Which of the following was/were the difference(s) between the moderat...
- The moderates wanted to achieve self-government; they did not aim for total independence. They demanded certain reforms and concessions from the British government because they wanted to develop India under the guidance of a benevolent British rule.
- On the other hand, extremists wanted Swaraj, total independence. Moderates were loyal to British rule and the English crown. They considered British rule a gift for India.
- The extremists were not loyal to British rule, and they considered it a curse and wanted to uproot it from India. ‘Swaraj is better than the best form of foreign rule’-Bal Gangadhar Tilak.
- The moderates believed in adopting constitutional and peaceful methods to achieve their objective. They had full faith in the British sense of justice. Extremists believed in non-cooperation and adopted the boycott method against foreign goods and propagation of Swadeshi and national education.
- They believed in Indian culture, civilisation, religion and tradition, whereas moderates believed in British culture. Moderates believed that Indians were not fit to rule. Under the moderates, the national movement was not popular, it had no touch with people. While under extremists, people came under them.
View all questions of this test
Which of the following was/were the difference(s) between the moderat...
The difference(s) between the moderates and the extremists during the Indian freedom struggle can be summarized as follows:
1. Boycott of Legislative Councils:
- Moderates: The moderates, led by leaders like Dadabhai Naoroji and Gopal Krishna Gokhale, believed in working within the existing legislative councils to bring about reforms. They advocated for representative government and participation in the councils.
- Extremists: The extremists, led by leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Bipin Chandra Pal, were critical of the legislative councils, which they saw as toothless and ineffective. They called for a boycott of the councils as a form of protest and advocated for more radical methods to achieve their goals.
2. Boycott of Government Institutions and Strikes:
- Moderates: The moderates generally did not support boycotts of government institutions or resorting to strikes as a means of protest. They believed in peaceful and constitutional methods of agitation. They focused on educating the masses and building public opinion through newspapers, public speeches, and petitions.
- Extremists: The extremists, on the other hand, advocated for more aggressive methods of protest. They called for boycotts of government institutions, including schools and colleges, as well as strikes to disrupt the functioning of the colonial administration. They believed in direct action and mass mobilization to achieve their objectives.
3. Self-Government for India:
- Moderates: The moderates aimed for self-government for India within the framework of the British Empire. They sought to gradually attain political and administrative reforms that would lead to responsible government.
- Extremists: The extremists, on the other hand, were more radical in their demands. They called for complete independence or "Swaraj" for India. They rejected the idea of a partnership with the British and sought to establish a sovereign nation.
In conclusion, the moderates and extremists differed in their approach to achieving freedom for India. While the moderates focused on constitutional methods, participation in legislative councils, and gradual reforms, the extremists rejected these methods in favor of boycotts, strikes, and more radical demands for complete independence.
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed UPSC study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in UPSC.