FROM REVOLT TO AGITATION : India. Rammohun Roy, popularly acknowledged as the "Father of Modern India", had given unambiguous expression to this sentiment. He characterized England as a "nation who not only are blessed with the enjoyment of civil and political liberty but also interest themselves in promoting liberty and social happiness, as well as free enquiry into literary and religious subjects, among those nations to which their influence extended"1. Given this understanding of the colonial rule the intelligentsia was alarmed by the possibility of rebel success in the Revolt. They had no doubt about whom to back in the unprecedented challenge to British rule, as they feared that the rebels, if successful, would 'put the clock back' and resurrect the tyranny of the pre-colonial despotic rule. As a consequence, in all three presidency towns the intelligentsia collected together to pray for British success and when the Revolt was suppressed they passed resolutions thanking the Almighty and congratulating the Queen for reestablishing pax Britanica. The reason for celebrating the continued enslavement of their country was not solely ideological, their material well-being was to a great extent dependent upon their collaboration with the colonial rule.2 The faith in British liberalism, however, did not denote an unqualified acceptance and submission to the British rule. On the contrary, from the early nineteenth century itself, the intelligentsia was engaged in initiating and elaborating a critique of the British rule. The emergence of anti-colonial consciousness was embeded in this critique which had several strands within it. Initially the critique was focussed on administrative practices which deviated from professed principles of liberalism, be it the administration of justice, the collection of revenue or the freedom of the press. The intelligentsia was aghast that such deviations took place which in their reckoning were uncharacteristic of the essential nature of the British rule. This ideological obfuscation persisted for long. In fact, the idea of unBritish rule which Dadabhai Naoroji emphasised in his rightly celebrated book, Poverty and UnBritish Rule, is an expression of its continued influence. The reaction of the intelligentsia to these deviations which during the course of the nineteenth century progressively became a rule rather than an exception, implied a sense of affinity they had nursed, quite consciously, with the colonial rule. For instance, when restrictions were imposed on freedom of the press, through an ordinance by the governor-