The nationalist movement was articulated differently in dissimilar phases of India‘s freedom thrash about. Separately from ideological shifts, there were noticeable differences in the social background of those who participated in the thrash about against the British. For instance, the Gandhian stage of Indian nationalism, also recognized as the stage of mass nationalism, radically altered the nature of the constituencies of nationalism through incorporating the hitherto neglected sections of Indian society. It would not be an exaggeration to mention that Indian masses regardless of religion, class and caste plunged into action in response to Gandhi‘s anti-British campaign. That Gandhi had inaugurated a totally new stage in Indian freedom thrash about can easily be shown through contrasting it with its earlier phases, namely, the moderate and extremist phases. In modern historiography, 'the Moderate' stage begins with the formation of the Indian National Congress in 1885 and sustained till the 1907 Surat Congress when 'the Extremists' appeared on the political scene. The vital differences flanked by these two groups lay in their perception of anti-British thrash about and its articulation in concrete programmes. While the Moderates opposed the British in a strictly constitutional method the Extremists favored 'a strategy of direct action' to harm the British economic and political interests in India. Through dwelling on what caused the dissension in the middle of those who sincerely whispered in the well-being of the country, the aim of this element is also to focus on the major personalities who sought to articulate as coherently as possible the respective ideological points of view.
DEFINING MODERATES AND EXTREMISTS
While Moderates and Extremists constitute contrasting viewpoints, their contribution to the freedom thrash about in its early stage is nonetheless important. Moderates like Dadabhai Naoroji, Surendranath Banerji, Pherozeshah Mehta, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, M. G. Ranade, were uncritical admirers of Western political values. They held the concept of equality before law, of freedom of speech and press and the principle of representative government as inherently superior to their traditional Hindu polity which they defined as 'Asiatic despotism'. So emphatic was their faith in the British rule that they hailed its introduction in India as 'a providential mission' capable of eradicating the 'mis rule' of the past. Given the reluctance of the Crown to introduce representative institutions in India, Dadabhai Naoroji lamented that the British government in India was 'more Raj and less British'. What he meant was that though the British rule fulfilled the vital functions of Hindu kingship in preserving law and order in India, its reluctance to introduce the principle of representative government was mainly disappointing. So, despite their appreciation of British liberalism their admiration hardly influenced the Raj in changing the vital nature of its rule in India.
MODERATE IDEOLOGY
The moderate philosophy was mainly eloquently articulated through Surendranath Banerji (1848 - 1925) in his 1895 presidential address to the Congress. In appreciation of the British rule, Banerji therefore argued: 'we appeal to England slowly to change character of her rule in India, liberalize it, to adapt it to the newly urbanized environments of the country and the people, that in the fullness of time India may discover itself in the great confederacy of free state, English in their origin, English in their character, English in their institutions, rejoicing in their permanent and indissoluble union with England'. It appears that the Moderates were swayed through British liberalism and were persuaded to consider that in the extensive run the crown would fulfill its providential mission. Banerji appears to have echoed the thought of Dadabhai Naoroji, (1825-1917) who in his 1893 Poona address, underlined the importance of 'loyalty to the British' in protecting India's future. As he stated, 'until we are able to satisfy the British people that what we inquire is reasonable and that we inquire it in earnest, we cannot hope to get what we inquire for, for the British are a justice-loving people... [and] at their hands we shall get everything that is calculated to create us British citizens'. Despite his 'loyalist' attitude, Naoroji was perhaps the first Congressman who argued strongly for a political role for the Congress that so distant was recognized on a non-political platform. While conceptualizing the role of the Congress in the British-ruled India, Naoroji had no hesitation in announcing that the Congress 'as a political body [was] to symbolize to rulers our political aspirations'.
