Moderates and Extremists: A Comparison
Modern History › Era of Militant Nationalism, 1905-1909 · Topic 14.8
The Moderates drew on Western liberal thought, believed in England's providential mission, were loyal to the Crown, relied on constitutional methods and a middle-class base. The Extremists drew on Indian history and Hindu symbols, rejected the providential mission, believed in the masses, demanded swaraj and used boycott and passive resistance. The Extremists were politically progressive but socially revivalist.
5 min read · UPSC Prelims · History · Era of Militant Nationalism, 1905-1909
At a Glance
- What it is A nine-point comparison of the two schools of nationalists
- Moderate base Zamindars and upper middle classes in towns
- Extremist base Educated middle and lower middle classes in towns
- Extremist flaw Revivalist and obscurantist undertones
- Exam link UPSC Prelims, Modern History: Era of Militant Nationalism, 1905-1909
Where Does It Fit?
This is the eighth topic of the category on the era of militant nationalism. The previous topic described the Surat split that divided the two schools. This topic compares them point by point. The next topic covers the government’s repression and strategy. Previous topic: Surat Split, 1907.
How Do the Two Schools Differ?
| Point | Moderates | Extremists |
|---|---|---|
| Social base | Zamindars and upper middle classes in towns | Educated middle and lower middle classes in towns |
| Ideological inspiration | Western liberal thought and European history | Indian history, cultural heritage and Hindu traditional symbols |
| Providential mission | Believed in England’s providential mission in India | Rejected the providential mission theory as an illusion |
| Political connection with Britain | Believed it to be in India’s social, political and cultural interests | Believed it would perpetuate British exploitation |
| Loyalty to the Crown | Professed loyalty | Believed the Crown was unworthy of claiming Indian loyalty |
| The masses | Believed the movement should be limited to the middle-class intelligentsia; masses not yet ready | Had immense faith in the capacity of the masses to participate and make sacrifices |
| Demands | Constitutional reforms and a share for Indians in services | Swaraj as the panacea for Indian ills |
| Methods | Insisted on constitutional methods only | Did not hesitate to use extra-constitutional methods like boycott and passive resistance |
| Character | Patriots who did not play the role of a comprador class | Patriots who made sacrifices for the country |
The Moderate approach is in Era of the Moderates, 1885-1905: Approach and Leaders, and the Extremist programme in Swadeshi and Boycott Movement Under Extremist Leadership.
Were the Extremists a Uniform Group?
The Extremist ideology and functioning lacked consistency. Its advocates ranged from open members and secret sympathisers to those opposed to any political violence. Its leaders, Aurobindo, Tilak, B.C. Pal and Lala Lajpat Rai, had different perceptions of their goal. For Tilak, swaraj meant some sort of self-government, while for Aurobindo it meant complete independence from foreign rule.
What Was the Contribution of the Extremists?
At the politico-ideological level, the Extremists’ emphasis on mass participation and on broadening the social base of the movement was a progressive improvement on Moderate politics. They raised patriotism from an academic pastime to a level of service and sacrifice for the country.
What Were the Extremists’ Social and Religious Limits?
The politically progressive Extremists proved to be social reactionaries. They had revivalist and obscurantist undertones in their thought. Tilak’s opposition to the Age of Consent Bill, which would have raised the marriageable age for girls from 10 years to 12 (though his objection was mainly that such reforms must come from a self-governing people and not under alien rule), his organisation of the Ganapati and Shivaji festivals as national festivals and his support for anti-cow-killing campaigns portrayed him as a Hindu nationalist. B.C. Pal and Aurobindo similarly spoke of a Hindu nation and Hindu interests. This alienated many Muslims from the movement.
Though the seemingly revivalist and obscurantist tactics of the Extremists were directed against the foreign rulers, they promoted a very unhealthy relationship between politics and religion, whose bitter harvest Indians had to reap in later years. The Age of Consent Bill is in Reform Movements and the Position of Women, and the Muslim response in New Forms of Struggle and the Extent of Mass Participation.
As an analytical point, the comparison should not be read as a simple contest of good and bad. The Moderates had realism about British power and a path to concessions, but a narrow base; the Extremists had the mass vision, but no organisation and some regressive social ideas. The two together, as Evaluation of the Early Nationalists and Evaluation of the Swadeshi Movement show, filled each other’s gaps, which is why historians often treat them as two phases of one movement.
