Introduction
From a beginner’s exploration into the story of an independent India, one can gather a basic working background by examining British rhetoric and literature of the period, and the writings of Indian key figures such as Jawaharlal Nehru and Mohandas Gandhi. Through this examination of prominent historical views, one can better appreciate the history of India’s achievement of self-rule. It is very easy to ascertain a British sense of superiority to the Indian people through the descriptions and demeaning language used to refer to them in prominent British writing. The British written works that speak in favor of imperialism use various arguments to justify the exploitation of the Indian subcontinent and to affirm that the spreading of British influence and culture was not only acceptable but righteous. The writings of both Mohandas Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru aim to refute the British claim to India in favor of Indian home rule. Though they have notable ideological differences, they both oppose the British rule and aim to establish a self-governing nation and therefore are both credited as major influences in the push for Indian independence.
The British Views on India
The arguments for British imperial generally fall into the following categories: evolutionary superiority, Royal duty and nationalism, divine claim, and intellectual/cultural superiority. Many of the works dealing with India use one or several of these categories to speak of the necessity of British occupation in India.
Looking at the earlier ideas on the biology of man and the views on racial differences during the enlightenment, it is evident that the European thinkers of the time considered themselves biologically superior to the other races of man. David Hume in “Of the Populousness of Ancient Nations” describes the non-white races of man as “naturally inferior to the whites”. He argues “there never was a civilized nation of any other complexion than white”. He cites these race’s lack of arts and sciences as the cause for this belief, while justifying the same tendencies in the ancient Germanic people or the Tartars as having an inherent sense of valor. Immanuel Kant builds on these postulations in “On the Different Races of Man” referencing Hume’s work and systematically differentiating between the races based on his assumptions of their differing intellectual capacities, which to no surprise supports the claims of white superiority. It is from works such as these that the notion of intellectual and biological superiority arises in the era of British imperialism. This notion is verifiably false by modern scientific standards.
From those predicated ideas, Thomas Babington Macaulay’s “Minute on Indian Education” further argues the inferiority of the Indian people. He speaks to the low quality of the Indian literary works and their lack of success in the fields of science. He concludes that the “Sanskrit language is less valuable than what may be found in the most paltry abridgements used at preparatory schools in England” and thus argues “we have to educate a people who cannot at present be educated by means of their mother tongue” (Macaulay). He believes that the English language and European works of arts and science are superior and therefore is obligated to impose their system on the Indian people.
This feeling of inherent superiority mixed with the drive to serve the Crown and the British empire led to a lot of writings encouraging the forceful spread of British rule and culture on the Indian people. This type of rhetoric is present in the prose of both Tennyson referencing “Unprophetic rulers they, Drove from out the mother’s nest” (63-4 Empire) and in Kipling’s with a call to action and to “take up the White Man’s burden” alluding to the inferiority of other races as “Your new caught, sullen peoples, Half devil and half child” (273 Empire). The tone of these poems exudes a view of an obligation to expose those inferior people to the ”truth” of British rule. The British rhetoric exudes the confidence and certainty of their views of superiority. Gandhi is the antithetical figure to the British thoughts and beliefs of the period. With a similar fervor that Britain supports the imperialist agenda, Gandhi advocates for Indian independence through renunciation of all things British. Nehru falls somewhere in between ideologically, advocating for Indian independence, while expressing h
Indian Responses to the British
In Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj, a dialogue is set up between the editor who represents Gandhi and the reader a “modern Indian”, led by the editor to refute the misconceptions of the reader about Swaraj and issues of Indian independence.
