Scribd
Upload
16 views2 pages

A.R. Desai's Critique of Each Phase of Indian Nationalism: 1. First Phase (1818 1885) : Pre-Nationalist Awakening

A.R. Desai critiques the phases of Indian nationalism, highlighting the elitism and lack of mass involvement in the first four phases, from pre-nationalist awakening to Gandhian mass nationalism. He argues that each phase, while having its own characteristics, failed to adequately address the needs of the working class and peasants, often serving bourgeois interests instead. The fifth phase, revolutionary and socialist nationalism, represented true proletarian interests but was marginalized and suppressed by both colonial and nationalist forces.

Uploaded by

sharmaanvitt
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
16 views2 pages

A.R. Desai's Critique of Each Phase of Indian Nationalism: 1. First Phase (1818 1885) : Pre-Nationalist Awakening

A.R. Desai critiques the phases of Indian nationalism, highlighting the elitism and lack of mass involvement in the first four phases, from pre-nationalist awakening to Gandhian mass nationalism. He argues that each phase, while having its own characteristics, failed to adequately address the needs of the working class and peasants, often serving bourgeois interests instead. The fifth phase, revolutionary and socialist nationalism, represented true proletarian interests but was marginalized and suppressed by both colonial and nationalist forces.

Uploaded by

sharmaanvitt
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

A.R.

Desai’s Critique of Each Phase of Indian Nationalism

1. First Phase (1818–1885): Pre-Nationalist Awakening

• Critique:
o Dominated by a petty bourgeois elite who were beneficiaries of colonial
education.
o Focused on social reform and Westernisation, not anti-colonialism.
o Alienated from the masses, served more as agents of colonial modernity.
o Lacked any confrontation with colonial exploitation or capitalist
transformation.

2. Second Phase (1885–1905): Moderate Nationalism

• Critique:
o Indian National Congress functioned as a platform for bourgeois
collaboration with colonial rule.
o The movement sought representation, not revolution—a share in power, not
systemic change.
o Relied on petitioning and constitutional methods, reflecting faith in British
liberalism.
o Masses remained excluded; nationalism was elitist and urban-centric.

3. Third Phase (1905–1918): Extremist Nationalism

• Critique:
o While more assertive, it remained limited to the middle class and urban
intelligentsia.
o Failed to organically link with peasants, workers, or the rural poor.
o Lacked a scientific understanding of imperialism and capitalism.
o Mobilisation was spontaneous, emotional, not strategically class-based.

4. Fourth Phase (1919–1947): Gandhian Mass Nationalism

• Critique:
o Though mass-based, Gandhi's leadership deliberately avoided radical class
mobilisation.
o Aimed to channel revolutionary potential into safe, non-violent, bourgeois-
friendly modes.
o The bourgeoisie used Gandhian methods to lead the masses without
ceding real power.
o Periodic withdrawal of movements (e.g., after Chauri Chaura) preserved
class harmony and prevented the rise of revolutionary consciousness.

5. Fifth Phase: Revolutionary and Socialist Nationalism

• Critique:
o Represented true proletarian and peasant interests, but remained
marginalised.
o Suppressed by both colonial state and bourgeois nationalist leadership.
o Lack of a united class front, organisational weakness, and state repression
weakened its impact.
o National movement's hegemonic class alliance ensured socialist nationalism
was sidelined in the final phase of independence.

You might also like