Why were
Jyotirao Phule and Ramaswamy Naicker critical of the national
movement? Did their criticism help the national struggle in any way?
Why were Jyotirao Phule and Ramaswamy Naicker critical of the national movement? Did their criticism help the national struggle in any way?
Both
Jyotirao Phule and Ramaswamy Naicker were critical of the national
movement as they could barely see any difference between the
preachers of anti-colonialism and the colonial masters. Both,
according to them, were outsiders and had used power for subjugating
and oppressing the indigenous people. Phule believed that though the
upper-caste leaders were then asking people all over the country to
unite for fighting the British, once the Britishers had left, they
would continue with their oppressive caste policies, thereby causing
divisions amongst the very people they were trying to unite. He
believed that they only wished for unity to serve their purposes, and
once the purposes had been served, the divisions would creep in
again.
Naicker’s
experience in the Congress showed him that the national movement was
not free from the taint of casteism. At a feast organised by
nationalists, the seating arrangements followed caste distinctions,
i.e., the lower castes were made to sit at a distance from the upper
castes. This convinced him that the lower castes had to fight their
battle themselves.
Their
criticism did lead to rethinking and some self criticism among the
upper-caste nationalist leaders. This in turn helped strengthen the
national struggle,
as free from prejudices of caste, religion and gender, the leaders
could unite and concentrate their attentions upon the single aim of
overthrowing the colonial administration.
Both Jyotirao Phule and Ramaswamy Naicker were critical of the national movement as they could barely see any difference between the preachers of anti-colonialism and the colonial masters. Both, according to them, were outsiders and had used power for subjugating and oppressing the indigenous people. Phule believed that though the upper-caste leaders were then asking people all over the country to unite for fighting the British, once the Britishers had left, they would continue with their oppressive caste policies, thereby causing divisions amongst the very people they were trying to unite. He believed that they only wished for unity to serve their purposes, and once the purposes had been served, the divisions would creep in again.
Naicker’s experience in the Congress showed him that the national movement was not free from the taint of casteism. At a feast organised by nationalists, the seating arrangements followed caste distinctions, i.e., the lower castes were made to sit at a distance from the upper castes. This convinced him that the lower castes had to fight their battle themselves.
Their criticism did lead to rethinking and some self criticism among the upper-caste nationalist leaders. This in turn helped strengthen the national struggle, as free from prejudices of caste, religion and gender, the leaders could unite and concentrate their attentions upon the single aim of overthrowing the colonial administration.
