Moderate Politics: Ideology and Approach

The Moderate phase of Indian nationalism, which dominated the Indian National Congress
(INC) from its inception in 1885 until the early 20th century, was characterized by its faith in
constitutional methods, loyalty to the British Crown, and reliance on gradual reforms. Leaders
like Dadabhai Naoroji, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Pherozeshah Mehta, and Surendranath
Banerjee were at the forefront of this movement, advocating for political rights, administrative
changes, and economic reforms within the colonial framework. The Moderates firmly believed
that British rule, despite its flaws, could be improved through dialogue and legal means. Their
political ideology was rooted in the principles of British liberalism, which emphasized rule of law,
civil liberties, and incremental political change. Tripathi, in The Extremist Challenge, highlights
that the Moderates saw the British as potential partners in governance rather than as
oppressors, a perspective that later came under intense scrutiny from the more radical factions
of the nationalist movement.

Despite their belief in British fairness, the Moderates were not blind to colonial exploitation. They
persistently pointed out economic injustices, such as heavy taxation, unfair trade policies, and
the drain of wealth from India to Britain. However, their approach remained conciliatory, as they
hoped that rational argument and moral persuasion would lead to reform. They viewed British
constitutional traditions as a model that could be applied to India and expected that
self-governance would be granted in due course. This belief in British goodwill shaped their
methods of protest, which primarily revolved around petitions, legislative debates, and press
campaigns. However, their reluctance to adopt more aggressive tactics eventually led to their
marginalization, as younger nationalists began questioning the effectiveness of their strategies.

Important Resolutions Passed by the Moderates

The Moderates used the annual Congress sessions as a platform to articulate their demands
and pass resolutions aimed at administrative and economic reforms. One of their earliest and
most consistent demands was the Indianization of the Civil Services, which they believed would
make the administration more responsive to Indian needs. The British-dominated bureaucracy
was seen as inefficient, expensive, and indifferent to the welfare of the people. Moderates
argued that opening up higher administrative posts to Indians would not only reduce racial
discrimination but also foster greater trust between the rulers and the ruled. While this demand
was partially addressed through the Indian Councils Act of 1892, it did not bring any significant
change, as British officials continued to dominate the upper echelons of governance.

Another significant resolution focused on reducing military expenditure, which the Moderates
criticized as an unnecessary burden on Indian taxpayers. They argued that the vast sums spent
on maintaining British troops in India drained resources that could have been used for economic
development, education, and healthcare. Their economic resolutions also included strong
opposition to the unfair economic policies of the British, particularly in matters of trade and
industry. Moderates protested against British trade practices that stifled Indian industries while
promoting British goods, leading to economic stagnation in India. They emphasized the need for
protective tariffs to shield Indian manufacturers from British competition, though their demands
were largely ignored by the colonial administration.

One of the most crucial resolutions passed by the Moderates was against the Partition of
Bengal in 1905, which they viewed as a politically motivated attempt to divide Hindus and
Muslims. Initially, the Moderates sought to overturn this decision through petitions and appeals
to the British government, but their failure to prevent the partition fueled discontent among the
younger generation of nationalists. This marked a turning point in Indian politics, as it exposed
the limitations of Moderate methods and contributed to the rise of the Extremists, who
advocated for direct action. Tripathi notes that the Partition of Bengal became a catalyst for the
shift from Moderate to Extremist politics, as it demonstrated that petitions and resolutions alone
were insufficient in securing Indian interests.

Features of Moderate Politics

One of the defining features of Moderate politics was the dominance of an elitist leadership that
primarily consisted of Western-educated professionals, lawyers, and intellectuals. Unlike later
nationalist leaders who actively mobilized the masses, the Moderates operated within elite
political circles, addressing their demands to British officials rather than engaging in grassroots
activism. This reliance on educated elites made their movement respectable in British eyes but
also limited its reach among the general Indian population. Their methods were heavily focused
on political education and constitutionalism, as they sought to raise awareness about Indian
rights through newspapers, public speeches, and pamphlets. By doing so, they played a crucial
role in laying the intellectual foundations of Indian nationalism, even though their immediate
political impact remained limited.

