The Moderates and Extremists

The Moderates and Extremists in the Indian National Congress (1885–1920)

History Optional Notes {PDF}

Complete Notes Package (Paper I & II) | 4500+ Pages | Instant Download

Discounted Price | Buy Now @ ₹1,180 →

The Indian National Congress passed through three broad phases in its early history:

• the Moderate period (1885–1905),
• the Extremist period (1905–1920), and
• the Gandhian period (1920–1947).

The first two of these — and the sharp ideological break between them — form the subject of this piece.

The Moderate Period of the Indian National Congress (1885–1905)

Nature of Early Congress Politics

• Congress politics during its first twenty years is generally referred to as Moderate politics. The Congress of this period was hardly a full-fledged political party — it functioned more as an annual conference, deliberating and adopting resolutions during what critics dubbed its “three-day tamashas”, before dispersing for another year.
• Its members were mostly part-time politicians — successful professionals in their personal lives, forming a thoroughly Anglicised upper class with very little time or real commitment to full-time political work.

Moderate Leaders

The leading figures of this first phase of the national movement included A.O. Hume, W.C. Bonnerjee, Surendranath Banerjee, Dadabhai Naoroji, Pherozeshah Mehta, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya, Badruddin Tyabji, Justice Ranade, and G. Subramania Iyer, among others.

W.C. Bonnerjee

• The first president of the Indian National Congress, and the first Indian to contest an election to the British House of Commons, though he ultimately lost.
• He was elected Congress president a second time, at the 1892 session in Allahabad.

Pherozeshah Mehta

• Sir Pherozeshah Mehta (4 August 1845 – 5 November 1915) was a Parsi political leader, activist, and leading lawyer of Mumbai, knighted by the British government for his services to the law and popularly known as “The Lion of Bombay.”
• He became Municipal Commissioner of Bombay Municipality in 1873 and its President on four separate occasions, was nominated to the Bombay Legislative Council in 1887, and became a member of the Imperial Legislative Council in 1893.
• He was chosen president of the Indian National Congress in 1890, and in 1910 started the Bombay Chronicle, an English-language weekly newspaper.

Justice Mahadev Govind Ranade

• Justice Mahadev Govind Ranade (18 January 1842 – 16 January 1901) was a distinguished scholar, social reformer, and author — a founding member of the Indian National Congress who also served on the Bombay Legislative Council, the finance committee at the centre, and as a judge of the Bombay High Court.
• He wrote on Indian economics and Maratha history, recognised the need for heavy industry in India’s economic progress, and regarded Western education as vital to building the foundations of an Indian nation.
• Together with Atmaram Pandurang, Bal Mangesh Wagle, and Vaman Abaji Modak, Ranade founded the Prarthana Samaj, a Hindu reform movement inspired by the Brahmo Samaj and grounded in the principles of enlightened theism drawn from the ancient Vedas.
• He also founded the Poona Sarvajanik Sabha and the Ahmednagar Education Society, and later became one of the founding figures of the Indian National Congress itself — remembered both as an early political adversary of Bal Gangadhar Tilak and as a mentor to Gopal Krishna Gokhale.
• As founder of the Social Conference movement, Ranade directed his reform energies against child marriage, the shaving of widows’ heads, the excessive cost of marriage and other social ceremonies, and caste restrictions on foreign travel, while strenuously advocating widow remarriage and female education; he was among the founders of the Widow Remarriage Association.
  • Despite his own criticism of superstition and blind faith, Ranade remained conservative in his personal life — on the death of his first wife, his reform-minded friends had hoped he would marry a widow, but he instead honoured his family’s wishes and married a child bride, Ramabai Ranade, whom he later educated himself. After his death, she carried his social and educational reform work forward.

Surendranath Banerjee

• Founder of the Indian National Association, and also known by the honorific “Rashtraguru.”
• He cleared the Indian Civil Service examination in 1869 but was barred over a dispute regarding his exact age; he cleared it again in 1871 and was posted as Assistant Magistrate in Sylhet, only to be dismissed shortly after on grounds widely seen as racially motivated.
  • He travelled to England to protest the decision, without success, and during his stay (1874–75) studied the works of Edmund Burke and other liberal philosophers — writings that would guide his later protests against British rule and earn him the title “the Indian Burke.”
• In 1879, he founded the newspaper The Bengalee, and in 1876 founded the Indian Association to agitate for political reform.
  • He convened the Indian National Conference in 1883, which merged with the Indian National Congress in 1886.
• He firmly opposed the Partition of Bengal and played an important role in the Swadeshi movement, advocating Indian-made goods over foreign imports.
  • He later supported the Morley-Minto Reforms of 1909 — a position widely resented and ridiculed as insufficient by most of the Indian public and nationalist politicians — and was also a critic of the civil disobedience methods later advocated by Mahatma Gandhi.

