Malaviya rose to prominence as a populariser of Hindi in the United Province (present Uttar Pradesh). He attended the second annual conference of the Indian Congress and subsequently became Congress President for four times, 1909, 1913, 1919 and 1932. This feat was matched only by Jawaharlal Nehru. In Nehru’s case, twice he became president as Gandhi wanted it; in the first instance to fulfil Motilal Nehru’s desire and in the second instance to help Nehru come out of his grief on the death of Kamala Nehru. Malaviya’s achievement was that these Presidentships meant acceptance of him by a wide range of leaderships in different circumstances.
Malaviya was a believer in the varnashrama system but had no caste prejudices. He facilitated Jagjivan Ram’s education at BHU and Calcutta University. He was the President of the Hindu Mahasabha in 1906 and retained that position for many years even after leaving the Congress in 1934. He had serious differences with Gandhi regarding the Civil Disobedience Movement in 1920-22 but participated in the subsequent Salt Satyagraha and was also arrested. His opposition to Gandhi in 1920 was about the mode and timing of the movement.
As a constitutionalist Malaviya wanted dialogue to take place within a constitutional framework in which both the views of the rulers and the ruled would be exchanged. Denial of rights and non-inclusion of the ruled cannot last long as democratic institutions were an essential pre-requisite for proper administration in a modern society. In this context he pointed out that the 1857 revolt was because of the absence of representative institutions. He rejected the notion of ‘White Man’s burden’ as Hindus and Muslims had practiced self -government for centuries, something which the British ignored. Like the early Liberals and Gandhi he too believed in the innate British sense of justice. Echoing Gandhi, he too believed that the attention of the colonial administration is through patience and suffering and not merely by raising slogans or organising meetings.
Malaviya considered the right of self-determination to be non-negotiable and as the basic condition anywhere in the world and cited the example of Great Britain which fought the two World Wars in order to preserve the right of self-determination not only for itself but for others also. The Russo-Japanese war also demonstrated that no power could be subdued forever. History taught us, he noted, that legitimate rights whether of individuals or nations, had to be conceded and that even a generous and benevolent rule cannot be an alternative to self-rule. He also prophesied that the age of imperialism and colonialism was coming to a close. He emphasised on the need to develop conscious educated citizenship while equally stressing the evils of subordination. Despite his unshakeable belief in constitutional struggle, he appealed to the Viceroy for mercy in the case of Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev to commute the death sentence to life sentence as their lives could be saved. Calling for clemency on grounds of humanity, he pointed out that the actions of Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev was not for advancing any personal cause but motivated by their deep sense of patriotism. Execution on the contrary would be a severe shock to the Indian people in general. Commutation to life sentence would be beneficial to the British as the Indian public earnestly hoped for commutation and if that happened, then the popular perception of the British rulers would change for the better.
Malaviya looked to the past with pride, glorifying both the Hindu and Muslim periods though both have fallen from ancient glory. He pleaded for limited measure of autonomy and self -rule as a way of revival. Malaviya concurred with Besant that Indian nationalism originated in ancient times. The Vedic culture and the Vedas and the Upanisads reflected the continuity of Indian civilisation which emphasised persuasion and debarred the use of force. Believing in the contemporary relevance of the ancient Indian texts as he did, one of the important motives of his establishing the BHU was that apart from teaching modern disciplines of both natural and social sciences it would also concentrate on studying Indology.
Malaviya popularised the phrase satyameva jayata, an Upanisadic one, which has been accepted as our national motto. Believing in some important rituals, he started the popular arati at the Harki pauri in Hardwar. He was also closely associated with the construction of Laksmi Narain temples by the Birlas in New Delhi and elsewhere. He fought equally against untouchability and wholeheartedly supported Gandhi’s demand of temple entry for the Harijans. Like Gandhi, he was a modernizer of tradition and believed in secular values which the BHU embodies. His emphasis was on culture and religion. Even the Ali brothers accepted Malviya was broadminded.
As Mr Siddiqui correctly points out, unlike Gandhi, Malaviya supported industrialisation for poverty alleviation. He popularised the sentiment of ‘buy Indian’ in order to reinforce swadeshi. He was of the view that for disseminating the nationalist view a free press was an essential requirement. With that in mind, he started an English paper, The Leader from Allahabad in 1909. He, along with G.D. Birla and Lajpat Rai, founded the English daily, The Hindustan Times and its Hindi version, the Hindustan in 1936. He was a member of the Imperial Legislature from 1912-19. Along with Tilak, Besant and Jinnah, he played a crucial role in the historic Lucknow Pact in 1916. Though he had given up a lucrative legal practice, in 1911 he defended the accused in the Chaura Chauri case and got 156 out of 177 acquitted. He opposed the Khilafat movement as he did not want to mix religion with politics. Along with Jawarharlal Nehru and Lajpat Rai he opposed the Simon commission in 1928. He was a delegate to the first RTC in 1930. Malaviya’s idea of composite nationalism did not have any place for separate electorates, which is why he criticised the 1919 Montford Reforms and the 1932 Ramsay MacDonald communal award. Along with Madhav Shrihari Aney he founded the Congress Nationalist Party after leaving the Congress in 1934. In the same year, in the elections to the Central Legislature, the CNP won 12 seats. Malaviya bid good bye to active politics in 1937.
Malviya is one of the finest propagators of constitutional mechanism for change, and is comparable to early liberals like Ranade, Naroji, Gokhale and Surendranth Banerjee and later liberals like Srinivasa Shastri and Sapru.