Another key characteristic of the Moderates was their faith in British liberalism and gradual
reform. Unlike the later Extremists, who demanded immediate action, the Moderates believed
that political change would come slowly through dialogue and legal agitation. They saw the
British Parliament as an institution that could be persuaded to grant reforms if Indians presented
their case convincingly. This belief in gradualism led them to focus on lobbying British officials,
submitting petitions, and securing incremental policy changes rather than engaging in mass
movements or direct confrontation. While this strategy did achieve some minor successes, it
also frustrated younger nationalists who saw it as overly cautious and ineffective.

However, the most significant limitation of Moderate politics was its failure to connect with the
Indian masses. The movement remained largely confined to urban centers and was led by
English-speaking elites who did not actively involve peasants, workers, or the lower classes.
Their demands, though progressive, were framed in terms of administrative efficiency and
economic justice rather than national self-determination. This disconnect from mass politics
made it easier for the British to dismiss their demands, as there was no widespread public
pressure backing their resolutions. Tripathi highlights that this lack of mass mobilization was one
of the key reasons why Moderate politics ultimately failed to achieve substantial reforms.
Methods Used by the Moderates
The Moderates relied heavily on constitutional methods and legal agitation to push for political
change. Their primary tools included submitting petitions and memorandums to British
authorities, urging them to introduce reforms in governance, taxation, and economic policies.
They also engaged in legislative debates whenever possible, using their positions in councils to
advocate for Indian interests. However, these debates often had limited impact, as the
British-controlled councils had little real power.

The press played a crucial role in Moderate politics, as newspapers became a key platform for
spreading nationalist ideas. Prominent newspapers such as The Hindu, The Bengalee, and The
Tribune were used to highlight injustices, critique British policies, and build public opinion in
favor of reform. Additionally, public meetings and lectures were organized to educate Indians
about their rights and the need for political action. Moderate leaders frequently traveled across
India, delivering speeches that emphasized the importance of self-government and
constitutional progress.

Despite their efforts, the Moderate strategy of persuasion and petitioning yielded few tangible
results. The British government often ignored their demands or responded with minimal
concessions. The failure of these methods became increasingly evident in the early 20th
century, leading to growing disillusionment within the nationalist movement. This discontent
ultimately paved the way for the rise of the Extremists, who advocated for more direct and
confrontational tactics.

Critique of the Moderates

The most severe critique of the Moderates came from the Extremists, who accused them of
being too passive and ineffective. Leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal, and
Lala Lajpat Rai argued that the British would never voluntarily grant reforms unless Indians
applied strong pressure. They criticized the Moderates for relying on petitions and appeals,
which the British routinely ignored, and instead called for more radical methods such as
Swadeshi (boycotting British goods), protests, and passive resistance. The Extremists believed
that true political change could only be achieved through mass mobilization and a spirit of
self-reliance, not through negotiations with colonial rulers.

The British, on the other hand, saw the Moderates as a manageable opposition, one that posed
no real threat to their rule. While they occasionally entertained Moderate demands, they largely
dismissed them as inconsequential. The Partition of Bengal in 1905 and the subsequent lack of
British response to Moderate protests further demonstrated the ineffectiveness of their
approach.

Tripathi argues that while the Moderates played a crucial role in political awakening, their failure
to secure significant reforms led to their decline. Their legacy, however, remained important, as
they laid the foundation for organized nationalist politics in India. The eventual shift from
Moderate to Extremist politics marked a turning point in India's struggle for independence,
setting the stage for more aggressive nationalist movements in the decades to come.

The Rise of Extremists: Context and Causes

The rise of Extremists in Indian nationalism was a response to the perceived failures of the
Moderate leaders of the Indian National Congress. By the early 20th century, frustration with the
British government's dismissive attitude toward Moderate demands led to the emergence of a
new generation of nationalists who rejected the constitutional and conciliatory methods of their
predecessors. Amales Tripathi, in The Extremist Challenge: India between 1890 and 1910,
details how the rise of Extremist politics was shaped by growing economic distress, British racial
arrogance, and the repression of nationalist aspirations.

