EHI - 01 (8th Part)

Eighth Part

Q   Give two important causes for the growth of the trend of revolutionary terrorism.

A.  Revolutionaries have convinced themselves of the futility of trying to convert the British rulers by petitioning and praying methods. They had participated actively in the Swadeshi movement in the hope and belief that Extremist methods of agitation such as boycott, passive resistance, etc., would yield the results but these methods proved ineffective . They expected that this movement would bring the British Government to its knees but that was not the case. Another factor that helped the growth of the trend of revolutionary terrorism was the brutal repression of the Swadeshi movement by the Government. For example the police made the unprovoked assault on the peaceful crowd at the Barisal Political Conference on 27tH April, 1906 which had led the nationalist paper Jugantar to give the call: "Force must be stopped by force". The Government's ability to repress was considerably enhanced by the split that took place in the Indian National Congress at Surat in 1907

between the Moderates and the Extremists. Luring the Moderates with promises of constitutional reform, the government proceeded to launch an all-out attack on the Extremists; Tilak was sentenced to six years of exile in Burma, Aurobindo Ghosh was arrested in a revolutionary conspiracy case.

Q.  Give the causes of the rise of Ghadar Movement.

A.  Emigrant Indians were facing hardships at the hands of local white population like discrimination , racial slurs etc in North America, facing hardships united them. They were disappointed with the lack of response from the Indian and British governments to their genuine requests and grievances . This further convinced them that their inferior status or miserable condition in foreign lands is due to their being citizens of an enslaved country. This aroused to nationalist consciousness and a feeling of solidarity as they started participating in political agitation. The Indian community in North America felt the acute need for a central organization and led by Lala Har Dayal, a political exile from India, who had come to the U.S. in 1911 caused the emergence of Ghadar movement .

Q.  What were the aims of Ghadar Party?

A.  The main aim of the Ghadar party was to overthrow British rule in India . Political action outlined by Lala Har Dayal was that the British rule could only be overthrown by armed revolt and that for this to happen it was necessary that Indian immigrants go to India in large numbers and carry this message to the masses and the soldiers of the Indian army. The Ghadar party workers launched a vigorous propaganda campaign, touring factories and farms where Indian immigrants worked to unite and prepare them to fight the British .

Q.  Give names of four important leaders of Ghadar Movement.

A.  Baba Sohan Singh Bhakna was elected the President, Lala Har Dayal the General Secretary and Pandit Kanshi Ram Maroli the Treasurer, Bhai Parmanand and Harnam Singh and Tarak Nath Das.

Q.  What was the message spread by the Ghadar Paper?

A.  The paper Ghadar was launched on the first of November, 1913; the first issue was in Urdu followed a month later by the Gurmukhi version. The very idea of Ghadar paper was to spread the message of Nationalism.simple . Its very name meant revolt, enumerating the negative effects of British rule. This paper emphasized on the wrong policies of British rule, on the issues of drain of wealth, high land revenue, low per capita income, recurrence of famines which killed millions of Indians, high expenditure on Army and low expenditure on health, the policy of divide and rule by pitting Hindus and Muslims against each other. The paper laid emphasis on the revolt to topple British rule. It highlighted the small number of Englishmen present in India as compared to the crores of Indians and by suggesting that the time had come for another revolt since already fifty-six years had lapsed since the last one in 1857.

Q.  Mention the three important events of 1914 which influenced the Ghadar Movement.

A.  The three major events in 1914: .the arrest, jumping of bail and flight to Switzerland of Lala Har Dayal, the fateful voyage of the ship Komagata Maru, and the beginning of the First World War.

Q. What action was planned by Ghadar leaders in India?What was the main achievement of the Ghadar movement?

A.  Ghadar activists toured the villages and distributed party publications, addressed gatherings at melas and made every effort to persuade the people to rise in revolt. The Ghadar revolutionaries attempted to spread their message among the soldiers and engineer a mutiny. Attempts at revolt in November 1914 failed for lack of proper organization and centralized leadership. Another, more organized, attempt was made in February 19 15 after Rash Behari Bose had been entrusted the task of leadership and organization, but this too proved abortive as the government succeeded in penetrating

the organization and took pre-emptive measures. 

Achievements- The Ghadarites succeeded in popularizing nationalist ideology especially the critique of colonialism and the understanding that Indian poverty and backwardness was a consequence of British rule-among vast masses of Indians in India and abroad. They created a cadre of highly motivated nationalists-and though many of these were lost through repression, some permanently and others for number of years-who continued to play an important role in building up the national and later the left and peasant movements in Punjab and other parts of India for many decades to follow.

Q.  What were the main weaknesses of the Ghadar movement?

A.  The basic fault with Ghadar movement was the over estimation of the preparedness of the movement . The response that they evoked in the immigrant lndian community, whose nationalist consciousness was aroused by daily experiences of racial insult, alienation produced by living in unfamiliar surroundings, and whose small numbers made the task of its organization relatively easier, misled them into thinking that the vast mass of Indians in India were also in a similar state of readiness. They also underestimated the might of the British rulers, the strength of the ideological foundations of their rule, and thought that all that the people of India needed was a call to revolt.

Q.  Why did Tilak and Annie Besant strive to gain re-entry for the extremists into the Indian National Congress?

A.  Mrs Annie Besant wanted to build up a movement in India on the lines of the Irish Home Rule League, and thus was urging moderates to accept the Extremists back into the Congress. Tilak after returning to India, after serving a long sentence of six years in Mandalay in Burma, concentrated all attention on securing the readmission of himself and other Extremists into the Indian National Congress from which they had been thrown out in 1907 at Surat. Disunity had only helped the British govt. who had removed the Extremists through repression, and then ignored the Moderates by granting reforms that fell far short of their expectations. The complete lack of political activity since 1908 was also a reason for requirement of unity of two factions of Congress .