There are two points that require to be highlighted here. First, as apparent, the Moderates recognized specific roles for the Congress that sought to mobilize people in accordance with what was construed as the mainly appropriate goal in that context. The guiding principle was to avoid friction with the ruler. In information, this is how G. K. Gokhale explained the birth of the Indian National congress. Just as to him 'no Indian could have started the Indian national congress..., if an Indian had come forward to start such a movement embracing all India, the officials in India would not have allowed the movement to come into subsistence'. Secondly, the philosophy stemmed from an uncritical faith of the early nationalists in the providential mission of the British and hence the British conquest of India was not ‗a calamity‘ to be lamented but 'an opportunity' to be seized to 'our advantage'. So it was not surprising for Ranade to uncritically appreciate the British nation that came into subsistence 'through ages of thrash about and self-discipline which illustrates better than any other modern power the supremacy of the reign of law'. This is what differentiated the British government from other colonial powers which endorsed dissimilar systems of law for the colonies. The British nation so 'inspires hope and confidence in colonies and dependencies of Great Britain that whatever temporary perturbation may cloud the judgment, the reign of law will assert itself in the end'. Thirdly, the moderates whispered that the stability of the British rule was sine- qua-non of India's progress as 'a civilized nation'. In other languages, the introduction of the British rule was a boon in disguise basically because Hindus and Muslims in India, argued Ranade, 'lacked the virtues represented through the love of order and regulated power'. Hailing the British rule as Divine dispensation', he further appreciated the British government for having introduced Indians to 'the instance and teaching of the mainly gifted and free nation in the world'. Finally, Ranade defended a strong British state in India to ensure equality of wealth and opportunity for all. Through justifying state intervention in India‘s socio-economic life, he differed considerably from the vital tenets of liberalism that clearly restricts the role of the state to well-defined domain. Here the Moderates performed a historical role through underlining the relative superiority of a state, drawn on the philosophy of enlightenment, in comparison with the decadent feudal rule of the past. To them, the imperial state that slowly unfolded with its devastating impact on India's economy, society and polity, was a distant substance and hence the thought never gained ground in their perception and its articulation.
Underlying the Moderate arguments defending the British rule in India lay its 'disciplining' function in comparison with the division and disorder of the eighteenth century. And also, the exploitative nature of imperialism and its devastating role in colonies did not appear to be as relevant as it later became. So, the moderate assessment of British rule, if contextualized, appears to be appropriate and drawn on a new reality that was clearly a break with the past. Finally, it would be wrong to dismiss the role of the Moderates in India's freedom thrash about given their loyalist attitude to the rule for two reasons:
There is no denying that the Moderates never launched mass agitations against the alien state in India; but through providing an ideological critique of the British rule in India keeping in view the grand ideals on which the British civilizations stood, they actually initiated a political dialogue that loomed big in course of time; and The Moderate constitutional and peaceful method of political mobilization, if contextualized, appears to be a milestone in India‘s freedom thrashes about for it paved the ground for other types of anti-imperial protests once it ceased to be effective.
EXTREMIST IDEOLOGY
In contrast with the Moderates who pursued a policy of reconciliation and compromise with imperialism, the Extremists demanded time-bound programmes and policies harming the British interests in India. This new school of thought represented an alternative voice demanding the Moderates' compromising policies of conciliation with imperialism. Disillusioned with the Moderates, the Extremists whispered in 'self reliance' and sought to achieve Swaraj through direct action. So, there were two stages at which the Extremist critique had operated. At one stage, they questioned the Moderate method of 'mendicancy' that, for obvious reasons, appeared 'hollow' when the imperial logic of the state prevailed in excess of other thoughts.
In other languages, the failure of Moderates in obtaining concessions for the Indians indicated the changing nature of the colonial state that had shown its true color as soon as its political manage in India was complete. So it was a stage in which the Extremists articulated their opposition both to the Moderates and the British government. At another stage, the Extremists also felt the need of being self-reliant economically to fight the British state that gained in strength through exploiting India's economic possessions. Swadeshi was not merely an economic design but also a political slogan on which India was sought to be made strong through being self- reliant. This was a region where serious intellectual contributions were made through the exponents of Extremism — BG Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal, Aurobindo in the middle of others. Unlike the Moderates who insisted on constitutional means to reform the British state, not only did the Extremists dismiss this plea as 'mainly unfortunate' but also ruled out the possibility of negotiations with the ruler for 'verbal' concession.
