send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Claim your free MCQ
Please specify
Sorry for the inconvenience but we’re performing some maintenance at the moment. Website can be slow during this phase..
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
Lytton followed openly reactionary and anti-Indian policies. These afforded excellent opportunities to the Indian Association to organize a number of all-India political agitations.
Lord Lytton was succeeded by Lord Ripon in 1880. Ripon’s approach was different. He had that the educated Indians possessed legitimate aspirations in keeping with their education and the pledges given by the British Parliament from time to time in this regard should be honoured. Lytton’s administration, he argued, had given the impression ‘rightly or wrongly’ that the interests of the natives of India, were in all ways to be sacrificed to those of England. He wanted to harness the talents of the educated classes for strengthening British Rule. Some of steps taken by him during this period clearly indicate his policy.
1. He repealed the Vernacular Press Act,
2. Promoted local self-government institutions,
3. Encouraged the spread of education and
4. Brought the Afghan War to an end.
5. Ilbert Bill controversy
His policy, however, could not proceed beyond certain limits on account of the constraints imposed by the very character of British rule in India. A bitter agitation directed at Ripon and his pro-Indian policies erupted over the so-called Ilbert Bill among the Anglo-Indians who had been annoyed by him. The Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill or the Ilbert Bill as it came to be called after the name of the Law Member in Viceroy’s Council was in essence a measure putting Indian Judges on the same footing as Europeans in dealing with all cases in the Bengal Presidency. Its purpose was to enable qualified Indian judges in the mofussil to try Europeans for criminal offenses (in Presidency towns they were already allowed to do so). The Bill was brought forward because Indians were now rising in the ranks of the judicial service. It involved the possibility of trial of Europeans by Indian judges for criminal offenses without a jury. It also gave right to Europeans to appeal to the High Court if they were not satisfied. But this provoked a storm of angry criticism amongst the Anglo-Indians. Ripon found that even the civil service was in sympathy with the opposition. In the press and in public meetings Indian character and culture were severely criticized. Ultimately the Government had to bow before this hostile opinion and the Bill was amended in such a manner that its very purpose was defeated.
The entire controversy has an important place in the circumstances leading to the emergence of an All-India body. It is often said that Indians learnt their first lesson in political agitation from Anglo-Indians on this occasion. This is not really true. Indians had already realised the importance of this method and had organised an all-India agitation on the question of Civil Service Examination. In fact they had already learnt from experience that Anglo-Indians would not make a common cause with them in their demands for more power and better privileges. The reaction of Indians throughout the country on the issue of agitation against the bill was the same. The Indian press made it clearly known that educated Indians valued the principle underlying the bill and would bitterly resent its abandonment. After the main principle was abandoned, the Indians realised an urgent need for national unity, greater organisation and self-reliance.
During the early 1880s the idea of a national organisation had become an important topic for discussion in the Indian press. The Ilbert Bill controversy seemed to reinforce this idea. In July 1883, the Indian Association held a meeting which was attended by some 10,000 persons. Here it was decided that ‘a national fund’ with the aim of securing the political advancement of the country by means of agitation in England and in India, should be created. This proposal was widely acclaimed. However, in some quarters there was criticism on the ground that the Indian Association had failed to secure the support of other political associations in the country. The drive for national fund yielded only Rs. 20,000. But it sparked off widespread debate in the press. It was repeatedly pointed out during this debate that coordinated political action was called for and representatives of different political associations should meet annually in big cities of the country. In December 1883 an International Exhibition was scheduled to be held in Calcutta. The Indian Association decided to take advantage of this event and invited prominent public men and associations in different parts of the country to meet and discuss questions of general concern. Such a Conference was held from 28 to 31 December 1883 and was called the National Conference. It was not a very representative or influential gathering but it is significant that the programme adopted here was very similar to the one adopted by the Indian National Congress later. It provided an opportunity to educated Indians from different places to meet and exchange views. It has rightly been described as the precursor of the Indian National Congress or ‘the dress rehearsal’ for it.
1. Curzon reduced the number of elected members in the Calcutta Corporation. This measure was intended primarily to satisfy the European business interests in the city, who often complained of delays in the grant of licences and similar other facilities. The consideration behind the action was obvious, and its undemocratic nature was un-mistakable. The Calcutta citizens felt deeply offended and wronged. However, before they could digest this wrong,
2. Curzon launched an assault on the autonomous character of Calcutta University-the pride of the educated sections in Bengal. Armed with the recommendations of Indian University Commission, whose sole Indian member (Gurdas Banerji) disagreed wholly with others, Curzon passed the Universities Act (1904). The objective used as a pretext was “to raise the standard of education all round”. The act cut down the number of elected senate members (mostly Indians) and transferred the ultimate power of affiliating colleges and schools, as well as giving them grants-in-aid, to the Government officials. This piece of legislation left the outraged members of the educated middle class in no doubt about the Viceroy’s determination to hurt them and break their spirit in every conceivable way.
3. The worst, as it turned out, came rather quickly and dramatically in July 1905 when Curzon announced the partition of Bengal.
By: Subhash Singh ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses