Page 130 - DHIS204_DHIS205_INDIAN_FREEDOM_STRUGGLE_HINDI

Unit 9: Establishment of the Indian National Congress: Home Rule Movement, Moderates and Extremists

English methods of Government might be presumed to be qualified for such a boon.” Congress Notes
resolutions generally demanded expansion of Legislative Councils with enlarged powers and
more representation of Indians in them ; representation of Indians in the Secretary of State’s
Council, Viceroy’s Executive Council and Governors’ Executive Councils; more opportunities for
Indians in the Civil Service; holding of simultaneous examinations in India as well as England;
broadening of the basis of civil liberties; reduction of military expenditure and more expenditure
on development of education; separation of judiciary from executive work in District administration;
enquiry into the backward economic and industrial condition of the country; improvement of the
lot of Indians in South Africa and the Empire generally etc. These demands were always worded
in prayerful and apologetic language and the Congress was wedded to the use of constitutional
methods.
Official attitude towards the Congress: Despite its moderate methods and its emphasis on loyalty
to the British Crown the Indian National Congress failed to evoke sympathetic response from the
Government. In the beginning, however, the official attitude was of outward neutrality. It was in
this spirit that Lord Dufferin gave a garden party to the delegates attending the second Congress
session (1886) at Calcutta, taking care to explain that the invitation was not to representatives of
the Congress but to ‘distinguished visitors to the capital’; in 1887 the Governor of Madras gave
facilities to the organisers of the third session of the Congress at Madras. However, the official
attitude stiffened after 1887. The publication of Congress pamphlets like ‘A Tamil Congress
Catechism’, ‘A conversation between Moulvi Farrukh-ud-in and one Ram Buksh of Kambakhtpur’
which condemned despotic system of government and absentee landlordism brought about the
open hostility of the Government. The officials encouraged reactionary elements like Sir Syed
Ahmed Khan and Raja Sheo Prasad of Benares to organise the United Indian Patriotic Association
to counter Congress propaganda. Further, Lord Dufferin challenged the very national charater of
the Congress and dubbed it as representing only ‘a microscopic minority’ and Congress demands
as ‘a big jump into the unknown’. In 1890 Government employees were forbidden from participating
in its deliberations or attending its meetings. Lord Curzon was more categorical in his
pronouncements when he said that the Congress was ‘tottering to its fall’ and one of his greatest
ambitions in India was ‘to assist it to a peaceful demise’.
Assessment of the Policies of the Moderates (1885-1905): The achievements of this period were
decried by the Radical otherwise called Extremist leaders of the early twentieth century. The
policy of the Moderate leaders or the ‘Old Guard’ was criticised as ‘political mendicancy’. Lala
Lajpat Raj wrote: “It was at best an opportunist movement. It opened opportunities for treacheries
and hypocrites. It enabled some people to trade in the name of patriotism.”
A big charge against the moderates was their loyalty to the Crown. It may be mentioned that the
Moderate leaders believed that India lacked some of the essential elements which constituted a
nation and British rule kept them together. As such they did not see any alternative to British rule
in the foreseeable future. Their patriotism, therefore, demanded that they should be loyal to the
British raj, for any termination of British rule was likely to be harmful to Indian national interests.
B.C. Pal, then a Moderate leader, said in 1887, “I am loyal to the British Government because with
me loyalty to the British Government is identical with loyalty to my own people and my own
country...I am loyal to the British Government, because I love self-government.”
In all fairness it must be said that men like Dadabhai Naoroji, Sir Pherozeshah Mehta, Sir Dinshah
Wacha, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Surendra Nath Banerjee etc. were the most progressive elements
in Indian society and true patriots. They desired all-round progress and modernisation of India—
social reform, modern education, industrial and economic development of India. They earnestly
wished the betterment of Indian society and worked to lessen the harshness of British rule. Their
main achievement was the appointment of a Public Service Commission in 1886 which caused
disappointment and the enactment of the Indian Councils Act of 1892 which did not modify the
basic constitution. Further, their efforts resulted in a resolution of the House of Commons (1893)
for simultaneous examination for the I.C. S. in London and India and appointment of the Welby
Commission on Indian Expenditure (1895). In addition, they did a lot of spadework. Their methods-
the use of prayers, press and protests-brought about political maturity.

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 125