Distinctive features of moderate and extremist philosophy and the factors that contributed to the rise of extremism in Indian national movement.
- Justified from their respective viewpoints, the Moderates acclaimed the British rule as most advanced in comparison to India’s position prior to the appearance of the British.
- The Moderate ideology was established on obedience to the Empire up to the time of 1905 Bengal partition that had exhibited marks of splits in the consequences of heinous acts, dealt with those resisting Curzon’s authoritative layout of maneuvering a divisions among the Indians by projecting their religious schism.
- This appeared to be appalling to an extremist like Bipin Pal who held that ‘How can loyalty exist in the face of injustice and misgovernment which we confront everyday ?’
- Set against the Moderate position, the Extremists persistently held the British rule was an evil that could never deliver justice to the Indian subjects.
- They not only announced that the British government for its ‘evil’ intention against the Indians, but also attacked the Moderates for orienting the nationalist aspirations that was evidently defeating.
- In place of that, the new nationalist approach, sketched by the Extremists approached comprehensively on an unyielding anti-imperial attitude that also nurtured the revolutionary terrorist activities in the late nineteenth and early years of the twentieth century.
- In the second place, the distinction between the Moderates and Extremists was grounded on their respective opinions to the result of the nationalist intervention.
- On one hand the Moderates upheld the achievement of ‘self government’ by way of progressive reforms, the Extremists demanded complete Swaraj.
- To put it differently, the ideal of self-government, as conspicuous in the dominion of Canada and Australia, seemed to be a perfect form of government for India.
- The Extremist reasoning were qualitatively distinct.
- Tilak while claiming complete swaraj, the most notable of the Extremists, urged earnestly that ‘Swaraj is my birthright’ along with ‘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 consonance with this impression, Bipin Pal, a member of the Lal-Bal-Pal group was explicit in asserting that the fundamental ambition of the extremist movement 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.’.
- Thirdly, the Extremists were not in two minds in supporting ‘violence’, if required, to promote the interests of the nation whereas the Moderates were in favour of championing constitutional and peaceful measures as most desirable to prevent immediate conflict with the ruler.
- Contrary to these recourses, the Extremists turned to boycott and swadeshi that never received encouragement from the Moderates. While arguing for boycott, Tilak ensured that it is possible to make administration deplorably difficult and to create conditions impossible for the British bureaucracy by fighting for our right s with determination and tenacity and by boycott and strike.’
- The Extremists publicized boycott of foreign goods and promotion of swadeshi or home-spun along with boyott of government offices.
- This tactics, first implemented in the perspective of the 1905 Bengal partition agitation, was again diversified to the nationalist campaign wholly, supposedly due to its proficiency in generating and preserving the national fervor.
- The economic boycott, as it was identified in contemporary dialect produced anxiety among the British industrialists.
- Fourthly, the Moderates seemed to be complacent under the British may be because of their conviction that Indians were deficient of self-rule.
- The views of the Extremists were for obvious reasons diametrically opposite.
- Pronouncing his disagreement to this view, Tilak contented that ‘we recognize no teacher in the art of self-government except self-government itself.’
- In this area too, the Moderate-Extremist incongruity is established on significant ideological differences.
- Fifthly, in the Extremist perspicuity of anti-imperialist, the model of self-sacrifice embracing the supreme sacrifice symbolized emphatically while in the Moderate arrangement of political struggle, this notion was ignored.
- This most likely implies two separate forms of Extremism” the public image which reflected strategies of boycott, swadeshi and strike to demonstrate the nationalist remonstrations and the unexpected violent attack to terrorize the British administration.
- One of the desired courses of action was assassination of ‘brute’ British official.
- Such initiatives would evoke terror amidst the rulers, instigate the patriotic sentiments of the people, stimulate them and dismiss fear of authority from their minds.
- Finally, on the one hand the Moderates were inspired by the British diversity of liberalism,, the Extremists were motivated by the compositions of Bankim Chandra Chatterjee and the instructions of Vivekananda.
- Considering their trust in constitutional measures of opposition to British reign, Moderates adopted the course of conciliation instead of open rivalry, the Extremists, on the other hand, espousing the doctrine of Swaraj, dived into immediate action against the government by taking recourse to boycott and strike.
- While the Moderates were animated by doctrines of Gladstone, Disraeli, and Burke to readjust their political policy, the Extremists treasured from Bankim’s Anandamath and Vivekananda’s elucidation of Vedanta philosophy.
- The poem “Bande Mataram” in Anandamath vividly attuned the Extremist philosophy in which “Mother” figured out motherland or homeland.