Which of the following was not associated with Madras Extremism after ...
MADRAS EXTREMISM AFTER 1905
Introduction:
Madras extremism refers to the radical nationalist movement that emerged in the Madras Presidency (now Tamil Nadu) in the early 20th century. It was characterized by its opposition to British colonial rule and its demand for self-rule and independence.
T. Prakasam:
T. Prakasam, also known as Andhra Kesari, was a prominent leader associated with Madras extremism after 1905. He was a lawyer by profession and played a crucial role in organizing and leading various nationalist movements in Madras. He actively participated in the Non-Cooperation Movement and was imprisoned several times for his nationalist activities.
Krishna Rao:
Krishna Rao, also known as K. T. Krishnaswamy, was another important figure associated with Madras extremism. He was a lawyer and a member of the Indian National Congress. He played a significant role in mobilizing public support for the nationalist cause and was involved in various protests and campaigns against British rule.
V. B. Iyengar:
V. B. Iyengar, on the other hand, was not associated with Madras extremism after 1905. He was a distinguished lawyer and politician from Madras, but his political ideology aligned more with the moderate faction of the Indian National Congress. He advocated for constitutional reforms and collaboration with the British government to achieve self-rule rather than radical methods of protest.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, among the options given, V. B. Iyengar was not associated with Madras extremism after 1905. While T. Prakasam and Krishna Rao were prominent leaders who actively participated in the nationalist movements in Madras, V. B. Iyengar's political ideology leaned towards moderation and constitutional reforms rather than radical extremism.
Which of the following was not associated with Madras Extremism after ...
Correct Answer:- C ( V. Bhashyam Iyengar)
Historians of thc 'Cambridge school' have been trying in recent years to present the emergence of Extremist dissent as basically a set of factional quarreIs between 'ins' and 'outs' for the control of the Congress. Certainly there was no lack of factionaIism in Congress circles during thc 1890s. Factionalism was particularly acute in the Punjab, with three groups within the Lahore Brahmo Samaj, a major
split within the Aryas, and a conflict between Lala Harkishan
LaI and Lala Lajpat Rai. Washbrook has tried to analyse Madras
politics in terms of a triangular conflict between the V. Bhashyam Iyengar and S. Subramania Iyer in the 1880s,
followed by V. Krishnaswami Iyer-the 'in' group, according to
him, its Iess succcssful 'Egmore' rivals. also Madras city based
(C. Sankaran Nair, Kasturi Ranga Iyengar), and mofussil 'outs'
Iike T. Prakasam and Krishna Rao in coastal Andhra or Chid-
ambaram Pillai in Tuticorin who allied with some 'Egmore'
politicians to constitute Madras Extremism after 1905.