- Home
- Prelims
- Mains
- Current Affairs
- Study Materials
- Test Series
Latest News
Analyze Desai’s claim that Indian nationalism emerged as an unintended consequence of British colonial policies. [Sociology - Mains Daily Answer writing Practice (20 Marks) - Paper 2]
A.R. Desai’s claim that Indian nationalism was an unintended consequence of British colonialism is a powerful Marxist interpretation that reframes nationalism not as a spiritual awakening or cultural revival, but as a dialectical response to colonial contradictions.
Colonial Policies That Triggered Nationalism
Desai argued that British rule disrupted traditional Indian society and unintentionally laid the groundwork for nationalist consciousness:
- Economic Exploitation:
- Land revenue systems (like Permanent Settlement) impoverished peasants.
- Deindustrialization policies destroyed handicrafts and local industries.
- India became a supplier of raw materials and a market for British goods.
- Modern Infrastructure:
- Railways, telegraphs, and postal systems connected regions and people.
- These tools, meant to serve imperial interests, ironically enabled pan-Indian communication and mobilization.
- Western Education:
- Created an English-educated middle class exposed to liberal, democratic ideas.
- This class became the intellectual backbone of early nationalist movements.
- Legal and Administrative Uniformity:
- British laws and bureaucracy standardized governance across India.
- This fostered a shared political identity, even among diverse communities.
Marxist Lens
Desai viewed nationalism as a class-based historical process, not a cultural or emotional phenomenon. He identified five phases, each led by a different class—from reformers to industrialists to workers. The bourgeoisie, for example, led moderate movements, while later phases saw mass mobilization by peasants and laborers.
Phase |
Period |
Key Features |
Social Class Leading |
1. Social Reform Phase |
1815–1885 |
Focused on reforming Indian society (e.g. abolition of sati, widow remarriage) |
Western-educated intelligentsia |
2. Moderate Nationalism |
1885–1905 |
Formation of Indian National Congress; loyalist petitions to British |
Educated middle class, bourgeoisie |
3. Extremist Nationalism |
1905–1918 |
Swadeshi movement, boycott, assertive politics |
Lower middle class, radical nationalists |
4. Gandhian/Mass Nationalism |
1918–1934 |
Mass mobilization: peasants, workers, women; Non-cooperation, Civil Disobedience |
Indian capitalist class (behind Congress) |
5. Socialist & Revolutionary Phase |
1934–1939 |
Rise of leftist ideologies, trade unions, peasant movements |
Petty bourgeoisie, working class, socialists |
Desai emphasized that nationalism was not a spiritual awakening, but a material response to colonial exploitation. Each phase reflected the interests of a specific class, reacting to the contradictions of British rule.
Unintended Consequences
The British never intended to foster Indian unity or resistance. Yet:
- Their economic policies created widespread suffering, uniting people across caste and region.
- Their modern institutions enabled political organization.
- Their repressive measures provoked resistance, from the Swadeshi movement to Gandhian mass struggles.
Critical Evaluation
- Desai’s analysis is structural and materialist, offering a grounded explanation of nationalism’s roots.
- However, it underplays cultural and symbolic dimensions—which thinkers like Benedict Anderson and Partha Chatterjee emphasize.
- Still, Desai’s work remains vital for understanding how colonial capitalism inadvertently birthed its own opposition.
- Desai vs. Anderson:
- Desai sees nationalism as material and class-driven.
- Anderson views it as a cultural construct, born from print capitalism and shared imagination.
- Desai vs. Chatterjee:
- Desai focuses on economic structures and class leadership.
- Chatterjee critiques the Western-centric view and highlights how colonized societies reclaim cultural sovereignty in the “spiritual domain.”