The attitude of the average Indian in smaller localities towards advocates of home rule was very fearful and indifferent. This can be attributed to several factors:

1. Lack of awareness: Many people in smaller localities were not fully aware of the concept of home rule and its implications. They did not have access to the same level of education and information as those in larger cities, and as a result, they had limited understanding of the political movements and ideologies of the time.

2. Fear of repercussions: The Indian population in smaller localities was often more vulnerable to the repressive measures of the colonial government. They lived in close proximity to the British authorities and were subject to regular surveillance and control. As a result, they feared the consequences of openly supporting the advocates of home rule, which could lead to arrests, harassment, or other forms of punishment.

3. Indifference towards political movements: Many people in smaller localities were primarily concerned with their day-to-day survival and livelihoods. They may have viewed political movements as distant and disconnected from their immediate realities. As a result, they were less likely to actively support or engage with the advocates of home rule.

4. Lack of trust in political leaders: The average Indian in smaller localities may have had reservations about the effectiveness and sincerity of the political leaders advocating for home rule. They may have witnessed instances of corruption or opportunism among local politicians, which eroded their trust and confidence in the broader political movement.

In summary, the average Indian in smaller localities had a fearful and indifferent attitude towards advocates of home rule due to limited awareness, fear of repercussions, indifference towards political movements, and lack of trust in political leaders. This attitude was shaped by their unique circumstances and experiences in the colonial context.