Gail Omvdt(1976)(87) argues that the non-Brahmin movement in Maharshtra is found in both elite-based conservative trend and also in more genuine mass-based radicalism. It has not attained radical goals though it has attained conservative goals.. ‘The Maharshtrain Brahmin intelligentsia, though still dominant in educational and cultural institutions, has been swept from political power by rich peasant non –Brahmin elite, with strong roots in the villages and with an institutional basis in rural co-operatives and educational societies’. He observes that Phule’s theory of exploitation was focused on cultural and ethnic factor rather than on economic or political ones. According to Phule’s ides, education and organization were the means …show more content…
They collectively refused to perform for landlords and also opposed taxes imposed by the landlords. The Ahirs refused to sell cow-dung cakes, curds and milk to landowning upper case at concessional rates. This refusal to follow customary laws resulted in clashes between the upper and the backward castes. The upper backward or non-Brahmin casted of south India, particularly the Vellalas, the Reddis, the kammas, the lingayats, the Vokkaligas, the Marathas, resented the dominance of the Brahmins. They raised the issue of exploitation and oppression, bothe economic and cultural, by the Brahmins. The non-Brahmins of Tamilanadu demanded a separate state for the Dravidians. They opposed, nationalist movement dominated by the Brahmins in the 1920s and declared their allegiance to the British …show more content…
Rao (1979)(92) devides non-upper castes/classes into three categories. The uppermost category of the backward castes consists mostly of landowners. There are several such castes in different parts of the country, such as the Jats, the Ahirs, the Gujjars in Punjab, the Marathas in Maharashtra, the Vokkaligas and the, Bants in Karnataka. Ranking below them are tenant cultivators, artisans and other service castes. They include the Ahirs and the Kahars in Bihar, the kolis in Gujarat and the Vaddars in South India. They are considered caste-Hindus, above the pollution line. They have not enjoyed political power in the recent past. Most of them are small or marginal farmers, tenants, or agricultural laborers. ‘They were under the economic and political control of the landowning castes. The latter often extorted forced labor from the former as domestic servants and palanquin-bearers, and expected several customary payments. At the bottom are the untouchable castes who are designated Scheduled Castes under the Constitutional of India. The social-economic conditions of most of the Scheduled Castes and other backward castes are qualitatively different, though some of the non-upper caste movements, known as anti-Brahmin movements, included untouchables. Most of the studies on the untouchables’ movements do not include the movements of the other backward castes.
They are looking to gain as much wealth and power as possible for themselves on behalf of the British. As a result of the exclusion of natives from the “Legislative Council of India,” they felt that all laws “were passed with a view to degrade and ruin them.” (Document 3) The BEIC were outsiders who were now making all of their decisions for them. The people of India had no voice in the government under the
After the subcontinent of India was freed from their colonizers at the end of World War II, it was split into two independent states: the Hindu dominated India, and Muslim dominated Pakistan. These religious affiliations created tensions and conflict within the subcontinent. Bal Thackery, the Indian founder of a Hindu nationalist organization, was quoted saying, “When Pakistan wins a cricket match and my country is defeated, why should Indian Muslims celebrate?” (Document 9). Members of the Indian subcontinent often held stronger ties with those of their same religion, rather than country.
Khudai Khidmatgar would refuse to pay taxes to the British government. These groups were often met with violence but never retaliate. If there was a retaliation of a violent manner the campaign would be called off, for example when Gandhi called off, the effect, Non-Cooperation Movement. The Non-Cooperation Movement called for a boycott of all British products. As stated in (Source A2).
The caste system is divided into four main categories- Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras. The Brahmins who were mainly intellectuals are believed to come from Brahma’s head. The Kshatriyas, warriors and rulers, came from his arms. Vaishyas, traders, were created from his thighs. And at the bottom were the Shudras came from Brahma’s feet and did all the factory jobs.
The castes are the Brahmin, the Kshatriya, the Vaishya, the Kshudras, and lastly the Dalit. The Dalit are the lowest caste in the caste system and they receive really poor treatment. Sikhs dislike this unequal treatment and so they spoke out against it. When an Islamic empire took hold of the Mughal Empire in 1526 CE, the Sikhs were able to live in relative peace with the political rulers.