He dedicated his life to social reform, constitutional struggle and self-government. In honouring Malaviya with the Bharat Ratna it is way of reminding ourselves that many streams formed the nationalist movement to make it a success. The time has come to remember all of them, in the American way, as India’s Founding Fathers.
Malaviya was a believer in the varnashrama system but had no caste prejudices. He facilitated Jagjivan Ram’s education at BHU and Calcutta University. He was the President of the Hindu Mahasabha in 1906 and retained that position for many years even after leaving the Congress in 1934. He had serious differences with Gandhi regarding the Civil Disobedience Movement in 1920-22 but participated in the subsequent Salt Satyagraha and was also arrested. His opposition to Gandhi in 1920 was about the mode and timing of the movement.
As a constitutionalist Malaviya wanted dialogue to take place within a constitutional framework in which both the views of the rulers and the ruled would be exchanged. Denial of rights and non-inclusion of the ruled cannot last long as democratic institutions were an essential pre-requisite for proper administration in a modern society. In this context he pointed out that the 1857 revolt was because of the absence of representative institutions. He rejected the notion of ‘White Man’s burden’ as Hindus and Muslims had practiced self -government for centuries, something which the British ignored. Like the early Liberals and Gandhi he too believed in the innate British sense of justice. Echoing Gandhi, he too believed that the attention of the colonial administration is through patience and suffering and not merely by raising slogans or organising meetings.
Malaviya considered the right of self-determination to be non-negotiable and as the basic condition anywhere in the world and cited the example of Great Britain which fought the two World Wars in order to preserve the right of self-determination not only for itself but for others also. The Russo-Japanese war also demonstrated that no power could be subdued forever. History taught us, he noted, that legitimate rights whether of individuals or nations, had to be conceded and that even a generous and benevolent rule cannot be an alternative to self-rule. He also prophesied that the age of imperialism and colonialism was coming to a close. He emphasised on the need to develop conscious educated citizenship while equally stressing the evils of subordination. Despite his unshakeable belief in constitutional struggle, he appealed to the Viceroy for mercy in the case of Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev to commute the death sentence to life sentence as their lives could be saved. Calling for clemency on grounds of humanity, he pointed out that the actions of Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev was not for advancing any personal cause but motivated by their deep sense of patriotism. Execution on the contrary would be a severe shock to the Indian people in general. Commutation to life sentence would be beneficial to the British as the Indian public earnestly hoped for commutation and if that happened, then the popular perception of the British rulers would change for the better.
Malaviya looked to the past with pride, glorifying both the Hindu and Muslim periods though both have fallen from ancient glory. He pleaded for limited measure of autonomy and self -rule as a way of revival. Malaviya concurred with Besant that Indian nationalism originated in ancient times. The Vedic culture and the Vedas and the Upanisads reflected the continuity of Indian civilisation which emphasised persuasion and debarred the use of force. Believing in the contemporary relevance of the ancient Indian texts as he did, one of the important motives of his establishing the BHU was that apart from teaching modern disciplines of both natural and social sciences it would also concentrate on studying Indology.
Malaviya popularised the phrase satyameva jayata, an Upanisadic one, which has been accepted as our national motto. Believing in some important rituals, he started the popular arati at the Harki pauri in Hardwar. He was also closely associated with the construction of Laksmi Narain temples by the Birlas in New Delhi and elsewhere. He fought equally against untouchability and wholeheartedly supported Gandhi’s demand of temple entry for the Harijans. Like Gandhi, he was a modernizer of tradition and believed in secular values which the BHU embodies. His emphasis was on culture and religion. Even the Ali brothers accepted Malviya was broadminded.
As Mr Siddiqui correctly points out, unlike Gandhi, Malaviya supported industrialisation for poverty alleviation. He popularised the sentiment of ‘buy Indian’ in order to reinforce swadeshi. He was of the view that for disseminating the nationalist view a free press was an essential requirement. With that in mind, he started an English paper, The Leader from Allahabad in 1909. He, along with G.D. Birla and Lajpat Rai, founded the English daily, The Hindustan Times and its Hindi version, the Hindustan in 1936. He was a member of the Imperial Legislature from 1912-19. Along with Tilak, Besant and Jinnah, he played a crucial role in the historic Lucknow Pact in 1916. Though he had given up a lucrative legal practice, in 1911 he defended the accused in the Chaura Chauri case and got 156 out of 177 acquitted. He opposed the Khilafat movement as he did not want to mix religion with politics. Along with Jawarharlal Nehru and Lajpat Rai he opposed the Simon commission in 1928. He was a delegate to the first RTC in 1930. Malaviya’s idea of composite nationalism did not have any place for separate electorates, which is why he criticised the 1919 Montford Reforms and the 1932 Ramsay MacDonald communal award. Along with Madhav Shrihari Aney he founded the Congress Nationalist Party after leaving the Congress in 1934. In the same year, in the elections to the Central Legislature, the CNP won 12 seats. Malaviya bid good bye to active politics in 1937.
Malviya is one of the finest propagators of constitutional mechanism for change, and is comparable to early liberals like Ranade, Naroji, Gokhale and Surendranth Banerjee and later liberals like Srinivasa Shastri and Sapru.
He dedicated his life to social reform, constitutional struggle and self-government. In honouring Malaviya with the Bharat Ratna it is way of reminding ourselves that many streams formed the nationalist movement to make it a success. The time has come to remember all of them, in the American way, as India’s Founding Fathers.
