THE MODERATES

The Congress programme during the first phase (1885-1905) was very modest. It demanded moderate constitutional reforms, economic relief, administrative reorganization and defence of civil rights. Also it adopted moderate means of political agitation like filing petitions, memorials etc. before the government and organizing public speeches and discussions around political issues.

The Congress expressed opinions on all the important measures of the Government and protested against the unpopular ones. These demands were repeated year after year, although there was hardly any response from the Government. During the first twenty years (1885-1905) there was practically no change in the Congress programme. The major demands were practically the same as those formulated at the first three or four sessions.

This phase of the Congress is known as the MODERATE PHASE.  During this period the leaders were cautious in their demands. They did not want to annoy the government and incur the risk of suppression of their activities. From 1885 to 1892, their main demand continued to be

• The Congress demanded expansion and reform of the Legislative Councils, the membership of the Councils from elected representatives of the people and also an increase in the powers of these Councils. The British Government was forced to pass the Indian Councils Act of 1892 but the provisions of this Act failed to satisfy the Congress leaders. They demanded Indian control over the public purse and raised the slogan that that had earlier been raised by the Americans during their War of Independence, ‘No taxation without representation’. By 1905 the Congress put forth the demand for Swaraj or self-rule for Indians within the British Empire on the model of the self-governing colonies like Australia or Canada. This demand was first referred to by G.K. Gokhale in 1905 (at Banaras) and later explicitly stated by Dadabhai Naoroji in 1906 (at Calcutta).
• A strong point noted by the nationalists during this phase was about the economic drain of India. Dadabhai Naroji described the British rule as an 'everlasting and every day increasing foreign invasion’ that was gradually destroying the country. In the nationalist opinions the British were responsible for the destruction of India’s indigenous industries. The remedy for the removal of India’s poverty was the development of modern industries. The Government could promote it through tariff protection and direct government aid. However after seeing the failure of the Government in this regard the nationalists popularized the idea of Swadeshi or use of Indian goods and boycott of British goods as a means of promoting Indian industries.
• As we have noted earlier, even though their political demands were moderate, their economic demands were radical in nature. The Indian leaders advocated basically anti-imperialist economic policies. They laid stress on basic changes in the existing economic relations that made India a supplier of raw materials and a market for British manufacturers. They criticized the official policies on tariff, trade, transport and taxation. These were regarded as hampering rather than helping the growth of indigenous industry.
• They also fully recognised the value of the freedom of the press and speech and condemned all attempts at their curtailment. In fact, the struggle for the removal of restrictions on press became the integral part of the nationalist struggle for freedom.

Drain of wealth Theory

The transfer of resources and wealth from India to England without providing ‘any equivalent return’ which began in the second half of the eighteenth century had been christened by Indian ‘non-practicing’ economists like Dadabhai Naoroji, M. G. Ranade, R. C. Dutt as the “economic drain”.

It was in 1867 that for the first time Dadabhai Naoroji in his paper 'England's Debt to India' put forward the idea that Britain was extracting wealth from India as a price of her rule in India, that out of the revenues raised in India, nearly one-fourth went clean out of the country and was added to the resources of England', and that India was consequently 'being bled'. Dadabhai Naoroji dedicated his life to propagation of the drain theory and to launching a roaring campaign against the drain which was considered by him to be the fundamental evil of British rule in India.

 Dadabhai Naoroji gave six factors that caused external drain. These are:

• 1.     External rule and administration in India.
• 2. Funds and labour needed for economic development was brought in by immigrants but India did not draw immigrants.
• 3.   All the civil administration and army expenses of Britain were paid by India.
• 4.  India was bearing the burden of territory building both inside and outside India.
• 5. India was further exploited by opening the country to free trade.
• 6.  Major earners in India during British rule were foreigners. The money they earned was never invested in India to buy anything, rather they left India along with the money that was earned here.

Not only this but through different services such as railways, India was given a huge amount to Britain. On the other hand ,trade as well as Indian Labour was deeply undervalued, along with this, The East India company was buying product from India with Indian Money and exporting it to Briatin.

Effects of the Drain on India

1.   Huge drain of resources from India into England had resulted disastrous effects on Indian economy and its people. Huge amount of these resources which could be invested in India were snatched and siphoned off to England.

2.   Huge public debt undertaken by the Government and its payment of interest necessitated increasing tax burden on the people of India, which were highly regressive in nature. As per Dadabhai Naoroji’s estimates, tax burden in India during 1886 was 14.3 per cent of its total income which was very high as compared to 6.93 per cent in England.

3.   Moreover, these tax proceeds were mostly used for making payments to British creditors and not for the social services and welfare activities of Indians. This type of drain of tax proceeds from India impoverished the agriculture, industry and trading activities in India and was largely responsible for stagnant stage of its economy during the 18th and 19th centuries.

Although the British undertook responsibility of maintaining law and order, centralised political and judicial administration, roads, railways, educational set up etc. but the extent of draining out of resources was too excessive leading to stagnation of the economy and poor and miserable condition of Indian masses.