========================================================================

Q.  Discuss in about five lines the provisions of Rowlatt Act.

A.  In 1917 the Government of lndia had appointed a committee under the chairmanship of Justice Sydney Rowlatt to investigate " revolutionary crime" in the country and to recommend legislation for its suppression. After a review of the situation, the Rowlatt committee proposed a series of methods to enable the British government to deal effectively with the revolutionary activities. In the light of these recommendations the Government of lndia drafted two bills and presented them to the Imperial Legislative Council on 6 February 1919. The government maintained that the bills were 'temporary measures' which aimed at preventing 'seditious crimes'. The new bills attempted to make war-time restrictions permanent. The bill recommended that the offenders would be tried by a special court consisting of three high court judges. There was no provision of appeal against the decision of this court which could meet in camera and take into consideration evidence not admissible under the Indian Evidence Act. The bill also proposed to give authority to the government to search a place

and arrest a person without a warrant. Detention without a trial for maximum period of two years was also provided in the bills.

Q.  Discuss in about ten lines the response of Indians to Rowlatt Act.

A.  There was widespread condemnation of the bills in the whole country. Gandhi also launched his campaign against the bills. He stated that they were instruments of distrust and repression,nullifying the proposed reforms. Moreover, he opposed not just the content of the bills, but also the manner in which they were thrusted upon in the country without regard to public opinion. He formed a Satyagraha Sabha on 24th February 1919 in Bombay to protest against the Rowlatt Bills. Gandhi inaugurated his Satyagraha by calling upon the countrymen to observe a day of 'hartal' against the Rowlatt Act to which people responded enthusiastically . On 6April 1919 hartal was a successful and Gandhi decided to intensify agitation on 7 April by advising the satyagrahis to disobey the laws dealing with prohibited literature and the registration of newspapers.

Q.  Write five lines on Jallianwala Bagh incident.

A.  On 8th April 1919 Gandhi left Bombay to promote the Satyagraha agitation in Delhi and Punjab. But, as his entry in Punjab was considered dangerous by the government, so Gandhi was removed from the train in which he was travelling at Palwal near Delhi and was taken back to Bombay. The news of Gandhi's arrest precipitated the crisis. It led to large scale mob violence in different parts of the country including Punjab .

On 13th April a large crowd had gathered at Jallianwala park on the occasion of Baisakhi unaware of the orders passed by the administration against gathering . Prompted by zeal to teach peaceful Indians lesson , General Dyer ordered his troops to fire on a peaceful unarmed crowd assembled at Jallianwala Bagh. Most of the people were not aware of the ban on meetings, and they were shot without the slightest warning by General Dyer. The official count of death were 379 but it was high as unofficial sources confirmed .

Q.  What do you understand by the concept of Satyagraha as propagated by Gandhi?

A.  The chief aspect of Gandhi's ideology was Satyagraha . It was evolved by Gandhi in South Africa and became a dominant element in India's struggle for freedom from 1919 onwards. For Gandhi, the Satyagraha was to be used so that by self suffering and not by violence the enemy could be converted to one's own view. For Gandhi ji, Satyagraha was not merely a political tactic but part of a total philosophy of life and ideology of action. Non violence became the basis of satyagraha. Gandhi emphasised that non-violent Satyagraha could be practised by common people for achieving political,ends. Satyagraha could assume various forms-fasting, non-violent picketing, different types of non-cooperation & ultimately in politics, civil disobedience in willing anticipation of the legal penalty. On the whole, the use of Satyagraha by Gandhi and the Congress in national movement brought different sections and classes of society together against the British rule.

Q.  Discuss the message which Gandhi conveyed through his book Hind Swaraj.

A.  In his book 'Hind Swaraj' (1909) Gandhi pointed out that the real enemy was not the British political domination but the modem western civilization which was luring India into its stranglehold. He believed that the Indians educated in western style, particularly lawyers, doctors, teachers and industrialists, were undermining Indian's ancient heritage by insidiously spreading modem ways. He criticized railways as they had spread plague and produced famines by encouraging the export of food grains. He saw Swaraj or self rule as a state of life which could only exist where Indians followed their traditional civilization un corrupted by modem civilization.

Gandhi wrote:

Indian's salvation consists in unlearning what she has leamt during the past 50 years or so. The Railways, telegraphs, hospitals, lawyers, doctors and such like have to go and the so-called upper classes have to learn to live consciously and religiously and deliberately the simple life of peasant. His ideas reflected adverse effects of 'modernization' under the colonial rule on the artisans and poor peasantry in the countryside. Gandhi tried to give concrete shape to his social and economic ideas by taking up the program of Khadi, village reconstruction and Harijan welfare (which included the removal of untouchability).

Q.  Discuss about Gandhi's attitude towards the Peasants' Movement in Champaran.

A.  Champaran in the Tirhut division of North Bihar had been seething with agrarian discontent for some time. The basic issue of the trouble was the system of indirect cultivation whereby peasants leased land from planters, binding themselves to grow indigo each year on specified land in return for an advance at the beginning of the cultivation season. Indigo was cultivated under the system called Tinkathia by which a tenant had to cultivate indigo at three-twentieths of his holdings, which generally constituted the best portion of the land . Planters always forced peasants to sell their crop for a fixed and usually uneconomic price. Due to the increasing production of synthetic indigo in Germany planters at Champaran realized that indigo cultivation was no longer economical. The planters thus tried to save their own position by forcing the tenants to bear the burden of their losses.

At the Lucknow Congress session of 1916, Gandhi ji didn’t take interest in the issue as he had no knowledge of the ground situation. But Raj Kumar Shukul a peasant from Champaran, after strenous efforts prevailed upon Gandhi to visit Champaran. Gandhi arrived in Bihar and started making investigations in person. When he reached Motihari, the headquarters of the district of Champaran, he was served with an order to quit Champaran as he was regarded a danger to the public peace. After understanding the miserable ground situation of the indigo farmers,Gandhi launched agitation with the support of the educated middle class. For instance, Rajendra Prasad, Gorakh Prasad, Kirpalani and some other educated persons from the cities worked as his close associates. Local Mahajans

traders and village Mukhtars (attorneys) also helped him. But it was the peasantry which gave him the real massive support.

              After the success of the agitation , the Government appointed Champaran Agrarian Committee with Gandhi as one of its members. The committee unanimously recommended the abolition of Tinkathia system and many illegal exactions under which the tenants groaned. The enhanced rents were reduced, and as for the illegal recoveries, the committee recommended 25% refund. The major recommendations of the Committee were included in the Champaran Agrarian Act of 1917.

