance to modernize.
- They saw the national movement as an emotional reaction, not a rational struggle.
- They argued that Indian leaders were not truly patriotic but driven by personal ambition.
- They claimed that India was not a nation before the British came.
What is the Nationalist View?
The nationalist view was developed by Indian historians and freedom fighters who took pride in the national movement. They considered it a heroic and rational struggle of Indian people to gain freedom from foreign rule. This perspective shows the sacrifices, unity, and efforts of Indians in fighting for independence.
Main Features of Nationalist View:
- They believed that the Indian National Movement was a genuine mass struggle for freedom.
- They showed India as an ancient civilization with unity in diversity.
- They highlighted the contributions of leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru, Subhas Chandra Bose, etc.
- They viewed British rule as exploitative and harmful to Indian economy and society.
- They celebrated the role of people from all sections—students, workers, women, and peasants.
Key Differences Between the Two Views
| Aspect | Colonialist View | Nationalist View |
|---|---|---|
| Perspective | British or pro-British scholars | Indian freedom fighters and scholars |
| Purpose | To justify British rule | To glorify the freedom struggle |
| Role of British | Saviors and modernizers | Exploiters and foreign rulers |
| View of Leaders | Self-interested or misguided | Patriotic and visionary |
| Mass Movements | Seen as mob behavior or violent | Seen as heroic and democratic |
Examples of Colonialist Writings
- John Strachey: Said India was not a nation and had no unity.
- Valentine Chirol: Criticized Indian leaders and opposed Indian nationalism.
- British Gazetteers: Often presented revolts and movements as law-and-order issues.
Examples of Nationalist Writings
- R.C. Majumdar: Wrote detailed histories showing India’s ancient unity and struggle.
- Bipan Chandra: Emphasized the rational, secular, and democratic nature of the movement.
- S.N. Sen: Highlighted people’s role in revolts and uprisings.
Conclusion
The colonialist and nationalist views of the Indian National Movement are very different in their purpose and interpretation. While the colonialist view tries to justify British rule and downplays Indian efforts, the nationalist view celebrates the courage and unity of Indians in their fight for freedom. Today, modern historians try to go beyond both views to offer more balanced and inclusive accounts. However, understanding these two perspectives helps us appreciate the different lenses through which history can be written and understood.