One of the primary factors behind the rise of Extremism was the failure of the Moderates to
secure substantial reforms despite decades of petitions and legislative appeals. The British
government had made only minor concessions, such as the Indian Councils Act of 1892, which
offered limited representation to Indians but kept real power in British hands. The reluctance of
the British to introduce genuine political change made many nationalists, especially younger
leaders, impatient with the Moderate approach. The discontent deepened with increasing
economic hardships, including heavy land revenue demands, stagnation of indigenous
industries, and the repeated famines of the late 19th century, which were worsened by British
policies. These factors led many to question the efficacy of Moderate politics and turn towards a
more direct and confrontational approach.

Another major catalyst for Extremism was the Partition of Bengal in 1905 under Lord Curzon.
The decision to divide Bengal along communal lines was widely seen as a deliberate attempt to
weaken nationalist sentiment by dividing Hindus and Muslims. The ensuing protests and
boycotts, which saw widespread public participation, demonstrated the power of mass
movements and radicalized many young nationalists. Leaders such as Bal Gangadhar Tilak,
Bipin Chandra Pal, and Lala Lajpat Rai became the face of this new politics, advocating for
self-reliance, boycott of British goods, and active resistance. Unlike the Moderates, who relied
on petitions, the Extremists emphasized direct action and mass mobilization, marking a
significant shift in the nationalist movement.

Regional Spread of Extremism

Extremist politics did not emerge uniformly across India but developed with unique regional
characteristics. In Maharashtra, Bal Gangadhar Tilak played a crucial role in popularizing
nationalist sentiment through cultural and religious symbols. His use of the Ganapati festival and
Shivaji celebrations transformed religious gatherings into political events, fostering a nationalist
consciousness among common people. He also used newspapers like Kesari to spread
nationalist ideas, advocating for Swaraj (self-rule) and resistance against British rule.

In Bengal, the Extremist movement was deeply tied to the reaction against the Partition of
Bengal. Leaders like Bipin Chandra Pal and Aurobindo Ghosh championed the Swadeshi
(self-reliance) and Boycott movements, encouraging Indians to reject British goods and
institutions. The movement saw widespread participation from students, traders, and
intellectuals, making Bengal a stronghold of anti-British agitation. Secret revolutionary societies,
such as Anushilan Samiti, also emerged, engaging in underground activities and even violent
resistance against British officials.

In Punjab, Lala Lajpat Rai played a key role in mobilizing public opinion through his speeches
and writings. The region saw a strong nationalist upsurge, particularly among the educated
urban middle class. The Arya Samaj, a reformist Hindu movement, also contributed to
nationalist fervor by emphasizing self-discipline and resistance to foreign rule.

In South India, the Extremist movement was relatively weaker, as the Moderate leaders had a
stronger hold over Congress politics. However, leaders like Chidambaram Pillai promoted
Swadeshi and local industries, advocating for economic independence from British control. The
spread of Extremist ideology across regions created a broader and more assertive nationalist
movement, which increasingly challenged British authority.

Fusion of Religion and Politics

One of the defining characteristics of the Extremist movement was its fusion of religion and
politics, a sharp contrast to the more secular and constitutional approach of the Moderates.
Tripathi notes that Extremist leaders effectively used religious symbols and festivals to mobilize
the masses, making nationalism more emotionally and culturally resonant.

In Maharashtra, Tilak’s use of Shivaji as a nationalist icon was particularly significant. By

celebrating Shivaji as a Hindu ruler who resisted Mughal oppression, Tilak sought to inspire a
sense of pride and defiance among Indians. Similarly, he transformed the Ganapati festival into
a public platform for nationalist discourse, ensuring that political messages reached ordinary
people in an accessible and engaging manner. These strategies helped integrate nationalist
sentiment into daily life, making it a movement that extended beyond the elite class.