Why Is This Topic Important?
- Table question The difference table is one of the most frequently asked comparisons
- Nuance The revivalist flaw of Extremists is a key Mains point
- Goals Tilak and Aurobindo differed on the meaning of swaraj
What Came Next?
The next topic covers the government’s repression and strategy. Next topic: Government Repression and Strategy.
Key People and Terms
- Providential mission The belief that Britain was in India by divine plan to civilise it
- Comprador class A class that serves foreign interests, which the Moderates were said not to be
- Extra-constitutional methods Methods outside the law, such as boycott and passive resistance
- Revivalist undertones Appeals to the past and religion in politics
- Obscurantist Opposed to reform and reason
- Panacea A remedy for all ills, which swaraj was to the Extremists
Exam Corner
Points to Remember
- Moderate base: zamindars and upper middle classes; Extremist: educated middle and lower middle classes.
- Moderates: providential mission, loyalty, constitutional methods only.
- Extremists: swaraj, faith in the masses, boycott and passive resistance.
- Tilak: swaraj as self-government; Aurobindo: complete independence.
- Extremists: progressive politically, revivalist socially.
Do Not Confuse With
- Moderate and Extremist inspiration Western liberalism versus Indian heritage
- Tilak and Aurobindo on swaraj Tilak: self-government; Aurobindo: independence
- Extremists and revolutionaries Extremists ranged from open members to those opposed to violence; revolutionaries were a separate wing
Memory Hook
Moderates petitioned from the town; Extremists called the masses.
Mains Angle
Questions ask to compare the Moderates and the Extremists. These points add depth.
- Base and method Elite petitioning versus mass boycott
- Ideology Liberalism versus cultural nationalism
- Flaw Revivalism alienated Muslims
A Question You May Face
An original practice question, not a past paper question.
“Compare the ideology, methods and social base of the Moderates and the Extremists.”
How to Answer
- Base and inspiration Who and what inspired them.
- Attitude to Britain Providential mission, loyalty.
- Methods Constitutional versus extra-constitutional.
- Evaluation Strengths and the revivalist limit.
GS Relevance
Frequently Asked Questions
What were the main differences between Moderates and Extremists?
The Moderates drew on Western liberal thought, believed in the British providential mission and loyalty, relied on constitutional methods and kept the movement among the middle class. The Extremists drew on Indian heritage, rejected the mission theory and the Crown, trusted the masses and used boycott and passive resistance.
What was the social base of the Moderates and the Extremists?
The Moderates' base was zamindars and the upper middle classes in towns, while the Extremists' base was the educated middle and lower middle classes in towns. The Extremists also had immense faith in the capacity of the masses.
How did Tilak and Aurobindo differ on swaraj?
For Tilak, swaraj meant some sort of self-government, while for Aurobindo it meant complete independence from foreign rule. The Extremist leaders therefore had different perceptions of their goal, though all stressed mass participation and sacrifice.
Why are the Extremists called social reactionaries?
Although politically progressive, the Extremists had revivalist and obscurantist undertones. Tilak opposed the Age of Consent Bill and promoted Ganapati and Shivaji festivals and anti-cow-killing campaigns, and Pal and Aurobindo spoke of a Hindu nation, which alienated many Muslims.
What was the contribution of the Extremists?
The Extremists emphasised mass participation and a broader social base, improving on Moderate politics. They raised patriotism from an academic pastime to service and sacrifice for the country and put swaraj and independence at the centre of politics.
Did the Moderates and Extremists differ on loyalty to the Crown?
Yes. The Moderates professed loyalty to the British Crown and believed political connection with Britain served India, while the Extremists believed the Crown was unworthy of Indian loyalty and that the connection perpetuated British exploitation.
PYQ Practice — Statement Analysis
1 The Moderates believed in constitutional methods only.
The Extremists used boycott and passive resistance.
2 The Extremists believed in the British providential mission.
They rejected it as an illusion.
3 The social base of the Extremists was the educated middle and lower middle classes.
The Moderates drew on zamindars and the upper middle class.
4 Tilak and Aurobindo agreed that swaraj meant complete independence.
Tilak meant self-government; Aurobindo meant independence.
5 The Moderates had immense faith in the capacity of the masses.
They thought the masses were not yet ready.
Related Topics
Browse the full Modern History index