THE REAWAKENING OF INDIA

--by

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU

( An excerpt from Glimpses of World History )

[ ( In this letter, Nehruji speaks of

Raja RamMohan Roy,

Devendhra Nath Tagore,

Brahmo Samaj,

Bankim Chandra Chatterjee,

Dayanand Saraswathy,

Arya Samaj,

Ramakrishna Paramahamsa,

Swami Vivekananda,

--

Birth of Indian National Congress(1885)

Partition of Bengal (1907)

BalaGangadhar Thilak,

Problems of Untouchables in India

********************************************************************

‘I have told you of the consolidation of British rule in

India and of the policy which brought poverty and misery to our people.

Peace certainly came, and orderly government also, and both were welcome

after the disorders which followed the break-up of the Moghal empire.

Organized gangs of thieves and dacoits had been put down. But peace and

order were worth little to the man in the field or the factory, who was

crushed under the grinding weight of the domination. But again, I would

remind you, it is foolish to get angry with a country or with a people with

Britian or the British. They were as much the victims of circumstances as we

were. Our study of history has shown us that life is often very cruel and

callous. To get excited over it, or merely to blame people, is foolish and does

not help. It is much more sensible to try to understand the causes of poverty

and misery and exploitation, and then try to remove them. If we fail to do

so, and fall back in the march of events, we are bound to suffer. India fell

back in this way. She became a bit of a fossil; her society was crystallized in

old tradition; her social system lost its energy and life and began to stagnate.

It is not surprising that India suffered. The British happened to be the agents

to make her suffer. If they had not been there, perhaps some other people

might have acted in the same way.

But one great benefit the English did confer on India. The

very impact of their new and vigorous life shook up India and brought about

a feeling of political unity and nationality. Perhaps such a shock, painful as it

was, was needed to rejuvenate our ancient country and people.

English education, intended to produce clerks, also put Indians in touch

with current western thought. A new class began to arise, the English

educated class, small in numbers and cut off from the masses, but still

destined to take the lead in the new nationalist movements. This class, at

first, was full of admiration for England and the English ideas of liberty. Just

then people in England were talking a great deal about liberty and

democracy. All this was rather vague, and in India England was ruling

despotically for her own benefit. But it was hoped, rather optimistically, that

England would confer freedom on India at the right time.

The impact of Western idea on India had its effect on

Hindu religion also to some extent. The masses were not affected and, as I

have told you, the British Government’s policy actually helped the orthodox

people. But the new middle class that was arising, consisting of government

servants and professional people, were affected. Early in the nineteenth

century an attempt to reform Hinduism on Western lines took place in

Bengal. Of course had Hinduism innumerable reformers in the past, some of

these I have mentioned to you in the course of these letters. But the new

attempt was definitely influenced by Christianity and Western thought. The

marker of this attempt was Raja Ram Mohan Roy, a great man and a scholar,

whose name we have come across already in connection with abolition of

sati. He knew Sanskrit and Arabic and many other languages well, and he

carefully studied various religions. He was opposed to religious ceremonies

and pujas and the like, and he pleaded for social reform and women’s

education. The society he founded was called the Brahmo Samaj. It was,

and has remained, a small organization , so far as numbers go, and it has

been confined to the English-knowing people of Bengal. But it has had been

considerable influence on the life of Bengal. The Tagore family took to it,

and for long the port Rabindranath’s father, known as Maharshi Debendra

Nath Tagore, was the prop and pillar of the Samaj. Another leading member

was Keshab Chander Sen.

Later in the century another religious reform movement

took place. This was in the Punjab, and the founder was Swami Dayananda

Saraswati. Another society was started, called the Arya Samaj. This also

rejected many of the later growths of Hinduism and combated caste. Its cry

was “Back to the Vedas”. Although it was a reforming movement,

influenced no doubt by Muslim and Christian thought, it was in essence an

aggressive militant movement. And so it happened, curiously, that the Arya

Samaj which, of many Hindu sects, probably came nearest to Islam, became

a rival and opponent of Islam. It was an attempt to convert the defensive and

static Hinduism into an aggressive missionary religion. It was meant to

revive Hinduism. What gave the movement some strength was a colouring

of nationalism. It was, indeed, Hindu nationalism raising its head. And the

very fact that it was Hindu nationalism made it difficult for it to become

Indian nationalism.