In Bengal, Aurobindo Ghosh and Bipin Chandra Pal drew heavily from Hindu spiritual traditions,
emphasizing that India’s struggle for freedom was not just a political movement but a moral and
divine duty. The Bhagavad Gita was often invoked to inspire self-sacrifice and resistance,
portraying the nationalist struggle as a righteous battle against oppression. Aurobindo’s writings
suggested that nationalism was part of a larger spiritual awakening, where India’s liberation was
tied to its destiny as a sacred land.

However, the fusion of religion and politics also led to polarization and criticism. While it helped
mobilize Hindus, it alienated some Muslim leaders and created communal divisions, which the
British exploited through their policy of “divide and rule.” This communal aspect of Extremist
politics was one of its significant weaknesses, as it prevented the movement from achieving
broader unity across religious lines.
Partha Chatterjee’s Views and Their Relevance to Extremism
Partha Chatterjee, in his studies on Indian nationalism, particularly in Nationalist Thought and
the Colonial World, argues that Indian nationalism had to carve out an identity distinct from
Western liberalism while still engaging with modern political forms. His concept of the "inner
domain" and "outer domain" is particularly relevant to understanding the Extremists.

Chatterjee suggests that nationalist movements in colonial societies often create an “inner
domain” of cultural authenticity—based on tradition, religion, and indigenous values—while
simultaneously contesting the “outer domain” of political and economic power controlled by the
colonizers. This framework applies well to the Extremists, who combined indigenous religious
and cultural symbols with modern nationalist ideology. While they rejected British political
dominance (outer domain), they reinforced an idea of Indian nationalism rooted in cultural and
spiritual identity (inner domain).

Furthermore, Chatterjee critiques the limitations of Moderate politics, which he sees as overly
reliant on Western constitutional methods. The Extremists, by contrast, sought to develop an
independent nationalist discourse that was not merely a reaction to British rule but an assertion
of India’s own cultural and historical uniqueness. This aligns with Chatterjee’s argument that
anti-colonial nationalism had to reject mere imitation of Western political traditions and instead
develop its own framework of legitimacy.

Partha Chatterjee’s analysis of print capitalism, drawing from Benedict Anderson’s concept of
imagined communities, helps explain how Extremist nationalism in colonial India used print
media to construct an alternative nationalist discourse. Extremists like Bal Gangadhar Tilak,
Bipin Chandra Pal, and Aurobindo Ghosh effectively employed vernacular newspapers,
pamphlets, and periodicals to mobilize mass political consciousness, critique British rule, and
promote Swadeshi and self-rule. Newspapers like Kesari and Bande Mataram played a crucial
role in shaping public opinion, often fusing religious and historical symbolism with nationalist
rhetoric. Chatterjee argues that nationalist print culture in colonial societies developed in a
parallel, indigenous domain, distinct from the colonial state, allowing the Extremists to challenge
British narratives and assert an independent cultural-political identity. By invoking Hindu
mythology and historical figures like Shivaji and Krishna as symbols of anti-colonial resistance,
print capitalism became a tool to blend religion with politics, fostering a militant nationalist
sentiment among the masses.

How Curzon’s Policies Activated Nationalism

Lord Curzon, who served as Viceroy of India from 1899 to 1905, played a crucial role in
accelerating nationalist sentiment through his repressive policies. While he aimed to consolidate
British control, his actions had the unintended consequence of radicalizing Indian nationalism.

One of his most controversial decisions was the Partition of Bengal in 1905, which was widely
perceived as an attempt to divide the Hindu and Muslim populations and weaken nationalist
opposition. The move was met with widespread outrage, leading to mass protests, boycotts of
British goods, and the rise of Swadeshi movements. The Partition effectively transformed Indian
nationalism from a largely elite movement into a mass-based struggle, fueling the rise of
Extremism.

