Protests and Movements during the Colonial Period and Social Reforms

From Dissent to Protest to Movement

Sociology Optional Notes {PDF}

Complete Notes Package (Paper I & II) | 1000+ Pages | Instant Download

Discounted Price | Buy Now @ ₹600 →

• Every society carries some baseline dissatisfaction, generated by poverty, social discrimination, or the simple lack of privilege. A social movement does not appear suddenly out of this dissatisfaction — it develops through a sequence: dissent, protest, and then social movement, though in practice all three can operate simultaneously rather than in strict order.
• Dissent names ideas and activities that diverge from what currently prevails in a society — a difference of opinion or disagreement that marks the earliest stage of any drive for change. The historical struggle against untouchability in India, for instance, began only once those suffering under the practice began openly voicing dissent against it.
• Protest is dissent’s more crystallised, more specific expression. When dissent is voiced openly and takes on organised shape, it becomes protest — a formal declaration of opposition, grounded in a shared social consciousness of injustice and deprivation, rather than a private disagreement.
• A social movement, finally, is a sustained collective effort focused on a specific dimension of social change. M.S.A. Rao defines it precisely: a social movement involves sustained collective mobilisation, through either informal or formal organisation, generally oriented toward changing an existing system of relationships — and Rao treats ideology as an indispensable component of any genuine movement, distinguishing it from a mere riot or spontaneous outburst.

Why Colonial India Produced Reform Movements

• Protest and movement activity during the colonial period was overwhelmingly directed toward socio-religious reform — improving conditions within the existing social order rather than transforming its fundamental structure. Reform, in this sense, targets belief systems, ritual, and lifestyle, and the medieval Bhakti movement supplies the classic Indian precedent: an all-India movement drawing in lower-caste people and the poor, protesting ritualism and caste barriers, but seeking to reform the prevailing worldview rather than overturn the social system itself.
• K.L. Sharma identifies three concrete reasons socio-religious reform became necessary specifically under British India: the texts selected from various commentaries on the Code of Manu were not always themselves enlightened; reliance on law courts for scriptural interpretation produced greater, not lesser, conservatism in practice; and the law actually applied by British judges combined ancient Hindu custom with Victorian English conservatism, particularly with regard to women, inheritance, marriage, and married women’s property rights. The right to individual property within a joint family, or property rights for women, took many years to move from formal legal recognition to genuine practical acceptance — the joint family, caste, and Hinduism itself functioned as pivotal institutions that consistently resisted any legislation threatening to weaken them, whether openly or latently.
• A.R. Desai (see the companion article on his Marxist sociology) reads these reform movements as an expression of national awakening, arising from the contradiction between an inherited value system and new socio-economic realities introduced by colonial capitalism. Modern society, on Desai’s account, established liberty, freedom of competition and contact, and the individual’s freedom to own and dispose of property — an individualism standing in sharp contrast to a pre-capitalist order that was authoritarian, maintained social distinction by birth and sex, and subordinated the individual entirely to caste and the joint family. The new economic order demanded, as a condition of its own development, the abolition of privilege based on birth or sex — which is precisely what these reform movements, whatever their explicitly religious form, were substantively arguing for. Desai’s summary formula captures the point exactly: these movements were national in content but religious in form.

