Ashutosh Pathak 2018/05/038

Q. Assess the differences in ideology and strategy of moderate and extremist leadership
of the early national movement.

The period after the revolt of 1857 saw the gradual evolution of the modern sector of politics.
This process was facilitated through rapid spread of education, development of
communication systems, like the railways and telegraph and the emergence of a new public
space. Universities of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay were set up in 1857 on the model of
London university as per Wood’s Despatch. The Indian Councils Act was passed in 1861 to
provide for limited Indian representation in legislative councils in order to avert any
insurrections.

All these developments led to a growth of middle-class consciousness amongst the educated
professional classes. The roots of this middle-class intelligentsia lay in government service, or
the professions of law, education, journalism or medicine - which was often combined with
some connection with land in the form of immediate tenures.

Many political associations came up in the second half of the nineteenth century which were
dominated by this middle-class i.e. lawyers, doctors, journalists, teachers etc. Zamindari
Association or Landholder’s Society was founded in 1838 to safeguard the interests of
landlords and compradors. The Bengal British India Society was founded in 1843. In 1851,
both the Landholders’ Society and the Bengal British India Society merged into the British
Indian Association. It was the first major voluntary organization in India representing the
local landlord interests. It was exclusively Indian in its membership and was created to send
petitions to the British parliament to express the legitimate demands of the Indian subjects.
Madras Native Association and the Bombay Association came into existence in 1852 for the
same purpose.

The leaders of these associations, often called moderates, held high expectations from British
rule. To them, law and order, modern centralized administration, spread of modern education,
of Western democratic thought and enlightenment, introduction of freedom of speech and
Press, prospect of rapid industrial development - these and more were the direct results of
British rule. While early nationalists were aware of poverty and economic ills following in its
wake, they believed that “the credit side of British rule outweighed the debit side”. As Bipan
Chandra puts it, “they were attracted more by potential than the real, more by the hope than
the fulfillment.”

However, the process of disillusionment set in gradually after 1860 as the reality of social
development in India failed to conform to their social hopes. They realized that economic
regression of India was not so much a well-intentioned mistake as a deliberate imperialist
project to deindustrialise India. Gradually, the image of British rule began to take on darker
hues; Indian middle-class intellectuals began to probe deeper into the reality of the Raj and its
impact on India. This ‘decadence of faith’ was voiced by leaders like Dadabhai Naoroji, G.V.
Gokhale, G.V. Joshi, Surendranath Banerjee and R.C. Dutt.

Dadabhai Naoroji put forward a trenchant critique of colonial economic domination and
exploitation which he termed as the ‘drain of wealth’ from India to Britain. This became the
focal point of nationalist critique of colonialism. The nationalists leaders pointed out that a
large part of India’s capital and wealth was being transferred or ‘drained’ to Britain in the
form of salaries and pensions of British civil and military officials working in India, interest
on loans taken by the Indian government, profits of British capitalists in India, and the Home
charges or expenses of the Indian government in Britain. Other nationalist leaders, journalists
and propagandists followed in the footsteps of Dadabhai Naoroji.

In the 1870s and 1880s, various organisations and associations had been emerging to put forth
these demands. These were ‘middle-class’ - professional rather than zamindar-led in
composition. The most important of these organisations were the Poona Sarvajanik Sabha
(1870), the Indian Association (1876), which organised the first all-India agitations in 1877-
78 on civil service and press-act issues, the Madras Mahajan Sabha (1884), and the Bombay
Presidency Association (1885).

These organisations sought to seek the support of British parliament and public for their
cause. The demands and grievances of these organisations were identical : Indianisation of
administration, perplexing “dual system” of government, expensive and incompetent
administration, legislations unresponsive to feelings of people, high taxation, salt and opium
monopolies and neglect of education and public works. A Calcutta petition made it clear that
they had “not profited by their connection with Great Britain, to the extent which they had a
right to look for”.
A solid ground had been prepared for the establishment of an all-India organization. The final
shape to this idea was given by a retired English servant named A.O. Hume in 1885. This
marked the foundation of Indian National Congress (INC) in December 1885. A series of
conference sessions held by Indian National Conference in 1883 and 1885 are considered to
be the prelude to INC. These were organized under the stewardship of Surendranath Banerjee
and Anand Mohan Bose. The social background of moderate politicians was of propertied
classes.

The foundation of the Congress in 1885 is considered to mark the beginning of the Moderate
phase of national movement (1885-1905). Moderate leaders were staunch believers in
liberalism and constitutional politics. They believed that while the British wanted to be just to
Indians, they were not aware of the real conditions. In 1886, Dadabhai Naoroji presided over
the Calcutta session of the Congress and dwelt at length on the ‘Blessings of British Rule’. In
his own words, “Nothing is more dear to the heart of England - and I speak from actual
knowledge - than India’s welfare ; and, if we speak out loud enough and persistently enough,
to reach that busy heart, we shall not speak in vain.”