Curzon also enacted measures to curtail nationalist activities, such as the Universities Act of
1904, which sought to tighten government control over higher education institutions. This move
was seen as an attempt to suppress nationalist ideas among students, further alienating the
educated Indian youth. His reactionary policies against local self-government, including
reducing the powers of municipal bodies, also frustrated Indian leaders who had been
advocating for greater administrative participation.

Tripathi emphasizes that Curzon’s dismissive and authoritarian attitude played a crucial role in
uniting different strands of nationalism. While he intended to strengthen British rule, his policies
inadvertently strengthened the resolve of the Extremists, who now saw constitutional means as
ineffective and began advocating for direct resistance.

Conclusion
The rise of Extremism marked a significant turning point in Indian nationalism. Dissatisfaction
with Moderate methods, the Partition of Bengal, and Curzon’s repressive policies fueled a more
assertive and mass-based movement. The fusion of religion and politics made nationalism more
emotionally powerful, while leaders like Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal, and Aurobindo Ghosh created
a distinct nationalist ideology that resonated with the people. Partha Chatterjee’s analysis helps
in understanding how Extremist nationalism was not merely a rejection of British rule but also an
assertion of an indigenous political identity. While Extremism brought new energy to the freedom
struggle, it also had limitations, particularly in terms of communal unity, which would later shape
the trajectory of Indian nationalism.

The Surat Split (1907): A Turning Point in Indian Nationalism

The Surat Split, which occurred at the Indian National Congress (INC) session in December
1907, was a defining moment in the history of the Indian freedom struggle. It marked the formal
rupture between the Moderates and Extremists, two factions within the Congress that had been
growing apart over ideological and strategic differences. While the Moderates continued to
advocate for constitutional reforms and negotiations with the British, the Extremists believed in
direct action, mass movements, and aggressive resistance. The split was not just a result of
ideological divergence but also of personal rivalries, political maneuvering, and British
manipulation. This division weakened the nationalist movement for several years, allowing the
British to strengthen their control over Indian politics.

Background: Tensions Between Moderates and Extremists

The early years of the Congress were dominated by the Moderates, who believed in petitioning,
legislative reforms, and gradual political change. Leaders such as Dadabhai Naoroji, Gopal
Krishna Gokhale, and Pherozeshah Mehta argued that the British rule could be improved
through dialogue and constitutional means. They sought greater Indian representation in
government and administrative reforms but were unwilling to challenge British sovereignty
outright.

By the late 19th and early 20th century, a younger generation of nationalists—later called the
Extremists—began to question the effectiveness of these moderate methods. Led by Bal
Gangadhar Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal, and Lala Lajpat Rai, the Extremists rejected the idea that
British rule could be reformed. They argued that self-rule (Swaraj) was the only goal worth
pursuing and that mass mobilization, Swadeshi (self-reliance), boycott of British goods, and
passive resistance were necessary to achieve it. The Partition of Bengal in 1905, implemented
by Lord Curzon, further radicalized nationalist sentiment. While the Moderates sought
negotiations to reverse the partition, the Extremists launched a massive protest movement,
advocating for boycotts and economic self-sufficiency.

The differences between these two groups had been building up for years, but they came to a
head at the Surat session of the Congress in 1907. By this time, the Extremists had gained
considerable influence, especially after the success of the Swadeshi Movement in Bengal. The
Moderates, alarmed by the increasing radicalism, sought to retain their dominance over the
Congress by controlling its resolutions and leadership.

The Surat Session: Clashes and the Formal Split

The 1907 Congress session was originally planned to be held in Nagpur, a city with strong
Extremist influence. However, the Moderates, fearing that they would be overpowered by the
Extremists, shifted the venue to Surat, where they had greater organizational control. Despite
this move, both factions arrived in large numbers, determined to push their respective agendas.

The immediate trigger for the conflict was the selection of the Congress President. The
Extremists wanted Bal Gangadhar Tilak to be elected as President, believing that his leadership
would ensure a shift towards radical nationalist policies. The Moderates, however, nominated
Rash Behari Ghosh, a leader known for his commitment to constitutional politics. The choice of
leadership was symbolic of the deeper ideological battle over the future direction of the
Congress.