Classifying Colonial-Era Movements

• Kathleen Gough offers a five-fold typology that captures the real diversity of colonial-era mobilisation, well beyond socio-religious reform alone: reactionary movements (the 1857 revolt, sparked partly by grievance over the greased cartridges); political movements (the Khilafat agitation, the Non-Cooperation Movement); conservative movements (the Deoband school); secessionist movements (the Ahom movement in Assam); and separatist movements (the movement for Pakistan).
• A separate, useful axis sorts movements by who is being protested against: some movements protested the British directly — the socio-religious reform movements themselves, low-caste movements challenging Brahmin supremacy, and the women’s movement that gathered momentum from the 1920s; others protested against fellow Indians or against tradition itself, under the influence of newly encountered modern values — the nineteenth-century reform movements against sati, Brahmin dominance, and ritualism belong squarely in this second category.
• A chronological typology extends the same lens forward: the nineteenth century produced reform movements against sati, Brahminic dominance, and ritualism; the early twentieth century produced the mass nationalist movement alongside the Khilafat agitation, the Muslim League, and the beginnings of Dalit and linguistic-minority mobilisation; the late twentieth century produced movements organised around caste, cultural identity, region, religion, and gender, pursuing social justice, equity, and political rights; and even the twenty-first century continues this lineage through contention for direct political power, resistance to neo-liberal dispossession, environmentalism, and movements among classes losing inherited privilege — a reminder that colonial-era reform movements were the opening chapter of a continuous Indian tradition of organised social protest, not an isolated historical episode.
• As Winston Churchill himself observed of the resistance colonial rule provoked, Indians retaliated “not for their purse, but for the preservation of their culture” — capturing, from an unsympathetic source, the same point Desai makes from a sympathetic one: colonial-era protest was never purely material grievance, but a struggle over cultural dignity and self-representation. India’s emerging middle class, itself a product of colonial economic policy, had also absorbed liberal and radical European social thought, and channelled its resulting discomfort with colonial exploitation into writing, organised campaigning, and eventually sustained movement-building — a spirit that pervaded contemporary culture, theatre, song, and literature alike.

Beyond Reform: Peasant, Tribal, and Labour Protest

• Not every colonial-era movement fit the socio-religious reform mould — a substantial current of protest was organised instead around direct economic grievance, running alongside the reform movements described below rather than through them.
• The Champaran Satyagraha (1917), Gandhi’s first major campaign in India, is the standard case for examining this current sociologically: indigo cultivators in Bihar’s Champaran district were bound under the tinkathia system to grow indigo on a fixed portion of their land for European planters at rates fixed by the planters themselves, regardless of market price or the crop’s exhausting effect on soil fertility. Gandhi’s intervention combined a new organisational method — mass fact-finding, deliberate civil disobedience, and a moral appeal aimed as much at British public opinion as at Indian mobilisation — with an explicit refusal to let the movement be captured by any single class interest; the campaign drew together peasants, local lawyers acting pro bono, and outside volunteers into a coalition that would become the template for Gandhi’s later, larger campaigns. Sociologically, Champaran matters as the moment when the loosely organised agrarian grievance of a specific regional peasantry was welded, deliberately and self-consciously, to the wider nationalist movement — prefiguring the more organised Kisan Sabha movement of the 1930s (see the companion article on the social background of Indian nationalism for its place in the movement’s later, mass-mobilisation phase).
• Tribal protest ran on a related but distinct track, driven by colonial forest policy, land alienation, and the intrusion of moneylenders and outside settlers into previously autonomous tribal tracts — revolts among the Santhals, Mundas (under Birsa Munda), and other communities across eastern and central India shared a common grievance structure with Champaran’s peasants even where their idiom of protest was religious or millenarian rather than explicitly political.
• Industrial and student unrest supplied a third, more urban current: the growth of an industrial working class under colonial factory conditions fed directly into the early organised labour movement (see the Servants of India Society and Social Service League, below), while the growing cohort of English-educated students supplied much of the organisational energy behind the more radical currents of the nationalist movement itself.