There were many factors that had contributed to the disillusionment of the Extremists with the Moderates. First, the rising government atrocities, especially in the wake of the 1905 Bengal partition agitation, clearly revealed the inadequacies of the constitutional and peaceful means. In information, the Congress strategy of persuasion was usually interpreted as a sign of weakness through the British government and its supporters. Hence, there was a rising pressure for a change of strategy to force the power to succumb to the demands of the Indians. Articulating the feeling of the extremist part of the Congress, Tilak therefore exhorted: 'political rights will have to be fought for. The Moderates think that these can be won through persuasion. We think that they can only be obtained through strong pressure'. As apparent, the friction flanked by the two sections of the Congress reached a pinnacle and a formal division was imminent. Secondly, the uncritical acceptance of Western enlightenment of the Moderates was also rejected as a sign of emotional bankruptcy, especially, given the rich heritage of Indian civilization. What contributed to the sense of pride in the middle of these youths in Indian values and ethos was certainly the socio-religious movements of the late nineteenth century seeking to articulate an alternative theoretical design for nationalist intervention. The ideal of Bhagavad Gita inspired them to pursue a row of action against the alien rule for its effort to denigrate Indian and its cultural distinctiveness. Vivekananda was a central figure in this nationalist conceptualization and his teachings remained an important source of inspiration for those who were critical of blind adherence to the western ideals. Thirdly, the recurrence of famine and the lackadaisical attitude of the British government brought out the exploitative nature of colonial power in clear conditions. Even in the context of huge human sufferings, the government did not adopt events to ameliorate the circumstances of the victims. In information, there were indications that the government deliberately withdrew relief in regions that suffered the mainly. The true nature of colonialism came to the surface and it was alleged that the indifferent alien power left no stone unturned to gain maximum at the cost of human miseries. What caused maximum damage to the already crippled Indian economy was an economic policy of the British government that had stopped the supply of food granules to the affected regions on the plea that it would avoid famine in spaces where there was apparently no crisis of food. Nobody was persuaded through this logic. Even the Moderate Leaders like Naoroji and Ranade were critical of this governmental stance in the context of severe human agony that could have been avoided had the government followed 'a humane policy' even after the outbreak of famine in sure parts of India. The atmosphere was surcharged with anti-British feelings and the failure of the Moderate Congress to persuade the British for relatively pro-people welfare policies catapulted the Extremists to the centre stage. Finally, the anti-Indian repressive events throughout the tenure of Curzon as the Viceroy (1899-1905) revealed the extent to which the Moderate methods of conciliation failed. Persuaded through his belief that Indians lacked the capability to rule, the Viceroy adopted many legislations - the 1904 Indian Universities Act, the 1899 Calcutta Corporation Act, to name a few -in which the representation of Indians was both drastically reduced and bypassed conveniently to fulfill his design. What was mainly distinctive in his reign was the decision to partition Bengal in 1905 that galvanized the masses into action against this imperial device of creating a religious division in the middle of the Indians. Although Curzon ostensibly undertook this administrative step for efficiency in administration, what prompted him was the principle of divide and rule. Since Curzon attributed the success of political movements in Bengal to the Hindu-Muslim unity, he deliberately adopted this measure to permanently separate the Hindus from the Muslims. This design caught the attention of the nationalist irrespective of religion and ideology and even a typical Moderate leader Surendranath Banerji while criticizing Curzon for Bengal partition hailed 'this mainly reactionary of Indian viceroys' as someone who 'will go down to the posterity as the architect of Indian national life'. Through releasing those forces in the wake of the partition agitation 'which contributed to the up building of nations', argued Banerji, 'Curzon had made us a nation'.
As apparent, through the early part of the twentieth century and especially in the context of the 1905 Bengal partition agitation, the Moderates lost credibility since their anti-imperial strategies failed to gain what they aspired for. Moreover, their faith in the British liberalism did not work to their advantage and it dawned on the later nationalists, particularly the Extremists, that the colonial power in India drew more on use and less on the vital tenets of liberalism. So, the rise and consolidation of Extremism as a political ideal in contrast with the Moderate philosophy is a clear break with the past since the principles that inspired the late nineteenth century nationalists appeared to have totally lost their significance.