G. Subramania Iyer

• A leading journalist, social reformer, and freedom fighter who co-founded The Hindu newspaper, along with M. Veeraraghavachariar, T.T. Rangachariar, and P.V. Rangachariar, on 20 September 1878.
  • He preached nationalism through the Madras Mahajana Sabha and also founded Swadesamitran.
• He was one of the 72 delegates present at the Bombay conference at Tejpal Sanskrit College on the founding occasion of the Indian National Congress in December 1885.
• A vehement campaigner for Hindu social reform, he supported widow remarriage and sought to abolish untouchability and child marriage — even arranging the remarriage of his own widowed daughter, for which he faced social boycott.

Dadabhai Naoroji

• Dadabhai Naoroji (4 September 1825 – 30 June 1917), known as the “Grand Old Man of India,” was a Parsi intellectual, educator, cotton trader, and early political and social leader — and the first Asian elected to the British House of Commons, serving as an MP between 1892 and 1895.
• In 1867, he helped establish the East India Association, one of the predecessor organisations of the INC, aimed at presenting the Indian point of view to the British public; the Association soon won the backing of eminent Englishmen and exercised real influence in the British Parliament.
  • He was also a member of the Indian National Association, founded by Surendranath Banerjee in Calcutta shortly before the Congress’s founding in Bombay, sharing similar objectives; the two bodies later merged into the INC, and Naoroji was elected Congress president in 1886, and again in 1906.
• In 1874, he became Prime Minister of Baroda, and served on the Legislative Council of Bombay from 1885 to 1888.
• Naoroji represented India at the socialist Second International’s 1905 congress in Amsterdam; later, on 22 August 1907, his assistant Bhikaiji Cama addressed the International Socialist Conference in Stuttgart, describing the devastating effects of a recent Indian famine in her appeal for human rights, equality, and autonomy from Britain.
• Naoroji is best remembered for his 1901 work Poverty and Un-British Rule in India, which set out his Drain Theory — his account of how India’s wealth was continuously siphoned to England through salaries, savings, pensions, troop payments, and company profits.
  • His work on the drain theory directly led to the government appointing the Royal Commission on Indian Expenditure (1896), on which Naoroji himself served as its first Indian member; the commission reviewed India’s financial burdens and, in several instances, found them to be misplaced.

Gopal Krishna Gokhale

• Gokhale joined the Indian National Congress in 1889 as a protégé of Mahadev Govind Ranade.
  • In 1899, he was elected to the Bombay Legislative Council; in 1903, he became a non-officiating member of the Council of India representing Bombay Province, later serving on the expanded Imperial Legislative Council from 1909, where he earned a reputation for deep expertise and made significant contributions to the annual budget debates.
  • His reputation among the British grew to the point that he was invited to London to meet Secretary of State Lord Morley, helping shape the Morley-Minto Reforms of 1909 during that visit.
• Gokhale’s early career closely paralleled that of Tilak — both were Chitpavan Brahmins (though Tilak, unlike Gokhale, came from wealth), both attended Elphinstone College, both taught mathematics, and both were prominent in the Deccan Education Society. Once both became active in Congress, however, their differing visions for India’s future grew increasingly apparent.
  • Their first major clash centred on the Age of Consent Bill of 1891–92: Gokhale and fellow liberal reformers supported the Bill, which raised the age of consent from ten to twelve, as a check on child-marriage abuses; Tilak objected not to the goal itself, but to British interference in Hindu tradition. The Bill nonetheless became law in the Bombay Presidency.
• In 1905, at the height of his political influence, Gokhale became Congress president and used his standing to sideline his longtime rival Tilak, refusing to back Tilak’s candidacy for the presidency in 1906 — by which point the Congress had effectively split into rival Moderate and “Extremist” camps under the two men.
  • That same year, Gokhale founded the Servants of India Society, dedicated to expanding Indian education and training Indians to devote their lives to national service. As he put it: “The Servants of India Society will train men prepared to devote their lives to the cause of country in a religious spirit, and will seek to promote, by all constitutional means, the national interests of the Indian people.”
• Gokhale is remembered as a formative mentor to Mahatma Gandhi — visiting South Africa at Gandhi’s invitation in 1912, and later guiding the young barrister on India and the concerns of ordinary Indians upon his return.
  • Despite his deep respect for Gokhale, Gandhi ultimately rejected Gokhale’s faith in Western institutions as the path to reform and chose not to join the Servants of India Society himself; many members of the Society were, in any case, opposed to his joining. After Gokhale’s death, Gandhi briefly sought membership before withdrawing his application amid internal divisions.
  • Gokhale was also an early mentor to Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the future founder of Pakistan, who in 1912 aspired to become the “Muslim Gokhale.”
• Gokhale died on 19 February 1915, aged just forty-nine. Bal Gangadhar Tilak, his lifelong political rival, remarked at his funeral: “This diamond of India, this jewel of Maharashtra, this prince of workers is taking eternal rest on funeral ground. Look at him and try to emulate him.”

Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya

• Madan Mohan Malaviya (1861–1946), also addressed as “Mahamana,” was an educationist and politician central to the freedom movement. He attended the second INC session at Calcutta in December 1886, under the presidency of Dadabhai Naoroji.
• He served on the Imperial Legislative Council from 1912, remaining a member through its transformation into the Central Legislative Assembly in 1919, until 1926.
  • Though an important figure in the Non-Cooperation Movement, he opposed what he saw as a politics of appeasement, including Congress’s participation in the Khilafat Movement.
• Malaviya founded Banaras Hindu University (BHU) at Varanasi in 1916 — a project that began in April 1911, when he met Annie Besant and agreed to work toward a common Hindu university at Varanasi, with the Central Hindu College (founded by Besant in 1898) becoming part of the new institution under the BHU Act, 1915.
  • In 1933, he launched Sanatana Dharma, a magazine on religious and dharmic subjects, from BHU.
• A committed Moderate, he opposed separate electorates for Muslims under the Lucknow Pact of 1916, and served as Congress president on four occasions — 1909, 1913, 1919, and 1932 — before leaving the Congress in 1934, having also been among the earliest leaders of the Hindu Mahasabha.
  • In protest against the Communal Award, which proposed separate electorates for minorities, Malaviya and Madhav Shrihari Aney left Congress to form the Congress Nationalist Party, which won 12 seats in the 1934 central legislative elections.
• Among the founders of Scouting in India, he also founded the influential English newspaper The Leader, published from Allahabad from 1909.
  • In 1924, with Lala Lajpat Rai, M.R. Jayakar, and industrialist Ghanshyam Das Birla, he helped acquire and save the Hindustan Times, later launching its Hindi edition, Hindustan Dainik, in 1936.
  • He played a significant role in the movement against untouchability and in guiding the Harijan movement — the Harijan Sevak Sangh was founded in 1933 at a meeting he himself presided over.

Badruddin Tyabji

• Badruddin Tyabji (10 October 1844 – 19 August 1906) was an Indian lawyer who served as the third President of the Indian National Congress.
• He returned to India in 1867 after studying in Europe and became the first Indian solicitor.

Ideology of the Moderates

• The Moderates did demand equality, though it remained a rather abstract idea in their politics — in practice, they tended to equate liberty with class privilege, favouring gradual, piecemeal reform.
• To most Moderates, British rule appeared as a kind of providential act, destined to bring modernisation to India; Indians, in their view, still needed time to prepare themselves for self-government, and in the meantime, absolute faith could be placed in the British Parliament and people.
  • Their real complaint was directed not at British rule as such, but at what Surendranath Banerjee called the “un-British” rule in India — the imperfections introduced by the Viceroy, his executive council, and the Anglo-Indian bureaucracy, which they believed could be reformed through gentle persuasion.
• Their politics remained deliberately limited in both goals and methods. They were broadly secular in outlook, though not always able to rise fully above sectarian interests, and while conscious of the exploitative nature of British rule, they sought its reform rather than India’s complete separation from it.

Methods of the Moderates

• Early Congressmen placed implicit faith in the efficacy of peaceful, constitutional agitation over popular mass agitation — a method Gokhale summarised in his journal Sudharak as the “3P” approach: Petition, Prayer, and Protest, conducted through the press and the platform of the annual sessions.
  • The holding of the annual session was itself a significant method of Congress propaganda — government policy was discussed and resolutions passed forcefully, drawing attention from both the educated middle class and the government itself. Its major drawback, however, was that Congress met for only three days a year, with no permanent machinery to carry its work forward in the interim.
• Congressmen held a genuine trust in the essential sense of justice and goodness of the British nation, believing the British largely wanted to be fair to Indians but remained unaware of ground realities — with only the bureaucracy standing between the people and their rights.
  • Their strategy accordingly rested on two prongs: first, building strong public opinion in India to arouse national consciousness and unite people around common political questions; and second, persuading the British government and British public opinion to introduce reforms along the lines the nationalists proposed.
• To press this second prong, deputations of leading Indians were regularly sent to Britain. In 1889, a British Committee of the INC was founded to carry out propaganda work and present India’s viewpoint to British authorities, with Dadabhai Naoroji — who spent much of his life in England, was elected to the House of Commons, and built a genuine Indian lobby there — playing a central role.
  • A proposal in 1890 to hold a Congress session in London in 1892 was postponed owing to the British general election of 1891, and was never revived.

Programme and Limited Successes of the Moderates

(a) Constitutional Demands

The Moderates’ constitutional programme included:

• Abolition of the India Council, which prevented the Secretary of State from initiating liberal policy in India.
• Broader Indian participation in legislatures, through an expansion of the central and provincial legislatures with 50% elected representation from local bodies, chambers of commerce, universities, and similar institutions.
• New legislative councils for the North-Western Provinces and Punjab, along with two Indian members on the Viceroy’s Executive Council and one each on the executive councils of Bombay and Madras.
• Referral of the budget to the legislature, with the right to discuss and vote on it, along with the right of interpellation.
• A right of appeal to the Standing Committee of the House of Commons against decisions of the Government of India.

Their immediate demand, notably, was not for full self-government or democracy as such — they sought democratic rights specifically for the educated members of Indian society, who would act as substitutes for the wider masses, expecting that full political freedom would come gradually, culminating in self-governing status comparable to Canada or Australia. With an intrinsic faith in the providential nature of British rule, they hoped one day to be recognised as partners, rather than subordinates, within the Empire, enjoying the full rights of British citizenship.