The Brahmo Samaj and Its Successors

• Raja Ram Mohan Roy, widely regarded as the father of the modern Indian renaissance, commanded an unusually wide linguistic and scholarly range — English, Bengali, Sanskrit, Persian, Arabic, Hebrew, Latin, and Greek — and made a deep study of both Hindu and Muslim law, literature, and philosophy. A committed monotheist who rejected image worship, he founded the Brahmo Samaj (“One God Society”) on 20 August 1828, drawing inspiration from Christianity, Islam, and the Upanishads alike, and locating the idea of divine unity within Hinduism’s own Upanishadic and Vedantic sources.
  • He argued India could not construct a genuinely new philosophy, capable of absorbing Western modernism, without first drawing on its own authentic spiritual and cultural inheritance — reform, for Roy, meant synthesis, not wholesale replacement.
  • He championed modern science, technology, and English-language education, campaigned for the exploited peasantry, and — through the Brahmo Samaj specifically — advocated for women’s inheritance rights and inter-caste marriage, while opposing sati and child marriage directly. He opposed the caste system as a structural barrier to India’s growth.
  • Notably, historians including R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Roychaudhuri, and Kalikinker Datta have argued Ram Mohan Roy never considered himself anything other than a Hindu — he denied founding a separate sect, continued to permit Vedic recitation by orthodox Brahmins, and wore the sacred thread until his death — a useful corrective to any reading of him as a straightforward religious secessionist.
• After Roy’s death in England, Debendranath Tagore gave the Samaj a durable organisational structure, making the propagation of “Brahmo Dharma” its central programme through his Tattva Bodhini Sabha, while continuing the Samaj’s work on women’s welfare and education modernisation.
• Keshub Chandra Sen brought a new, more radical missionary energy, extending the movement to Bombay (under Ranade and Bhandarkar) and Madras. His and Debendranath’s differing temperaments eventually split the organisation: Sen founded the Brahmo Samaj of India in 1866, advocating complete abolition of caste, prioritising female emancipation and education, and — under evident Christian influence — emphasising sin, repentance, and prayer, alongside a syncretic “New Dispensation” (Nava Vidhan) declared in 1880.
• A further split produced the Sadharan Brahmo Samaj, founded by followers who broke with Sen over his refusal to adopt a new constitution, disagreement over the doctrine of Divine Command, and — concretely — his own daughter’s marriage to the Prince of Cooch Bihar in violation of the Native Marriage Act of 1872. The new organisation, still active today, adopted a constitution based on universal adult franchise, pursued constitutional radical reformism, campaigned against purdah, and promoted widow remarriage, the abolition of polygamy and early marriage, and higher education for women.

The Prarthana Samaj

• Founded in 1867 under Justice Mahadeo Govinda Ranade, the Prarthana Samaj emerged as an offshoot of the Brahmo movement but, distinctively, never saw itself as a new religion or sect standing outside Hinduism — its members understood themselves as reformers working from within the Vaishnavite theistic tradition of Maharashtra, drawing inspiration from saints like Namdeo, Tukaram, and Ramdas.
• Its practical reform agenda covered inter-caste dining and marriage, widow remarriage, and the welfare of women and the depressed classes, institutionalised through an orphanage and asylum at Pandharpur, night schools, a widow’s home, and a dedicated depressed-classes mission. Ranade’s own contributions included the Widow Marriage Association (1861) and the Deccan Education Society (1884–85) — his guiding conviction was that reform must attend to “the whole man,” and that genuine continuity with tradition could coexist with radical transformation.

The Arya Samaj

• Founded in 1875 by Swami Dayananda Saraswati, a Sanskrit scholar without formal English education, the Arya Samaj issued its defining call: “Go back to the Vedas.” Dayananda regarded the Vedas as eternal and infallible while explicitly rejecting the later Puranas, and his major work, the Satyartha Prakash, offers his systematic interpretation of Vedic teaching.
• Programmatically, the Arya Samaj shared much common ground with the Brahmo Samaj — disbelief in polytheism and image worship, opposition to caste-based restriction and child marriage, opposition to prohibitions on sea voyage, and advocacy of female education and widow remarriage.
• Distinctively, Dayananda launched the Shuddhi (purification) movement, a programme for the conversion of non-Hindus to Hinduism, aimed at realising a notionally, socially, and religiously unified India, with especially strong direct-contact influence in Punjab and the United Provinces. He attacked the hereditary basis of caste, idolatry, and Brahmin claims to caste superiority, and pushed to open Vedic study to all. Successors including Lala Hansraj, Pandit Guru Dutt, Lala Lajpat Rai, and Swami Shraddhananda carried this programme forward after his death — fixing a minimum marriageable age of 25 for boys and 16 for girls to curb child marriage, encouraging inter-caste marriage and widow remarriage, running relief efforts during floods, famines, and earthquakes, opening orphanages and widows’ homes, and reviving the ancient Gurukula system of education while still recognising the practical value of English education at the higher level — a legacy still visible today in the network of Dayanand Anglo-Vedic (DAV) schools and colleges across India.