The caste system holds the view that a person's caste influences their decision-making regarding marriage, employment, education, etc. Despite the fact that it is still in use today, the caste system underwent some major changes over time in India. In today’s time, according to Pew Research center they stated how in India, caste segregation is still widely practiced. For instance, a huge percentage of Brahmins said they would not accept a member of a scheduled caste as a neighbor. However, the majority of Indians believe that caste discrimination is not a major issue in the nation, and two-thirds of those who identify with scheduled castes or tribes also believe that their specific groups don't face a lot of prejudice.
In conclusion all of this the greatest independence war in India and fighting could have been prevented if the British respected the Indians religion. If they had been more polite to the Indians than they would of been fine with what Britain was doing. It would of not happened if the British had treated the Indians as equals and not below them, then the fighting and dispute would have never happened. During this period a tiny number of British officials and troops (about 20,000 in all) ruled over 300 million Indians(The National Archive). This was often seen as evidence that most Indians accepted and even approved of British rule(The National Archive).
Furthermore, without political rights, citizens cannot participate in the government nor their society. So, people under British authority felt that they could not contribute to society. In the document: “The Pros and Cons of British Rule”, Dadabhai Naoroji vividly explains why the citizens of India were not treated fairly and were not given certain rights. “Political aspirations and the legitimate claim to have a reasonable voice in the legislation and the imposition and disbursement of taxes, met to a very slight degree, thus treating the natives of India not as British subjects, in whom representation is a birthright” (Naoroji). This quote describes how the indigenous people in India were
10 million Indian lives were taken by the british during their rule over India. Great Britain gained control of India in 1601 with the English East India Company and later because of their strong army, navy, and economic power Great Britain saw an opportunity to gain control of a vast amount of land and took control of India. Many natives were against British control because of their unjustified way of ruling, but one man lead a nonviolent movement that made India independent again, his name was Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi’s non-violent movement was able to work because of his determination, the support from other protesters and his willingness to keep the protest non-violent. Gandhi's determination to make India independent again is one
India, one of the many colonies England controlled in the past was the “Jewel in the Crown” of the British Empire. Although in the beginning, it was controlled by the British East India Company as a source of cotton, tea, and indigo. The British had indirect control of India until the Sepoy Rebellion in 1857. Although Britain created India’s government and military, improved trade, protected land, claimed to improve education, and increased minority safety, however the government and military controlled and excluded Indians, trade only benefitted the British, statistics show education was better after Indian Independence, valuable land was degraded and minorities still felt fear and insecurity.
History of the particular policy domain, social and political processes, like McGirr in “Making Radical Reform” and Alexander in “The Rebirth of Caste”, policies regulating the use of substances, the prohibition of alcohol in McGirr and the War on Drugs in Alexander, were developed in response to larger social and political power struggles around ethnicity and or race. In McGirr's reading, we can see an illustration of how prohibition was linked to racism affecting the latest immigration waves in the nineteenth century. In the New Jim Crow, Alexander described the racialization of drugs such as crack cocaine as the primary factor for the brutal policy response. The drug war in the United States has constantly exposed large amounts to criminalization,
In addition, Gandhi disagreed with some features of the caste system, especially the brutal treatment of the untouchables (Wadley 202). The untouchables were the lowest caste in the system, and lived at the lowest level of society. They were considered the least pure, and were not able to come in contact with those of a higher caste, due to the fact that they may risk “spiritually polluting” the person in the higher caste (Wadley 189-190). From the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence, Gandhi has spoken several times about the awfulness of untouchability, stating that God would strongly disagree with
They have no identity whatsoever. They are unable to choose their own paths. LIterally their whole life is predetermined, and then they are conditioned to have opinions similar to others in their caste. It is a lot easier to be appreciative of our world after
Sudipta Kaviraj can be discussed while we try to contextualise the concept of nation with respect to India. He says that a distinction can be made
The divide and rule thesis is a plausible method to explain rising communal antagonism. There were several factors that encouraged communal antagonism in colonial India. The British administration’s policy of course was one of them. The policy treats the masses as gullible agents. People