His views are idealistic in comparison to Nehru who tends to maintain a tone of cautious realism, and Gandhi is often more aggressive in his resolve against British rule, which has the unintended consequence of oversimplification of a lot of the issues he tries to address. This is clear through his choice of language in discussions about contentions with Parliament. He uses harsh analogies comparing it to a “sterile woman” because Parliament “has not yet of its own accord done a single good thing” and a “prostitute because it is under the control of ministers who change from time to time” (29 Gandhi). He argues the hypocrisy of the members of Parliament and that “if the money and the time wasted by the Parliament were entrusted to a few good men, the English nation would be occupying today a much higher platform” (Gandhi 29-30). This is one such instance of idealism where Gandhi’s views on good government indicate a disconnect between theory and practice. Perhaps it is somewhat reflective of his Hindu faith and belief in the caste system. His statement alludes to a belief that a higher caliber of man would eliminate the need for a Parliament, meaning a few men from the ruling caste. The root issue with this concept is that Gandhi assumes that the “few good men” are incorruptible and just leaders, putting duty to caste before their own desires. This has historically been shown to be problematic, and has led to the establishment of larger governing bodies that aim to eliminate corruption but come with the drawback of limited efficiency.
In Nehru’s section titled Life’s Philosophy in The Discovery of India, there is a stark contrast to this idealistic view Gandhi holds on the nature of man. Nehru acknowledges that with through age and world exposure his outlook has changed, and his realist demeanor reflects his personal observations of world events. His reflection on his values indicate a tone of disillusionment and managed expectations. Nehru analyzes the progression of his viewpoints and notes that “the ideals and objectives of yesterday were still the ideals of today, but they had lost some of their lustre and, even as one seemed to go towards them, they lost the shining beauty which had warmed the heart and vitalized the body” (Nehru 12). He implies that his beliefs remain the same, but the radicalism and determination behind them has faded with his youth. Where Gandhi would buy into the belief that the Indian people can achieve their goal through just means, Nehru shows skepticism, surmising “the right means might well be beyond the capacity of infirm and selfish human nature” (Nehru 12).
The corruptibility of man is a recurring concern in Nehru’s writing, touching on the use of religion as a metric for character, suggesting
“[religion] had produced many fine types of men and women, as well as bigoted, narrow-minded, cruel tyrants” (Nehru 13).
In contrast to the confidence of the nobility man (European and Indian) shown by both the British and Gandhi, Nehru exhibits a very cynical attitude towards the expectations of individuals’ actions and motives. Gandhi is much more optimistic about the ability of man to overcome personal prejudice for a greater good. He contends that “those who do not wish to misunderstand things may read up the Koran, and will find therein hundreds of passages acceptable to the Hindus; and the Bhagavad-Gita contains passages to which not a Mahomedan can take exception. Am I to dislike a Mahomedan because there are passages in the Koran I do not understand or like?” (Gandhi 54). To argue that a greater effort to study the works of each other’s faiths is a valid recommendation for bridging the Hindu/Muslim tensions is indicative of naivety of the reality of the people’s general tendency toward closemindedness.
Concluding Thoughts
There are quite a few instances in which Gandhi provides unsupported arguments that greatly oversimplify complex issues, thereby weakening his ethos, and detracting from his overall message of advocating passive resistance to expel British influence. Nehru does not reach a conclusion in the same manner as Gandhi, building an argument that leads to a specific recommendation for means to act, but he does a more in-depth exploration of the philosophical roots of the issues he has with the British rule and how to combat it. Nehru’s writing is a guided journey through his own personal reflections on his beliefs. He does not presume to be an authority figure, which makes his presentation much more relatable to the reader. Nehru cites personal experience and the ideas of other prominent thinkers when building thoughts and arguments, all the while admitting uncertainty. This scientific approach is what makes Nehru a more appealing figure for the modern reader.
Gandhi’s unwillingness to acknowledge the possibility of alternative means to his end and the British writers’ reliance upon outdated values and unsubstantiated pseudoscience can be off putting to readers, putting them on the extremist ends of both sides.
In summary, the British are seeking justification for actions that are morally questionable unless they can demonstrate the inferiority of the subjugated people. Gandhi seeks to refute the claims of the British, but in doing so tends to misplace blame and offer ineffective solutions to the problems he aims to solve. Nehru exists in the middle ground, seeking out the problems that India suffers from, trying to understand their causes and doing his best to obtain a path to solving them.
Works Cited
Empire Writing
Gandhi
Macaulay
Nehru
Racial Differences