The Arya Samaj was far more widespread than the

Brahmo Samaj, especially in the Punjab. But it was largely confined to the

middle classes. The Samaj has done a great deal of educational work, and

has started many schools and colleges, both for boys and girls.

Another remarkable religious man of the century, but

very different from the others I have mentioned in this letter, was

Ramakrishna paramhansa. He did not start any aggressive society for

reform. He laid stress on service, and the Ramakrishna Sevashrams in many

parts of the country are carrying on this tradition of service of the weak and

poor. A famous disciple of Ramakrishna’s was Swami Vivekananda, who

very eloquently and forcibly preached the gospel of nationalism. This was

not in any way anti-Muslim or anti anyone else, nor was it the somewhat

narrow nationalism of the Hindu nationalism, and it had its roots in Hindu

religion and culture.

Thus it is interesting to note that the early waves of

nationalism in India in the nineteenth century were religious and Hindu. The

Muslims naturally could take no part in this Hindu nationalism. They kept

apart. Having kept away from English education, the new ideas affected

them less, and there was far less intellectual ferment amongst them. Many

decades later they began to come out of their shell, and then, as with the

Hindus, their nationalism took the shape of a Muslim nationalism, looking

back to Islamic traditions and culture, and fearful of losing these because of

the Hindu majority. But this Muslim movement became evident much later,

towards the end of the century.

Another interesting thing to note is that these reform and

progressive movements in Hinduism and Islam tried to fit in, as far as

possible, the new scientific and political ideas derived from the west with

their old religious notions and habits. They were not prepared to challenge

and examine fearlessly these old notions and habits; nor could they ignore

the new world science and political and social ideas which lay around them.

So they tried to harmonize the two by trying to show that all modern idea

and progress could be traced go back to the old sacred books of their

religions. This attempt was bound to end in failure. It merely prevented

people from thinking straight. Instead of thinking boldly and trying to

understand the new forces and ideas which were changing the world, they

were oppressed by the weight of ancient habit and tradition. Instead of

looking ahead and marching ahead, they were all the time furtively looking

back. It is not easy to go ahead, if the head is always turned and looks back.

The English-educated class grew slowly in the cities, and

at the same time a new middle class arose consisting of professional people-

that is, lawyers and doctors and the like, and merchants and traders. There

had been, of course, a middle class in the past, but this was largely crushed

by the early British policy. The new bourgeoisie, or middle class, was a

direct outcome of British rule; in a sense they were the hangers-on of this

rule. They shared to a small extent in the exploitation of the masses; they

took the crumbs that fell from the richly laden table of the British ruling

classes. They were petty officials helping in the British administration of the

country; many were lawyers assisting in the working of the law courts and

growing rich by litigation; and there were merchants, the go-betweens of

British trade and industry, who sold British goods for a profit or

commission.

The great majority of these people of the new bourgeoisie

were Hindus. This was due to their somewhat better economic condition, as

compared to the Muslims, and also to their taking to English education,

which was a passport to government service and the professions. The

Muslims were generally poorer. Most of the weavers, who had gone to the

wall on account of the British destruction of Indian industries, were

Muslims. In Bengal, which has the biggest Muslim population of any Indian

province, they were poor tenants or small land-holders. The landlord was

usually a Hindu, and so was the village bania, who was the money-lender

and the owner of the village store. The landlord and the bania were thus in a

position to oppress the tenant and exploit him, and they took full advantage

of this position. It is well to remember this fact, for in this lies the

root cause of the tension between Hindu and Muslim.

REAWAKENING OF INDIA-PART-2