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

Critique of the National Movement by Phule and Naicker:

1. Caste Discrimination Focus: Phule and Naicker criticized the national movement for not adequately addressing caste discrimination, highlighting the dominance of upper-caste leadership.

2. Limited Representation: They argued that the movement didn’t represent the interests of marginalized communities, particularly Dalits and backward castes, sidelining their grievances.

3. Religious Dominance: Criticized the movement’s emphasis on religion over social and economic reforms, believing it overlooked crucial societal issues.

Impact of Criticism:
1. Raising Awareness: Their critique highlighted deep-seated caste inequalities within the independence struggle, raising awareness about the need for social justice.

2. Community Empowerment: Their criticism empowered marginalized communities, inspiring them to assert their rights and advocate for social and political change.

3. Influence on Subsequent Movements: Their critique laid the foundation for subsequent social reform movements focusing on the empowerment of marginalized communities.

Despite their differing views from the national movement, Phule and Naicker’s critique brought attention to social injustices, contributing to the subsequent social reform movements aimed at addressing these issues within the broader struggle for independence.