Eternal India Encyclopedia

Eternal India encyclopedia

FREEDOM MOVEMENT

over, the advanced section of the

next 9 years the extremists kept out of the Congress. One of the most important phases of the Swadeshi movement was to endow the militant nationalism with a new and lofty spirit. The real differences between the two parties or groups lay primarily in the political goal to be achieved and the method to be adopted for achieving it. As regards the method, the extremist party concentrated its whole attention upon the attainment of Swaraj or self-government. “Political freedom’ said Aurobindo, “is the life breath of a nation; to attempt social reform, educational reform, industrial ex- pansion, the moral improvement of the race without aiming first and foremost at political freedom, is the very height of ignorance and futility .” Tilak explained the difference between the moderates and the exteremists in very simple words. “I admit’, Tilak used to say, 'that we must ask for our rights, but we must ask with the consciousness that the demand cannot be refused. There is a great dif- ference between asking and petitioning.... you must be prepared to fight in the event of your demand being turned down. Pro- tests are of no avail. More protests, not backed by self-reliance will not help the people.... Three P’s - prayer, pleas and protest - will not do unless backed by solid force..." As the Swadeshi movement gained in momentum, it was apparent that the moder- ates were unable to keep pace with the extrem- ists and the two were gradually drifting apart. This became evident in their respective attitude to the scheme of national education. While the moderates expressed sympathy with the establishment of the National Council of Education, they were opposed to the idea of boycotting schools and colleges. The idea of boycott appealed to the younger generation. They veered around B.C Pal and other ex- tremist leaders who supported the boycott of Calcutta University. The difference became further manifest in the Congress session at Varanasi held in 1905 and it came to a head over the resolution on boycott. The nationalist ideas and feelings of the extremists were too pronounced to be easily accomodated within the framework of the Congress. Thus, after the session was

Muslim League (1906) The anti-Hindu policy inaugurated by Sir Syed Ahmed at Aligarh, culminated in the formation of the Muslim League, a rival or- ganization to the Congress, on 30th Decem- ber, 1906 by Nawab Salimulla in Dacca. The foundation of the League was the beginning of an organized opposition on the part of the Muslims to the Hindus. The object of the League was to “support, wherever possible, all meas- ures emanating from the Government, and to protect the cause and advance the interests of our co-religionists throughout the country, to controvert the growing influence of the so-called Indian National Congress which has a tendency to misinterpret and subvert British rule in India, or which might lead to that deplorable situation, and to enable our young men of education, who for want of such an association have joined the Congress, to find scope, according to their fitness and ability for public life. ” The League supported the partition of Bengal and opposed the boycott of British goods. First annual session of the All-India Muslim League was held at Karachi on 29 December, 1907. The League welcomed the Minto-Morley reforms and continued its propaganda against the Congress and the Hin- dus. The agitation following the partition of Bengal brought into prominence the rise of a new political group which differed in essential points from the Indian National Congress. The new group which had been surfacing over the years were called the extremists. The concept of Swaraj took its birth during the 1906 session of the Indian National Congress. The Congress for the first time in its history laid down as its goal, "the system of govern- ment obtaining in the self-governing British colonies”, which the president Dadabhai Naoroji summed up in one word, 'Swaraj'. This new spirit was sponsored by Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal, Lajpat Rai and other extremist leaders. But the "moderate" leaders like Suren- dranath Banerjee, Pheroze Shah-Mehta and Gokhale did not endorse it and this was re- flected in the Surat split of 1907 and for the 1906-1907 Split between the Moderates and Extremists

Nationalist delegates held a conference within the Con- gress campus and formed a new Nationalist Party. It decided to remain within the Con- gress but with a distinct programme of its own. They adopted the ideas of boycott and passive resistance which meant ‘withdrawal of all kinds of co-operation from the British rulers in every sphere of administrative and public activity.’ Two important outside events influenced the moderates and the extremisits during 1905- 6. The victory of Japan over Russia gave a strong stimulus to the extremists; for it was now proved that the Europeans were not in- vincible. The moderates were buoyed up with the victory of the Liberal Party in the General Election in Britain. Through the year 1906, a controversy was raised in the periodicals that both extrem- ists and moderates looked forward to a deci- sive trial of strenght in the forthcoming ses- sion of the Indian National Congress in De- cember, 1906. Aurobindo's articles in the Bande Ma- taram put the extremist party on a high pedestal all over the country. Under the leadership of Lala Lajpat Rai, Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal and Aurobindo and inspired by their personality, the extremists found new strength to fight for the realisation of their objective. The Congress met in Calcutta on 26 December 1906. The moderates had a triumph over the extremists in the matter of selecting the president. The extremists wanted Tilak for the office but Dadabhai Naoroji (then 82 years old) was sworn in as the president of the Congress. The chief feature of the Congress was that it was attended by 1663 delegates and 20,000 audience - a significant improve- ment over the previous ones. The only re- deeming feature of the president's speech was the reference to Swaraj as the goal of India. But he did not explain what he meant by 'Swaraj', the moderates took it as 'self-gov- ernment' while the extremists accepted it as "Full Independence". The correct interpreta- tion of the term was the subject of long con- troversy. The chief interest of the Congress ses- sion of 1906 centred round the proposals of the extremist party regarding Swadeshi and connected problems.

The draft resolutions on the partition of

Bengal, boycott and other matters led to