The moderate leaders never visualised a clinical separation from the British empire ; what
they wanted was only limited self-government within the imperial framework. Loyalty to the
Crown was an important article of their political religion. Their main demands were
broadening of Indian participation in legislatures, Indianisation of administrative services,
reduction in military expenditure of the empire and others. Thus, their immediate demand was
not for full self-government or democracy ; they demanded democratic rights only for the
educated members of the Indian society who would substitute for the masses. The masses,
they felt, were not yet ready for participation in political work.

The methods followed by moderate leaders were by nature constitutional and within the
confines of law. As Bipan Chandra puts it, “... political methods of moderates can be summed
up as constitutional agitation within the four walls of the law, and slow, orderly political
progress”. They were convinced of the policy of gradualism and constitutionalism. Moderate
leaders wanted to create a public opinion in the country and presented public demands
through resolutions, memorials, petitions, meetings, speeches etc. Their demands were
worded in prayerful and apologetic language. They used the method of ‘prayer and petition’
and if that failed they resorted to constitutional agitation.
Though ostensibly their memorials and petitions were addressed to the government, their real
aim was to educate the Indian people. Justice M.G. Ranade had once said to G.K. Gokhale,

You don’t realise our place in the history of the country. These memorials are nominally addressed to the
government. In reality they are addressed to the people, so that they may learn how to think in these matters.
This work must be done for many years, without expecting any other results, because politics of this kind is
altogether new in this land.

However, the British authorities did not take kindly to the emerging nationalist movement. In
the beginning, the official attitude was of outward neutrality. It stiffened after 1887. None of
the demands of moderates were fulfilled. Lord Cross’ Act or the Indian Councils Amendment
Act of 1892 only provided for marginal expansion of the legislative councils at the centre and
the provinces. Government resorted to open condemnation of the Congress calling the
nationalists “seditious brahmins” and “disloyal babus”. Lord Curzon infamously said in 1900,
“The Congress is tottering to its fall, and one of my great ambitions while in India is to assist
it to a peaceful demise”. The moderate economic, constitutional and administrative agenda
remained largely unrealised.

By the beginning of the 20th century, the moderate influence was waning and a more militant
brand of politics was coming to the fore. There were several factors responsible for this
development. Firstly, the rapacious nature of British rule was revealed to all by now. The
painstaking studies and writings of early nationalist leaders had conclusively proved that the
British rule in India was ‘a constant and continuous plunder’(Dadabhai Naoroji). Secondly
there was dissatisfaction with the achievements of the Congress. The younger leaders in
Congress were disgusted with the cold and reactionary attitude of the government. There was
a strong criticism of methods of peaceful and constitutional agitation i.e. Petition, Prayer and
Protest. It was pejoratively termed as the ‘strategy of political mendicancy’.

Thirdly, international events like the defeat of Italian army by Ethiopians at Adowa (1896),
the British reverses at Boer Wars (1899-1902) and Japan’s victory of Russia demolished the
myths of European invincibility. Nationalists were inspired by movements worldover -
Ireland, Russia, Egypt, Turkey, Persia and China. Fourthly, the reactionary policies of Lord
Curzon aroused anger and resentment amongst the nationalist leaders. These policies included
tightening of security through Official Secrets Act (1904), decrease in number of elected
Indian members in Calcutta Corporation, Universities Act of 1904 and partition of Bengal in
1905.

This last decision had sparked off an anti-Partition movement which assumed an all-India
character. The militant nationalists tried to transform the Swadeshi and anti-Partition agitation
into a mass-movement and gave the slogan of independence from foreign rule. Aurobindo
Ghose had openly declared, “Political freedom is the life breath of the nation”. The roots of
the extremist phase can be traced to furore created by the Partition of Bengal. Question of
Partition became a secondary one and the question of India’s freedom became the central
question of Indian politics. The character of the movement in terms of both its goal and social
base had begun to expand rapidly.

The goal of the militant nationalists or extremists was swaraj. This can be seen in Dadabhai
Naoroji’s declaration at the Calcutta Session of 1906 which proclaimed swaraj or self-
government to be the goal of Congress. However, the goal of swaraj was interpreted
differently by various leaders. For most, Swaraj still meant self-rule within the parameters of
British imperial structure. The radicalisation of politics was visible in the methods of
agitation. Extremist leaders moved from the old methods of prayer and petition to that of
passive resistance.

The extremists gave a call for passive resistance in addition to swadeshi and boycott which
would include a boycott of government schools and colleges, government service, courts,
legislative councils, municipalities, government titles, etc. The purpose, as Aurobindo Ghose
had put it, was to “make the administration under present conditions impossible by an
organised refusal to do anything which will help either the British commerce in the
exploitation of the country or British officialdom in the administration of it.”

