Both Jyotirao Phule and Ramaswamy Naicker were critical of the national
movement as they could barely see any difference between the preachers of anti-
colonialism and the colonial masters. Both, according to them, were outsiders and
had used power for subjugating and oppressing the indigenous people. Phule
believed that though the upper-caste leaders were then asking people all over the
country to unite for fighting the British, once the Britishers had left, they would
continue with their oppressive caste policies, thereby causing divisions amongst
the very people they were trying to unite. He believed that they only wished for
unity to serve their purposes, and once the purposes had been served, the divisions would creep in again.
Naicker's experience in the Congress showed him that the national movement was
not free from the taint of casteism. At a feast organised by nationalists, the seating
arrangements followed caste distinctions, i.e., the lower castes were made to sit at a
distance from the upper castes. This convinced him that the lower castes had to
fight their battle themselves.
Their criticism did lead to rethinking and some self criticism among the upper-
caste nationalist leaders. This in turn helped strengthen the national struggle, as
free from prejudices of caste, religion and gender, the leaders could unite and
concentrate their attentions upon the single aim of overthrowing the colonial administration.