Q: Analyze the political differences between the moderates and

extremists. What impact did it have on the anti-imperialist struggle?

The Indian National Congress was founded by AO Hume during the reign of
Governor-General Lord Duffering Its first session was held in Bombay in
(1885) under the presidency of W.C. Banerjee. The Congress split into two
parts-Moderates and Extremists in the year (1907) at the Surat Session of
Congress, which was also popularly known as the Surat Split Congress
politics during the first twenty years of its history is roughly referred to as
moderate politics. Congress at that time was hardly a full-fledged political
party. Its members were mostly part-time politicians, who were successful
professionals in their personal lives. There had been some distinct phases in
moderate politics, but on the whole, there was an overall uniformity in their
objectives and methods of agitation.

FIRST PHASE (Period of Moderate Politics)

During the early years of the Indian National Congress, leaders like Dadabhai
Naoroji, P.M. Mehta, D.E. Wacha, W\.C. Banerjee, and S.N. Banerjee were
known as Moderates. They believed in liberal and moderate politics. They
wanted freedom from discrimination, equal rights, and more civil liberties for
Indians. They followed a peaceful and gradual path to bring change,
believing in working through laws and the British government.

Moderates and Extremists both came from the middle class and opposed
British rule, but they had different approaches. Moderates believed Indians
should be trained under British rule before getting full freedom and looked to
British traditions and values. Extremists, on the other hand, believed in
immediate independence as a right and were inspired by Indian culture and
patriotism.

Moderates respected the British constitution and asked for reforms through
petitions and appeals to the British Parliament. They didn’t ask for full
equality immediately but wanted slow and steady changes. They hoped that
one day, India would be treated like other British colonies, such as Canada or
Australia, with full rights and self-rule, and that Indians would be equal
citizens of the empire.

The Moderates asked the British for more political rights, but in return, they
only got the Indian Councils Act of 1892. This Act slightly increased the
number of people in legislative councils at the central and provincial levels.
However, these members were not elected by the people but selected by the
British authorities from a list sent by local bodies. Most of the Moderates’
demands were not met.

The Moderates believed it was more important to keep India united and
peaceful than to weaken British rule. They feared that if the British left, India
might fall into chaos and disorder again. They saw British rule as necessary
for maintaining peace and order, which they thought was essential for
progress. Leaders like Gopal Krishna Gokhale believed that, despite the
problems with British officials, they were the only force keeping India stable.

Because of this belief, the Moderates were very loyal to the British Crown.
Badr-ud-din Tyabji, a Congress President, said that educated Indians were the
most loyal supporters of the British Empire. The Moderates believed in
working within the British system and would not do anything to harm it.

They also believed that the British people were fair and loved freedom. If
there were problems in India, they thought it was because of the British
officials in India or because the people in Britain didn’t know about Indian
issues—not because the British people were unjust.

DEMANDS OF MODERATES

The Moderates wanted changes in how India was governed. One of their
main demands was to include more Indians in the civil services. They
believed this would make the administration more responsive to Indian
needs and stop the large amount of money being sent out of India as salaries
and pensions to British officers. They also saw this as a step against racism.

They wanted civil service exams to be held in both India and England and the
age limit to be raised from 19 to 23. However, the British did not fully accept
these demands. Although Parliament passed a resolution for simultaneous
exams in 1892–93, the age limit was instead lowered, making it harder for
Indians.

The British used Indian soldiers in wars abroad. The Moderates said that the
British should pay part of the military costs, Indians should be allowed to
volunteer for the army, and they should get higher ranks. But these ideas
were rejected because the British did not trust Indian volunteers and didn’t
want British officers to serve under Indians. Only a small amount of military
cost was shared by Britain.

Moderates also wanted other changes like trial by jury, repealing the Arms
Act, lowering land taxes, abolishing the salt tax, and improving the
conditions of tea garden workers. These demands aimed at racial equality
and civil rights, but the British ignored them.

Even though their political efforts didn’t succeed much, the Moderates made
a major contribution by analyzing the economic damage caused by British
rule. This was called **economic nationalism**. Leaders like **Dadabhai
Naoroji**, **Justice M.G. Ranade**, and **R.C. Dutt** explained how British
policies made India poor.

They argued that Britain no longer looted India through war or plunder but
through economic policies. India became a supplier of raw materials and a
buyer of British goods. This made India poor and dependent. They believed
that India needed to industrialize using Indian money, not foreign
investment, which only caused more wealth to leave the country.

The **Drain Theory** was their main argument—it said that India’s wealth
was being drained to Britain through payments like military costs, railway
profits, and other charges. This theory challenged the British claim that they
were helping India and exposed how their rule caused poverty.

However, the Moderates did not organize strong protests because they still
believed in the fairness of the British system. Also, most Moderate leaders
came from upper-class, educated backgrounds and were disconnected from
the common people. The Congress in the early years had mostly Hindu
members, especially upper-caste Hindus, and very few Muslims, which
created divisions. Some Muslim leaders feared that Indian self-rule would
lead to Hindu dominance.

