Role of Moderates and Extremists in Indian Freedom Struggle free essay sample

Part Two: Moderates versus Extremists in the battle for Swaraj and Swadeshi Even as loyalist pressures cast a long shadow on political currents that were to influence the Indian elite of the late nineteenth century, rapidly deteriorating economic conditions also led to a heightened degree of radicalization amongst the most advanced sections of the new Indian intelligentsia.Ajit Singh in Punjab, Bal Gangadhar Tilak in Maharashtra, Chidambaram Pillay in Tamil Nadu and Bipin Chandra Pal in Bengal formed the nucleus of a new nationalist movement that tried valiantly, but mostly unsuccessfully to move the conservative leadership of the Indian National Congress in a more radical direction. Most charismatic amongst the new national leaders was Bal Gangadhar Tilak (b. 1856, d. 1920).Portrayed as anti-Muslim by the Muslim-League, maligned by Indias colonial rulers and British loyalists as an extremist, and misrepresented as a sectarian Hindu revivalist by some historians, Tilak was in fact, one of the leading lights of the Indian freedom movement. We will write a custom essay sample on Role of Moderates and Extremists in Indian Freedom Struggle or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Best remembered for his slogan Swaraj is my birth-right , he was one of the first to call for complete freedom from British rule, and fought a long and sometimes lonely political struggle against the forces of moderation that held sway over the Indian National Congress in the early part of the last century.After the defeat of 1858, one of the most significant challenges to British imperial authority in India had appeared in the form of Vasudeo Balvant Phadkes revolt of 1879, and amongst his many youthful followers and trainees in Pune was the young Tilak. Along with Chiplunkar, Agarkar and Namjoshi, Tilak initially concentrated on launching a nationalist weekly the Kesari (1881), the publishing house Kitabkhana, and developing Indian educational institutions such as the Deccan Education Society (1884). Tilak and his friends saw the right kind of education as being a crucial element in the task of national regeneration, and in this respect appeared to be continuing in the tradition of Jyotirao Phule (1827-1890) and Gopalrao Deshmukh (1823-1892) who was more known by his pen-name Lokahitwadi . Foremost amongst the social revolutionaries of nineteenth century Maharashtra, Phule and his wife Savitribai, had advocated a radical restructuring of Hindu society on the basis of equality of caste, gender and reed. Phule, (who belonged to the Mali caste) was unsparing in his criticism of Brahminical society that looked down upon the shudra jatis, prevented the atishudra (untouchable) jatis from attending school, and treated young widows (particularly Brahmin widows) as outcastes. One of the first to start a school for girls (1848), Phule went on to found the first school for the atishudras (1851), a home for young widows (1863), and also the first to open the family well to atishudra women (1 868).Social reformers in Maharashtra also emerged from the upper castes, such as Gopalrao Deshmukh, who although a Chitpawan Brahmin was a sharp critic of Brahminical society, and worked primarily through reformist middle-class organizations such as the Prasthana Samaj and the Arya Samaj to fight against caste inequities. But amongst Tilaks colleagues, not all were well-disposed towards Phule and Deshmukh (Lokahitwadi). Chiplunkar was particularly vitriolic in his criticism of Phule. Tilak, on the other hand, was not unsympathetic to the need for social reforms, and was opposed to evils like child-marriage, casteism and untouchability. Many years later, (at a conference in Bombay in 1918), he was to declare: If God were to tolerate untouchability, I would not recognize him as God at all. However, he was reluctant to give precedence to social reforms over political struggle, believing that social change ought to come gradually, through the growth of enlightened public opinion, rather than through the legislative authority of an alien government.He was convinced that no significant social progress was possible in a country that wasnt politically free. He was particularly critical of loyalist or moderate reformers who were unwilling to practice what they preached, yet frequently baited him as being against social reforms. Neither a sectarian religious revivalist in the mold of Chiplunkar, nor willing to confine himself exclusively to the cause of radical social refo rms like Agarkar, Tilak eventually parted ways with his colleagues in 1888.Working through the Kesari, (and later also the Maratha) he gradually developed a more advanced nationalist perspective based on the pillars of nationalist education, Swaraj (self-rule) and Swadeshi (self-reliance). One of the first to take the nationalist message to the Indian masses, he played a particularly important role in organizing western Maharashtras peasant and artisan communities during the 1897 famine under the auspices of the Sarvajanik Sabha. By 1905, popular resistance movements had developed in both Bengal and Maharashtra, calling for the boycott of British goods and non-payment of land revenues and other taxes.Between 1905 and 1908 the national movement intensified, workers participated in strikes and work-stoppages, women and students joined the boycott movements picketing at shops that sold imported goods, and an ever-growing mass of people began joining mass meetings and street processions. Only too aware of the economic devastation that British rule had brought on the country, Indias broad masses were responding eagerly to the nationalist message. But the nationalist movement was also becoming exceedingly divided between two poles representing radically different currents and tendencies.Whereas one side (even as it recognized the many negative aspects of alien rule) clung to the British umbilical chord, and attempted to restrict the national movement to a struggle for political reforms, the other side correctly saw British rule as an unmitigated disaster for the Indian people and called for the complete liberation from colonial rule. Tilak eloquently and succinctly summarized the sentiments of the new and increasingly militant national movement. He spoke of British rule as having ruined trade, caused the collapse of industry, and destroyed the peoples courage and abilities.Under the colonial regimen, Tilak asserted that the country was offered neither education, nor rights, nor respect for public opinion. Without prosperity and contentment, the Indian people suffered constantly from the three ds i. e. daridra (poverty), dushkal (famine) and dravyashosha (drain). And he saw only one remedy: for the Indian people to take political power without which Indian industry could not develop, without which the nations youth couldnt be educated, and without which the country could win neither social reforms nor material welfare for its people.