The Ramakrishna Mission

• Ramakrishna Paramahansa, the movement’s founding inspiration, held that all religions were different paths to the same ultimate goal, practising the rites of Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity in turn — a catholicity of spirit rooted in mysticism rather than doctrinal exclusivity.
• His disciple Narendranath Dutta, better known as Swami Vivekananda, formally founded the Ramakrishna Mission in May 1897, pursuing two linked objectives: training a body of monks dedicated to renunciation and practical spirituality, who would in turn spread the universal message of Vedanta as Ramakrishna had lived it; and, alongside lay disciples, carrying out preaching, philanthropic, and charitable work premised on treating every person, regardless of caste, creed, or colour, as a genuine manifestation of the Divine.
• Vivekananda carried this message across India and internationally, most famously at the 1893 Parliament of Religions in Chicago. Headquartered at Belur near Kolkata, the Mission separates two linked institutions: the Math, a religious trust dedicated to members’ inner spiritual life, and the Mission proper, a charitable society translating that inner spirituality into outward collective social service.
• Vivekananda’s own doctrine of service — “the service of jiva is the worship of Shiva” — treated practical social work as itself a form of religious practice, aiming to bridge paramartha (service) and vyavahara (everyday conduct), and he explicitly endorsed using modern technology and science in the service of humanity. The Mission remains deeply religious without being proselytising, and its explicit premise — that the philosophy of Vedanta can make “a Christian a better Christian and a Hindu a better Hindu” — captures its distinctive, non-exclusivist approach to religious reform.

The Servants of India Society and the Social Service League

• Gopal Krishna Gokhale, a liberal leader of the Indian National Congress, founded the Servants of India Society in 1905 to train “national missionaries for the service of India” through constitutional means, calling on members to devote their lives to the country “in a religious spirit” — a cadre of selfless workers rather than a mass political organisation. Srinivas Shastri succeeded Gokhale as its president after Gokhale’s death in 1915.
• In 1911, Narayan Malhar Joshi, a follower of Gokhale, founded the Social Service League in Bombay to secure better and more reasonable living and working conditions for the masses — running night nurseries, libraries, cooperative societies, legal aid for the poor, sanitary work, and medical relief, among other welfare activities. Joshi went on to found the All-India Trade Union Congress in 1920, linking this welfare-reform tradition directly into the organised labour movement.

Reform Among Muslims, Sikhs, and Parsis

• Reform activity was not confined to Hindu society. Muslim India saw four distinct revivalist currents — the Ahmadiya movement, the Aligarh movement, Sir Muhammad Iqbal’s intellectual movement, and Sheikh Abdul Halim Sharar’s movement — each stressing universal brotherhood, liberal education, and a liberal interpretation of the Quran.
• Parsis pursued reform focused especially on women’s education, marriage practice, and social position, consciously discarding elements of religious orthodoxy. Sikhs undertook a major reform of Gurdwara management, amounting to a genuine revolt against the mahants (hereditary custodians) who had controlled these shrines — reflected institutionally in the founding of Khalsa College, Amritsar, by the close of the nineteenth century.