EHI - 01(7th Part)

Seventh Part

Q.  Why should you study the Russian Revolution ?

A.  The birth of socialist ideas, particularly Marxism, transformed man's understanding of reality of social and political structures and of the history of mankind itself. The Russian Revolution showed in concrete practice the possibilities of destroying exploitative societies, and creating new, free and just societies. In doing so it had a tremendous impact on all movements of emancipation including the struggles for independence from foreign rule and imperialism. It also provided inspiration to the national liberation movement in India, particularly to the revolutionary struggles of the working people. Hence it’s important to study Russian Revolution .

Q.  When were the conditions prepared for the socialist revolution in Russia ?

A.  By 1917 the working people of Russia were no longer prepared to tolerate their dehumanized situation. They were also by then politically organized, and therefore able to overthrow the old social and political order. Therefore, by 1917 there emerged an intense contradiction and polarization between the old and the new in Russia. The Russian revolutionary movement represented the democratic aspirations of these new forces. The Russian state on the other hand represented the interests of the old ruling classes. The Russian state on the other hand represented the interests of the old ruling classes. In Russia right up to 1917 there.existed an autocratic form of government. There were no representative institutions. No right to form political organizations. There was strict censorship and arbitrary arrests. There was no religious toleration, and there was oppression of all nationalists other than Russian.

Q.  Which sections provided the leadership to the Russian Revolution ?

A.  In the Russian revolution many political groups were active. They played a significant role in raising the consciousness of the people-particularly of the workers & peasants through political education, political propaganda & agitation. They also formed organizations of workers & peasants to give a cohesiveness and direction to the revolutionary movement. The important political tendencies were that of the Populists (in the late nineteenth century) and the Socialist Revolutionaries, the Liberals & the Social Democrats (Marxists), particularlythe Bolsheviks. In the decade preceding the revolution Lenin was the most important leader of the Bolshevik Party, and of the Russian Revolution. Other important leaders were Trotsky, Bukharin and Stalin.

Q.  What were the economic changes introduced by the revolutionary regime ?

A.  In the economic sphere the Russian Revolution meant the end of private property, and the change to ownership of all property by the state. This did not mean that people's personal belongings were taken away from them. By abolition of private property was meant that all means of production i.e. sources of profit-income making were converted into state property. These included factories, land, banks etc. No body could now own them privately to exploit the labor of others to make profit. The Revolution also established workers' control over industries which meant that they could keep a check on the vroduction process through their representatives, and also ensure the rights of workers in their factory. This measure was based on the understanding that those who produce must have some role in decision making through their representatives right up to the central level. The revolution introduced centralized economy and Five year planning.Through a centralized economy they sought to guarantee a much faster pace of economic development and the fruits of that development to the vast majority of the people, preventing an anarchy in production, and also avoid wastage. In agriculture, land was nationalized. This means that land was owned by the state and given over to the peasant for hereditary use. But he could not sell it or mortgage-it, or use it to exploit the labor of others to earn profit for himself. Through the land Decree of November, 19 17 landlordism was abolished and land was handed over to the peasantry.

Q.  What were the social benefits granted to all citizens of the Soviet Union ?

A.  By destroying private property in the means of production the Revolution also destroyed the roots of social inequality. It laid the foundations for a classless society. Also, each one was paid "according to his work". The gap between the salary of a worker and manager was not much, or between a worker and artist or teacher. The Soviet State also guaranteed certain social benefits to all citizens, such as free medical care, free and equal education for all, unemployment allowance, equal access to culture & cultural advancement. These were infact rights of the people, guaranteed by the constitution. Equality for women was not only guaranteed by the constitution but material basis for this equality were created in order to implement it. There was provision for six months maternity leave, creches at places of work, public canteens at places of work where food was cheap and subsidized etc. All this was aimed at making possible fullest participation by women in public life. The separation of religion from politics and state was another important measure of the revolution. Religion was to be a purely private affair. No religions education was to be given in schools, no public utility to be made of religion.

Q.  Mention two aspects of the Bolsheviks' international policy ?

A.  In International relations also the Russian Revolution represented an important landmark. First of all the Bolsheviks abolished all the old secret treaties entered into by the Autocracy and the Provisional Government. It was felt that people have a right to know what their governments are doing, & that the people of any country should have the right to influence the foreign policy of their country through debate and intervention. 

Secondly, the Bolsheviks through a decree made the offer of immediate peace without annexations and indemnities. They were the only political group in the world to put into practice such a declaration. They also withdrew their claims over many of the areas in the Near East and the Far East that the previous Russian government had been fighting over. They declared themselves against Imperialism and lent support to all national liberation struggles against foreign domination. In the areas that had constituted the Tsarist Empire, the Bolsheviks recognized the rights of all nationalities to self-determination including the right of succession. In the areas where the landed aristocracy and the bourgeoisie wanted to separate, but the workers and peasants wanted to be a part of Soviet Russia, the Bolsheviks recognized the will of the masses and fought with them to consolidate the October Revolution. The workers and peasants of most nationalities were with the Bolsheviks because they knew that the defeat of Bolsheviks would mean the return of landlordism and capitalist exploitation.

Q.  Why is the experience of the Russian Revolution so important for India ?

A.  The Indian National Movement arose as a result of the social conditions created by British

Imperialism, its system of exploitation, and the social and economic forces generated by this system of exploitation. Inspired by the events in Russia , like the 1905 revolution was a great inspiration for the Indian leaders. The agitation against the Partition of BengaI , reflected in the Swadeshi Movement, belongs to the period immediately afterward. The first political strike by the working class took place in 1912 in Bombay. The impact of the October Revolution on the Indian National Movement was also not direct, but after the success of the Russian Revolution it began to be increasingly realized by the Indian leaders that nothing could be gained either by constitutional method or through the politics of the bomb. What was most necessary and decisive was the intervention of the masses in political struggle. The 1920's thus saw the formation of Workers' and Peasants' Parties, the All India Trade Union Congress, and increasing workers and peasants struggles. The Non-Co-operation Movement was a direct result of this understanding and organization. The Russian Revolution also led to the propagation and spread of socialist ideas in India. Within the Indian National Congress itself there emerged a Congress Socialist group. Jawaharlal Nehru particularly was deeply influenced by Soviet Russia, particularly by its anti-imperialist thrust.The Indian National Movement became a part of the world wide struggle against Imperialism led by the Soviet Union, and it began also to be recognized as such by Indian leaders. Without the success of the Russian Revolution which weakened Imperialism at the world level, the Indian people' fight against British Imperialism would have been much more difficult. It is not a coincidence that it was with the defeat of Fascism and the capitalist crisis after World War that a process of decolonization was precipitated.

