Distinctive features of moderate and extremist philosophy and
the factors that contributed to the rise of extremism in Indian national
movement.
(I)
- 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.
(II)
- 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.’.
 |
(III)
- 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.
(IV)
- 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.
(VI)
- 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.