The Swadeshi Movement’s Ethical Programme

• The Swadeshi movement combined economic self-reliance — discarding foreign goods — with the deliberate inculcation of national spirit. Ganesh Vasudev Joshi (“Lokahitawadi”), a Maharashtra reformer and ardent Swadeshi advocate, articulated an eleven-point ethical programme for social reform that reveals how thoroughly the movement’s economic nationalism was bound up with social reform: devout worship of God; abolition of superfluous ceremony (excepting only initiation, marriage, and death rites), performed in one’s own language rather than a ritually inaccessible one; individual liberty of speech, thought, and action; equal social and religious rights for men and women; morality placed above ritual performance; rejection of caste-based contempt in favour of universal charity; love of the motherland; the primacy of popular rights over government prerogative; observance of both governmental rule and the dictates of reason; a general commitment to the growth of learning; and truth as the abiding principle of conduct. Taken together, this programme shows a society attempting to rejuvenate its own socio-cultural fabric — discarding some inherited elements, adopting others, and consciously striving for synthesis rather than simple imitation of the West.

Anti-Brahmanical Movements: Satyashodhak Samaj and the SNDP

• Jyotirao Phule organised a sustained movement against Brahmin dominance in Maharashtra, founding schools for girls and for “untouchables,” and a home for widows, while his writings — Sarvajanik Satyadharma Pustak and Gulamgiri — became foundational texts of anti-caste protest. He founded the Satyashodhak Samaj (“Truth-Seekers’ Society”) in 1873 to carry this campaign forward — a movement that combined anti-Brahmanism with a positive programme of women’s liberation, education, and economic betterment, deliberately using the symbol of Raja Bali in opposition to the Brahmanical symbol of Rama. The movement gave the intermediate castes — Kunbis, Malis, Dhangars — a shared class identity in opposition to Brahmin dominance, and by the early twentieth century had spread to south India, drawing in powerful intermediate castes such as the Kammas, Reddys, and Vellalas, alongside Muslim participation.
• The Sri Narayana Dharma Paripalana (SNDP) movement, formed among the Ezhavas of Kerala — a toddy-tapping caste constituting some 26 per cent of Kerala’s population, comparable in social position to the Nadars of Tamil Nadu or the Idigas of Karnataka — pursued a parallel logic against the dominance of upper non-Brahmin castes rather than Brahmins directly, since Brahmins had been first to seize modern educational and employment opportunities while upper non-Brahmin castes monopolised access at the regional level. Its ideology, formulated by Sri Narayana Guru and organised through the SNDP Yogam, took up concrete demands — admission to public schools, government recruitment, temple entry, road access, and political representation — most of which were substantially achieved, producing genuine upward social mobility, a shift in the traditional distribution of local power, and a broader federation of “backward caste” identity.
• Movements of this kind, replicated across India during the British period, pursued two linked objectives: protesting the hegemony of Brahmins specifically and upper castes generally, and elevating the position of backward castes within the caste hierarchy itself, partly by adopting upper-caste lifestyle markers — higher education, prestigious employment — in a pattern closely related to Sanskritisation. Their broader effect was to generate a durable ethnic and political consciousness among caste groups that has persisted well into independent India’s own politics.

Women’s Participation in the Freedom Struggle

• Aparna Basu argues that women were accepted into India’s freedom struggle as genuine political comrades, given real opportunities for participation — an inclusion that opened the way for women’s subsequent, wider involvement in social, political, and economic life beyond the movement itself.
• Rajani Alexander, working from a different vantage point, argues women’s participation took more diverse, less formally organised forms than Basu’s account implies — grounded substantially in community- and home-based involvement rather than organised, orchestrated political protest in the conventional sense. Both readings agree on the outcome, even while differing on the precise mechanism: recognising women as equal participants in the freedom movement gave a genuine, lasting boost to both women’s social status and to the subsequent women’s movement.

