The Indian Minority in Great Britain and its contribution to the Indian Nationalist Movement during the late 19th and early 20th centuries
Arun Velamuri, Fall 2017
“The jewel in the crown of the British Empire” is a phrase often used to describe the largest and most populous of Great Britain’s colonies prior to the breakup of its empire – India. However, though India itself was considered a reputable resource, its population on the other hand, was not, as would be evidenced in the following decades across the British Empire in the form of Indian Nationalism and the Indian Nationalist Movement. One minority group that would have a significant impact on this movement would be a minority at the heart of the empire itself, the Indian Minority living in Great Britain during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
The Indian Minority in Great Britain served an important role in the Indian Nationalist Movement from the heart of the British Empire. Yet despite the minority’s near unanimous recognition of the fact that reform of some sort was necessary, approaches on how to deal with it varied greatly, with there being differences on the magnitude of changes needed and the method of delivery for the message of Indian Nationalism. Ultimately, though, the Indian minority in Great Britain assisted the Indian Nationalist Movement by contributing to the important factors that make up the concept of nationalism – a common political project, print capitalism, and an imagined community, often running parallel to and in some cases having an even greater effect than their counterparts in India in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
What is Nationalism?
The definition of the nation and nationalism is one that has been discussed by scholars repeatedly since the conception of the idea in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Despite decades of arguments and volumes of theories, there is no singular, universally accepted definition of nation and nationalism, and rather a collection of definitions from some of the world’s most renowned political theorists. My personal definition of nationalism states that a nation, and therefore nationalism, must develop through the presence of a political project propelled by an educated and active populace which has access to forms media for the rapid spread of ideas. This populace must have some sense of identity in the form of an “imagined community”, whether it be ethnic or political, as well as a motivation behind pursuing its political project, such as the unevenness of development between the nation and other nations surrounding it. To support my definition of the nation and nationalism, I will explore in detail the scholars whose theories of nationalism I synthesized to arrive at my personal definition, and I will illustrate my definition through by using the minority population of Indians in Britain in the late eighteenth to the early twentieth centuries.
One scholar who provides strong insight into the definition of a nation and serves as the basis for my definition of the nation and nationalism is Max Weber. He postulates that a nation comes into existence with the presence of a “myth of common descent” within an ethnic group, as well as commitment to a “political project”.01)Max Weber, “The Nation,” in Nationalism, eds. John Hutchinson and Anthony D. Smith (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1994), 25. His argument also shies away from any one characteristic that defines the nation, instead arguing that the nations are too varied to be so defined.02)Ibid., 22-23. For Weber, a nation is truly the people and a goal or mission that drives them to keep striving for a better life, rather than any state or defined set of borders that delineates it. From Weber’s definition, I extracted the concept of the political project which serves as the bedrock of any populace so as to unify it into the construct known as a nation.
Weber’s argument falls close to the arguments of yet another theorist of nationalism, whose definitions have become some of the most influential on the topic – Benedict Anderson. Anderson’s theory purports that the nations lie upon the bedrock of the “imagined political communities” created after the former axioms of a central ruler, a privileged script, and a belief in man’s origin being tied to that of the universe were reduced in influence.03)Benedict Anderson, “Imagined Communities,” in Nationalism, eds. John Hutchinson and Anthony D. Smith (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1994), 89. Though historically dominant forces, these old ideas slowly lost ground as a form of common communication – print-capitalism – emerged and allowed for the spread of new ideas in a way not witnessed before.04) Ibid., 90-94. The removal of these centuries old beliefs opened the path for Anderson’s “imagined political communities”, which, though seemingly fabricated, allows for the development and existence of institutions that give national distinctiveness, using print-capitalism as one of its primary tools.05)Ibid., 94-96. It is these institutions, along with the “imagined” beliefs tied to them that allow for a political project to propagate itself forwards. In my personal definition of the nation and nationalism, I displayed the idea of the “imagined community” as the adhesive which holds a nation together around its unique political project, and print-capitalism as the modus operendi through which the nation was connected.