Evaluation of work

• Whatever may be the drawback in the demands put forward by the Congress, it was a national body in true sense of the term. There was nothing in its programme to which any class might take exception. Its doors were open to all classes and communities. Its programme was broad enough to accommodate all interests. It may be said that it was not a party, but a movement.
• It must be said to the credit of the nationalist leaders that though they belonged to the urban educated middle class they were too broad-minded and free from narrow and sectional class interests. They kept in mind the larger interests of the people in general. Their economic policies were not influenced by the short sighted vision of a job-hungry middle class.
• This challenging critique of the financial foundations of the Raj was a unique service that the early Congress leadership rendered to the nation.

THE EXTREMISTS

Extremism in the Indian National scene did not spring up all of a sudden in the first decade of the twentieth century. In fact it had been growing slowly but invisibly since the Revolt of 1857 itself.

Ideological basis of extremism

The nationalist ideas behind the Revolt of 1857, according to the Extremists, were Swadharma and Swaraj. Attachment to rationalism and western ideals had almost alienated the ‘Liberal’ (Moderate) school from the masses in India. That is why despite their high idealism, they failed to make any effective impact on the people. In due course a section was bound to come to fill this gap. In the place of adoration and imitation of all things western, there was a movement by the eighties of the nineteenth century urging people to look to their ancient civilization. An under-current of this type had existed earlier but during the Revolt of 1857 it had suddenly burst into open. However, the educated community by the large had kept itself aloof from the main current of Indian life and remained untouched by this trend. The historic task of bridging the gulf between the educated few and the general people was accomplished by Paramahamsa Ramakrishna and his English-educated disciple, Swami Vivekananda, Swami Dayananda, who was well-versed in Vedic literature and the Arya Samaj founded by him also played a vital role in this direction. The Eclectic Theosophical Society of Annie Besant too made a contribution. These social reform movements gave impetus to political radicalism. There was instinctive attachment to native culture, religion and polity. The political radicals who derived inspiration from their traditional cultural values were ardent nationalists who wanted to have relations with other countries in terms of equality and self respect. They had tremendous sense of self respect and wanted to keep their heads high. They opposed the moderates who were considered by them to be servile and respectful to the British. They thought that a trial of strength between the ruler and the ruled was inevitable, and argued for building a new India of their dreams in which the British had no contribution to make.

Three groups of the extremists

•        The Maharashtra group, headed by B.G. Tilak;
•        The Bengal group represented by B.C. Pal and Aurobindo Ghosh
•        The Punjab group led by Lala Lajpat Rai.

The Bengal Extremists were greatly influenced by the ideas of Bankim Chandra, who was a liberal conservative like Edmund Burke. He wanted no break with the past which, he thought, might create more problems than it would solve. He was opposed to precipitate reforms imposed from above. In his view, reforms should wait on moral and religious regeneration which should be based on fundamentals of religion. Bankim blazed the trail for the Extremists in his contemptuous criticism of the Moderates.

This nationalism of the Extremists was emotionally charged. The social, economic and political ideals were all blended in this inspiring central conception of nationalism. Carrying this message to the West Vivekananda generated tremendous self-confidence and will-power. Aurobindo even raised patriotism to the pedestal of mother worship. He said in a letter, “I know my country as my mother. I adore her. I worship her.”

Aurobindo was very much attracted by the teachings of Dayananda who was hardly influenced by any ideas from the West. He credited Dayananda with more definite work for the nation than any other reformer. Bankim Chandra, Dayananda and Vivekananda had thus prepared the ideological ground on the basis of which the Extremists drew up their political programme.

Tilak resented any interference by an alien government into the domestic and private life of the people. He quarreled with the reformers over the Age of Consent Bill in 1891. He introduced the Ganpati festival in 1893 and 1894. Tilak threw a challenge to the National Social Conference in 1895 by not allowing it to hold its session in the Congress pavilion in Poona (The National Social Conference was under the influence of Moderate Wing). In the same year the Poona Sarvajanik Sabha was captured by the Extremists from the Moderates. The Shivaji festival was first held on 15 April 1896 and with the foundation of the Deccan Sabha on November 4, 1896, the division between the Extremists and the Moderates in Maharashtra was complete, but it was not so all-over India. Pal, for example, the leader of the Bengal Extremists was still in the camp of the Moderates.

Because of the soft and vacillating policy it pursued, Lajpat Rai also was not interested in Congress programme. Between 1893 and 1900 he did not attend any meeting of the Congress. He felt during this period that the Congress leaders cared more for fame and pomp than for the interests of the country.

