INDIAN NATIONAL MOVEMENT l51 traditional ideology" and the outcome at this stage was still open as to which would triumph. Gandhi chose, however, to use tradition as the most handy weapon against the British. He defined Swaraj as Ramrajya, while Swadeshi in his speeches came to represent not only indigeneous industry, but also tradition. His idea of a just society was not socialism, but something from the past. The question of finances and exchange ratios was given prominence in their campaigns only later during the 1930s. The bourgeois leadership was prepared to go against the British only so far as it was possible to do so without breaking its alliance with the feudal classes. Its anti-imperialism was limited by its committment to keep intact the old land relations and, consequently, also the old ideology. In its early stages the Muslim League was more anti-British than the Congress, but overlayed with old religious feeling. The leadership of Muslim League, however, fell increasingly into the hands of the landlords, who had no bourgeois stakes in India, and therefore, led the organisation towards separatism. In this context, according to him, the question of class struggle, particularly the land question assumed even greater importance. The Congress leadership appealed to the Muslim peasantry, but was not able to keep it within the Congress because it compromised on the land question. For these reasons, he emphasised the responsibility for minority separatist aspirations lies mainly with the bourgeoisie leadership, as it does today when it is prepared to compromise with the reactionary elements within the minorities to prevent the completion of the bourgeois-democratic revolution. The primary problem for the left today, therefore, still is, as he underlined, the problem of building democratic consciousness. He also emphasised the imperialist context of these divisive forces. The British had been able to successfully organise riots, the purpose of which was to alienate the Muslim masses from the united nationalist struggle. The compromising bourgeois leadership had in turn, contributed to its success^ This talk was followed by a discussion and finally a vote of thanks by one of the convenors of the Seminar. NALINI TANEJA School of Correspondence Courses, Delhi University, Delhi The report has been prepared largely on the basis of notes provided by rapporteurs Ms. Minakshi Menon, Ms. Anandhi Ms Nivedita Menon and Atlury Murali. My special thanks to Ms. Nivedita Menon and Atlury Murali for their particularly detailed notes.