Print-capitalism, and hence a political project, however, cannot succeed without one very important tool – the emergence of a literate society which can modernize itself to compete with other nations around the globe. One intellectual who argues this concept of modernization and literacy is Ernest Gellner, who theorizes the necessity of these factors to emerge before the development of a nation. A nation needs to have an active populace that participates in discussion on its policies, and print-capitalism allows for the spread of information in unique ways and creates the feeling of a nation. However, the literate society is the prerequisite for both of these factors, and modernization is the only way that such a universal education system can emerge to help a nation succeed in its goals.06)Ernest Gellner, “Nationalism and Modernization,” in Nationalism, eds. John Hutchinson and Anthony D. Smith (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1994), 55-56. Such a system would allow for the people of the nation to develop the sense of a nation and achieve a political project, spreading it effectively through the means of print. Gellner’s theory was utilized in my personal definition of nationalism to emphasize the importance the concept of print-capitalism and how an educated populace able to involve itself in mass communication was necessary for a nation to be maintained and expanded.
The development of such a nation requires, however, conditions that cannot be equally achieved by all nations. Tom Nairn proposes the argument of the unequal development in nations, displaying how the natural progression of industrialization and modernization was most effectively captured by western European nations, such as Great Britain, and nations not as well suited to such a transition were left in their wake.07)Tom Nairn, “The Maladies of Development,” in Nationalism, eds. John Hutchinson and Anthony D. Smith (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1994), 55-56. These nations, such as India, which did not have either the technological or political progress equivalent to their western European counterparts soon fell victim to the expansion of the western European states. As such these states were forced to adapt to a system not in the natural way but in a sort of artificial fashion to keep competitive in the global political and economic spheres.08)Ibid., 77. This unevenness is development allowed for both European expansion and dominance in the nineteenth through twentieth centuries and the beginnings of globalization. Nairn’s focus on unevenness is an important part of my definition of nationalism because it is one example of a motivating force that propels the political project of a nation forward, without which a nation endowed with all the other components of a nation would merely remain a populace and nothing more.
The unevenness of development between nations was accompanied by the rise of globalization and better connections between the modern world forming in western Europe and the less developed nations of the east, and interesting gave rise to cultural diversity and minority nations in western Europe that had seldom been seen before. The Indian minority nation that began settling down in Britain from the late eighteenth to the early twentieth centuries and the involvement of this nation in the Indian Nationalist Movement was one such interesting development, and as such, I will be expanding upon it to illustrate my definition of the nation and nationalism.
The Indian minority group was for decades the subject of discrimination throughout the British Empire, with the center of the empire, Great Britain, being no exception. It was this discrimination, however, that laid the roots for the political project that would unite this minority group. Though the Indian minority that came to Britain would be first and foremost citizens of the land they had settled in, regardless of class or status, they developed an “imagined political community” with those in their land of origin in India in the form of Indian nationalism. This Indian minority had not developed the tools of modernization and nationalization – instead, they emulated and captured the tools from its source. Some of these tools, such as the involvement of the larger public, mass communications, and the idea of a common political project, were shipped to India. Others of these tools, however, were implemented by the minority in Great Britain itself, with a few of the Indian minority rising, despite all opposition, to high levels of political power within the nation itself so as to represent the interests of the “imagined community” across the globe.
The Indian minority in Britain, therefore, is a case study of the emergence of nationalism in a group which had been forced to adapt to a rapidly changing world. Its development of a political project, development of an “imagined community” with its ethnic group, and rapid learning of the tools of more modernized nations in a changing world and the utilization of these tools to the ends of its own ethnic group, both in Great Britain itself and in India despite all the odds stacked against it, display the origins of the nationalism of the Indian minority of Great Britain.
The Indian Minority in Great Britain: A Brief History
Despite India’s status as a valuable resource for the British crown, very few Indians were ever allowed onto the soil of the British Isles themselves, with estimates equaling less than 8,000 prior by the 1930s. This minority group consisted of both servants such as lascars and ayahs who arrived in the British Isles in the 18th century, as well as professionals, students, and other members of the upper class who came throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries. However, even with discouragement of Indians entering Great Britain itself, members of the minority group from all facets of life arrived and settled in the center of imperial power.