MODERATE - EXTREMIST COMPARISON
The distinction flanked by the Moderates and Extremists is based on serious differences in the middle of themselves in their respective approaches to the British Empire. Based on their perception, the Moderates hailed the British rule as mainly beneficial in contrast with what India had confronted before the arrival of the British. Until the 1905 Bengal partition, the Moderate philosophy was based on loyalty to 'the Empire that had shown signs of cracks in the aftermath of atrocities, meted out to those opposing Curzon‘s canonical design of causing a fissure in the middle of the Indians through highlighting their religious schism. For an extremist like Bipin Pal, it was mainly surprising because 'how can loyalty exist in the face of injustice and mis-government which we confront everyday'. Opposed to the Moderate stance, the Extremists always measured the British rule as a curse that could never render justice to the governed in India. Not only did they challenge the British government for its 'evil' design against the Indians, they also criticized the Moderates for having misled the nationalist aspirations in a method that was clearly defeating. Instead, the new nationalist outlook, articulated through the Extremists drew mainly on an uncompromising anti-imperial stance that also fed the revolutionary terrorist movement in the late nineteenth and early part of the twentieth 'century. Secondly, the variation flanked by the Moderates and Extremists was based on their respective approaches to the outcome of the nationalist intervention. While the Moderates stood for the attainment of 'self government' through gradual reforms, the Extremists insisted on complete Swaraj. In other languages, the model of self-government, as apparent in the dominion of Canada and Australia, appeared to be an ideal form of government for India. The Extremist arguments were qualitatively dissimilar. Through demanding complete swaraj, Tilak, the mainly prominent of the Extremists, exhorted that 'swaraj is my birthright' and 'without swaraj there could be no social reform, no industrial progress, no useful education, no fulfillment of national life. That is what we seek and that is why God has sent us into the world to fulfill Him'. In appreciation of this attitude, Bipin Pal, a member of the Lal-Bal-Pal group, was categorical in stating that the principal goal of the extremist thrash about was 'the abdication of the right of England to determine the policy of the Indian Government, the relinquishment of the right of the present despotism to enact whatever law they please to govern the people of this country'. Secondly, the Extremists were not hesitant in championing 'violence', if necessary, to advance the cause of the nation while the Moderates favored constitutional and peaceful methods as mainly appropriate to avoid direct friction with the ruler. In contrast with these means, the Extremists resorted to boycott and swadeshi that never evoked support from the Moderates. While defending boycott, Tilak argued that 'it is possible to create administration deplorably hard and to make circumstances impossible for the British bureaucracy through fighting for our rights with determination and tenacity and through boycott and strike'. Urging those associated with the British bureaucracy, Tilak further argued that with the withdrawal of the Indians from the administration, 'the whole machinery will collapse'.
This strategy, first 'adopted in the context of the 1905 Bengal partition agitation, was further extended to the nationalist campaign as a whole, presumably because of its effectiveness in creating and sustaining the nationalist zeal. The economic boycott, as it was characterized in modern parlance, caused consternation in the middle of the British industrialists more than the other kinds of boycott. Thirdly, the Moderates appeared to be happy under the British presumably because of their belief that Indians were not capable of self-rule. This was what prompted them to support the British rule uncritically. The views of the Extremists were, for obvious reasons, diametrically opposite. While articulating his opposition to this thought , Tilak argued that 'we recognize no teacher in the art of self- government except self-government itself. It values freedom for its own sake and desires autonomy, immediate and unconditional regardless of any thoughts of fitness or unfitness of the people for it‘. Here too, the Moderate-Extremist distinction is based on serious ideological differences. While the former supported a loyalist discourse, the latter basically rejected the stance in its articulation of anti-imperialism. Fourthly, in the Extremist conceptualization of thrash about against imperialism, the ideal of self-sacrifice, including the, supreme sacrifice figured prominently while in the Moderate scheme of political thrash about, this thought appeared to have received no attention. This almost certainly designates two dissimilar faces of Extremism: on the one hand, there was the public appearance where the strategies of boycott, swadeshi and strike were pursued to articulate the nationalist protest; the sudden violent attack was, on the other, also encouraged to terrorize the British administration that was rattled following the incessant violent interventions through those who preferred underground militant operation. One of the preferred manners of action was assassination of 'brutal' British officials. Such acts would strike terror into the hearts of the rulers, arouse the patriotic instincts of the people, inspire them and remove the fear of power from their minds. And it had propaganda value because throughout the trial of those involved in conducting violent attacks on the British officials, the revolutionaries, and their cause received adequate publicity not only in the pro-government but also in the nationalist media. Finally, while the Moderates drew upon the British diversity of liberalism, the Extremists were inspired through the writings of Bankim Chandra Chatterjee and the teachings of Vivekananda. In view of their faith in constitutional means of opposition to the British rule, Moderates preferred-the path of conciliation rather than confrontation whereas the Extremists, espousing the demand for Swaraj, plunged into direct action against the government through resorting to boycott and strike. Unlike the Moderates who drew upon the thoughts of Gladstone, Disraeli and Burke to refine their political strategy, the Extremists establish Bankim's Anandamath, a historical novel that narrated the story of the rise of the Hindu Sannyasis vis-Ã -vis the vanquished Muslim rulers and Vivekananda's interpretation of Vedanta philosophy. The poem "Bande Matarara‖ in Anandamath clearly set the tone of the Extremist philosophy in which the notion of 'Mother' seemed to be prominent. Mother on behalf of simultaneously the divine motherland and the mother-goddess, Durga, conveyed both patriotic and religious devotion. This was an articulation that generated mass emotional appeal which the Moderate form of constitutional agitation failed to arouse. Bankim and Vivekananda were almost certainly the mainly effective ideologue who evoked Hindus imageries, well-tuned to the modern scene. Through overlooking the non-Hindu custom totally and accepting the Hindu custom as Indian custom, they though, nurtured a narrow view of history which is misleading given the cross-fertilization of multiple traditions in Indian civilization.
