Explain the moderates and the extremist ideologies during Indian Independence movement | Modern Indian History | UPSC GS 1

The Indian independence movement, particularly during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, was marked by the emergence of two distinct ideological streams within the Indian National Congress (INC): the Moderates and the Extremists. These two groups, though united in their ultimate goal of ending British rule in India, differed significantly in their methods, philosophies, and approaches to achieving independence. The division between Moderates and Extremists not only shaped the course of the freedom struggle but also reflected the broader social, economic, and political currents of the time.

 

The Indian National Congress and the Rise of Moderates

The Indian National Congress (INC) was established in 1885 by A.O. Hume, a retired British civil servant, along with Indian leaders like Dadabhai Naoroji, W.C. Bonnerjee, and Surendranath Banerjee. The primary objective of the INC was to create a platform for political dialogue and to represent Indian interests to the British government. In its early years, the Congress was dominated by leaders who came to be known as Moderates.

 

Key Figures and Ideology of Moderates

Moderate leaders such as Dadabhai Naoroji, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, and Pherozeshah Mehta were deeply influenced by Western liberal ideas. They believed in the principles of constitutionalism, gradualism, and peaceful negotiation. The Moderates were convinced that by appealing to British values of justice and fairness, they could secure greater political rights for Indians.

1. Dadabhai Naoroji: Often referred to as the "Grand Old Man of India," Naoroji was a prominent Moderate leader who spent much of his life in Britain advocating for Indian rights. His famous work, Poverty and Un-British Rule in India, highlighted the economic exploitation of India under British rule. Naoroji's approach was to win over British public opinion by presenting a rational and moral case for Indian self-governance.

 2. Gopal Krishna Gokhale: Another key Moderate leader, Gokhale was a firm believer in constitutional methods. He founded the Servants of India Society in 1905 to promote social reform and education. Gokhale emphasized the importance of patience, moderation, and reasoned debate. He believed that progress could be achieved through cooperation with the British government and that self-governance would eventually be granted as a result of India’s growing political maturity.

 3. Pherozeshah Mehta: Known as the "Lion of Bombay," Mehta was a leading Moderate who played a crucial role in shaping the early policies of the INC. He advocated for incremental reforms and believed that Indians should work within the existing political framework to gradually expand their rights.

The Moderates focused on issues like administrative reforms, civil rights, and economic development. They believed in working through legal channels and sought to influence British policy through petitions, resolutions, and participation in legislative councils. Their strategies included writing memoranda, lobbying British MPs, and addressing the British public to garner support for their cause.

 

The Emergence of Extremists

By the early 20th century, however, a growing sense of frustration with the slow pace of reforms and the perceived ineffectiveness of Moderate strategies led to the rise of a more radical faction within the Congress, known as the Extremists. This group, led by leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal, and Lala Lajpat Rai, believed in more direct and assertive methods of protest.

Key Figures and Ideology of Extremists

 1. Bal Gangadhar Tilak: Often hailed as the "Father of Indian Unrest," Tilak was the most prominent leader of the Extremist faction. He famously declared, "Swaraj is my birthright, and I shall have it." Tilak was a strong advocate of mass mobilization and believed in using religious and cultural symbols to unite the Indian people against British rule. He launched the Ganapati and Shivaji festivals to galvanize public support and used the press to spread his nationalist message.

2. Bipin Chandra Pal: A key figure in the Extremist movement, Pal was known for his fiery speeches and writings. He advocated for the boycott of British goods, a strategy that later became a cornerstone of the Swadeshi movement. Pal also emphasized the need for national education and self-reliance as means to undermine British control.

3. Lala Lajpat Rai: Known as the "Lion of Punjab," Lala Lajpat Rai was a fierce advocate of direct action against British rule. He was involved in the Swadeshi and boycott movements and was a strong supporter of economic nationalism. Lajpat Rai’s activism extended to the realm of social reform, where he worked to uplift the downtrodden and promote education among women and the lower castes.

 

The Extremists criticized the Moderates for their reliance on petitions and dialogues, which they viewed as ineffective in bringing about real change. Instead, they called for more aggressive methods, including:

- Swadeshi Movement: The Extremists advocated for the use of Swadeshi, or indigenous products, as a means of economic resistance against British goods. This movement gained momentum during the partition of Bengal in 1905, where Indians boycotted British textiles and promoted local industries.

- Boycott: The Extremists pushed for the boycott of British goods, institutions, and services as a way to weaken the economic foundations of British rule in India. They believed that self-reliance and the rejection of British products were essential steps toward achieving independence.

- National Education: The Extremists emphasized the importance of establishing national schools and colleges that would provide education free from British influence. They argued that an independent education system was crucial for cultivating a sense of national identity and pride among Indians.

- Mass Mobilization: Unlike the Moderates, who primarily relied on the educated middle class, the Extremists sought to involve the masses in the freedom struggle. They organized protests, strikes, and demonstrations to rally public support and exert pressure on the British government.

 

The Partition of Bengal and the Split in Congress

The partition of Bengal in 1905 by Lord Curzon, the then Viceroy of India, marked a turning point in the Indian freedom struggle and intensified the divide between Moderates and Extremists. The partition, which divided the province of Bengal along religious lines, was seen as an attempt by the British to weaken the growing nationalist movement by fostering communal tensions.