The arrival of Indians on the shores of Great Britain in the came the struggles, beliefs, and ideologies carried by these foreigners. For some, such as the ayahs, lascars, and other servant classes, the need to survive pushed them to leave their homes in India. These Indian sailors lived in the UK and despite facing great hardships and discrimination by working some of the worst jobs in the British shipping industry, they managed to survive.09)Rozina Visram, Ayahs, Lascars, and Princes (London: Pluto Press, 1986), 34-38. These individuals faced the brunt of the racial factors present in working class British society, and also had tenuous relations with the upper class. They subsequently fell at the bottom of the race and class hierarchy which also included other British minorities as well as their white working-class counterparts. Yet, for their employers, they were a source of cheap labor, while for them, it was a better life than the poor lives they led in India and a form of steady employment. And so, despite being the bottom of the social hierarchy, the Lascars survived, carrying their traditions and practices with them and building the roots of the Indian culture in Britain.10)Ibid, 50-55.
For others in the minority, the pursuit of higher educational opportunities or opulent tourism was the driving force. These included individuals such as students who came to receive their education in the British Isles, and in very rare cases, settle down and work. Yet even these individuals were subject to the discrimination present by their counterparts, and due to their low population in the nation, until the early twentieth century, they were unable to act upon any of their issues. A smaller proportion of these individuals remained in Britain, and those who did were marked as morally bankrupt, not benefitting the system.11)Ibid, 169-172. Even with the discrimination, however, the small proportion who did remain would attempt to make changes and struggle against the British government in a way that would not only benefit the Indian minority in Britain, but Indians across the globe.
It can clearly be seen that, regardless of their origins, the Indian diaspora across the world struggled under the rule of Great Britain which held Indians as lower-class citizens of the Empire. This was especially true in the British Isles, where Indians were such a small minority that their voices were barely heard though their appearance led to the semblance of discrimination outside of their immediate circles. Though there was some participation by the lower classes in broader, scattered worker’s movements, particularly with the movements of the lascars, their effects were minimal due to the low population of Indians in Britain.12)Laura Tabili, We ask for British Justice (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994), 81-90. Nonetheless, the Indian diaspora as a whole did benefit to a degree from these movements.
Another natural result of the discrimination faced by Indians living in Britain, especially within educated and upper-class circles, was the emergence of the Indian Nationalist Movement. Though present since the arrival of the British on Indian soil, this movement finally spread to the imperial capital at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. It was at this point that British Indians from all strata started to push for Indian nationalism and home rule. To achieve this, organizations like the British Committee of the Indian Nationalist Congress and men like Dadabhai Naoroji , who was of Indian descent but was still able to enter into the British political sphere as a Member of Parliament to support the Nationalist cause, led the path to greater rights for Indians.13)Matthew Stubbings, “The Partisan Nature of Race and Imperialism: Dadabhai Naoroji, M. M. Bhownaggree and the Late Nineteenth-Century British Politics of Indian Nationalism,” The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 44, no. 1 (2016), 48.14)Prabha Ravi Shankar, “British Committee of the Indian National Congress – A Critical Appraisal,” Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 65 (2004), 761. Yet others, such as the India Home Rule Society, would take a different position to improve the quality of life Indians in the Empire, by adopting a more radical brand of nationalism to achieve home rule.15)Matthew Stubbings, “The Partisan Nature of Race and Imperialism: Dadabhai Naoroji, M. M. Bhownaggree and the Late Nineteenth-Century British Politics of Indian Nationalism,” The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 44, no. 1 (2016), 48. And proving that no minority group is a monolith, others like M.M. Bhownaggree, another Indian Member of Parliment, would by argue in favor of British Imperialism and reject Indian Nationalism entirely 16)Nicholas Owen, “The Soft Heart of the British Empire: Indian Radicals in Edwardian London, Past & Present 220, no. 1 (2013), 143 Regardless, the actions of these groups and individuals, as well as others like them, would, for better or for worse, affect the whole of the Indian Nationalist Movement in the end.
