CRITICALLY EXAMINE THE MARXIST AND IMPERIALIST APPROACH WITH CONTEXT TO NATIONALISM IN INDIA?

CRITICALLY EXAMINE THE MARXIST AND IMPERIALIST APPROACH WITH CONTEXT TO NATIONALISM IN INDIA?

Nationalism :- The feeling of love and pride to our country is called Nationalism .Nationalism also can be defined as patriotic feeling to our country for which the person can sacrifice his everything.

According to 'Mahatma Gandhi' Nationalism is a feeling when a person can die for his family, a family can die for his family, a family can die for a district, a district can die for province, province can die for state, a state can die for a country, a country can die for world and whole world can die for "humanity".

But Gandhi Ji, also said that Nationalism can be evil when it creates evilness feeling to other country. So humanity should be superior in Nationalism.

To understand nationalism in India, different school give different approach such as Imperialist, Nationalism, Marxist and Subaltern approach to study of the Nationalism in India

IMPERIALIST INTERPRETATION TO STUDY OF NATIONALISM IN INDIA.

Imperialism believes to introduced indians to the basic theories and principle of modernity and enlightment, bringing along civilisation and social reform. Impealist denies the fact that nationalism in India had emerged, developed and strengthen itself against social, political, cultural and economic exploitation of colonial power.

According to Imperalist interpretation, nationalist movement was not a people's movement but a product of the need of the elit groups who used it to serve their own narrow interests or their group interest

According to them nationalist are people who formed group, on the basis of caste and religious, identities and they used nationalism as an ideology to mobilise masses for their own selfish interests. 

• This approach developed its interpretation of Indian past on the basis of imperial needs. Purpose of this school of history writing it to interpret Indian past in then manner so that it could facilitate British empire.
• This school denies the exploitative nature of colonalism. They do not recognize the fact that Indian's anti-colonial struggle was an outcome of British colonialism and its economic , social, cultural and political exploitation of India.
• They see the Indian struggle against imperealism as mock battle or mimic welfare. They completely overpassed the imperial contradiction as a reason of for India's struggle for independence. 
• The imperialist writer denies that India was in a process of becoming nation rather they understood India as a group of different castes, religion, creeds, and communities. 
• They argue that political organisation in India is based upon groups, they are using nationalism as a cover of their selfish and individual interests.
• National movement according to this interpretation was not a people's movement but a product of the needs of elite groups. Thus, the elite groups and their private interests provide an idea and ideology to movement of nationalism.
• There were two main constructive elements such as caste and religious identity or political connection built around patronage. 
• Thus, they argues that each group had their narrow selfish interests and they used nationalism as an ideology for mass mobilisation and to gain support.
• Dufferin curzo, chirol lovett, McCullly and B.B. Mishra argue that India's educated middle class used nationalism to fight against "Benevolent" Raj.
• Anil seal in his book emergence of Inidan nationalism develops an almost similar view like this, he argues that Indian National movement had not been fought against british imperialism rather it represented the struggle of one elite groups against anothr elite group for British support. Thus, Anil seal interpreted Indian national movement in terms of mutual rivalry and jealousness. 
• Thus, according to imperalist interpretation nationalism in India is not a national movement to get freedom. Nationalism was a product for competing needs and interest of elite/ rich people or groups.