• What they received in return was Lord Cross’s Act, or the Indian Councils Act, 1892, which provided only for a marginal expansion of the legislative councils at both the centre and the provinces.
• Some Moderates — notably Ranade and Gokhale — also favoured social reform, protesting against child marriage and the condition of widows.

Legislative work and its limits. Legislative councils in India held no real official power until 1920, though the work nationalists carried out within them still helped the wider national movement grow. The Imperial Legislative Council, constituted under the Indian Councils Act (1861), was in practice a largely powerless body designed to lend official measures the appearance of representative approval.

• Indian membership remained tiny — across the thirty years from 1862 to 1892, only 45 Indians were ever nominated to it, most of them wealthy, landed figures with loyalist sympathies; only a handful of genuinely independent political figures, such as Syed Ahmed Khan, Kristodas Pal, V.N. Mandlik, K.L. Nulkar, and Rashbehari Ghosh, were ever nominated.
• Between 1885 and 1892, nationalist demands for constitutional reform centred on two goals: expansion of the councils (greater Indian participation) and reform of the councils (greater real powers, especially over finance). These demands were partially conceded through the Indian Councils Act, 1892.
• The 1892 reforms were, however, sharply criticised at subsequent Congress sessions, prompting new demands for a majority of elected Indians and genuine control over the budget — captured in the slogan “No taxation without representation.” By 1904–06, the scope of constitutional demands had widened considerably, with Dadabhai Naoroji (1904), Gokhale (1905), and Lokmanya Tilak (1906) all demanding self-government comparable to that of Canada and Australia, while leaders such as Pherozeshah Mehta and Gokhale subjected government policy to severe scrutiny.
• Though the British had intended these councils merely to let vocal Indian leaders “let off steam” while remaining largely deaf to their criticism, nationalists succeeded in transforming them into genuine forums for airing popular grievances, exposing bureaucratic failures, and critiquing government policy — particularly on questions of public finance.

(b) Administrative Demands

• The Moderates’ foremost administrative demand was the Indianisation of the civil services — an Indianised service, they argued, would be more responsive to Indian needs, would end the financial “drain” caused by paying the salaries and pensions of European officers, and would serve as a check on institutionalised racism.
  • Their specific demand was for simultaneous civil service examinations in both India and London, along with raising the age limit for candidates from nineteen to twenty-three.
  • In 1892–93, under the initiative of William Gladstone, the House of Commons passed a resolution favouring simultaneous examinations, though the Secretary of State remained opposed; at the same time, the maximum age limit was actually lowered further, to Indian candidates’ disadvantage.
• The Moderates also criticised what they saw as an oppressive, tyrannical bureaucracy and an expensive, slow-moving judicial system, demanding the separation of judicial from executive functions.
• Their broader administrative demands included the extension of trial by jury, repeal of the Arms Act, a campaign against the exploitation of indentured labour on Assam’s tea gardens, increased spending on welfare (health and sanitation), elementary and technical education, irrigation and agricultural improvement, agricultural banks for cultivators, and better treatment for Indian labourers working in other British colonies abroad, who faced considerable oppression and racial discrimination there.

(c) Military Demands

• The British Indian Army was deployed in imperial campaigns across the world, particularly in Africa and Asia; this, combined with the Indian frontier wars of the 1890s, placed a heavy burden on Indian finances.
• The Moderates demanded that this military expenditure be shared more evenly with Britain, that Indians be admitted into the army as volunteers, and that more Indians be appointed to higher ranks — demands that were, in every case, rejected.
• They also criticised an aggressive British foreign policy that had resulted in the annexation of Burma, the attack on Afghanistan, and the suppression of tribal populations in the North-West.

(d) Economic Critique of Imperialism

• Perhaps the most significant and lasting contribution of the Moderates lay in their economic critique of colonialism — a strand of thought that came to be known as economic nationalism, and which would go on to shape not only later phases of the freedom movement but also the economic policies of independent India’s own Congress governments.
• The early nationalists identified all three contemporary forms of colonial economic exploitation — through trade, industry, and finance — and clearly grasped that the essence of British economic imperialism lay in subordinating the Indian economy entirely to that of Britain.
  • Key figures in this tradition included Dinshaw Wacha; Dadabhai Naoroji, himself a successful businessman; Justice M.G. Ranade, author of Essays on Indian Economics (1898); and R.C. Dutt, a retired ICS officer who published the two-volume Economic History of India (1901–1903).
• The early nationalists attributed India’s deepening poverty and economic backwardness, and the stagnation of both modern industry and agriculture, directly to British exploitation. Dadabhai Naoroji famously declared British rule to be “an everlasting, increasing, and every day increasing foreign invasion.”
  • Their central argument was that British colonialism had, over the nineteenth century, shifted away from older, direct methods of extraction — plunder, tribute, mercantilism — toward more sophisticated and less visible exploitation through free trade and foreign capital investment. This transformed India into a supplier of raw materials and foodstuffs and a consumer of British manufactured goods, reducing it to a dependent agrarian economy and a field for British capital investment.
• Naoroji’s most influential contribution here was the Drain Theory, set out in his 1901 work Poverty and Un-British Rule in India, which traced how India’s wealth was continuously siphoned to England through salaries, savings, pensions, troop payments, and company profits.
  • His work directly prompted the government to appoint the Welby Commission, on which Naoroji himself served as its first Indian member. By Naoroji’s own calculation, this drain amounted to roughly £12 million a year; the British writer William Digby put the figure closer to £30 million. As Naoroji himself memorably put it, British rule was materially like “the knife of sugar” — “there is no oppression; it is all too smooth and sweet, but it is the knife notwithstanding.”
• The Moderates’ economic recommendations followed logically from this critique: reduced government expenditure and taxation; reallocation of military charges; a protectionist policy for Indian industry; abolition of the salt tax; a reduction in land revenue assessment; extension of the Permanent Settlement to Ryotwari and Mahalwari areas (a demand that chiefly favoured zamindar interests); lower military spending; encouragement of cottage industry and handicrafts; and support for modern Indian industry through tariff protection and direct government aid. None of these demands were ultimately fulfilled.
• By linking Indian poverty directly to colonial rule, this economic theory implicitly challenged the entire notion of a benevolent, paternalistic empire. In this way, the Moderates generated real anger against British rule — though, owing to their own methodological limitations, they were never able to convert that anger into an effective mass agitation for its overthrow.

