Question

Why were Jyoti Rao Phule and Ramaswamy Naicker critical of the national movement? Did their criticism help the national struggle in any way?​

Answer 1

$\huge\boxed{\fcolorbox{orange}{red}{Answer}}</p><p>$

Jyoti Rao Phule and Ramaswamy Naicker both were critical of the national movement, as they thought that there were no differences between anti-colonialists and the colonialists. Phule thought that the upper-caste people who wanted to fight against the Britishers will want to rule once the Britishers leave. Phule was always against the upper caste people as he called them the ‘outsiders.’

Naicker was a part of the Congress party, and his experiences led him to believe that the party was not free from the taint of casteism. So, he was reluctant to take part in the anti-British national movement that was not concerned about creating a caste-less society.

Their criticism helped strengthen the national struggle. Reformists started restructuring their thoughts to get rid of the differences between the upper caste and lower caste. The national struggle became the tool to eradicate caste differences, religious and gender inequality

Answer 2

Answer:

They were critical of the national movement run by upper-caste leaders because they held that this would serve the purposes of upper-castes. After the movement, these people would again talk of untouchability. Again they would say, "Me here and you over there". Periyar left the Congress in the reaction of an incidence of untouchability. Yes, their criticism helped the national struggle as unity. The forceful speeches, writings, and movements of such lower caste leaders did lead to rethinking and some self-criticisms among upper-caste nationalist leaders.