Political partisanship vitiating the dispassionate reading of history is not a new thing. Philosopher David Hume’s The History of England (in Six Volumes), particularly its first volume on the House of Tudors, had to suffer the ire of the Whigs who controlled state apparatus in Britain in the mid-18th century. Nonetheless, it implied that the critics had chosen to actually read Hume’s fat volume dealing with events that were already two centuries older.

In contemporary India, we find ignorance and confusion about events that are a century to two centuries old. This is possibly because it was the colonial era. However, grasping that period is vital, if we were to understand the institutional underpinnings of our republic. We often boast about, and for good reasons, India’s social and cultural continuity, across the ages. However, we overlook political discontinuity due to disruptions in history.

The two prominent markers are establishment of Delhi Sultanate (1206) and the Regulating Act, 1773. The political institutions of medieval India did not evolve from those of ancient India, and similarly the political institutions of modern India did not emerge from those of medieval India. However, the political institutions and legal system of independent India could easily be traced to colonial India. Even the Constitution of India (1949) derived many of its provisions from the Government of India Act, 1935.

The biggest changeover that marked British rule was the establishment of an impersonal government. This distinguished it from the personal rule in Indian princely states whether they were Hindus, Muslims or Sikhs. Though the duopoly of Secretary of State based in England and Governor General based in India remained a constant feature between 1858 and 1947, the enlargement of legislative council (later bicameralism of Legislative Assembly and Council of States) and elections etc meant that there was planned progression whereas more power was delegated to the Indians. This was a result of a sustained campaign built by Indian leaders, which kept the pressure on the government.

We interpret the freedom movement as a struggle to get rid of British rule. This was the position of revolutionaries, who left the future ruling mechanism of India undefined. The Indian National Congress adopted this “get rid of British’ stance only in 1929 in the form of Purna Swaraj Resolution at the Lahore session. It is another thing that they re-entered participatory politics in 1934, and continued to play the game according to the rules of the game until India obtained independence in 1947. The only exception was Quit India 1942 that was provoked by apprehension of Japanese attack on India. The resignation of the Congress ministries in eight provinces in 1939 did not make a material........

© News18