Critics of the liberal leadership include historians, learned societies, and their political rivals. Before talking about the importance of liberals in the national movement, we will consider their criticisms.
1. In the first of these criticisms, it was said that their working method was very soft and weak. Not only this, their opponents did not hesitate to say that they used to collude with the British. It was also said that there was no sharp edge in his methodology. Lala Lajpat Rai once said that after 20 years of work, the liberals got stone instead of bread. Thus his work is considered unimportant by some.
2. Their second criticism is done on the basis that his way and method of working was governed by 'kneel down' policy. Because they mostly believed in petitions and prayer letters. That's why some people called him a political monk. Tilak once said that the old party (moderates) believed in sending petitions to the British which was contrary to the belief of the extremists.
3. Their third criticism is on the ground that there was a fundamental contradiction in their thinking. Because they believed on the level of faith that the problem of poverty has come in India only because of the British rule, but they did not believe in adopting the working style accordingly. Their opponents also used to say that even when the liberals started talking about Swaraj and self-rule, it was not the product of their faith, but they were doing so for show, influenced by the political situation of that time. In support of this, his role in the Surat partition is discussed. According to critics, in the Surat Congress of 1907, the liberals created such a situation that Tilak and his other comrades had to break ties with the Congress. Not only this, even when Tilak, Lala ji etc were punished, he did not hesitate to work according to the Morley Minto reforms of the British. He always remained surrounded inside the constitutional house and never tried to get out of it and go among the public to find a solution to their problems.
4. Their fourth criticism is made on the ground that they neither tried to organize a mass movement nor was they successful in it. The reasons for their failure were that they belonged to the middle class and their attachment to the public was also less. Not only this, they were also not successful in maintaining the unity of the national movements. They failed to impress the Muslim masses. At the same time, they completely failed to keep the extremists within the Congress.
However, it would be wrong to say that he became a puppet of the British. their own thinking was moderate. The British never openly supported the demand of the moderate. They always followed the dual policy of gift and punishment. And in all these actions the British rulers used the liberals as tools. Despite all these criticisms, something can be said in favor of liberals.
1. Firstly, the role of liberals in political and constitutional field cannot be denied. No matter how weak the process of democratization through 1892, 1909, 1939, 1935 Constitutional Acts, the role of liberals has to be accepted in one way or the other.
2. Secondly, they served the country by holding high positions in the administration of India. He had a different identity in all these places. And he had an important role in proving Indian talent. Because of all these things. In the transfer of political power that took place in 1947, the role of liberals in one way or the other has to be accepted.
3. Third, we need to take into account all the limitations and circumstances in order to properly evaluate the actions of liberals. We have to keep in mind that in 1885 when he emerged. India was completely finished three decades before that. Due to this the courage of the people was defeated. There was an atmosphere of fear in the country. At such a time, the liberals created a national platform where the problems of the country could be highlighted. It is okay that their voice was low but at the same time let us not forget that they were doing the work of a guide. On the basis of the foundation laid by him, other people worked further.
4. In a way, they were the 'milestones' who prepared the blueprint of the national movement. And a national organization like Congress had to be raised in difficult circumstances. Let us not forget that he had laid the foundation of the National Congress from which we got independence in 1885.
5. We must remember that even though he put forward very limited demands, it later culminated into the demand for Swaraj. It is also true that he himself could not direct the big movement. But the tradition he created, the same path eventually reached the point of 'British Quit India'.
6. Along with this, India's unity, secularism, modernization of economy, rule of law, civil liberties etc. were the main mantras of his faith. This in itself was a great effort.
कोई टिप्पणी नहीं:
एक टिप्पणी भेजें