Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The early phase of the Indian National Congress, dominated by leaders often termed ‘Moderates’, witnessed a distinct approach to achieving political reforms. These leaders, largely drawn from the educated elite, believed in constitutional methods and dialogue with the British authorities. However, their methods have been criticized by later nationalists, notably the Extremists, as ‘political mendicancy’ – a strategy of humbly requesting concessions rather than asserting national rights. This critique questions whether the Moderates’ policies were a pragmatic response to the prevailing circumstances or a fundamental flaw in their approach to achieving Swaraj. This answer will critically examine the methods and policies of the Moderates to determine the validity of this charge.
Understanding ‘Political Mendicancy’
The term ‘political mendicancy’ carries a strong negative connotation, suggesting a lack of self-respect and a willingness to accept whatever crumbs are thrown by the ruling power. It implies a passive acceptance of foreign rule and a failure to mobilize popular support for a more assertive political agenda. The accusation leveled against the Moderates was that their petitions, resolutions, and appeals to British public opinion were essentially begging for reforms, rather than demanding them as a right.
Methods and Policies of the Moderates (1885-1905)
The Moderates employed a range of methods, primarily focused on peaceful and constitutional means:
- Petitions and Representations: They submitted numerous petitions to the British Parliament and the Viceroy, outlining grievances and requesting reforms. For example, the petitions regarding the Ilbert Bill (1883) and the demand for Indian representation in the legislative councils.
- Public Opinion Mobilization: They utilized the press (newspapers like Kesari and Mahratta, though these later became associated with Extremism) to educate public opinion and foster national consciousness.
- Constitutional Agitation: They focused on working within the existing constitutional framework, advocating for reforms through legal and legitimate channels.
- Economic Critique: They highlighted the detrimental effects of British economic policies on India, such as the drain of wealth, and advocated for economic reforms. Dadabhai Naoroji’s ‘Poverty and Un-British Rule in India’ (1901) is a prime example.
- Social Reform: Alongside political demands, they championed social reforms like the abolition of child marriage, widow remarriage, and the promotion of education.
Critical Evaluation: Was it ‘Political Mendicancy’?
The charge of ‘political mendicancy’ is debatable. Several arguments support this criticism:
- Lack of Mass Mobilization: The Moderates largely confined their activities to the educated elite and failed to mobilize the masses, limiting their political leverage.
- Excessive Faith in British Justice: They placed excessive faith in the fairness and benevolence of the British government, believing that reasoned arguments would eventually lead to reforms.
- Limited Demands: Their initial demands were modest, focusing on administrative reforms and greater Indian participation in governance, rather than outright independence.
- Submissive Tone: The language used in their petitions and representations was often deferential and lacked the assertive tone expected of a national movement.
However, a more nuanced perspective reveals that the Moderates’ approach was not simply ‘mendicancy’. Consider the following:
- Contextual Constraints: In the late 19th century, the Indian National Congress was a nascent organization operating in a highly repressive colonial environment. Mass mobilization was difficult and dangerous.
- Building a Foundation: The Moderates laid the foundation for the Indian nationalist movement by raising political consciousness, articulating grievances, and developing organizational structures.
- Early Successes: Their efforts did yield some results, such as the expansion of legislative councils through the Indian Councils Act of 1892, albeit limited.
- Strategic Calculation: The Moderates believed that a gradual, constitutional approach was more likely to succeed in the long run than a confrontational one. They aimed to educate the British public and create a favorable climate for reforms.
Furthermore, the criticism largely came from the Extremists, who advocated for a more aggressive and confrontational approach. This difference in strategy reflected differing assessments of the political situation and the best path to achieving Swaraj.
Comparing Moderate and Extremist Approaches
| Feature | Moderates | Extremists |
|---|---|---|
| Methods | Petitions, resolutions, constitutional agitation | Boycott, Swadeshi, National Education, Passive Resistance |
| Mass Mobilization | Limited | Extensive |
| Faith in British Rule | High | Low |
| Demands | Administrative reforms, Indian participation | Swaraj (Self-Rule) |
Conclusion
While the methods of the Moderates may appear humble and deferential from the perspective of later nationalist movements, labeling them as ‘political mendicancy’ is an oversimplification. Their approach was shaped by the specific socio-political context of the time and served the crucial purpose of laying the groundwork for future nationalist struggles. They successfully articulated Indian grievances, fostered national consciousness, and initiated the process of political reform. Although their methods were limited in scope and lacked the mass appeal of later movements, they were a necessary first step in the long journey towards Indian independence. The subsequent rise of Extremism built upon the foundation laid by the Moderates, demonstrating that their efforts were not entirely in vain.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.