Moderate nationalism was the initial period of Congress and extremist nationalism was the manifestation of the natural consciousness of India arising in its reaction. For this reason there were substantial differences between these two ideologies. It is necessary to understand here that the greater the difference was in the objectives of these two schools of thought, the greater was the difference in their means. This difference can be explained in the following points-
1. Difference in Political Objectives:
There was a huge difference in the political objectives of the moderates and the extremists. The moderate leaders envisioned a responsible government within the British Empire. He considered the welfare of India only in the presence of the British. Once Lord Harding said to Gokhale- 'How would you feel if I told you that all the British officers and army would leave India within a month.' To this Gokhale's reply was- 'I shall be glad to hear this news, but before you reach Aden, we shall telegraph you to return.' In sharp contrast to the moderates, the extremists demanded Swaraj for the country. Tilak said that the British should leave India as soon as possible. Indians will be very happy with this. The extremist leaders believed that no matter how good foreign governance was, it could not be superior to self-governance.
2. Difference in the Mode of Political Agitation:
Moderate leaders wanted to increase the political rights of Indians through constitutional measures, persuasion, humble prayers, memorandums, resolutions passed in the convention and speeches. They were not ready to go to jail by creating disturbance in their comfortable life. In order to strengthen his side, he campaigned even after going to England, the country of the imperialists, and adopted the path of co-operation with the government. On the contrary, the extremist nationalist leaders believed in vigorous national agitation and political struggle for the attainment of their rights. They were ready to face lathis on the streets and go to jail. The idea of cooperation with foreign rule was not acceptable to them at all. They wanted to get Swaraj by considering it as their right. He did not expect sympathy, begging and generosity from the British Government. Vipin Chandra Pal said- 'Nobody can give Swaraj to anyone. If today the British want to give them Swaraj, they will reject such Swaraj because the thing I cannot earn; I am not even eligible to accept it.
3. Difference in attachment to Indian culture:
Moderate leaders were influenced by western education and lifestyle. He believed in the justice and benevolence of the British. For this reason, he was a supporter of westernization of India. Gopal Krishna Gokhale was of the opinion that Indian traditions were an obstacle in the way of India becoming a secular and democratic modern nation. While the extremist leaders believed in the ancient civilization and culture of India and were strongly influenced by Hindu nationalism. The nationalism of the extremists was based on the glorious ancient importance of India. Tilak and other extremist leaders propagated the revival of Hindu culture. Tilak revived Shivaji Utsav and Ganapati Puja in Maharashtra and Bipin Chandra Pal started the tradition of Kali Puja on a grand scale in Calcutta. Lala Lajpat Rai strengthened the activities of Arya Samaj. Along with Hindus, Shias and Sunnis also participated in the festival of Ganapati Puja.
4. Difference in policy related to Swadeshi movement:
In 1891, from the Congress platform, a slogan was given to replace foreign goods with indigenous goods, but serious efforts were never made in this direction. Under the moderate leadership, the idea of Swadeshi was limited to promoting Indian industries, while the extremist leadership made the slogan of adopting Swadeshi a powerful weapon against British imperialism during the Bang Bhang movement. The militant leadership shaped the idea of Swadeshi into a deep affection for everything Indian.
5. Difference in policy related to boycott of foreign ideas and goods:
The moderate leaders were strongly opposed to the boycott of foreign goods and ideas. He believed that doing so was impractical and an abandonment of the golden opportunities available to serve the people. While the extremist leaders were supporters of the boycott of foreign goods as well as foreign ideas. In his view, the meaning of boycott was not only boycott of foreign goods, but non-cooperation with foreign rule, boycott of government jobs and titles and boycott of those who buy and sell foreign goods were also included.
6. Difference in thoughts related to education:
The British rule had completely tightened the screws on India's education policy. Despite this, the moderate leaders considered western education to be good for Indians. When the Beng-Bhang movement started, the Government Education Department was used by the government to keep students and teachers away from the Boycott and Swadeshi movement. The views of extremist leaders regarding education were completely opposite to the policy of moderate leaders. The militant leaders wanted national education in place of western education and did not want foreign rulers to control the education policy. Leaders like Tilak in Maharashtra and Lajpat Rai in Punjab carried forward the work of promoting national education so that the spirit of nationalism could be inculcated among the youth.
कोई टिप्पणी नहीं:
एक टिप्पणी भेजें