EHI - 01 (6th Part)

Sixth Part

Q.  In what ways does a socialist society differ from a capitalist society?

A.  All societies prior to socialist societies were class societies, based on antagonism of class interests, between those who own resources and those who work on those resources to produce wealth. Socialist society destroys this antagonism, because, now the people who work are also the people who own the resources. Therefore, in a socialist society there is no exploitation of one class by another, and, it is a society based on the equality of all men. This equality is not only political and legal, as in capitalist societies, but also social and economic, because private property, which is the root of all inequality, is abolished in a socialist society.

Socialist society is, therefore, a society characterized by social justice. This does not mean, however, that people cannot own anything individually. In a socialist society people do have the opportunity to own their personal belongings - house hold things, vehicle, house, bank account from their savings etc. Only, they cannot own those things, means of production - which they can use to deprive other human beings of the fruits of their labor. In fact, as wealth increases in a socialist society as a result of increased production, everyone owns more and more personal belongings, not just a few people. The increase in production in a socialist society comes about through planned production ex. Five year plan . Socialist democracy ensures certain social rights to all people - the right to employment, rest and leisure, health protection, security in old age, housing, free and equal education, apart from the right to participate in administering the state and public affairs.

                   A socialist society promises complete separation of religion and politics. This does not mean that people cannot hold private beliefs. It means only that they cannot make religion into a public affair, or use it politically, or propagate it in schools etc. A socialist society also grants complete equality to women. It creates the material bases for this equality also through shorter hours of work for women with small children, creches at places of work- so that women can feed their children during the day, canteens and public kitchens at places of work etc. Advanced capitalist countries also have these benefits, but they have to be heavily paid for individually. They are commercial enterprises for profit, and only the rich can afford them. A socialist state guarantees these benefits to all women. With minimum cost. It gives allowances for children, who are considered a responsibility of society as a whole.

Q.  Who were the Utopian Socialists?

A.  Utopian socialists are the ones who wanted the end of capitalism. They wanted its end not only because it was exploitative, but also because they recognized that it was not a permanent stage in history. They thought it was bound to end because it was unjust, and because of the problems and contradictions inherent in it. They saw history from the perspective of the interests of those who were oppressed and: therefore, uncompromisingly opposed capitalism. They were also opposed to private property as a source of profit. Therefore they wanted a common or social ownership of means of production.But they did not know how to bring into being this new kind of society. This is because they belonged to a period when capitalism had developed enough for them to see the misery it caused to the working people. But, as yet, the working class, whose interests are most directly and uncompromisingly opposed to that of the capitalists, had not developed sufficient class-consciousness and organization for independent political action. Also, the workings of the capitalist system were not yet clear, and it was not yet known that capitalism as a system had inherent in it inevitable crises. Their theories, therefore, reflected the undeveloped or early stages of capitalism. They did not understand what the historic role of the working class would be. They did not recognize that class

struggle between the workers and capitalists was a necessary feature of capitalism, or that the interests of the two were irreconciliable. In fact, they did not really understand the working of the capitalist system. They did not take into account the fact that the profit of the owners depended precisely on the exploitation of the workers - and that is why the interests of the workers and the capitalists could not be reconciled. But they thought otherwise. The solution for them, therefore, lay in a change of heart and development of a new morality. This new morality could be achieved through a new and correct education, through propaganda and through experiments which would serve as examples for others. They did not understand that economic changes form the basis for changes in political institutions and social life. That is why they were known as Utopian Socialists.

Q.  How is capitalism just not an economic system?

A.  Marx and Engels made an important contribution to economic theory. They proved that under capitalism a worker spends one part of the day covering the cost of maintaining himself and his family (wages), while for the rest of the day he works without remuneration, because now he is producing over and above what he would be paid for. It is through this, that he creates surplus value, which is the source of profit for the capitalist and the means whereby the worker is denied the fruits of his labor. Thus capitalism is not just an economic system, it is also a certain set of social relationships, i.e., a specific relationship between the capitalist and the worker, which is against the interests of the worker, and which is socially unjust. The worker is a necessary part of the system because without labor nothing can be produced, and the worker cannot produce alone, so there is a certain social organization of labor. But this social organization is dominated by capital or wealth which is owned by the capitalist, and which the worker does not have.

Q.  How did the capitalist get profit under capitalism, and how was the worker exploited?

A.  The workers are not paid the full amount for what they produce. The factory owner pays to the worker for the number of hours the worker works in his factory. But the goods the workers collectively produce in the factory have more value and are sold at a higher price in the market, and this amount the factory owner keeps, for himself. This is the factory owner's profit with which he becomes rich, while the worker who is the real producer remains poor.

          This relationship of inequality is of tremendous importance in a capitalist society, and it is this that makes the capitalist society an unjust society. One class lives by owning, the other class lives by working. One lives without working, the other cannot live unless it works.

Q.  What was the main contradiction of capitalism?

A.  Capitalism itself creates the conditions for the overthrow of the capitalist society, i.e., in the womb of the old society are created the seeds of the new society. While capitalism produces more and more, the people become more and more poor and are unable to purchase what is produced. This leads to, what Marx called the crises of over production and under consumption, and also, the irreconciliability of the interests of the capitalist and the worker. This is also the main contradiction of capitalism. In order to obtain more profit, the capitalist pays as little as possible to the workers, but in order to sell his products, the workers must have more and more money to buy i.e., he must pay them more because they have no other source of income. Obviously, he cannot do both at the same time. For a time capitalism can overcome these crises by searching for new markets i.e., colonies, or by

waging wars for the redivision of markets, or by taking over some welfare measures for the workers to appease them. But this cannot go on endlessly, because the contradiction lies in the system itself. Therefore, from the economic analysis of capitalism Marx and Engels drew the political conclusion that the overthrow of capitalism is inevitable.