Open conflict and split

Tilak was unpopular with the Moderate group in Bombay. He was a shrewd tactician waiting for the opportunity to show his hand. The unity forged at the Benaras Congress (1905) with the Bengal Extremists proved advantageous to Tilak at the Calcutta Congress (1906). Gokhale also had his premonitions about the Calcutta Congress. He apprehended trouble. This mutual distrust did not augur well for the Congress. To begin with there was controversy over the Presidentship. Pal and Aurobindo wanted Tilak to be the President, but the Moderates were in no mood to accept him. To have their way the latter resorted to an extraordinary maneuver, and without consulting the Reception Committee, wired Dadabhai Naoroji to accept the presidentship. After the latter’s acceptance, the Extremists were presented with a fait accompli. Thus having failed in their attempt to get Tilak installed as President, the Extremists-Tilak, Aurobindo, Pal, Ashwini Kumar Dutt, G.S. Khaparde etc. - formed themselves into a pressure group to press their points. The Extremists were in majority and they had substantial local support. There was much heat in the atmosphere and the meeting of the Subjects Committee was stormy. Resolutions were discussed and amended under pressure from the Extremists. Pherozeshah Mehta was the target of their special fury. Mehta, M.M. Malaviya and Gokhale were heckled and booed. Ultimately a compromise was hurriedly made, and the resolutions on the partition of Bengal, Swadeshi and Boycott were re-phrased and secured a smooth passage in the open session. There was however, no union of the minds and hearts among the antagonists. The danger was averted for the time being but a festering sore was left.

Though the Extremists had failed to get Tilak elected the President of the Calcutta Congress (1906), they were satisfied with what they had achieved there. They had emerged as a strong, coherent and powerful force. They had thwarted what they believed to be determined attempts to water down the Congress programme. The Moderates left Calcutta with mixed feelings of bewilderment, humiliation and dismay. What worried them most was the “rough behaviour” adopted by the Extremists.

Both the Moderates and the Extremists participated in the Swadeshi movement; but there were real differences between the views of the Moderates and Extremists on Swadeshi. To Tilak, Pal and Aurobindo boycott had double implications. Materially it was to be an economic pressure on Manchester, producing thereby a chain reaction on the Government of India. Spiritually it was a religious ritual of self-punishment. Swadeshi had primarily an economic message for Gokhale the message of industrial regeneration which he had imbibed from Ranade. To Surendranath the Swadeshi movement was in spirit a protectionist movement. It appealed to the masses because they had the sense to perceive that it would “herald the dawn of a new era of material prosperity for them”. To Tilak and Lajpat Rai it was a moral training in self-help, determination and sacrifice was well as a weapon of `political agitation’. To Aurobindo Swadeshi was not `secularity of autonomy and wealth’, but a return to the faith in India’s destiny as the world-saviour. Thus Swadeshi had a far richer and meaningful content for the Extremists than for the Moderates.

Differences of Temperament and ideology and clash of personalities were to create bitter feelings among the rival groups. Persistent criticism by the Extremists alarmed the Moderates. The latter were afraid that the former had already captured Bengal, Maharashtra, Berar and the Punjab and there was danger of the rest of the country also being lost to them.

At Calcutta it has been decided to hold the next session of the Congress at Nagpur where the Moderates thought that they would be in majority. The election of the Congress President for the ensuing session (1907) developed into an occasion for trial of strength between the Moderates and the Extremists. The Moderates were determined not to allow Tilak to hold the presidential chair.

The Moderates were unanimous on the exclusion of Tilak but not on who should be elected. Gokhale had his eyes fixed on Rash Behari Ghosh, a renowned lawyer and powerful orator. But the Moderates found themselves unnerved at Nagpur and Pherozeshah Mehta changed the venue to Surat where he thought he would have his way. The Extremists did not like this. The tense atmosphere and the intemperate language used by both sides pointed to the inevitability of the coming crisis at Surat. Rash Behari Ghosh was elected the Congress President. The relations between the two groups worsened still further. In the meeting there was open conflict to the proposal of Ghosh being elected as President. Tilak was not allowed to express his views in the matter. This was a signal for pandemonium and the two groups formally split.

Consequences of the split

But whoever may be responsible for the split and whatever may be its cause, it was a great national calamity. Gokhale was aware of this great disaster. The British bureaucracy was in jubilation. Lord Minto, the Viceroy, exultingly told Lord Morley, the Secretary of State that the ‘Congress Collapse’ (Surat split) was ‘a great triumph for us’. But Morley knew better. Almost prophetically he told the Viceroy that, the immediate collapse notwithstanding, the Extremists would eventually capture the Congress. The split did immense harm to the Congress in particular and the national movement in general. It can be said that the Moderates were the brain of the Congress and the nation and the Extremists were the heart; the former were the ‘law’ and the latter ‘impulse’. The unified action of the two was absolutely necessary for the proper functioning of the organisation and growth of national movement. Without the extremists, the Moderates were to achieve little. For about a decade, the Moderates were not in a position to show the kind of strength that was needed to seriously oppose the British. It was only after 1916, with the re-entry of the Extremists in the Congress and exit of the Moderates from it that the Congress could be reactivised. But then it was a new story. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Gokhale’s political disciple, associating himself with the programme of the Extremists, with his emphasis on the synthesis of the reason and faith, law and impulse, representing the abiding strength of the Indian people was to activise and rejuvenate the congress and carry a new phase of action.