Still, the Moderates’ biggest contribution was raising awareness about how
British rule was economically harming India. Their ideas laid the foundation
for future nationalist movements, especially used by the Extremists to
demand stronger action against British rule.

SECOND PHASE (Rise of Extremism)

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, a new group of leaders emerged in the
Indian National Congress. These young leaders were unhappy with the old
Moderate leaders and their slow, peaceful methods. The new group wanted
**Swaraj** (self-rule) and believed in more active and independent ways to
achieve it. They became known as the **Extremists**, while the older
leaders were called the **Moderates**.

The split between the two groups started when **Lokamanya Tilak**
disagreed with the Moderates, like **Ranade** and **Gokhale**, over social
reform issues. In 1895, Tilak and his followers took control of the **Poona
Sarvajanik Sabha**, which caused Gokhale to form a new group called the
**Deccan Sabha**.

Some thinkers criticized the Congress. **Bankim Chandra Chatterjee** called

the Congress leaders “place-hunting politicians,” meaning they were only
after government jobs. **Aurobindo Ghose**, in his articles titled *”New
Lamps for Old”* (1893–94), said the Congress was out of touch with common
people, not truly national, and failing in its mission.

GROWTH OF EXTREMISM

The True Nature of British Rule

The early nationalist leaders in India helped lay the foundation for the
freedom movement by exposing how British rule was harming India,
especially economically. **Dadabhai Naoroji** and others showed how British
policies were making India poorer, and how wealth was being drained from
the country. Books by Naoroji, **R.C. Dutt**, and others highlighted these
problems.

As time went on, a new group of leaders called the **Extremists** rose in the
Congress. They were dissatisfied with the slow methods of the older
**Moderate** leaders. They believed in stronger action and demanded
**Swaraj** (self-rule). Leaders like **Tilak**, **Aurobindo**, and **Lala Lajpat
Rai** were among the Extremists. They were inspired by Indian traditions
and history, and reacted strongly to increasing Western influence and British
oppression.

India was suffering from major famines, diseases like the plague, and harsh
British rule. The British government didn’t do enough to help, and their
response often made things worse. Leaders like Tilak criticized the
government for being cruel and careless.

One of the most hated actions of the British was the **Partition of Bengal in
1905**, done by **Lord Curzon**. Indians saw it as a move to divide Hindus
and Muslims and weaken unity. This showed that peaceful methods like
petitions had failed, leading more people to support the Extremists.

The Extremists weren’t all the same—some believed in revolution, others in

peaceful but strong resistance. While **Tilak** saw Swaraj as self-
government, **Aurobindo** aimed for full independence. Over time, even
these leaders changed their views.
Despite differences, all Extremists agreed that British rule was harmful and
needed to end. They believed in **non-cooperation, self-reliance, mass
protests, and even suffering for the nation**. Their efforts helped bring real
change—like the **annulment of Bengal’s partition in 1911**—and pushed
the idea of independence closer to reality.

PHASE (Gandhian Era)

Mahatma Gandhi became the most important leader in Indian politics from
1919 to 1947. He brought new ideas, especially non-violent resistance or
Satyagraha, to fight against British rule. Gandhi believed in open, peaceful
protest and mass movements.
He made the Congress more democratic and focused on improving
Indian society, including promoting spinning, ending untouchability,
Hindu-Muslim unity, women's equality, and sobriety. He used non-
violence as the main method to bring change.
During World War I, Gandhi supported the British, hoping it would help India
gain Swaraj (self-rule). Many saw him as the symbol of Indian freedom
and nationalism. Even people who disagreed with him respected him.
Gandhi led many important movements like Non-Cooperation, Civil
Disobedience, Khilafat, and Quit India, which helped unite India in the
fight against British rule.
Unlike earlier leaders, Gandhi worked directly for the poor and villages. He
focused on social work like education, village industries, and Harijan
welfare.
Some people criticized Gandhi for making the Congress appear too Hindu,
which they believed hurt Hindu-Muslim unity. But others believed that
Gandhi helped move India toward secularism and away from casteism
and communalism.
Overall, Gandhi was a saint-like leader who used moral methods to fight
for India's freedom and inspired millions across the country.
Conclusion
It would be wrong to say that the **Moderates and Extremists** failed. They
played an important role in starting the **nationalist movement** in an
organized way and helped identify the real conflict between the British rulers
and the Indian people.
The Moderates believed in **British justice** and chose peaceful methods
like petitions. The **1909 Morley-Minto Reforms** were the best they could
achieve at that time. The **partition of Bengal** was also reversed because
of British political changes.
However, over time, differences between **Hindus and Muslims** increased.
Later, **Gandhi** brought a new and stronger method of **non-violent
protest**. He updated the earlier **Extremist methods** like **Swadeshi and
boycott** and united the **masses**, even in rural areas.
Under Gandhi, the **Congress transformed** from a debating group into a
**mass movement** that reached every part of India. His success was
helped by the Congress’s earlier efforts and organization.