Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 48 views

    Indian Nationalism Cambridge School

    Uploaded by

    Kundan
    The document discusses the "Cambridge School" of historians who reinterpreted Indian politics during the nationalist movement. The Cambridge School denies that colonialism was exploitative in India and that overthrowing colonialism was necessary for socio-economic and political development. They argue that nationalism in India developed along traditional social structures like caste and religion rather than modern categories of class and nation. The Cambridge School views nationalism as an ideology used by elite groups to legitimize their own narrow ambitions and mobilize public support, rather than an anti-imperialist movement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Indian Nationalism Cambridge School

    Uploaded by

    Kundan
    48 views1 page
    The document discusses the "Cambridge School" of historians who reinterpreted Indian politics during the nationalist movement. The Cambridge School denies that colonialism was exploitative in India and that overthrowing colonialism was necessary for socio-economic and political development. They argue that nationalism in India developed along traditional social structures like caste and religion rather than modern categories of class and nation. The Cambridge School views nationalism as an ideology used by elite groups to legitimize their own narrow ambitions and mobilize public support, rather than an anti-imperialist movement.

    Original Title

    Indian nationalism;Cambridge school

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses the "Cambridge School" of historians who reinterpreted Indian politics during the nationalist movement. The Cambridge School denies that colonialism was exploitative in India and that overthrowing colonialism was necessary for socio-economic and political development. They argue that nationalism in India developed along traditional social structures like caste and religion rather than modern categories of class and nation. The Cambridge School views nationalism as an ideology used by elite groups to legitimize their own narrow ambitions and mobilize public support, rather than an anti-imperialist movement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    48 views1 page

    Indian Nationalism Cambridge School

    Uploaded by

    Kundan
    The document discusses the "Cambridge School" of historians who reinterpreted Indian politics during the nationalist movement. The Cambridge School denies that colonialism was exploitative in India and that overthrowing colonialism was necessary for socio-economic and political development. They argue that nationalism in India developed along traditional social structures like caste and religion rather than modern categories of class and nation. The Cambridge School views nationalism as an ideology used by elite groups to legitimize their own narrow ambitions and mobilize public support, rather than an anti-imperialist movement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    In the years following Indian independence, multiple interpretations developed in regard to the

    intricacies of India’s nationalist movement or Indian Nationalism. One particular school of thought
    that emerged can be seen with the Cambridge school.

    The ‘Cambridge School’ is the name given to a group of historians in Cambridge who reinterpreted
    Indian politics in the age of nationalism.

    The ‘Cambridge School’ first emerged in the official proclamations of the Viceroys, Lord Dufferin,
    Curzon, and Minto. This was first strongly put forward by V. Chirol, Verne Lovett, and the Montague-
    Chelmsford Report. It was first theorized in 1940 by an American scholar Bruce T. McCulley. Its
    liberal version was adopted by Reginald Coupland and, after 1947, by Percival Spear, while its
    conservative version was renewed and developed after 1968 by Anil Seal and JA Gallagher and their
    students and followers. Since the liberal version is no longer fashionable in academic circles, I will
    ignore it here due to word limit.

    The conservative colonial administrators and the imperialist school of historians, popularly known as
    the Cambridge School, deny the existence of colonialism as an economic, political, social, and
    cultural structure in India. Colonialism is seen by them primarily as foreign rule, and neither was it
    exploitative. Hence, they do not agree with the view that the socio-economic and political
    development of India required the overthrow of colonialism. Thus, they do not see any basic
    contradiction between the British and Indian interests which led to the national movement. The
    imperialist writers deny that India was in the process of becoming a nation and believe that what is
    called Indian, in fact, consisted of religion, castes, communities, and interests. Thus, the grouping of
    Indian politics around the concept of an Indian nation or an Indian people or social classes is not
    recognized by them.

    They said that nationalism in India was not anti-imperialist; rather, the politicization of Indian society
    developed along the lines of traditional social structures such as linguistic, regional, caste or religious
    communities rather than modern categories of class and nation. According to the writers of the
    imperialist school, the struggle against colonialism was a motiveless and simulated combat. It was
    merely a product of the need and interests of the elite groups who used to serve either their own
    narrow interests or the interests of their perspective groups. Thus, the elite groups and their needs
    and interests, provide the origin as well as the driving force of the idea, ideology, and movement of
    nationalism. These groups were sometimes formed around religious or caste identities and
    sometimes through political connections built around patronage. But, in each case, these groups had
    a narrow, selfish interest in opposing British rule or each other. Nationalism, then, is seen primarily
    as a mere ideology that these elite groups used to legitimize their narrow ambitions and to mobilize
    public support. The national movement was merely an instrument used by the elite groups to
    mobilize the masses and to satisfy their own interests.

    Conclusion:

    This approach defines National movement as motiveless and just struggle for power among various
    Indian elites to serve their own narrow interests.

    You might also like