Moderate Methods Give Way to Extremist Modes

With the coming of Swadeshi and Boycott Movement, it became clear that the Moderates had outlived their utility and their politics of petitions and speeches had become obsolete. They had not succeeded in keeping pace with time, and this was highlighted by their failure to get the support of the younger generation for their style of politics. Their failure

Differences between Moderates and Extremists

Moderates

Extremists

1. Social base—zamindars and upper middle classes in towns.

2. Ideological inspiration— western liberal thought and European history.

3. Believed in England’s providential mission in India.

4. Believed political connections with Britain to be in India’s social, political and cultural interests.

5. Professed loyalty to the British Crown.

6. Believed that the movement should be limited to middle class intelligentsia; masses not yet ready for participation in political work.

7. Demanded constitutional reforms and share for Indians in services.

8. Insisted on the use of constitutional methods only.

9. They were patriots and did not play the role of a comprador class.

1. Social base—educated middle and lower middle classes in towns.

2. Ideological inspiration—Indian history, cultural heritage and Hindu traditional symbols.

3. Rejected ‘providential mission theory’ as an illusion.

4. Believed that political connections with Britain would perpetuate British exploitation of India.

5. Believed that the British Crown was unworthy of claiming Indian loyalty.

6. Had immense faith in the capacity of masses to parti- cipate and to make sacrifices.

7. Demanded swaraj as the panacea for Indian ills.

8. Did not hesitate to use extra- constitutional methods like boycott and passive resistance to achieve their objectives.

9. They were patriots who made sacrifices for the sake of the country.

to work among the masses had meant that their ideas did not take root among the masses. Even the propaganda by the Moderates did not reach the masses. No all-India campaigns of the scale of Swadeshi and Boycott Movement had been organised earlier by the Moderates and, in this campaign, they discovered that they were not its leaders, which was rather natural.

The Extremist ideology and its functioning also lacked consistency. Its advocates ranged from open members and secret sympathisers to those opposed to any kind of political violence. Its leaders—Aurobindo, Tilak, B.C. Pal and Lala Lajpat Rai—had different perceptions of their goal. For Tilak, swaraj meant some sort of self-government, while for Aurobindo it meant complete independence from foreign rule. But at the politico-ideological level, their emphasis on mass participation and on the need to broaden the social base of the movement was a progressive improvement upon the Moderate politics. They raised patriotism from a level of ‘academic pastime’ to one of ‘service and sacrifice for the country’. But the politically progressive Extremists proved to be social reactionaries. They had revivalist and obscurantist undertones attached to their thoughts. Tilak’s opposition to the Age of Consent Bill (which would have raised the marriageable age for girls from 10 years to 12 years, even though his objection was mainly that such reforms must come from people governing themselves and not under an alien rule), his organising of Ganapati and Shivaji festivals as national festivals, his support to anti-cow killing campaigns, etc., portrayed him as a Hindu nationalist. Similarly B.C. Pal and Aurobindo spoke of a Hindu nation and Hindu interests. This alienated many Muslims from the movement.

Though the seemingly revivalist and obscurantist tactics of the Extremists were directed against the foreign rulers, they had the effect of promoting a very unhealthy relationship between politics and religion, the bitter harvests of which the Indians had to reap in later years.