Q.  What were the political conclusions that Marx and Engels drew from their economic analysis of capitalism?

A.  From the economic analysis of capitalism Man and Engels evolved their political theory. They pointed out that capitalism itself creates the conditions for the overthrow of the capitalist society, i.e.,in the womb of the old society are created the seeds of the new society. While capitalism produces more and more, the people become more and more poor and are unable to purchase what is produced. This leads to, what Marx called the crises of over production and under consumption, and also, the irreconciliability of the interests of the capitalist and the worker. This is also the main contradiction of capitalism. In order to obtain more profit, the capitalist pays as little as possible to the workers, but in order to sell his products, the workers must have more and more money to buy i.e., he must pay them more because they have no other source of income. Obviously, he cannot do both at the same time. For a time capitalism can overcome these crises by searching for new markets i.e., colonies, or by waging wars for the redivision of markets, or by taking over some welfare measures for the workers to appease them. But this cannot go on endlessly, because the contradiction lies in the system itself. Therefore from the economic analysis of capitalism Marx and Engels drew the political conclusion that the overthrow of capitalism is inevitable. The class which, they said, will overthrow this system will be the working class or proletariat. They pointed out that as large factories are established, there also emerges in them a working class i.e. a proletariat, which owns nothing except its ability to work and earn. Therefore, this class has no stake in a system based on private property such as capitalism. Therefore, in the fight against capitalism, it has nothing to lose, except its chains.

Secondly, the proletariat is also the most exploited section of society under capitalism. and for this reason the most interested in its overthrow. Thirdly, there was no other long term choice for the proletariat except to fight the system which exploits him for how could a worker be independent and live a meaningful life. Therefore, the overthrow of capitalism becomes a necessary task for the proletariat, and also a desirable one because on it would depend his right to shorter hours of work, leisure, culture, equality between men and women and access to good health and education. Marx and Engels also pointed out that with the emancipation of the working class will come the emancipation of all other sections of society, as it was the working class which formed the bottom most layer of this society. Also, given its situation, the working class could be the only uncompromising class in the struggle for the overthrow of capitalism. Thus, the second major political conclusion which Marx and Engels arrived at from their economic analysis of capitalism, was that it is the working class which will lead the struggle, and be the vanguard of the socialist revolution.

Q.  Could the struggle against capitalism be a peaceful one?

A.  Marx pointed to the history of human society through the ages. Nothing had been gained by people except through fighting for it, nothing had been given up by the privileged section of society, except when, confronted with a fight. Therefore, the emancipation of working class can come only from the class struggle of the working class. According to Marx, the entire armed forces and the state machinery are in the hands of the ruling class and they use them precisely for protecting their dominance.There cannot be a peaceful transformation from capitalism to socialism. The working class has to capture state power by revolution and guarantee the building of a socialist state by creating a new state, which will be the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Q.  Name the countries involved in the triple alliance. What was the purpose of the alliance?

A.  A secret Triple Alliance was forged in 1882 between Germany, Italy and Austria, explicitly defensive, in part against France, in part against Russia. After the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 in which France was humiliated by Germany, a system of the secret alliances started in Europe pioneered by Bismarck of Germany who with great efforts won the war and wanted the status to maintain as he feared war will ravage Germany .From 1871 to 1890 Bismarck was the arbiter of European politics. As the Chancellor of the new German Empire he wanted peace and declared that Germany was a "satiated" country. He knew that war, which had brought to Germany power and international prominence, would, if risked again, bring her only destruction. Bismarck thus stood for the maintenance of status quo and the preservation of the new Balance of Power which he had created by his system of alliances. He knew that France was Germany's irreconcilable enemy, particularly after the ignominy of 1870. So Bismarck's diplomatic skill and political insight were employed in building up alliances for the protection of Germany. The enemy of Germany was France, and Bismarck's achievement was the diplomatic isolation of the country. In pursuit of this policy, Germany entered into an alliance with Austria in 1879 with a commitment of reciprocal protection in case Russia should attack either Power. Three years later in 1882, Bismarck fomented the Franco-Italian rivalry over Tunis and persuaded Italy to forget her hereditary enmity towards Austria. A secret Triple Alliance was forged in 1882 between Germany, Italy and Austria, explicitly defensive, in part against France, in part against Russia.

Q.  What was the impact of militarism on European Countries.

A.  Militarism was actually closely connected with the system of secret alliances and was the second important cause of the war. This system of maintaining large armies actually began with the French during the Revolution and was later continued under Napoleon. It was extended and efficiently developed by Bismarck during the unification of Germany.After the Franco-Prussian war in 1870 the military and naval armaments of all the Great powers tended to grow larger and larger. It created fear and suspicion among the nations. If one of the countries raised the strength of its army, built strategic railways, its fearful neighbors reciprocate quickly .So the mad race in armaments went on in a vicious circle, particularly after the Balkan wars of 1912-13. Anglo-German Naval rivalry was one of the

contributory cause& the war. Thus, one of the impact of militarism was war.

Q. Write a note on the social and economic changes brought about by the world war in various countries.

A.  Social changes - War led to the acceleration of the process of providing rights for women in many European countries, the process which supported before 1914. Women over 30 were granted parliamentary vote in Britain in 1918. It happened because the war required a national effort with equal contribution and participation from every section of the society .Women participated in all activities and worked on factories, shops, offices and voluntary services, hospitals and schools. Women worked hand in hand with men and so won their claim of equality with them. It became easier for them to find working industry and business, as traditional impediments were removed. Even the barriers of class and wealth were weakened to quite a great extent during the war. Social ethics changed quite significantly and the 'war profiteers' became a special subject of scorn and hatred.