(e) Defence of Civil Rights

• The early nationalists were drawn to modern civil liberties — freedom of speech, of the press, of thought, and of association — and mounted a strong defence of these rights whenever the government sought to curtail them.
• This struggle for democratic freedoms became an integral part of the wider nationalist movement. In 1897, the government arrested B.G. Tilak and several other leaders for spreading “disaffection” against the government, and deported the Natu brothers without trial — provoking protest against this assault on civil liberty across the country.

Limitations of the Moderates

(a) The “3P” Approach

• Moderate politicians neither could, nor chose to, organise genuine mass agitation against British rule, remaining wedded to an intrinsic faith in the English liberal-democratic tradition. Their preferred tools — petitions, speeches, published articles — aimed to build a logically convincing case capable of persuading liberal opinion in England to grant India self-government.
• In doing so, they failed to fully grasp the true, exploitative nature of British rule in India.
  • The limits of Moderate politics had become quite apparent by the close of the nineteenth century, and their prospects worsened further once a less sympathetic Conservative (Tory) government returned to power in Britain at the turn of the century.

(b) Narrow Social Base, Absence of Mass Participation, and Government Hostility

• Early Moderate politicians were also overwhelmingly Hindu, barring notable exceptions such as the Bombay politician Badruddin Tyabji.
  • Between 1892 and 1909, nearly 90% of Congress delegates were Hindu, against just 6.5% Muslim; among the Hindu delegates, roughly 48% were Brahmins, with the remainder drawn from other upper castes.
  • This social composition inevitably bred a degree of social orthodoxy — social questions were, as a matter of policy, kept off the Congress agenda until 1907.
  • Muslim participation in Congress sessions actually declined sharply after 1893, yet Congress leaders remained largely complacent about this, since no rival Muslim political organisation of real weight emerged until 1906.
• The basic structural weakness of the early national movement lay in this narrow social base — it simply failed to penetrate down to the masses, whose capabilities the leadership itself lacked faith in.
  • Gokhale himself, describing the obstacles to organising an active political struggle, pointed to the endless divisions and sub-divisions within the country, and to a largely ignorant population still clinging tenaciously to old modes of thought and sentiment, averse to change and often unable to understand it.
  • Lacking genuine mass support, the early nationalists could not adopt a militant political posture, and largely failed to recognise that the masses themselves might one day become the movement’s real driving force.
• These contradictions were rooted directly in the Moderates’ own propertied-class background. Delegate occupational data from Congress sessions between 1892 and 1909 shows lawyers (39.32%) as the largest group, followed by landlords (18.99%), other professionals (17.31%), traders (15.10%), teachers (3.16%), journalists (3.18%), and doctors (2.94%).
  • This social base left Congress unable to take a consistent stand on peasant issues — it demanded the extension of the Permanent Settlement largely in zamindar interests, while opposing the cadastral survey of 1893–94, even though the survey was actually intended to protect peasants from zamindar manipulation.
  • Similarly, the Moderates opposed factory reforms such as the Mining Bill, which sought to improve conditions for women and child workers, dismissing it as driven by Lancashire commercial interests — yet supported labour reforms for the Assam tea gardens, where the capital involved happened to be foreign-owned, conveniently overlooking that Indian mill owners in Bombay exploited their own workers in no less flagrant a manner.

(c) Other Failures

• Britain agreed to share only a small fraction of India’s military expenditure, and the demand for Indians to hold commissioned army ranks was rejected outright — few European officers, it was felt, would welcome being commanded by an Indian.
• Many of the Moderates’ other demands met a similar fate. Moderate politics thus remained genuinely limited in its goals, programmes, achievements, and participation — a limitation that allowed Lord Dufferin to dismiss the Congress, in a November 1888 remark, as representing only a “microscopic minority” of the Indian people, without serious consequence.