A Need For Representation: India and Indians in Parliament
Indian Nationalism was present and thriving years before it saw light on British, with its most pronounced incarnation rearing its head in the form of the Indian Rebellion of 1857, more commonly known as the Sepoy Mutiny. Despite the failure of the rebellion and its consequences, which saw Queen Victoria proclaim that India would be governed directly by the British Government and not the East India Company as it had been for decades prior, the movement would slowly spread from India to the shores of Britain itself. 17)Claire C. Summers, “The Indian Rebellion of 1857,” Tenor of Our Times 4, no. 6 (2016), 47. The most well known organization that promoted the nationalist message was the British Committee of the Indian National Congress. This group promoted the Indian Nationalist message in a plethora of ways, primarily by spreading propaganda for the movement and communicating with influential figures in Britain.18)Prabha Ravi Shankar, “British Committee of the Indian National Congress – A Critical Appraisal,” Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 65 (2004), 762.
One method it used in particular was the political journal India, which allowed for messages on Indian injustices to the forefront and spread the nationalist message not only to Indians living in Britain, but also to the general public in Britain, so as to raise awareness to the issues present throughout the empire.19)Ibid, 762 This was particularly necessary as much of the contemporary British press portrayed the Indian plight in a negative light during the late 19th and early 20th century, if at all, as well as there being a distinct lack of representation for Indians in British government.20)Ibid, 762-763 This journal is an example of the importance of print capitalism in nationalism at its finest, as had the Indians lost this outlet, they potentially could have lost their voice despite having a distinct political project.
The problem of not having representation in Parliament was rectified in 1892, however, when Dadabhai Naoroji was elected as the Liberal MP, or Member of Parliament, for Central Finsbury in Britain. Naoroji was known for his radical views on British Liberalism and his strong support for Indian Nationalist reform.21)Matthew Stubbings, “The Partisan Nature of Race and Imperialism: Dadabhai Naoroji, M. M. Bhownaggree and the Late Nineteenth-Century British Politics of Indian Nationalism,” The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 44, no. 1 (2016), 48. Though never edging to total self-governance as others would do, Naoroji tried to use his political position to support gaining Indian inclusion into British governance of India, as well as economic reform to help tackle the chronic issue of Indian poverty.22)Ibid, 50 His presence and political career would tie Indian Nationalism and British Liberalism together almost inseparably, suggesting that both were tied together and with other issues such as a support of Irish Home Rule as well as political reform domestically.23)Ibid, 52
Naoroji appealed to the British people by trying to persuade them that Indians would spread the British civilizing mission through numerous reforms and a liberal ideology, particularly focusing on greater inclusion of Indians into the government as well as becoming equals within the Empire by even more strongly adopting British ideals and systems in the Indian subcontinent.24)Ibid, 53 He strongly supported the idea of the Anglicization of India and that imperial rule had benefited the nation, and he received strong support from other liberals in the government for self-governing reform as well as financial responsibility for the Indian nation.25)Ibid, 54-56 In a sense, Naoroji was an effective communicator who was able to turn the concept of unequal development between his homeland of India and his adopted nation of Great Britain and spin it to his benefit, gaining support, reforms, and a political position in a climate that was particularly difficult for someone of his minority to endure, let alone thrive in. And all the while, he continued to slowly, but surely, help push his ideology, that of his particular brand of reform focused Indian Nationalism, and help it enter the public eye of the British public.
Yet one thing Naoroji and the Indian National Congress downplayed was racial difference between Indians and the majority of the other constituents across the empire – and the conservative response would arise, interestingly, in the form of yet another Indian MP, in this case, a man who interestingly rejected the concept of Indian Nationalism, instead preferring British Imperialism – M.M. Bhownaggree. Bhownaggree served as the MP Bethnal Green from 1895, and was one of the strongest supporters of British Imperialism, believing that it had benefited the nation far more than it had hurt it.26)Ibid, 60 As an ardent opponent of Indian Nationalism, he suggested that the Indian National Congress and those who supported it was a few hundred “educated malcontents”, and that its message had been “manufactured in a small room” and “passed off…as the public opinion of three hundred millions of people”. 27)Ibid, 61
Bhownaggree also rejected the idea of there being an “Indian nation” and argued that the country was divided by a plethora of factors, not the least of which were race and religion, and that he, serving as a sort of race realist who wished to protect traditional local Indian values across the nation from intrusive British policies, would focus on local his immediate constituents issues instead over imperial policy.28)Ibid, 58-60 Bhownaggree presents clearly that not all minority groups are monolithic, and his service as an MP from 1895-1906 – compared to Naoroji’s service from 1892-1895 – suggests that his care for his local constituents over imperial interests allowed for his greater professional success, despite not toting a nationalist message. However, this lack of extensive interest in imperial politics and stronger focus on local issues by Bhownaggree would eventually leave the field open for the successful spread of his hated enemy, Indian Nationalism and its propaganda, through all strata of the Indian population both in Britain and in India.
