An overview on Extremist Leaders

The period from 1905-to 1918 marked the emergence of the extremist phase in India. Some important extremist leaders were Lala Lajpat Rai, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal, Aurobindo Ghosh. Thus extremism rose in three main regions of Punjab, Maharashtra, and Bengal. The extremists had aggressive demands and had a radical approach. They believed in Atma shakti or self-reliance as a weapon against domination. The extremists adopted the policy of boycotting British goods and institutions, opposition to colonial rule through violation of its unjust laws and swadeshi as the chief method of agitation. 

Rise of Extremism 

At the beginning of the 20th century, a new class of national leaders within the Congress from the anti-partition Bengal agitation emerged in India with different interests as moderate groups. The Extremists were staunchly anti-British and had a more aggressive approach to defeating the British Empire. They did not believe that the soft persuasive ways of approaching the British could settle any conflicts.

Reasons that led to Rising of Extremism 

• The moderates failed to win the demands that they presented to the British despite their policy cooperation and reconciliation. They used petition, prayer, and deputation as mediums to present their demand. This failure of the approach by moderates gave way to extremist leaders.

• Towards the end of the 19th-century, conditions seemed horrifying. India’s economic condition was miserable. Bubonic plague broke out in Maharashtra. The government’s approach to controlling the situation of famines and plagues proved to be inadequate and unorganised.

• The government used repressive measures to suppress the riots in the Deccan. People died of starvation and diseases. 

• Indians felt that a need for self Government was essential if India progressed. The Moderates openly held the British responsible for the economic ruin of India and its increasing poverty. The British were interested in the prosperity of England rather than of India.

• The youths of Congress were disappointed with the achievements of the Moderates in the Congress during the first 15-20 years, and so they adopted the European revolutionary methods against British imperialism. Both Extremist leaders  Tilak and Lala Lajpat Rai believed that Congress had no constructive activity other than procuring central/provincial legislatures seats. 

• The British administration discriminated against the educated Indians by providing them with junior posts and low salaries. Many Indians were being unemployed due to such discrimination against work opportunities.

Difference between Moderates and extremists

• The Moderates chose to remain loyal to the British Government and had faith in the sense of justice of the British Government. Whereas the extremists were staunchly anti-British, had no such faith, and doubted their integrity.

• The moderates favoured the economic and social reforms of the Indian people under the control and supervision of the British Government. At the same time, the Extremists believed that India could not progress under the control of the British Government or keep any links with Britain. 

• Moderates considered Zamindars and Upper Middle Class as their supply, while Extremists found their support in Educated Middle and Lower Classes.
• Moderates were inspired by European History and Liberal Ideology, whereas Extremists found inspiration in Indian Culture, History, and Heritage.

• The Moderates wanted to prioritise the economic boost of the Indian people over their political progress. However, the Extremists were in favour of achieving political freedom first. They had come out with the slogan of Swaraj. They believed it was primarily important to gain political freedom before economic uplift.

• Another difference between the moderates and the extremists was their way of presenting their demands to the Britishers. Moderates put forward their demands through mediums of prayers and petition to the Britisher’s Constitutional agitation within the confines of the law. At the same time, Extremists used Boycott or passive resistance, extra-constitutional methods.

• The demands of the Moderates were particularly constitutional reforms and opportunities for Indians in the legislature, executive, and civil Services. The demand of the extremists was primarily for complete independence from Swaraj. British rule.

Conclusion

The split between the moderates and extremists did immense harm to Congress and the national movement. The collaborative action of the moderates and extremists was necessary for the proper functioning of the organisation and the growth of the national movement. It can be said that they were the brain of Congress and the nation, and the Extremists were the heart. Moderates chose non-violent measures to oppose the British government until 1916 when the extremists made their way back to congress. Post-1918, Gandhiji devised new ways of representing Indian strengths to combat British rule by the non-violent satyagrahas that were a great win in Indian History.