An Evaluation of the Early Nationalists

• Despite their limited representation, the historical significance of the early Congress lies in the fact that, through their economic critique of colonialism, the Moderates constructed the very discursive field within which later, more radical critiques of colonial rule could be conceptualised.
• Concrete institutional achievements followed from their advocacy, including the Aitchison Committee on the Indian Civil Service (appointed by Lord Dufferin in 1886 at Moderate request, whose recommendations raised the entry age to 22 while keeping the examination in London), the Indian Councils Act, 1892, and, at Moderate urging, the Calcutta University Act and Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, both of 1904.
• More broadly, the Moderates:
  • Created a wide national awakening and, above all, a shared feeling of belonging to a single nation, popularising the ideas of democracy, civil liberties, and representative institutions.
  • Represented the most progressive political forces of their time.
  • Trained a generation in political work and popularised modern political ideas, helping generate genuinely anti-imperialist sentiment among the wider public.
  • Exposed the fundamentally exploitative character of colonial rule, thereby undermining its moral legitimacy.
  • Grounded their political work in hard economic and administrative realities rather than shallow sentiment or religious appeal.
  • Established the basic political truth that India ought to be governed in the interests of Indians themselves.
  • Laid the foundation on which a more vigorous, militant, mass-based national movement could later be built.
• At the same time, however, the Moderates failed to widen the democratic base of the movement — they did not meaningfully include the masses, particularly women, nor did they press for the right to vote for all.

The Extremist Period (1905–1920)

Emergence of a New, Younger Leadership

• The closing years of the nineteenth century and the opening years of the twentieth saw the emergence of a new, younger group within the Indian National Congress — one sharply critical of both the ideology and methods of the older leadership.
  • These “angry young men” pushed for Swaraj to be adopted as the Congress’s goal, to be pursued through more self-reliant and independent methods; they came to be known as the Extremist party, in contrast to the older Moderate party.
• By the start of the twentieth century, Indian politics had come firmly under Extremist influence. Though Extremist tendencies had existed since the closing years of the nineteenth century, it was only after the Partition of Bengal that the movement gained real popularity.
• From 1905 onward, Moderate leaders rapidly lost their grip on the Congress, as the trend of militant nationalism (Extremism) grew steadily stronger. This current had, in fact, been developing slowly — if largely invisibly — since the Revolt of 1857 itself, whose underlying nationalist ideas, in the Extremists’ own reading, had been Swadharma and Swaraj.

Causes of the Rise of Extremism

• The government’s refusal to meet Indian political and economic demands, combined with its repressive measures against the growing national movement, shook the faith of an increasing number of Indians in the ideology and methods of liberal, Moderate nationalism — and as Moderate leadership failed to deliver tangible results, younger nationalist leaders steadily gained ground.
• Dissatisfaction with the Indian Councils Act of 1892 pushed Congress leaders toward more assertively nationalist positions.
• Extremists increasingly recognised the true, exploitative character of British rule — something the Moderates, in their continued belief in British fairness, had largely failed to grasp.
• Modern education gave the new generation a fresh vision, drawing inspiration both from Indian history and from Western political thinkers.
• The accelerating Westernisation of India under British rule led many to fear the erosion of Indian traditions, customs, and culture — feeding a growing reaction against British influence.
• Lord Curzon’s reactionary policies played a major role in this shift. Curzon spoke disparagingly of Indian character in general, wounding national pride — at a Calcutta University convocation, he remarked, “Undoubtedly truth took a high place in the codes of the West before it had been similarly honoured in the East.”
  • Legislation such as the Calcutta Corporation Act, the Official Secrets Act, and the Indian Universities Act of 1904 all generated considerable resentment, while the lavish Delhi Durbar of 1903 — held when India had not yet recovered from the famine of 1899–1900 — was widely condemned as “a pompous pageant to a starving population.”
• Underlying all this was a deep dissatisfaction with the meagre achievements of Moderate politics, which paved the way for Extremism’s rise.
  • The Extremist current was, in part, a reaction against Western reformers’ attempts to remake India in the image of the West, and was strongly shaped by the parallel growth of spiritual nationalism in India.
• International developments reinforced this trend: Abyssinia’s repulsion of the Italian army (1896) and Japan’s defeat of Russia (1905) broke the spell of assumed European invincibility, while nationalist movements in Egypt, Persia, Turkey, and Russia, along with the humiliating treatment of Indians in colonies such as South Africa, all fed the same current.
• The Partition of Bengal (1905) was among the single most important immediate causes of Extremism’s rise — and, more broadly, most of the Moderates’ own limitations directly contributed to the birth of the Extremist current within Congress.

The Extremist Goal: Competing Visions of Swaraj

• The Extremists’ shared goal was “Swaraj,” though different leaders interpreted the term quite differently.
  • For Tilak, Swaraj meant Indian control over the administration, without a total severance from Great Britain.
  • Bipin Chandra Pal believed that genuine self-government was simply impossible under British rule — for him, Swaraj meant complete autonomy, entirely free of British control.
  • Aurobindo Ghosh, in Bengal, envisioned Swaraj still operating broadly within the framework of the British imperial structure.