Rising Tensions: Radicalization and Violence in Indian Nationalism
Despite differing views and approaches, the Indian National Congress, Naoroji, and Bhownaggree all took a relatively neutral, though political, approach to Indian Nationalism, whether to support or disavow it. But within the Indian minority in Britain there existed a darker undercurrent of tension, radicalization, and violence, with one institution coming to the forefront – India House.29)Nicholas Owen, “The Soft Heart of the British Empire: Indian Radicals in Edwardian London,” Past & Present 220, no. 1 (2013), 147 This institution, initially founded by Shyamaji Krishnavarma along with his India Home Rule Society,originally provided scholarship to Indian students who promised not to enter government service, and even partook in print capitalism by publishing the Indian Sociologist which denounced British rule in India.30)Ibid, 148-149 Despite his radical stance, Krishnavarma was cautious and primarily intended to alert the British government, particularly the Liberal government, about the state of living conditions in India.31)Ibid, 149 Though he did write about violent revolt in his publication, Krishnavarma’s primary aim was a reworking of the liberal mindset and challenging conventional thinking.32)Ibid, 149
Such was not the case with his successor, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, though. Savarkar used his Free India Society to train London students in revolutionary organization and bomb making, so as to prepare them for armed conflict back in India. 33)Ibid, 150 Due to the political climate at the time, citizens of the Empire had relatively unrestricted movement, and money was even more secure, making Britain a ripe environment for funding and training radical revolutionaries with many government officials unable to due anything about it due to their own regulatory restrictions.34)Ibid, 151. Despite there being stricter laws on Indian soil, especially with the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908 suspending legal rights in India, Britain became the primary location of many Indian revolutionaries who were unable to be touched by the law and were suspect only to the “soft hearted” British court system.35)Ibid 152-153 Therefore, India House in Britain existed in a situation where the Imperial system couldn’t, for the most part, affect it in any way legally, hence its continued survival and promotion of its radical strain of natioanlism for a period of nearly five years, from 1905-1910, much to the chagrin of imperialists and anti-imperialists alike.
However, India House, despite its political advantages, fell in the end, due to one of its members, Madan Lal Dhingra, assassinating Sir Curzon Wyllie, a Briton known for his sympathy towards Indians and charitable assistance towards them.36)Ibid, 177 Despite the support of some, particularly conservatives such as Sir Winston Churchill, who lauded Dhingra as a patriot, there was generally a negative overtone that to the proceedings, which finally allowed for India House to be shut down for good.37)Ibid, 176, However, India House’s legacy would not fall as easily, forcing one man to come face to face with its followers in an ideological battle for the future of Indian Natioanlism – Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.38)Ibid, 178 It was Gandhi’s interactions with the followers of India House which led way to a hybrid of nonviolent protest, formerly only consisting of “polite picketing”, and India Houses violent rejection of the British and a subversion of the system, forming these two disparate into the effective nonviolent protest campaign which rejected the British at every possible juncture and would eventually free India.39)Ibid 180 In doing so, however, Indian Nationalism, which had been much more prominent in Britain with the privileged Indian minority than in India itself, finally moved to – and succeeded in – India itself, powered by the masses of the nation. The role of the Indian minority in Great Britain – the privileged creators of the principles of Indian Nationalism – had finally ended.
The Indian minority in Great Britain, it can clearly be seen, played a very important role in the conceptualization and formation of Indian Nationalism. It contributed by being a group in the locus of British power and hence, the initiator of the political project than brought the Indian nation together – erroneously so, in the view of men such as M.M. Bhownaggree. It helped spread the message through the use of print capitalism, with INC’s India and even India House’s Indian Sociologist. And it even spun the narrative of unequal development to support nationalism as well through organizations like the INC and men like Dadabhai Naoroji. Even with opposition and radicalization within its own ranks, and despite the fact Indian Nationalism truly flourished in the mid 20th century in India, it was the Indian minority in Great Britain that truly initiated and nurtured the Indian Nationalist Movement into its final state in the end.