THE IMPORTANCE OF LAL-BAL-PAL
The Extremist ideology created a leadership trio of Lal-Bal-Pal (Lala Lajpat Rai, Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Bipin Chandra Pal), who, while critiquing the Moderates, altered the nationalist vocabulary through incorporating swadeshi, boycott and national education. So popular were Lal-Bal-Pal in Punjab, Maharashtra and Bengal respectively, that Moderates seemed to have lost their credibility in these regions. Of the trio, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, rooted in Maharashtra, was perhaps the mainly articulate militant leader of this stage of freedom thrash about. Extensive before his active involvement in the Congress, Tilak articulated his nationalist thoughts in both Kesari (in Marathi) and Mahratta (in English). In 1893, he transformed the traditional religious Ganapati festival into a campaign for nationalist thoughts through patriotic songs and speeches. Likewise, in 1896, he introduced the Shivaji festival to inspire the youth through drawing upon the patriotism of Shivaji in opposition to the Moghul ruler, Aurangzeb. It would be wrong though to blame as a 'revivalist' since he supported, mainly enthusiastically, the Ganapati and Shivaji festivals. In information, Tilak himself responded to this charge through saying that these festivals were planned to provide to the people 'a sense of belonging and to evoke in them a pride in their past'. He also dismissed the thought that he was in favor of bringing back 'the reign of Shivaji or of Peshwas' while arguing strongly for 'popular and representative government' in opposition to the 'oriental ideal of revivalism'. He rose to prominence through organizing a successful campaign for boycott of foreign clothes in Maharashtra in 1896 in protest against the imposition of taxes on cotton. His involvement in the no-tax campaign in regions, adversely affected through the 1896-7 famine in Maharashtra, had clearly articulated his mission of expanding the Congress base through incorporating the peasants, a constituency that was basically beyond the Moderates purview. Through deciding to serve the plague victims in Poona throughout the 1897, Tilak became a leader of the people who automatically were drawn to him for humanism. Separately from his role in serving the victims, he wrote many pieces in Kesari condemning the arrangement and the steps, the government undertook in combating this deadly disease, In information, the killing of Rand, the chairman of the Plague Commission in Poona in 1898 was attributed to the popular resentment against official events even in the government document. Tilak was arrested following the assassination but was released soon because of lack of proof of his involvement. Two significant characteristics in Tilak's political philosophy separated him from the Moderate thinkers. First, unlike the Moderates who argued for gradual introduction of democratic institutions in India, Tilak insisted on immediate swaraj or self rule. His concept of swaraj was not complete independence but a government constituted through the Indians themselves that 'rules just as to the wishes of the people or their representatives. Similar to the British executive that 'decides on policies, impose and remove taxes and determine the allocation of public expenditure', Indians should have the right 'to run their own government, to create laws, to appoint the officers as well as to spend the tax revenue'. This is one dimension of his thought; the second dimension relates to the notion of prajadroha or the right of the people to resist a power that loses legitimacy. In Tilak's conceptualization, if the government fails to fulfill their obligation to the ruled and becomes tyrannical, it lacks legitimacy to rule. What is motivating to note that Tilak's prajadroha also justifies the enactment of laws to prevent unlawful behaviors of the people. If contextualized, this thought creates sense because he was aware that a total rejection of the government would invite atrocities on the nationalists who had neither the organizational backing nor a strong support base in the middle of the people. So, his support for governmental preventive mechanisms was strategically conditioned and textured.
