Carolien Stolte

Imagining Asia in India: Nationalism and Internationalism (ca. 1905-1940)

Asianisms, that is, discourses and ideologies claiming that Asia can be defined and understood as a homogenous space with shared and clearly defined characteristics, have become the subject of increased scholarly attention over the last two decades. The focal points of interest, however, are generally East Asian varieties of regionalism. That “the cult of Asianism” has played an important role on the Indian subcontinent, too—as is evident from the quote above—is less understood. Aside from two descriptive monographs dating back to the 1970s, there has been relatively little scholarly engagement with this phenomenon. In this article, we would like to offer an overview of several distinct concepts of Asia and pan-Asian designs, which featured prominently in both political and civil society debates in India during the struggle for Independence. Considering the abundance of initiatives for Asian unification, and, in a more abstract sense, discourses on Asian identity, what follows here is necessarily a selection of discourses, three of which will be subjected to critical analysis, with the following questions in mind: • What were the concrete motives of regional—in this case Indian—actors to appropriate the concept of Asianism? Is the popularity of supranational frames of reference solely to be explained as an affirmation of a distinctive identity vis-a-vis the imagined powerful West, or are there other motives to be found? • What were the results of these processes of appropriation, and how were these manifested politically and culturally? • What tensions resulted from the simultaneous existence of various nationalisms in Asia on the one hand and macro-nationalistic pan-Asianism on the other?

‘Enough of the Great Napoleons!’ Raja Mahendra Pratap's Pan-Asian projects (1929–1939)

This paper traces a set of interlinked Asianist networks through the activities of Mahendra Pratap, an Indian revolutionary exile who spent the majority of his life at various key anti-imperialist sites in Asia. Pratap envisioned a unified Asia free from colonial powers, but should be regarded as an anti-imperialist first and a nationalist second—he was convinced that Indias independence would materialize naturally as a by-product of a federated Asia. Through forging strategic alliances in places as diverse as Moscow, Kabul, and Tokyo, he sought to achieve his goal of a united ‘Pan-Asia’. In his view, Pan-Asia would be the first step towards a world federation, in which all the continents would become provinces in a new world order. His thought was an intricate patchwork of internationalist ideas circulating in the opening decades of the twentieth century, and his travels and political activities are viewed in this context. Prataps exploration of the relationship between the local, the regional, and the global, from an Asian perspective, was one of many ways in which Asian elites and non-elites challenged the legitimacy of the political order in the interwar years.

Bringing Asia to the world: Indian trade unionism and the long road towards the Asiatic Labour Congress, 1919–37

This article considers Asianism in the Indian trade union movement, against the backdrop of increasing international cooperation between Asian trade union movements in the interwar period, which culminated in the short-lived Asiatic Labour Congress (1934–37). It demonstrates how Asianist enthusiasm both propelled and hampered Indian workers’ representation at the International Labour Organization and other international bodies. Finally, it considers Asianism as a crucial characteristic of Indian trade unionism in the interwar period, by showing how the All-India Trade Union Congress, once the hope of Indian labour as an organized force, split into rival federations over the issue of its Asian affiliations.

Introduction: The Meerut Conspiracy Case in Comparative and International Perspective

The Indian trade union movement of the interwar years was marked by an increasing tension between reformist and revolutionary methods. The two factions shared an internationalist idiom and internationalist aspirations, but their visions of the postimperialist world order were crucially different. The reformists advocated inclusion of India’s labour leaders in the international system, whereas the revolutionaries sought to harness international workers’ solidarity to overthrow it. The Meerut Conspiracy Case exacerbated these tensions in AITUC by specifically targeting left-wing trade union leaders and by including international trade union bodies in the indictment. AITUC split during the first year of the case, and it fragmented further as the case progressed. Stolte’s article views Meerut as a case in which trade unionism itself was put on trial. It made emerging (re)definitions of revolutionary and reformist trade unionism explicit, and it situated both in an international environment and on divergent international trajectories. During the Meerut case, trade union politics were debated inside and outside the courtroom. This worsened the tensions between reformist and revolutionary trade unionism. First, the indictment created “good” and “seditious” international interlocutors for the unionists. Second, the reformist methods of seeking inclusion in the ILO and other existing European bodies were vocally attacked by the Meerut accused. Finally, the accused stayed in conversation with the revolutionary leadership of the AITUC throughout the trial. The debates on trade unionism thus created were decisive in making the Nagpur split permanent.

Trade Unions on Trial: The Meerut Conspiracy Case and Trade Union Internationalism, 1929–32

The Indian trade union movement of the interwar years was marked by an increasing tension between reformist and revolutionary methods. The two factions shared an internationalist idiom and internationalist aspirations, but their visions of the postimperialist world order were crucially different. The reformists advocated inclusion of India’s labour leaders in the international system, whereas the revolutionaries sought to harness international workers’ solidarity to overthrow it. The Meerut Conspiracy Case exacerbated these tensions in AITUC by specifically targeting left-wing trade union leaders and by including international trade union bodies in the indictment. AITUC split during the first year of the case, and it fragmented further as the case progressed. Stolte’s article views Meerut as a case in which trade unionism itself was put on trial. It made emerging (re)definitions of revolutionary and reformist trade unionism explicit, and it situated both in an international environment and on divergent international trajectories. During the Meerut case, trade union politics were debated inside and outside the courtroom. This worsened the tensions between reformist and revolutionary trade unionism. First, the indictment created “good” and “seditious” international interlocutors for the unionists. Second, the reformist methods of seeking inclusion in the ILO and other existing European bodies were vocally attacked by the Meerut accused. Finally, the accused stayed in conversation with the revolutionary leadership of the AITUC throughout the trial. The debates on trade unionism thus created were decisive in making the Nagpur split permanent.