Anderson, Benedict. “Imagined Communites.” In Nationalism, edited by John Hutchinson and Anthony D. Smith, 89-96. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Gellner, Ernest. “Nationalism and Modernization.” In Nationalism, edited by John Hutchinson and Anthony D. Smith, 55-63. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Nairn, Tom. “The Maladies of Development.” In Nationalism, edited by John Hutchinson and Anthony D. Smith, 70-76. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Owen, Nicholas. “The Soft Heart of the British Empire: Indian Radicals in Edwardian London.” Past & Present 220, no. 1 (2013): 143-184.
Shankar, Prabha Ravi. “British Committee of the Indian National Congress – A Critical Appraisal.” Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 65 (2004): 761-767.
Stubbings, Matthew. “The Partisan Nature of Race and Imperialism: Dadabhai Naoroji, M. M. Bhownaggree and the Late Nineteenth-Century British Politics of Indian Nationalism.” Journal Of Imperial & Commonwealth History 44, no. 1 (2016): 48-69.
Summers, Claire C. “The Indian Rebellion of 1857.” Tenor of Our Times 4, no. 6 (2016): 42-49.
Tabili, Laura. “We Ask for British Justice”: Workers and Racial Difference in Late Imperial Britain. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994.
Visram, Rozina. Ayahs, Lascars and Princes: The Story of Indians in Britain 1700-1947. London: Pluto Press, 1986.
Weber, Max. “The Nation.” In Nationalism, edited by John Hutchinson and Anthony D. Smith, 21-25. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1994.
References [ + ]
|01.||↑||Max Weber, “The Nation,” in Nationalism, eds. John Hutchinson and Anthony D. Smith (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1994), 25.|
|03.||↑||Benedict Anderson, “Imagined Communities,” in Nationalism, eds. John Hutchinson and Anthony D. Smith (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1994), 89.|
|06.||↑||Ernest Gellner, “Nationalism and Modernization,” in Nationalism, eds. John Hutchinson and Anthony D. Smith (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1994), 55-56.|
|07.||↑||Tom Nairn, “The Maladies of Development,” in Nationalism, eds. John Hutchinson and Anthony D. Smith (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1994), 55-56.|
|09.||↑||Rozina Visram, Ayahs, Lascars, and Princes (London: Pluto Press, 1986), 34-38.|
|12.||↑||Laura Tabili, We ask for British Justice (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994), 81-90.|
|13.||↑||Matthew Stubbings, “The Partisan Nature of Race and Imperialism: Dadabhai Naoroji, M. M. Bhownaggree and the Late Nineteenth-Century British Politics of Indian Nationalism,” The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 44, no. 1 (2016), 48.|
|14.||↑||Prabha Ravi Shankar, “British Committee of the Indian National Congress – A Critical Appraisal,” Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 65 (2004), 761.|
|15.||↑||Matthew Stubbings, “The Partisan Nature of Race and Imperialism: Dadabhai Naoroji, M. M. Bhownaggree and the Late Nineteenth-Century British Politics of Indian Nationalism,” The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 44, no. 1 (2016), 48.|
|16.||↑||Nicholas Owen, “The Soft Heart of the British Empire: Indian Radicals in Edwardian London, Past & Present 220, no. 1 (2013), 143|
|17.||↑||Claire C. Summers, “The Indian Rebellion of 1857,” Tenor of Our Times 4, no. 6 (2016), 47.|
|18.||↑||Prabha Ravi Shankar, “British Committee of the Indian National Congress – A Critical Appraisal,” Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 65 (2004), 762.|
|21.||↑||Matthew Stubbings, “The Partisan Nature of Race and Imperialism: Dadabhai Naoroji, M. M. Bhownaggree and the Late Nineteenth-Century British Politics of Indian Nationalism,” The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 44, no. 1 (2016), 48.|
|29.||↑||Nicholas Owen, “The Soft Heart of the British Empire: Indian Radicals in Edwardian London,” Past & Present 220, no. 1 (2013), 147|