Far-Reaching Impact of the Reform Movements

• The nineteenth-century socio-religious reform movements produced several durable effects: they created a genuine national awakening among the masses; they revived Hinduism as a rational, tolerant religion, seeking to restore prestige lost in the historical wake of Islamic and, later, Christian influence; they mounted a direct assault on the indignities inflicted on women, untouchables, and other oppressed groups; they cultivated a spirit of sacrifice, service, and rationalism; they attacked the hereditary rigidity of the caste system; and they promoted a broader sense of equality, indigenisation, and inter-cultural coexistence.
• Beyond legislation against purdah, child marriage, hypergamy, dowry, and sex-based inequality in work, education, occupation, and personal freedom, these movements also generated concrete social action to improve women’s actual conditions — part of a broader era of new enlightenment, indigenisation with an open mind, welfarism, liberalism, and egalitarianism that fed directly into India’s subsequent freedom struggle. Even radical Westernisation, as pleaded for by Ram Mohan Roy himself, was framed as a means of rejuvenating, not replacing, a decaying Indian culture.
• These movements were never genuinely all-India in character — they remained localised largely to Bengal, Maharashtra, and Punjab, and their social reach was generally confined to the educated, urban, upper-middle and middle classes; assimilating values like rationalism, universal brotherhood, and gender equality did not come easily against the grain of existing Indian tradition and culture, and some critics have accordingly labelled these movements “denationalised and hyper-westernised.” Even so, their cumulative socio-cultural impact against entrenched social evils remains genuinely difficult to deny.

Positive and Negative Assessments

• On the positive side, these movements liberated individuals from a conformity born of fear and uncritical submission to priestly authority — translating religious texts into vernacular languages, asserting each individual’s right to interpret scripture, and simplifying ritual, which together made worship a more personal experience and asserted the human intellect’s own capacity to reason. By weeding out corrupt beliefs and practices, reformers also gave India’s rising middle class the cultural roots to counter colonial taunts of civilisational decadence, while promoting a more modern, secular, rational outlook — visible concretely in a shift in prevailing notions of ritual “pollution and purity.” Reformers generally aimed at genuine modernisation rather than uncritical Westernisation through blind imitation, seeking instead to integrate modern ideas into existing Indian cultural streams — ending India’s cultural and intellectual isolation while reviving a native cultural personality that colonial domination had distorted, and contributing thereby to the evolution of national consciousness itself.
• On the negative side, these movements suffered from a genuinely narrow social base — confined largely to the educated urban middle class, while the concerns of the peasantry and urban poor went largely unaddressed. A tendency to glorify the past and lean on scriptural authority sometimes fostered a fresh mysticism and pseudo-scientific thinking, checking the full acceptance of a modern scientific outlook, and — more seriously — contributed to a growing compartmentalisation between Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, and Parsis, and between high-caste and low-caste Hindus. An overemphasis on the religious and philosophical dimensions of India’s cultural heritage came at the expense of due attention to its art, architecture, literature, music, science, and technology, and Hindu reformers’ tendency to confine their praise to India’s ancient period while treating the medieval period as simple decadence created a notion of two separate, opposed peoples — a framing the low-caste sections of society, who had also suffered exploitation during the celebrated ancient period, could hardly accept uncritically. The resulting compartmentalisation of India’s past along communal lines fed, alongside several other historical factors, into the rise of modern communalism — a genuine and lasting cost alongside the movements’ undeniable achievements.

Contemporary Relevance

• The institutions these movements founded remain active today — the Sadharan Brahmo Samaj, the Arya Samaj’s DAV school network, and the Ramakrishna Mission all continue functioning as living organisations, not merely historical episodes, which makes this unit directly relevant to understanding several contemporary Indian religious and educational institutions.
• The debate over whether these movements were authentic indigenous reform or “denationalised, hyper-westernised” imitation remains a live methodological question in how contemporary scholarship assesses religious and social reform more broadly — including recent, ongoing reform debates within Indian religious communities on gender and ritual access.

Key Terms at a Glance

• Dissent, protest, social movement — the sequence through which diffuse social dissatisfaction develops into organised, ideologically grounded collective action.
• Reform versus revolution — improving conditions within an existing social system, as against transforming its fundamental structure.
• National in content, religious in form — Desai’s characterisation of colonial-era socio-religious reform movements as substantively nationalist claims expressed through religious vocabulary.
• Shuddhi movement — Dayananda Saraswati’s Arya Samaj programme for reconverting non-Hindus to Hinduism.
• Denationalised and hyper-westernised — a critical label applied to reform movements seen as imitating Western values rather than genuinely reforming from within Indian tradition.