Extremist leaders, unlike the moderates, had deep faith in the strength of masses. They
planned to achieve swaraj through mass action. They pressed for political work amongst the
masses and direct political action by the masses. Lala Lajpat Rai of Punjab summed it up,
“We desire to turn our faces away from Government House and turn them to huts of the
people”. Militant nationalists talked about broadening the social base of the national
movement to include women, students and large sections of urban and rural population. Most
of them represented the urban lower middle classes and aimed at spreading the Congress
message to the people. They spoke, wrote and edited newspapers in vernacular languages.
The Extremist leadership also innovated with considerable success different forms of mass
mobilisation. Firstly, corps of volunteers or samitis were organised. There were five principal
samitis which were banned in 1909. The samitis took the swadeshi message to the villages
through magic lantern lectures and swadeshi songs. Other activities included imparting
physical and moral training, social work in famines and epidemics, training in indigenous
crafts and establishment of arbitration courts. Secondly, the phase of extremism was marked
by creative use of popular festivals and melas. Ganapati and Shivaji festivals initiated by
Tilak became a medium of Swadeshi propaganda. Traditional folk theatre forms like jatras in
Bengal were also used.

The extremist programme of action was reflected in the resolutions adopted by the Calcutta
Congress of 1906. Four resolutions were passed in favour of boycott, swadeshi, national
education and swaraj. The Swadeshi movement was a two-pronged strategy. On one hand, it
was designed to encourage Indian industries and provide the people with opportunities for
work and employment. On the other hand, it was intended to cause pecuniary loss to British
manufacturers in India. The promoters of such swadeshi enterprises were endowed more with
patriotic zeal than business acumen.

However, the extremism in the movement marked a retrogression in the unity of the
movement. Extremists had revivalist and obscurantist overtones attached to their programme.
They developed a ‘vicarious nationalism’ (as Bipan Chandra calls it) which tended to foster
national, regional and communal consciousness. B.G. Tilak raised the cry of ‘Hinduism-in-
danger’ in reaction to the Age of Consent Act of 1891. Tilak’s organising of Ganesha and
Shivaji festival and support to anti-cow killing campaigns portrayed him as a Hindu
nationalist. Bepin Chandra Pal and Aurobindo spoke of a Hindu nation and Hindu interests.
The communal strife of later years also has its roots in these years. For instance,
Bankimchandra asserted that Bengal had lost her independence with Bhaktiyar Khilji and not
Plassey. The extremist leadership drew its ideological inspiration from Indian history, cultural
heritage and Hindu traditional symbols. The seeds of disunity had been sown with the Bengal
partition and the formation of Muslim League. As Sumit Sarkar has put it, “The use of
Muslims as convenient whipping-boys for the British could not have but extremely harmful
consequences.”

It can be seen that extremism was not a consistent political philosophy. Advocates of
extremism ranged from active revolutionaries on one hand to those who were opposed to all
violent methods at the other end. However, it must be stated that all extremist leaders were
one in resisting the evils of foreign rule and in demanding some degree of independence from
colonial stranglehold. They raised patriotism from a level of ‘academic pastime’ to one of
‘service and sacrifice for the country’. Extremism was an attitude of mind and practical
strategy to meet a particular situation.

References

Ahir, R. (2019). ‘Era of Militant Nationalism’ (1905-1919). In R. Ahir, A Brief History of

Modern India (pp. 257-281). New Delhi: Spectrum Books.

Ahir, R. (2019). ‘Indian National Congress : Foundation and the Moderate Phase’. In R. Ahir,
A Brief History of Modern India (pp. 247-256). New Delhi: Spectrum Books.

Chandra, Bipan et. al. (1988). ‘The Swadeshi Movement 1903-1908’. In Bipan Chandra et.
al. India's Struggle for Independence (pp. 146-158). New Delhi: Penguin.

Bandyopadhyay, S. (2015). ‘The Moderates and Economic Nationalism’. In S.

Bandyopadhyay, From Plassey to Partition (pp. 227-333). Hyderabad: Orient Blackswan.

Bandyopadhyay, S. (2015). ‘The New Middle Class and the Emergence of Nationalism’. In S.
Bandyopadhyay, From Plassey to Partition (pp. 205-217). Hyderabad: Orient Blackswan.

Bandyopadhyay, S. (2015). ‘The Rise of Extremism and the Swadeshi Movement’. In S.

Bandyopadhyay, From Plassey to Partition (pp. 248-261). Hyderabad: Orient Blackswan.
Chandra, B. (2009). ‘The Nationalist Movement : 1858-1905’. In B. Chandra, History of
Modern India (pp. 225-229). Hyderabad: Orient Blackswan.

Grover, B. (2018). ‘The Growth and Development of the Indian National Movement’. In B.
Grover, A New Look at Modern Indian History (pp. 301-310). New Delhi: S. Chand and
Company Limited.

Sarkar, S. (2014). 'Middle-Class' Consciousness and Politics. In S. Sarkar, Modern India

1885-1947 (pp. 56-86). NOIDA: Pearson Education.