70 SOCIAL SCIENTIST
nationalism in terms of uneven development and competition of provincial or local elites and factions, which would explain the occasional combination of local patron-client groups into provincial or national platforms, misses out completely on the whole range of ideologies, perceptions and grievances like racism and economic exploitation of the country that went on to define nationalism.2
Nationalism was not a monolithic idology - there were varied perceptions and ideas of nationalism with differences over both geographical and social space. As we shall see, in the period 1885 -1905, nationalism evolved through different meanings and forms provided to it by different groups and individuals. It is not enough to confine our attention to the formal objectives, programmes and pronouncements of organised associations and political leaders - rather, ideology ought to be seen in relation to the structures of social consciousness in a given society which often mould it at the level of political behaviour, action, and social and moral choices. Thus, rather than deriving nationalism simply out of the liberal ideas of the western educated intelligentsia, or as a mechanical product of socio-economic change or by simply equating it with anti-imperialism of a homogenous Indian population, we should understand its development in the context of the totality of changes brought about by colonialism, how they affected the thoughts and actions of people at various levels, and in what ways and directions such thoughts and actions moved in an endeavour to the making of the nation.
COLONIAL POLICIES AND NATIONALIST GRIEVANCES
The making of the nation emerges as less of a well defined goal and more of a process if we analyse the variations and confusions within nationalist ranks in their reaction to imperialist policies. Whatever momentum the Congress seemed to gain over issues like increased taxation, forest rights and economic exploitation seemed to lose its force once the British - beset by the need for increased taxation and revenues at local levels due to increasing financial pressures - sought to dilute the potential threats of such pressures by 'having more Indian collaborators' in the form of the pretentious palliative concessions offered in the Act of 1892. Though the Act allowed the members of the Councils to discuss the budget and ask questions; no power to ask supplimentaries, vote on the budget or move amendments was given.3 Yet the ploy succeeded in winning over some prominent leaders of the Moderate Congress into the councils - a bitter reflection of the limited political objectives of the Moderate leadership during this period. Similarly, the conscious British policy of encouragement of divisions within Indian elite groups along religious, caste and regional lines paid great dividends in this period of colonial underdevelop-ment when conflicts over jobs, education and political spoils were rampant and rather than maintaining a united national front, the elite groups could easily mobilise along sectional lines. The over-projection of the myth of Muslim backwardness and the introduction of separate electorates from 1886 in some municipal towns of the Punjab, as well as the conscious British policy from 1901 onwards to classify castes on the basis of social precedence encouraged