The Indian National Movement in the Works of A. E. Snesarev

Nikitin Dmitrii PhD in History Leading Bibliographer, National Research Tomsk State University 634050, Russia, Tomskaya oblast', g. Tomsk, ul. Lenina, 36 nikitds33@gmail.com Other publications by this author

Domestic researchers in India did not immediately turn to the study of the socio-political life of the country. Scientific interest in the Indian subcontinent, which arose in the second half of the XIX century, was mostly focused on ancient history, ethnography, or on studies of the British colonial system. However, already in the 1870s and 1880s, the outstanding Russian indologist I. P. Minaev drew attention to the fact that the radical changes brought to India by British rule caused the emergence of political societies and the Indian press, the beginning of acquaintance with modern European thought ^{[1, p. 238]}, the development of reformed Hinduism, which opposed outdated religious dogmas and rites ^{[2, pp. 194-217]}. Although Minaev correctly determined that the fruits of English rule would play an important role in the future of India, he was skeptical about the results of the contemporary activities of Indian political associations ^{[3, p. 168]}. For example, Minaev, who was more familiar with Anglo-Indian officialdom than with representatives of the Indian intelligentsia, believed that A. O. Hume's activity in uniting patriotic circles and creating the Indian National Congress (INC) was due to Hume's resentment of the colonial administration, from whose ranks he resigned in 1882 ^{[4, p. 172]}

At the same time, with the revival of political life in India during the reign of Viceroys Ripon and Dufferin, the increasing popularity of the INC and its gradual transformation into the largest organization expressing the interests of European-educated Indians, the Indian national movement is beginning to appear more and more often on the pages of domestic studies. In particular, in 1893 a book by E. Lamansky was published, containing a lengthy essay on the history of the first sessions of the INC ^{[5, pp. 400-407]}. Lamansky, however, focused on English literature about India and reproduced the assessments of the nascent national movement characteristic of it.

A more detailed analysis of the activities of the INC and the patriotic aspirations of educated Indians and their supporters is presented in the works of A. E. Snesarev (1865-1937), a Russian and Soviet military commander and orientalist. The activities of the Congress, which criticized, albeit to a limited extent, British rule in India, aroused Snesarev's interest in connection with the rivalry between Russia and Great Britain in Central Asia (the "Big Game"). The "Russian Question" has accompanied the Congress since its creation in 1885 – the leaders of the INC were often accused of working directly in the interests of the Russian Empire ^[6]. In addition, the activities of the INC not only appeared in the Anglo-Indian press as an argument in anti-Russian rhetoric, but also provided an opportunity for an outside researcher to obtain new information to assess the positions of Great Britain in India and Central Asia, which reflected the views of not the colonial bureaucracy, but the politically active stratum of Indian society.

In 1901 Snesarev turned to the study of the last annual session of the INC at that time, held in Lahore in December 1900. In the article "The Last Indian National Congress" published in the Turkestan Gazette, Snesarev noted that the emergence of the INC was facilitated by the rule of Ripon, "who gained great popularity among the native population", as well as the fact that the Indian "had already been granted the right to gather" ^{[7, p. 167]}. In a short essay on the history of the INC, the author mentioned that the initiator of its creation was A. Hume, and the presidents in different years were V. C. Bonerji, "a natural Scotsman" J. Yul, "remarkable for his talents, G. Dadabhai Naoroji, a native of Pars", "Mohammedan" B. Tayabji ^{[7, p. 167]}. In the first years of the INC's existence, the lack of experience of delegates in discussing the issues raised, according to Snesarev, "deprived the meetings of congresses of proper balance, made the requests too abstract and theoretical, introduced undesirable passion and bitterness into the debate" ^{[7, p. 167]}.