Economic changes - As compared to the previous European wars, the cost of war was this time was astronomical. It was estimated that the total loss inflicted on warring nations was about 186 billion dollars. Huge money was spent on destructive purposes causing the other social sector to suffer enormously like human welfare, health or education etc.The war had undermined the foundations of Europe's industrial supremacy and after a gap of four years was lagging far behind other counties. The U.S.A. made considerable progress in its exports, and in South America and India, new home industries came up and developed. Japan entered the textile trade and flooded the Chinese, Indian and South American markets with its goods. The pattern of international trade was completely changed by the time war ended. After the war, Nations with infant industries wanted to protect them and old

industrial powers like Britain and others felt that it was necessary to safeguard their shattered economies against the competition of new rivals.

Q.  Name the 2 subordinate bodies of the League of Nations.What were their functions?

A.  Two important subordinate bodies of the league were the International Court of Justice and the International Labor Organisation (ILO). The former was supposed to deal with disputes between the states and the latter with labor problems. Both these bodies form an important part of the structure of the United Nations today.

Q.  Impact of war on India.

A.  India didn’t directly participated in the war, still could not escape the effect of the war. The world war affected the Indian society and economy very profoundly. The war had a different impact on different section of the population. Among the poorer class of Indians it meant increased misery and impoverishment. It also brought heavy taxation on the people. War demands created a scarcity of agricultural products as well as other daily necessities of life. As a result there was a phenomenal increase in their prices. Driven to desperation the people became ready to join any movement against the government thus giving an upsurge to nationalist forces . Consequently the war years also became years of intense nationalist political agitation.

             On the other hand the war brought fortunes for the industrialists. It created an economic crisis in Britain and for the war demand they had to depend on Indian industries. Jute industry, for example, flourished in this period. In this way the war promoted the industrial advance of India. The Indian industrialist took the maximum advantage of the opportunities offered. They made fortunes and wanted to preserve it, even after the war came to an end. For this reason they were prepared to organize themselves and support the organized nationalist movement.

Q.  League of Nations . Why it failed to preserve peace .

A.  The League of Nations was a world organization formed to replace the old system of 'power politics.' It was a machinery for the peaceful settlement of disputes and arbitration which replaced the old methods of secret diplomacy and separate alliances and quest for a balance of power. The scheme of the League of Nations was sponsored with great fervor by President Wilson. The league was not at all a government but was a sort of facility to be used by all governments to maintain peace. The league was not at all a government but was a sort of facility to be used by all governments to maintain peace. It was a very well meaning and sensible body but could be successful only if certain assumptions about the post war world proved correct The major assumption was that all governments would want peace, a reasonable one due to the resolve against slaughter and destruction. This assumption sounded reasonable Because there was growth of democratic states which were supposed to be more peace loving than the earlier autocracies and dynastic empires. However these democratic

constitutions proved fragile and interest in pursuing democracy was short-lived. So in view of these believed assumptions, the League of Nations could not acquire the vitality and vigor of action which it required. The failure of USA to become a member of the League and exclusion of Germany and

Russia were other reasons . Japan was also lukewarm in its response. Only the British Commonwealth, France and Italy were its members. Italy soon defied it through its aggressive policy under the Fascist leader Mussolini. Thus ,the League failed in its supreme task of preserving peace.

EHI - 01(5th Part)

Fifth Part

Q.  List three main aims of the Congress at the time of its formation.
A.  The declared aims of the Congress were:

#  the promotion of friendly relation among political workers hailing from different parts of the country,

#  development and consolidation of the feeling of national unity irrespective of caste, creed, or region, and

# the education and organization of public opinion for the welfare of the country.

Q.  Was Congress a middle class organization in the early years?

A.  From the first session at Bombay in 1885 attended by 72 delegates , in 1886 second session at Calcutta was attended by 434 but the majority of the delegates were from the presidencies of Bombay , Madras and Calcutta .

           Representing the entire nation, the Congress became a platform of all the races, castes, creeds, professions, trades and occupations, as well as provinces. But this doesn’t present a correct picture.As a matter of fact there was a great disparity in the representation of various castes, creeds, races, professions, trades and provinces. Among the classes, the educated middle class had the largest share. The legal profession was most heavily represented among the professions. The Brahmins among the castes were comparativelylarger in number. The masses were conspicuous by their absence. So was the case with the landed class. So the Congress was by and large an entirely middle class affair.

Q.  List 5 main demands of the Congress during 1885-1905.
A.  The demands were:

#  the organization of the provincial councils,

#  simultaneous examination for the I.C.S. in India and England,
#  the abolition or reconstitution of the Indian Council,
#  the separation of the Judiciary from the executive,
#  the repeal of the Arms Act,
#  the appointment of Indians to the commissioned ranks in the Army,
#  the reduction of military expenditure, and
#  the introduction of Permanent Settlement to other parts of India

Q. What was the critique of economic policies of the Raj put forward by early nationalists?

A.  A strong point made by the nationalists during this phase was about the economic drain of India. In the nationalist opinion, the British were responsible for the destruction of India's indigenous industries. The remedy for the removal of India's poverty was the development of modem industries. The Government could promote it through tariff protection and direct government aid. However, after seeing the failure of the Government in this regard the nationalists popularized the idea of Swadeshi or use of Indian goods and boycott of British goods as a means of promoting Indian industries. They demanded end of India's economic drain, the reduction of land revenue in order to lighten the burden of taxation on the peasants, improvement in the conditions of work of the plantation laborers, abolition of the salt tax, and the reduction in the high military expenditure of the Government of India. They also fully recognized the value of the freedom of the press and speech and condemned

all attempts at their curtailment. Most of them opposed on grounds both economic and political, the large-scale import of foreign capital in railways, plantations and industries and the facilities accorded to these by the Government. By attacking expenditure on the army and the civil service, they indirectly challenged the basis of British rule in India. By attacking the land revenue and taxation
policies, they sought to undermine the financial basis of British administration in India. The use of Indian army and revenue for British imperial purposes in Asia and Africa wasidentified as another form of economic exploitation.