As the session began, tensions escalated quickly. The Extremists attempted to push for a
resolution that would make Swadeshi, Boycott, and National Education the official policies of the
Congress. The Moderates, fearing that such resolutions would provoke stronger British
repression, sought to water down these demands. This angered the Extremists, who saw it as a
betrayal of the nationalist cause.

The situation turned chaotic when verbal arguments escalated into physical violence. As Tilak’s
supporters protested against the Moderates, the session descended into disorder. Chairs and
shoes were reportedly thrown, and the Congress meeting had to be adjourned. Unable to
resolve their differences, the Congress formally split into two groups—the Moderates and the
Extremists—with the former retaining control over the organization. The Extremists, having lost
their bid for leadership, walked out and began working independently.

Impact of the Split on the Nationalist Movement

The Surat Split had severe consequences for the Indian nationalist movement, both in the short
and long term. The most immediate impact was the weakening of the Congress as a unified
force. Until this point, the nationalist struggle had at least maintained the appearance of unity,
but the split exposed deep ideological and strategic differences. The British took full advantage
of this division, using a strategy of “Divide and Rule” to suppress nationalist activities more
effectively.

In the years following the split, the British government launched a crackdown on Extremist
leaders. Bal Gangadhar Tilak was arrested in 1908 and sent to Mandalay prison in Burma,
effectively removing one of the most powerful voices of radical nationalism. Similarly, Bipin
Chandra Pal distanced himself from active politics, and Aurobindo Ghosh shifted towards a
spiritual path. With many of its leaders imprisoned or inactive, the Extremist movement lost
momentum.

The Moderates, now in control of the Congress, tried to continue their negotiations with the
British. However, they achieved little, as the British saw no reason to grant concessions when
the nationalist movement was internally divided. The Morley-Minto Reforms of 1909, which
introduced separate electorates for Muslims, further divided nationalist politics along communal
lines. The Moderates failed to secure substantial political rights, leading to growing
disappointment among their supporters.

The Extremists, meanwhile, found themselves politically isolated, lacking an organized platform
like the Congress to push their agenda. Many turned towards revolutionary activities, leading to
the rise of underground movements and armed resistance. Secret societies such as Anushilan
Samiti and Jugantar in Bengal intensified their efforts against British rule, engaging in bombings
and assassinations of British officials. While these activities kept the spirit of resistance alive,
they also invited severe repression, further weakening the Extremist cause.

Significance of the Surat Split in the Freedom Struggle

Although the Surat Split initially weakened the nationalist movement, it also had long-term
consequences that shaped the future of Indian politics. One of the key outcomes was the
realization that division within the movement only benefited the British. This understanding later
influenced Mahatma Gandhi’s approach, as he sought to unite different factions under a single
strategy of mass civil disobedience.

Furthermore, the split highlighted the limitations of Moderate politics. By 1916, it became
evident that the British were not willing to make significant concessions to the Moderates. This
realization led to the Lucknow Pact of 1916, where the Congress—now recognizing the need for
unity—reconciled with the Extremists. This agreement also brought the Muslim League and
Congress together for the first time, setting the stage for a more inclusive nationalist movement.

In many ways, the split also led to the evolution of nationalist strategies. The Extremists’
emphasis on mass mobilization, Swadeshi, and boycott became the foundation for later
movements, including Gandhi’s Non-Cooperation Movement (1920-22) and Civil Disobedience
Movement (1930-34). The legacy of their radical approach influenced future nationalist leaders,
who recognized the importance of combining constitutional methods with direct action.

Conclusion

The Surat Split of 1907 was a critical event in the history of Indian nationalism. While it led to a
temporary weakening of the freedom movement, it also revealed the fundamental ideological
differences that needed resolution. The split allowed the British to suppress nationalist activities
effectively for a time, but it also forced Indian leaders to rethink their strategies for achieving
independence. In the long run, the lessons learned from the split—particularly the importance of
unity and the need for a mass-based movement—shaped the course of the Indian struggle for
freedom.