Snesarev's analysis of the attitude of the government, colonial officialdom, and educated Indians to the INC is interesting. The government, according to Snesarev, "from the very beginning looked suspiciously at these national assemblies," considering the resolutions adopted "outrageous and anti-government," and therefore sometimes hindered the holding of sessions ^{[7, p. 167]}. A similar situation developed in 1888, when the Vice-governor of the Northwestern Provinces, O. Colvin, who was arguing with A. O. Hume about the goals and objectives of the Congress, did not support the organization and openly sided with the opponents of the INC ^{[8, pp. 223-247]}.

Snesarev came to the conclusion that the British are dissatisfied with the Congress due to criticism of British policy and attitude towards the Indian population. The latter, thanks to the Congress, "becomes infected with some suspicion and distrust" ^{[7, p. 167]} towards the colonial administration. In general, the British ignore the existence of the Congress and do not see it as a "sign of the times" ^{[7, p. 167]}. The reason for this, Snesarev saw the advisory nature of the INC resolutions, which are not binding, the political inertia and illiteracy of the bulk of the country's population. In addition, he mistakenly believed that the Indian peoples were unable to pursue "broad political goals" ^{[7, p. 167]}, and because of this, the activities of the INC – at least in the coming years – could not lead to any practical results. This is also obvious for educated Indians who support the Congress, who see it as the "embryo of the future parliament" and appreciate the "broad educational significance for the country" of the INC sessions ^{[7, p. 167]}. Initially, the goals of the founders of the INC were to "educate" the British public and the colonial administration about the state of affairs in India, to promote the political, social and cultural development of Indians ^{[8, pp. 199-200]}.

The Lahore session of the Congress of 1900, to which the article is devoted, was one of the first where the strengthening of the radical wing in the INC. was clearly manifested. By this time there was an attempt to limit the power of the congressional moderate "oligarchy" by creating the Indian Congress Committee, which was supposed by the INC Charter of 1899. The Committee, in particular, advocated reducing the costs of maintaining the British INC Committee based in London and its printing organ "India" ^{[9, p. 101, 161]}. The "British" direction of congressional policy was regarded by the moderate leadership of the INC as the most important, but it did not bring significant results, which was one of the reasons for the emergence of demands for reform of the INC. The choice of the chairman of the session in Lahore also caused criticism from the radical wing, since Bombay judge N. G. Chandavarkar ("Kandavarker" at Snesarev) did not actively participate in the Congress for a long time ^{[9, p. 65]}. However, Snesarev in his note did not address the problem of internal contradictions in the Congress, limiting himself to a brief summary of Chandavarkar's "lengthy, very beautiful and tactful speech" at the session ^{[7, p. 166]}.

Nevertheless, acquaintance with the ideas of the Indian national movement and their analysis were reflected in one of the main works of A. E. Snesarev on the Indian theme – the book "India as the main factor in the Central Asian question" published in 1906. This book has a characteristic subtitle: "The view of the natives of India on the British and their governance"; in it the author examines a wide range of issues related to India, relying mainly not on "numerous, but narrow and monotonous works of the British" ^{[10, p. V]}, but on the latest works of Indians and English supporters of INC – Dadabhai Naoroji, R. C. Dutt, W. Digby. In 1901, an expanded edition of Naoroji's main work on the economic situation of India, Poverty and Non–British Rule in India, was published ^[11]. In the same year, W. Digby (a British liberal journalist who lived in India for several years, and upon his return to England became one of the initiators of the creation of the Indian Political Agency – the prototype of the British Committee INC) published a large-scale study "Prosperous British India". In this work Digby spoke about the existence of two schools preaching "two opposite views on India" ^{[12, p. XIX]}. The first of them "always refers to the growing prosperity of the country and the people and demands unconditional praise of England as the creator of this prosperity," while the second says that "impoverishment is becoming inevitable" ^{[12, p. XIX]}. The description of the two schools will later find its place in Snesarev's book ^{[10, p. 73]}. Finally, in 1904, Romesh Chander Dutt, a Bengali historian and writer, president of the INC in 1899, published a study on the economic history of India in the Victorian era ^[13], which was also known to Snesarev.