Q. What was the ideological basis of the rise of extremism?

A.  Humanities answer and
There were three groups of the Extremists-the Maharashtra group, headed by B.G. Tilak; the Bengal group represented by B.C. Pal and Aurobindo and the Punjab group led by Lala Lajpat Rai. This nationalism of the Extremists was emotionally charged. The social, economic and political ideals were all blended in this concept . Extremists believed that a trial of strength between the ruler and the ruled was inevitable, and argued for building a new India of their dreams in which the British had no contribution to make.

Q.  What was the political program of the extremists?
A.  Extremists didn’t believe in the political process of petitioning and praying before the British . They did not want Indians to take to arms, rather they should develop their power of self denial and self-abstinence in such a way as not to assist the foreign power to rule over them. Tilak advised his countrymen to run their own courts, and to stop paying taxes. They wanted to unite and mobilize people in mass movement against the British rule . They resented any interference by an alien government into the domestic and private life of the people. Tilak started Ganpati festival in 1893 with attempt to unite masses against the British rule .

Q.  What led to the split in Congress in 1907 at Surat?

A.  Tilak was unpopular with the moderate section of Congress . The unity was forged between the Maharashtra group and Bengal extremists at Benaras Congress (1905) with the proved advantageous to Tilak at the Calcutta Congress (1906). To begin with there was controversy over the Presidentship. Pal and Aurobindo wanted Tilak to be the President, but the Moderates were in no mood to accept him. After failing in their attempt to get Tilak installed as President, the Extremists-Tilak, Aurobindo, Pal, Ashwini Kumar Dutt, G.S. Khaparde etc.-formed themselves into a pressure group to press their points. The Extremists were in majority and they had substantial local support. There was much heat in the atmosphere & the meeting of the Subjects Committee was stormy. Resolutions the resolutions on the partition of Bengal, Swadeshi & Boycott were re-phrased were discussed and amended under pressure from the Extremists.

After the Calcutta Congress of 1906 the differences between the two groups widened further . Differences of temperament and ideology and clash of personalities created bitter feelings among the rival groups. Persistent criticism by the Extremists alarmed the Moderates. Moderates were afraid that the former had already captured Bengal, Maharashtra, Berar and the Punjab and there was danger of the rest of the country also being lost to them. So they were desperate. At Calcutta it has been decided to held the next session of the Congress at Nagpur where the Moderates thought that they would be in majority. The election of the Congress President for the ensuing session (1907) developed into an occasion for trial of strength between the Moderates and the Extremists. The

Moderates were determined not to allow Tilak to hold the presidential chair. The Moderates were unanimous on the exclusion of Tilak but not on who should be elected. Gokhale had his eyes fixed on Rash Behari Ghosh, a renowned lawyer and powerful orator. But the Moderates found themselves unnerved at Nagpur and Pherozeshah Mehta changed the venue to Surat where he thought he would have his way. The Extremists did not like this. The tense atmosphere and the intemperate language used by both sides pointed to the inevitability of the coming crisis at Surat. Rash Behari Ghosh was elected the Congress President. The relations between the two groups worsened further. In the meeting there was open conflict to the proposal of Ghosh being elected as President. Tilak was not allowed to express his views in the matter. This was a signal for pandemonium. There were shouts
and counter-shouts, brandishing of sticks and unrolling of turbans, breaking of chairs and brushing of heads. There were allegations and counter-allegations as to who was responsible for this episode and this led to the split at Surat in 1907.

Q.  How did Surat split hamper the growth of National Movement?

A.  The split did immense harm to the Congress in particular and the national movement in general. It can be said that the Moderates were the brain of the Congress and the nation and the Extremists were the heart; the former were the 'law' and the latter 'impulse'. The unified action of the two was absolutely necessary for the proper functioning of the organisation and growth of national movement. With the extremists in the wilderness, the Moderates were to achieve little. For about a decade, the Moderates were not in a position to show the kind of strength that was needed to seriously oppose the British. It was only after 1916, with the re-entry of the Extremists in the Congress and exist of the Moderates from it (1918) that the Congress could be reactivized.

========================================================================
Q.  What was the Curzon's real motive in partitioning Bengal?

A.  In the eyes of Curzon and others like him Bengal was the most vulnerable point in the entire British Indian empire. In their view the Bengalis were formidable nationalist force. To meet the growing nationalist challenge in eastern India, Curzon and his advisers decided the division of the Bengali-speaking people. Curzon was determined to split up the nationalist forces . This Curzon wanted to create a situation of mutual suspicion and jealousy between the two major communities in Bengal - the Hindus and the Muslims. By partitioning Bengal, therefore, Curzon and his lieutenants wanted to set up Dacca as a parallel political centre to the nationalistically oriented Calcutta. This mischievous game was being played, above all, to cripple the educated Indian middle class nationalists.

Q.  Periodicals with the names of their editors.
A. Bande Matram ----- Aurobindo Ghosh
Sandhya --------------- Brahmabhandav Upadhyaya
New India ---------- Bipin Chandra Pal

Q.  Discuss in about 10 lines that circumstances leading to the Swadeshi Movement

A.  While dividing the Bengal , Curzon and his men were aware of the resistance they will have to face , but miscalculated the massive scale. They knew about the worries of the babus in eastern Bengal over the prospect of clerical jobs. They were also aware of the difficulty the Bengali Zamindars (having estates in both eastern and western parts) had to face over the increased expenses for engaging two sets of agents and pleaders. The Calcutta High Court lawyers', they knew, will feel concerned over the loss of practice because of a separate High Court in the new province. They would think of the anxieties of the jute and rice trading interests near the port of Calcutta over the challenge that Chittagong might pose as an alternative outlet. They also knew how Calcutta nationalists might feel disturbed on account of the loss of a considerable portion of their audience and

following. But they expected all worries to subside in course of time.

The Government had no idea whatsoever of the stormy political movement which the Partition would cause, breaking it away from traditional ways of respectful resentment, generating unprecedented militancy and turning it rapidly into a battle for swaraj (self- rule). The authorities grossly underestimated the Bengali dislike for authoritarianism which had been produced among them by their long history of virtual independence from nominal central powers. They also failed to grasp the Bengali feeling for unity and pride in their attainments, at least among the literates which had been fostered by intense educational, intellectual and cultural activities during the whole of the 19th century. Apart from its being the center of economic and political affairs, the metropolis of Calcutta-the capital of British India-had already become the nerve-centre of Bengali consciousness. It drew students from all parts of Bengal, sent out teachers, professionals (engineers and doctors) and petty officials to every nook and comer of the province, often far beyond it. Calcutta had made a significant contribution to the growth of a powerful literary language. The city had an increasing number of high-level newspapers and periodicals as well as a band of writers who were producing developed modern literature. In sum, one could say that Bengal and the Bengali middle class in 1905 were by no means in a mood to surrender to the Curzonian , assault.