The partition sparked widespread protests across Bengal and beyond, leading to the launch of the Swadeshi and boycott movements. While the Extremists called for a complete rejection of British goods and institutions, the Moderates advocated for a more restrained approach, seeking to reverse the partition through constitutional means.

The growing differences between the two factions culminated in the Surat session of the Congress in 1907, where the organization formally split into Moderates and Extremists. The Moderates, led by leaders like Gopal Krishna Gokhale and Pherozeshah Mehta, managed to retain control of the Congress, but the rift between the two groups highlighted the deep-seated differences in their approaches to the freedom struggle.

 

The Impact of World War I and the Home Rule Movement

 World War I (1914-1918) brought significant changes to the Indian political landscape. The British government’s decision to involve India in the war without consulting Indian leaders led to widespread discontent. The war also exacerbated economic hardships, further fueling nationalist sentiments.

 During this period, the Home Rule Movement emerged as a significant force in the Indian freedom struggle. The movement was led by Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Annie Besant, who sought to unite Indians across the country in demanding self-governance, or Home Rule, within the British Empire.

 - Bal Gangadhar Tilak: After his release from imprisonment in 1914, Tilak launched the Home Rule League in Maharashtra, emphasizing the need for Swaraj (self-rule) and self-reliance. He traveled extensively, delivering speeches and organizing rallies to mobilize public support for the cause.

 - Annie Besant: A British social reformer and theosophist who had settled in India, Annie Besant played a crucial role in the Home Rule Movement. She established the All India Home Rule League in 1916 and used her newspapers, New India and Commonweal, to promote the movement's objectives. Besant’s efforts brought together Indians from various regions and communities, making the Home Rule Movement a truly national campaign.

The Home Rule Movement represented a significant shift in the Indian freedom struggle, as it combined the mass mobilization strategies of the Extremists with the constitutional demands of the Moderates. The movement's success in galvanizing public support forced the British government to take notice and led to the introduction of the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms in 1919, which granted limited self-governance to Indians.

 

The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms and the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre

The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, introduced in 1919, sought to appease Indian demands for self-governance by introducing a system of diarchy in the provinces, where certain areas of administration were handed over to Indian ministers. However, the reforms fell short of Indian expectations and were widely criticized for their limitations.

The disillusionment with the reforms was further exacerbated by the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre in April 1919, where British troops, under the command of General Dyer, opened fire on a peaceful gathering in Amritsar, killing hundreds of unarmed civilians. The massacre shocked the nation and led to widespread outrage, further deepening the divide between Indians and the British government.

The events of 1919 marked a turning point in the Indian freedom struggle. The Moderates, who had long advocated for constitutional reforms, were disillusioned by the British government’s response to Indian demands

 

The Legacy of Moderates and Extremists

The disillusionment with the British following the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre led to a significant shift in Indian politics, bringing the extremist ideology to the forefront. Mahatma Gandhi's rise during this period synthesized the methods of both the Extremists and Moderates, with his approach of nonviolent civil disobedience (Satyagraha) combining mass mobilization with a disciplined adherence to nonviolence. This approach drew inspiration from both streams: the Moderates' commitment to legal and constitutional methods and the Extremists' emphasis on direct action and self-reliance.

The legacy of the Moderates and Extremists played a crucial role in shaping the course of the Indian freedom movement:

- Moderates: Despite their limitations, the Moderates laid the foundation for constitutional democracy in India. Their efforts in raising political awareness, establishing dialogue with the British, and advocating for civil rights contributed significantly to the eventual realization of self-governance. Leaders like Gopal Krishna Gokhale, who was a mentor to Mahatma Gandhi, played a key role in moderating the more radical impulses of the freedom movement, ensuring that it remained grounded in principles of justice and fairness.

- Extremists: The Extremists, with their emphasis on Swaraj and self-reliance, helped ignite the spirit of nationalism among the Indian masses. Their rejection of British goods and promotion of indigenous industries sowed the seeds of economic independence. The Extremists also paved the way for more radical forms of protest, which were later adopted and refined by Gandhi in his campaigns of non-cooperation and civil disobedience.

The ideological rift between Moderates and Extremists was eventually bridged, to some extent, by the common goal of complete independence (Purna Swaraj). The fusion of these two approaches under the leadership of figures like Gandhi and later Subhas Chandra Bose led to a more unified and effective freedom struggle.

Conclusion

The struggle between Moderates and Extremists in the Indian National Congress was not merely a clash of personalities or tactics but reflected deeper currents within Indian society. The Moderates, with their faith in British liberalism and gradual reform, represented the aspirations of the educated middle class, who sought to work within the system to achieve their goals. The Extremists, on the other hand, embodied the growing impatience and radicalism of a younger generation of leaders who were unwilling to wait for gradual change and instead demanded immediate and complete independence.

Both groups, despite their differences, contributed significantly to the Indian independence movement. The Moderates laid the groundwork for political discourse and engagement, while the Extremists galvanized public opinion and brought the masses into the fold of the national struggle. Their combined efforts, along with the synthesis provided by leaders like Gandhi, ultimately led to the successful culmination of India's struggle for independence in 1947.

The legacy of these two groups continues to influence Indian politics and society today. The principles of nonviolence, constitutionalism, and mass mobilization that emerged from this period remain central to India's democratic ethos. As India continues to navigate its path as a modern nation, the lessons from the debates and struggles between Moderates and Extremists serve as a reminder of the importance of balancing ideals with practical action, and the power of unity in the face of adversity.