Tilak was a nationalist par excellence. In view of his uncritical acceptance of Vedanta philosophy and orthodox Hindu rituals and practices, Tilak was accused of being sectarian in multi-religious India. That he upheld the mainly reactionary form of Hindu orthodoxy was apparent in his opposition to the 1890 Age of Consent Bill that sought to rise the age of consummation of marriage of girls from ten to twelve years. While the Moderate spokesman, Ranade hailed the bill for its progressive social role, Tilak establish in this legislation an unwarranted intervention in Hindu social life. Likewise, his involvement in the Cow Protection Society alienated the Muslims to a big extent from the Extremist campaign, Tilak's argument in favor of cow protection drew upon the sacredness of cow in Hindu belief disregarding totally the importance of beef in Muslim diet. Furthermore, the-organisation of national festivals in honor of Shivaji, the Hindu hero of the Marathas and also redefining of an essentially Hindu religious festival — the Ganapati utsav - in nationalist conditions, set the ideological tenor of Tilak's political philosophy where Muslims seemed to be peripheral if not entirely bypassed.
It is necessary to pause here for a moment and reassess Tilak's worldview critically with reference to the context in which it was articulated. There is no denying that underlying all these religious shapes lay the national patriotic purpose. Under the cover of religious festivals, Tilak sought to make a nationalist platform for an effective mobilization against the British that would not allow, for obvious reasons, a political campaign adversely affecting the imperial interests. Under circumstances of severe governmental repression of all political agitation and organisation, before the nationalist movement had struck roots in the middle of the masses, the use of such apparently religious and orthodox shapes of nationalist outpouring appears to be strategically conditioned and Tilak appeared as a master planner in refining these in the pre-Gandhian stage of India's freedom thrash about. So, not only did he articulate the voice of protest in a unique vocabulary, but also he expanded the constituency of the nationalist politics through proclaiming the supposed spiritual superiority of the ancient Hindu civilization to its Western counterpart. In other languages, Tilak played a historical role in the construction of a new language of politics through being critical of 'the denationalized and westernized' Moderate leaders who blindly clung to typical western liberal values disregarding their indigenous counterparts while articulating their opposition to the British rule. It is possible to argue that Tilak had a wider appeal for his campaign was couched in a language that drew upon values, rooted in Indian civilization and civilization in contrast with what the Moderates upheld, which were totally alien. So, Tilak was not merely a nationalist leader with tremendous political acumen; he himself represented a new wave of nationalist movement that created an automatic legroom for it through: Providing the mainly powerful and persuasive critique of Moderate philosophy and Articulating his nationalist ideology in a language that was meaningful to those it was addressed.
This is how Tilak is transcendental and his thoughts of swadeshi, boycott and strike had a important sway on Gandhi who refined and well-tuned some of the typical Extremist methods in a totally changed socio-economic and political context when the nationalist thrash about had its tentacles not only in the district towns but also in the villages that unluckily remained peripheral in the pre-Gandhian days of freedom thrash about.
THE 1907 SURAT SPLIT
From 1905 to 1907, the thrash about flanked by several trends within the nationalist articulation of freedom thrash about was fought out also at the annual sessions of the Congress, culminating in the Surat split of December, 1907. The flashpoint was the 1905 Bengal partition that appeared to have enabled the Extremists to give a sharp critique of the Moderate strategies that miserably failed. The Moderate method of constitutional agitation, articulated in three Ps - petition, prayer and protest - remained mainly an academic exercise that seemed to have exhausted potentials with the consolidation of several groups championing direct action against the British. Condemning the Bengal partition and the repressive events, Gokhale in his 1905 Benaras presidential address referred to economic boycott in a extremely lukewarm manner to avoid further repression through the' government. The 1906 Calcutta Congress fulfilled the Extremists goal partly in the sense that the Congress president, Dadabhai Naoroji officially endorsed the resolutions on boycott, swadeshi, national education and self-government. The Extremists effort to extend the boycott resolution to cover provinces other than Bengal as well was defeated beside with the resolution on boycott of honorary offices and of foreign goods. Enthusiastic in excess of the victory of the Liberal Party in England, the Moderate leadership was hopeful of a series of reform events including the annulment of the Bengal partition. The appointment of John Morley as the secretary of state in early 1907 was hailed for his liberal views and was expected to inaugurate a new face of British colonialism in contrast with the bitter legacy of the Curzon era. Despite changes in the British political climate, the friction flanked by the Moderates and Extremists had shown no abatement and they were preparing themselves distant a head-on collusion in the 1907 Surat Congress presided in excess of through Rash Behari Ghosh who was vehemently opposed through Tilak and his colleagues from Maharashtra and Bengal, This was perhaps the only annual meeting of the Congress that was dissolved without deliberations.