Q.  Write in about 100 words the techniques which evolved during the Swadeshi movement.

A.  The anti-partition agitation began in Bengal on the conventional moderate nationalist lines, though with a great deal of noise and angry protestations. There were sharp press campaigns against the partition scheme, numerous public meetings in opposition to it and the drafting of petitions to the Government for its annulment. All this was impressive, making the educated middle class's case against the partition loud and clear. But it made no effect on the indifference of the authorities in India and Britain. The evident failure of these methods, therefore, led to a search for new techniques from the middle of 1905 & resulted in the discovery of the boycott of British goods as an effective weapon. The boycott of British products was followed by - 

# the advocacy of swadeshi or exhorting purchasers to buy indigenously produced goods as a patriotic duty,

# Charkha (the spinning wheel) came to typify the popular concern for the country's economic self-sufficiency, and

# the holding of swadeshi melas or fairs for selling handicrafts and other articles became a regular feature.

Picketing before the shops selling British goods and boycott of the officially controlled educational institutions were other steps taken during the agitation .

Q.  What were the political trends which developed during the Swadeshi Movement?

A.  Several trends of political thinking were competing with one another for popular acceptance during the swadeshi days in Bengal:

i) The moderate nationalist opinion (which was represented by persons like Surendranath Banerjea, Krishnakumar Mitra and Narendra Kumar Sen) still had abiding faith in the British sense of justice, and were not in favor of stretching the agitation too far.They were out of tune with the prevailing militant mood against the British authorities that the moderates rapidly and conclusively lost their popularity.

ii) The second or the social reformist creed of "constructive swadeshi"- as it was aimed at gathering national strength through a persistent movement of self-help and self-reliance (or Atmashakti according to Rabindranath Tagore) by organizing indigenous enterprises, nationalistic educational processes and setting up village uplift societies to bridge the gulf between the rural and urban people. All those who did not see eye to eye with the moderate nationalists supported the cause of "constructive swadeshi" in the beginning.

iii) Even though the program recommended by the social reformists was significant in some ways, it was too arduous and unexciting to have wide appeal in those days . It could neither match the exuberance of political leaders nor satisfy the impatient, adventurous youth of Bengal. In such circumstances, the appearance of political extremism-the third trend-was natural. It found expression in periodicals like New India (edited by Bepinchandra Pal), Bande Mataram (edited by Aurobindo Ghosh), Sandhya (edited by Brahmabandhav Upadhyaya) and Yugantar (edited by Bhupendranath Dutta). The political extremists demanded self-government for India, not under British tutelage or British Paramountcy (as the moderates wished), but by severing all British connections, and wiping

off all British influences.

  The extremist political leaders gave a clarion call for the establishment of swaraj & attempted to find the ways and means for achieving it. They speedily came to the conclusion that the techniques of boycott should be escalated from British goods and educational institutions to other spheres, such as the British administration, the British courts of law and the British services, shaking the foundation of British authority in India.

Q.  Why did the peasants not participate in the Swadeshi movement in a big way?

A.  The reason was the lack of genuine interest among these leaders in improving the agrarian situation, or in formulating concrete programs for the betterment of the peasant masses. The members of the middle class in Bengal, whether, professionals, clerks or businessmen, depended substantially for their economic well-being on the rentals from their ancestral lands. Their rental character had, therefore, placed them into an exploitative category vis-a-vis the exploited peasantry, and had perpetuated a contradiction between their interests and the peasants' aspirations. The Swadeshi movement did not raise any voice of protest against the peasant's burden of debts, his periodic eviction from land or against his continued subjection to begar (unpaid forced labor). No Samiti gave any call to the cultivators for launching an agitation on the issues of exorbitant tax and rent. Even a radical spokesman of the stature of the Aurobindo Ghosh expressly ruled out such campaigns lest they should hurt the interests of pamotic Zamindars (Aurobindo Ghosh's articles in Bande Mataram, April 1907). What was worse, the strong religious overtone that the Swadeshi movement acquired in course of time - its undue emphasis on the Hindu revivalistic symbols and idioms - largely discouraged the Muslim peasants (who formed the bulk of the peasantry in east Bengal) from taking a

lively interest in the great commotion.

Q.  How did "Revolutionary terrorism" emerge in 1907-08?

A.  A large-scale participation of the masses in the struggle for Swaraj didn’t yield any result . With little success among the workers, total failure in respect of the cultivators and sad mismanagement of the communal tangle, the Swadeshi movement was unable by a to rise to its full potential second half of 1907 .It was ruthlessly suppressed by the Colonial government too. The authorities prohibited the shouting of the slogan "Bande Mataram" in public places, disqualified from the Government employment all those who took part in the agitation in any form and expelled and fined student participants of the movement. The authorities resorted to physical violent measures like exemplary caning of the picketers and institution of cases against demonstrators , banning of public meetings and processions, and innumerable arrests and convictions of persons, including Bepinchaddra Pal and Liakat Hussain. Thus , the question of meeting force with force--using terror against terror-naturally came to the forefront.

A violent method also appealed to-the romantic recklessness of the middle class youth of Bengal, who sought solace in heroic individual acts when mass actions did not materialize and who pinned their hopes on secret societies when open politics could not overwhelm the Government. The cult of violence was also attractive to those who were in a desperate hurry and whose patience had practically run out. The alternative method of resorting to violence against the tyrannical British emerged .These militant organizations were spearheaded by the Yugantar group in Calcutta and the Anushilan Samiti in Dacca. Prafulla Chaki died and Khudiram Bose, a boy of 18, were hanged for their attempt on the life of a notorious British Magistrate Kingford who escaped unhurt.