Examine the importance of nationalism in the rise of two independence movements, each from
a different region.
In both India and Ghana, nationalism played a key role in uniting citizens against British rule and
achieving independence. Although the two countries differ greatly in size and demographics, both
were able to mobilise the population through these movements in order to gain independence.
However, in both countries, other elements such as notable leaders, the effects of war, and socio-
economic factors were necessary in the success of these movements.
In India, nationalism helped unite the Indian population and successfully end British rule. Initially,
India consisted of three distinct provinces and many princely states. As such, many argue that the
British helped instigate Indian nationalism by building universities and railways, and introducing
English as a shared language. By 1885, the Indian National Congress (INC) was established to
advocate for more Indian representation in government, the first significant Indian nationalist
movement. Despite religious divides, the Muslim League was set up in 1906 in order to better protect
the interests of all Indians. Perhaps the first major event sparked by nationalism was the INC’s
response to the 1905 Bengal partition, which included large protests and a boycott of British goods,
decreasing imports to India by 25%. As a result, the 1909 Morley-Minto reforms allowed for an
increase of Indian representation in government, a major step towards independence. Furthermore,
the arrival of Mohandas Gandhi in 1915 helped spread the INC’s goals across India through his
travels. His policies of satyagraha and hartal - nonviolence and peaceful protest - quickly spread
across the country on a huge scale, as did his subsequent ‘Quit India’ movement. Overall, Indian
nationalism played a significant role in mobilising and uniting Indians to fight for independence.
However, it can be argued that Indian nationalism was not as effective as it could have been, and that
other factors also helped achieve independence. For example, some argue that the INC’s limited goal
of increasing Indian representation, rather than directly ending British rule, prevented a more radical
nationalist movement from occurring. Furthermore, historian Dennis Dalton suggests that without
Gandhi’s nonviolence, independence might have been achieved sooner. Syed Ahmed Khan of the
Muslim League also claimed that due to India’s significant divisions, there was no such thing as a
“national congress,” as the many different groups of India could not be accurately represented. In
fact, the 1947 partition between India and Pakistan does seem to prove his argument; although
independence was achieved, there was no united India by the end of it. Lastly, it can also be argued
that Indian independence was only possible through a combination of other factors. Most
a different region.
In both India and Ghana, nationalism played a key role in uniting citizens against British rule and
achieving independence. Although the two countries differ greatly in size and demographics, both
were able to mobilise the population through these movements in order to gain independence.
However, in both countries, other elements such as notable leaders, the effects of war, and socio-
economic factors were necessary in the success of these movements.
In India, nationalism helped unite the Indian population and successfully end British rule. Initially,
India consisted of three distinct provinces and many princely states. As such, many argue that the
British helped instigate Indian nationalism by building universities and railways, and introducing
English as a shared language. By 1885, the Indian National Congress (INC) was established to
advocate for more Indian representation in government, the first significant Indian nationalist
movement. Despite religious divides, the Muslim League was set up in 1906 in order to better protect
the interests of all Indians. Perhaps the first major event sparked by nationalism was the INC’s
response to the 1905 Bengal partition, which included large protests and a boycott of British goods,
decreasing imports to India by 25%. As a result, the 1909 Morley-Minto reforms allowed for an
increase of Indian representation in government, a major step towards independence. Furthermore,
the arrival of Mohandas Gandhi in 1915 helped spread the INC’s goals across India through his
travels. His policies of satyagraha and hartal - nonviolence and peaceful protest - quickly spread
across the country on a huge scale, as did his subsequent ‘Quit India’ movement. Overall, Indian
nationalism played a significant role in mobilising and uniting Indians to fight for independence.
However, it can be argued that Indian nationalism was not as effective as it could have been, and that
other factors also helped achieve independence. For example, some argue that the INC’s limited goal
of increasing Indian representation, rather than directly ending British rule, prevented a more radical
nationalist movement from occurring. Furthermore, historian Dennis Dalton suggests that without
Gandhi’s nonviolence, independence might have been achieved sooner. Syed Ahmed Khan of the
Muslim League also claimed that due to India’s significant divisions, there was no such thing as a
“national congress,” as the many different groups of India could not be accurately represented. In
fact, the 1947 partition between India and Pakistan does seem to prove his argument; although
independence was achieved, there was no united India by the end of it. Lastly, it can also be argued
that Indian independence was only possible through a combination of other factors. Most