On the surface, one may discover that the Surat Congress ended in a fiasco because it failed to amicably settle the Extremist-Moderate dichotomy. In other languages, what came out of this failed meeting of the Congress was mainly attributed to the irreconcilable contradiction flanked by the Extremists and Moderates in excess of the anti-imperial political agenda. There is, though, another dimension if one goes below the surface. The antagonism that split the Congress in Surat was the product of a fierce thrash about flanked by 'the Tilakites of Poona' and Moderates of Bombay, led through Pherozeshah Mehta. In information, the Bengal Extremists, including Aurobindo wanted to avoid the split within the Congress so as not to weaken the Swadeshi movement in Bengal. This was expressed clearly at the Bengal Provincial Conference at Patna, presided in excess of through Rabindranath Tagore in which a resolution for an immediate session of the Congress was accepted unanimously. Even Tilak's effort did not yield results. The Bombay Moderates remained adamant and at its 1908 Allahabad convention, the split was formalized through debarring those, opposed to 'the strictly constitutional methods' from participating in the Congress meetings and deliberations. The mainly obvious victim of this division was the nationalist movement itself that appeared to have taken a backseat throughout internecine feud in the middle of the Moderates and Extremists. Interestingly, it would be hard, if not impossible, to demarcate the Extremists and Moderates in conditions of their class background. Supporting mainly the Hindu vested interests, both of them, though separated ideologically, were a product of an era when the nationalist politics was primarily confined to the urban regions. While the extremists, through encouraging 'individual heroism' and 'revolutionary terrorism', inaugurated a new stage in nationalist agitation, Tilak's 1896-7 no tax campaign for the famine-stricken peasants in Maharashtra was a concrete step in expanding the constituency of nationalist politics through addressing the issues that hitherto remained neglected in the Congress agenda.
AN EVALUATION
Of the dissimilar phases of Indian nationalism, the Moderate and Extremist phases represented the voice of an incipient nationalist movement that was neither properly crystallized nor had a support base in the middle of the masses. Based on their faith in British liberalism, Moderates were perfectly justified in pursuing the policy of reconciliation. The 1909 Morley-Minto Reform was almost certainly the upper limit of what the Moderates could have gained under the circumstances. Even the revocation of Bengal partition was mainly attributed to the reform zeal of the Liberal government in Britain. So, Moderate efforts did not, at least on paper, go waste. What was though mainly extra ordinary was the information that Moderate campaign let loose a procedure, of which Extremism was also offshoot, whereby new thoughts were set in motion. The nationalist zeal, which so distant was articulated in the annual sessions of the Congress in a strictly constitutional and peaceful method, was translated into a diversity of actions, including boycott, swadeshi and strike. This resulted in an immediate expansion of the constituencies of nationalist politics that, under the Moderates, represented mainly the upper crest of Indian society. Despite sharing more or less the general social background with the Moderates, the Extremists though addressed the issues of the peasantry and workers, of course in their conditions, to underline the ideological differences with the former.
What lay at the root of the acrimonious exchange flanked by the Moderate and Extremist leaders throughout the short-existed 1907 Surat Congress was perhaps the irreconcilable differences flanked by the two. Articulating the ideological schism in almost certainly the mainly sordid manner, both these groups seemed to have allowed them to be swayed through thoughts other than anti- imperialism. That is why Rabindranath Tagore lamented that through determining to capture the Congress through hook or crook, the Moderate and Extremists failed to conceptualize, let alone realize, the vital nationalist goal of serving the people and thereby made a mockery of themselves and also what they stood for. Despite Tagore‘s own effort in bringing these two forces jointly in the aftermath of the Surat fiasco, the adoption of resolutions in the 1908 Allahabad convention through the Moderates for permanently disqualifying the Extremist part of the Congress underlined the declining importance of nationalism as a cementing ideology vis-Ã -vis the British imperialism. Also, the Extremist alternative was not qualitatively dissimilar although the Extremists were more militant and their critique of British rule was articulated in stronger conditions. They neither created a viable organisation to lead the anti-British movement nor could they describe the movement in a method that differed from that of the Moderates.
Post a Comment