Despite all the sacrifice and austerity of the extremists, there was no dearth of their critics. They were criticized on the basis of many things. Their main criticisms are as follows -
1. Firstly, the extremists propagated the new concept of nationalism, in which religious sentiments were mixed and due to which many problems emerged in front of the country. A direct result of this came in the form of increasing distance between Hindus and Muslims. It is said that the establishment of the Muslim League in 1906 was not just a historical event but it was the era when extremist politics was at its peak in the politics of the country. Thus perhaps a new sub-nationality emerged in the Muslim society.
2. The second thing that is said against the extremists is that despite their sacrifice and penance, the extremists could not create mass movement on a large scale. There was a big movement only against the partition of Bengal. It is also argued in favor of this establishment that after 1907 when the government started its cycle of repression on a large scale, the extremist politics got scattered and they could not face the government on a large scale.
3. The third thing is that they could not take a clear view on the question of violence, non-violence. Arvind used to believe that even the use of violence when necessary is not to be discarded. Tilak also did not adopt a very clear policy on this issue. When some people opposed the British rule through violence, they indirectly supported them. In this sequence, it is worth remembering that in 1908, he was sentenced to six years because of the support of the Bengal revolutionaries.
4. Thus, some people believe that it was due to the extremists that the armed movement emerged in the country and they were its fathers.
But many things can be said in opposition to all these arguments.
Firstly, it would be wrong to call him anti-Muslim. Because Tilak had an important role in the Lucknow Pact in 1916. Secondly, As far as it is concerned that he did not conduct a big mass movement, we have to remember that due to the break-up and home rule movement, an army of people working for the national interest was prepared, which benefited Gandhiji in his movement. Thus it is not entirely true to say that Tilak and other extremists were not able to create a mass movement. Thirdly, a lot can be said on the question of non-violence, violence. Tilak's main belief was that the matter of violence and non-violence is not in our hands, but how the government treats the agitators will decide which way the people will fight for freedom.
Contribution of extremists to the national movement
Despite all these arguments, it can be said that the extremists played an important role in the national movement.
1. The first thing is that his contribution at the ideological level was very important in itself. He gave a new concept of nationalism. We must remember that liberals were mainly influenced by the nationalism of Europe which emphasized on geographical, historical, cultural unity among people. Thus the concept of a secular state was the main thing in it.
2. The extremists added many new dimensions to this concept of nationalism. He gave birth to a very emotional thought stream by adding the symbol of motherhood to nationalism. He tried to create an unprecedented emotional connection between the nation and the people. The Arya Samaj also played its role in this and by reviving the Vedic society and Vedic ideology, he created a feeling of fierce nationalism. Lala Lajpat Rai had said in clear words that our aim is to inculcate a new type of patriotism. It should be broadcast as a religious sentiment so that people can live for it and die if need be. But in Bengal Bankim Chandra went further and portrayed the country as a mother whose chief duty was to work for her emancipation. Arvind Ghosh made it a living symbol. He clearly said that nationalism is not a political program but a religious act given by God. Calling upon the youth of the country, he said that we all have to serve the country with our body, our intellect, our wealth and our worship. This mother-son relationship became so emotional that it reached the public mind in Bengal.
3. The third contribution of the extremists was the concept of Swarajya. For the first time Arvind talked about complete freedom. Other extremists like Tilak were also talking about Swarya. There was no special difference between Tilak's Swaraj and Arvind's Purna Swaraj. For the common people, Swarajya meant freedom. In this way, the extremists took the national movement to a high point, which in itself was a big contribution. Arvind said in clear words, 'There are many people who are afraid to talk about freedom', but I wish for complete freedom of my country. Taking this point further, he says: “We want such a Swarajya in which there is no foreign control. We firmly believe that the people of every country have the right to conduct their national life according to their ideals and nature.
4. The fourth contribution of the extremists was that by setting a personal example of their renunciation and austerity, they created a new wave of idealism among the people. Lokmanya Tilak openly opposed the British rule fearlessly and was also punished for it. This was the first open opposition to the Congress and he became so respected in the public mind that people gave him the title of 'Lokmanya'. He was established as a national hero. But Tilak was not alone in this. All the people like Lala Lajpat Rai and Arvind Ghosh etc. set an example of sacrifice and penance in front of the country, which affected the public mind.
5. Their fifth contribution appeared in the intention to implement his ideas effectively. In fact, it was due to his militant political methods more than his political aim that he got the distinction of being militant. In the Calcutta Congress of 1906, Tilak clearly said that boycott is our political right. We will not support the British in the war outside India in which a lot of our resources have been wasted. We will not cooperate with them even in the administration of the country. We will set up our own courts and if need be, we will even refuse to pay taxes. If we can do this, tomorrow we will be free. Arvind Ghosh also established the importance of boycott. In fact, Gandhiji's Satyagraha was a sophisticated form of boycott. In the end, it would not be wrong to say that the extremists made their own unique contribution to the objective of the national movement and the effective way of achieving it. He also put the matter of Swarajya, Swadeshi, boycott and armed rebellion in front of the people.
In this way, where on one hand the stream of Gandhian politics emerged from his thoughts, on the other hand the stream of armed revolutionaries also kept getting inspiration from him. In a word, the extremists played an important role at the critical juncture of the country.
कोई टिप्पणी नहीं:
एक टिप्पणी भेजें