Nature of Extremism and Its Leadership

• Extremism drew on a considerably wider social base than Moderate politics, extending beyond the educated elite to involve the lower-middle and middle classes more broadly.
• Extremists rejected the legitimacy of British rule outright and considered the Crown’s claim to Indian loyalty unworthy of recognition.
  • They drew their inspiration from Indian history, tradition, culture, and heritage, and held genuine faith in the masses’ capacity for both participation and sacrifice — adopting extra-constitutional methods such as boycott to pursue their demand for Swaraj as a birthright.
• The philosophy of political Extremism owed a great deal to the writings of Bankim Chandra Chatterjee and his brand of spiritual nationalism.
  • Where the Moderates’ attachment to rationalism and Western ideals had largely alienated them from the masses — leaving their high idealism without a solid popular base — the militant nationalists instead drew inspiration from India’s past, invoking great episodes from Indian history to instil national pride and self-respect.
  • They rejected the idealisation of Western culture by the liberals as a form of “cultural capitulation” to British rule, arguing it would only breed an inferiority complex among Indians and undermine the national pride and self-confidence essential to the freedom struggle.
  • The militant nationalists revived memories of the Vedic past, the great reigns of Ashoka and Chandragupta, the heroism of Rana Pratap and Shivaji, and the epic patriotism of Rani Lakshmibai — arguing that the Indian people possessed a distinct spiritual consciousness of their own.
• Leading Extremists — Lala Lajpat Rai, Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal, Aurobindo Ghosh, Rajnarayan Bose, and Ashwini Kumar Dutt — were all, notably, themselves products of English education. Though deeply shaped by English literature, political thought, and institutions, they drew far more heavily on India’s own traditional culture and civilisation than on the West, while still recognising the need to adapt to Western advances in science and technology and to reform Indian society and religion from within.
  • Extremist thought drew significant support from the teachings of Swami Vivekananda and Dayananda Saraswati, and the Extremist slogan of Swaraj itself was first introduced through Dayananda Saraswati’s Arya Samaj.

The “Lal-Bal-Pal” Triumvirate

• Lala Lajpat Rai, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, and Bipin Chandra Pal — together known as “Lal-Bal-Pal” — formed a triumvirate of assertive nationalist leadership between 1905 and 1918, advocating a Swadeshi movement of boycotting imported goods in favour of Indian-made products from 1907, during the anti-Partition agitation in Bengal that had begun in 1905.
• The militant nationalist movement they led gradually faded following Tilak’s arrest, and the retirement of Bipin Chandra Pal and Aurobindo Ghosh from active politics.

Lala Lajpat Rai — “Punjab Kesari”

• Lala Lajpat Rai (28 January 1865 – 17 November 1928), a Punjabi author and politician, was fatally injured by police while leading a non-violent protest against the Simon Commission, dying less than three weeks later — his death anniversary, 17 November, is now observed as one of India’s Martyrs’ Days.
  • Despite his injuries, he addressed the crowd at the time, declaring: “I declare that the blows struck at me today will be the last nails in the coffin of British rule in India.”
  • His death spurred Bhagat Singh to plot revenge against the officer responsible, alongside Rajguru, Sukhdev, and Chandrashekhar Azad — though, in a case of mistaken identity, the group ended up shooting Assistant Superintendent John P. Saunders in Lahore on 17 December 1928.
• His later association with Hindu Mahasabha leaders drew criticism for its lack of secularism, sitting uneasily with the Congress’s own framework; he was also a devotee of the Arya Samaj and editor of the Arya Gazette.
• After joining the Congress and taking part in political agitation in Punjab, Lajpat Rai was deported without trial to Mandalay, Burma, in May 1907, returning that November once Viceroy Lord Minto concluded the evidence against him was insufficient.
  • His supporters attempted to secure his election as Congress president at the 1907 Surat session, but were blocked by elements favouring continued cooperation with the British — a dispute that contributed directly to the Congress split of that year.
• He wrote Unhappy India, and is remembered for his remark: “A man without a soul is a mere animal. A nation without a soul is only a dumb, driven cattle.”

Bipin Chandra Pal

• Founded the journal New India; Sri Aurobindo described him as one of the “mightiest prophets of nationalism.”

Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak

• Within the Congress, Tilak stood as the foremost Extremist — dubbed the “Father of Indian Unrest” by the British journalist Valentine Chirol.
  • He founded the Ganesh Festival Committee in 1893, organised no-tax campaigns in the famine-affected Bombay Presidency in 1894, and founded the Shivaji Festival Committee in 1895.
• The Deccan Education Society emerged after Vishnu Shastri Chiplunkar founded the New English School together with Tilak in 1880; the following year, Tilak launched two weeklies — Kesari in Marathi and Mahratta in English — with Gopal Ganesh Agarkar as their first editor, earning him recognition as an “awakener of India.”
• When a bubonic plague epidemic spread from Bombay to Pune in late 1896 and early 1897, harsh British containment measures — forced entry into homes, compulsory examination, evacuation to segregation camps, and destruction of personal property — provoked Tilak into publishing inflammatory articles in Kesari, invoking the Bhagavad Gita to argue that killing an oppressor without personal motive carried no moral blame.
  • Shortly after, on 22 June 1897, Commissioner Rand and Lieutenant Ayerst were shot dead by the Chapekar brothers; Tilak was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment for his role in inspiring the act.
• Following the Partition of Bengal — a strategy devised by Lord Curzon to weaken the nationalist movement — Tilak became a leading advocate of the Swadeshi and Boycott movements.
  • He openly opposed Gokhale’s moderate approach, and was supported by Bipin Chandra Pal in Bengal and Lala Lajpat Rai in Punjab, together forming the “Lal-Bal-Pal triumvirate.” At the 1907 Surat session, a bitter dispute over the choice of Congress president split the party into radical (Tilak, Pal, Lajpat Rai) and Moderate factions. Nationalists such as Aurobindo Ghosh and V.O. Chidambaram Pillai were counted among Tilak’s supporters.
• On 30 April 1908, two young Bengali revolutionaries, Prafulla Chaki and Khudiram Bose, threw a bomb at a carriage in Muzaffarpur intended for the Chief Presidency Magistrate Douglas Kingsford, mistakenly killing two women travellers instead. Chaki took his own life upon capture; Bose was hanged.
  • Tilak defended the revolutionaries in Kesari and called for immediate Swaraj — leading to his own arrest for sedition. Convicted by a special jury and sentenced by Judge Dinshaw D. Davar to six years’ transportation, Tilak spent 1908–1914 imprisoned in Mandalay, where he wrote his Gita Rahasya.
• After his release, Tilak sought reconciliation with the Congress, abandoning his earlier call for direct action in favour of agitation “strictly by constitutional means.”
  • He remains remembered as one of the earliest and strongest advocates of Swaraj, famous for his declaration: “Swarajya is my birthright, and I shall have it.” He later formed a close political alliance with Muhammad Ali Jinnah during the Home Rule Movement.

V.O. Chidambaram Pillai

• V.O. Chidambaram Pillai (1872–1936), popularly known as “Kappalottiya Tamizhan” (“The Tamil Helmsman”), was a Tamil political leader and a disciple of Tilak.
  • He launched the first indigenous Indian shipping service, between Tuticorin and Colombo, through the Swadeshi Steam Navigation Company, directly competing with British shipping interests.
• Once a member of the Indian National Congress, he was later charged with sedition by the British government, sentenced to life imprisonment, and stripped of his license to practise as a barrister.

Aurobindo Ghosh

• Aurobindo Ghosh was a nationalist, philosopher, yogi, guru, and poet who had studied for the Indian Civil Service at King’s College, Cambridge. On his return to India, he worked in the civil service of the princely state of Baroda before turning increasingly to politics.
  • Imprisoned by the British for his writings against colonial rule, he was released for lack of evidence; while in jail, however, he underwent profound mystical and spiritual experiences that led him, on release, to move to Pondicherry, leaving active politics behind for spiritual work. He founded the Sri Aurobindo Ashram there in 1926, and from that year began signing himself simply as “Sri Aurobindo.”
• For Aurobindo, nationalism was never merely a political or economic cause — it represented, in his own conception, the deepest spiritual hunger of his soul for India’s rebirth, giving Indian nationalism a distinctly spiritual orientation.
• He wrote the pamphlet New Lamps for the Old — regarded as something of a foundational text of Extremism — criticising the Congress for being out of touch with ordinary people, and contributed a series of articles to Bangadarshan, the journal edited by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, portraying India as “Mother” and appealing directly to the emotional register of Indian nationalism.

Vishnu Shastri Chiplunkar’s own literary contribution, Nibandhamala — a collection of essays infused with Extremist thought — likewise helped shape the intellectual climate from which this generation of leaders emerged. Until Mahatma Gandhi’s arrival on the political scene, the Extremists remained the dominant force within the Indian National Congress.

Assessment of Extremism

• Advocates of Extremism ranged widely — from active revolutionaries at one end of the spectrum to secret sympathisers of revolutionary methods, and finally to those firmly opposed to any use of violence at all.
• Their shared goal of Swaraj, as already noted, carried genuinely different meanings for different leaders.
• The Extremists transformed patriotism from what had been, under the Moderates, largely “an academic pastime” into a matter of active “service and suffering for the nation.”
• Socially, however, the Extremists tended toward revivalism: Lajpat Rai and Pal, though themselves advocates of social reform, frequently spoke in terms of a Hindu nation; Tilak’s opposition to the Age of Consent Bill — framed as opposition to British legitimacy in legislating on the matter, rather than the substance of the reform itself — along with his cow-protection stance and his organisation of the Ganesh festival from 1893, projected him as a leader of Hindu orthodoxy. Together, these tendencies contributed to deepening Hindu-Muslim division.
• The Extremists did register some real successes: the Partition of Bengal was annulled in 1911, and the demand for Swaraj, though rejected outright by Lord Morley, was no longer treated as a purely revolutionary or illegitimate demand.

Differences Between Moderates and Extremists