Most of the book is occupied by an analysis of the economic situation of India, in which Snesarev relies on the above–mentioned works of figures of the Indian national movement - representatives of the "native school", since this school "is a sum of ideas that are almost unknown in Russia and even Europe, except, of course, England, in which they are studiously ignored". ^{[10, p. 75]}. The views of this school were based on the "pumping theory" developed by Dadabhai Naoroji and R. C. Dutt (Snesarev's "drainage theory"; drain theory). According to this theory, which was formed under the influence of Western political economy ^{[14, p. 13]}, during the colonial period of India's history, permanent impoverishment of the population occurred, the cause of which was the continuous withdrawal ("pumping out") of the country's resources in favor of the metropolis. The theory was very popular in the ranks of the INC.: for example, at the Congress session of 1894, P. Rangaya Naidu said that in India there was "a terrible drain on the country's financial resources, the bloated military system absorbs a third of net income, the principles of free trade imposed on us destroyed old industries, the population grew faster than food supplies, and poverty is growing from year to year" ^{[15, p. 12]}. In the works of Digby and Naoroji, which Snesarev considers, calculations of the volume of "pumping out" of resources during the years of British rule in India are given. At the same time, although Snesarev declares himself a supporter of the "native school" ^{[10, p. 75]}, he critically evaluates Digby's calculations, preferring to them the calculations made by Naoroji. Digby, according to him, acts "as an example of the extreme thought of a representative of the so-called native school", "as a passionate pamphleteer, and not as a balanced economist" ^{[10, p. 61]}. To Snesarev, Digby's assumption seems unjustified that if the capital exported from India remained in the country, it would begin to grow, being invested in local production; Snesarev, on the other hand, adheres to the point of view that a significant part of this capital would remain a "dead pile in the storerooms" ^{[10, p. 61]}. In addition, Snesarev points out that the growth of capital and the subsequent growth of "drainage" is due to the development of industrial production in the country, which began "thanks to English capital and the energy of the British" ^{[10, p. 61]}. Thus, Snesarev is skeptical about the figures given by Digby, although in general he shares the "pumping theory".

Another important topic raised by the author in the book "India as the main factor in the Central Asian question" is the question of the attitude of the British to the Indian population. Using numerous examples, Snesarev shows the contempt of the colonialists for the Indians, not excluding representatives of the feudal aristocracy ^{[10, pp. 131-135]}. In turn, the "enlightened minority of India" harbors a "conscious and convinced" hatred of the British, and the masses – "instinctive and nervous" ^{[10, p. 137]}. Hence, Snesarev concludes that the INC (Snesarev's "Hindu People's Congress") "was brought to life in order to centralize all feelings of displeasure of Hindus" ^{[10, p. 143]}, in order to understand which of the problems and complaints of the Indian population causes the greatest discontent. The author points out that the resolutions of the Congress have no force and the INC remains a "purely talking authority" ^{[10, p. 143]}, however, discontent finds expression in anonymous pamphlets distributed throughout India. Snesarev cites in his book a translation of one of these pamphlets from Digby's "Prosperous" British India ^{[12, p. 629-633]}.

The turbulent events of 1905, connected with the partition of Bengal, also did not go unnoticed by the Russian researcher. Snesarev noted that this event was not reflected in the domestic press, but also did not analyze in detail its causes and the course of events, limiting himself to an example of one of the many proclamations distributed in the Bengali presidency during this period. Recognizing the bias of documents of this kind, Snesarev nevertheless rightly pointed out that such proclamations are an example of a "consciously critical attitude" to British rule ^{[10, p. 156]}.

Thus, "India as the main factor in the Central Asian issue" is a work in which, as a "native view", the views of the leaders of the nascent Indian national movement on the situation and ways of development of India are presented in contrast to the widespread British point of view. Snesarev was one of the first to turn to the works of Indian authors, but hardly had the opportunity to fully assess the prospects of the movement. However, although the ideas of growing Indian nationalism are outlined quite briefly in his works, Snesarev is credited with their "discovery" for the domestic reader and the beginning of a scientific study of the political life of India in the late XIX – early XX century.