Goyal, O P - Studies in Modern Indian Political Thought The Moderates and The Extr

STUDIES IN
MODERN INDIAN
POLITICAL THOUGHT
(THE MODERATES AND THE EXTREMISTS)
O. P. GOYAL
B.A. (Hons.), M.A., Ph.D. (Delhi)
Department of Political Science, Panjab University, Chandigarh
KITAB MAHAL (W.D.) PVT. LTD.

Registered & Head Office : 56-A ZERO ROAD, ALLAHABAD
Branches : DELHI, BOMBAY, CALCUTTA
Agencies : JAIPUR, PATNA
First Edition 1964
© All Rights Reserved
Books by the Same Author
1. Gandhi—An Interpretation
2. Contemporary Indian Political Thought
3. Campaigning and Voting-Behaviour—A Case study in the

General Elections 1962.
Published by Kitab Mahal (W. D.) Pvt. Ltd. Delhi and Printed at the National
Printing Works, 10, Daryaganj, Delhi
Dedicated
to
MY PARENTS
124517
INTRODUCTION
“Studies in Modern Indian Political Thought” by Dr. O.P.

Goyal is being published for the benefit of the student and the public
at large. I had the opportunity of meeting Dr. Goyal while I was at
Chandigarh. His intention is obvious. He wants to trace the
History of modern Indian political thought and its influence on the
political life of India. He has traced the development of political
thought in India right from the time of Raja Ram Mohan Roy.
India has been a unitary conception more in religion and culture
than in politics. Indian culture is there for centuries and the Grihya
Sutras clearly indicate a kind of unity which existed at that time in the
whole of Bharat. These Sutras have been considered as an authority,
in fact a code of conduct common and binding on all the Hindus.
The physical unity of India is well described in some of the Stotras,
which are daily recited by thousands of Hindus when they take their
bath in Holy rivers. The modern conception of nationalism is no
doubt of recent origin, in fact even in the West nationalism is consi¬
dered a child of the French Revolution. One might say similarly that
Indian nationalism is the direct result of the British conquest of Bharat
towards the end of the eighteenth Century, and more particularly after
the Indian Mutiny was put down. Indian nationalism has been of a
negative aspect in the beginning, and it was after many decades that it
developed a positive content. The Indian people were for the first
time during history brought under one law and one central authority
by the British conquest. The variety of interests and several poli¬
tical entities that one saw functioning before the British assumed
control were united in one thing only and that is opposition to the
new rulers. The policy of liquidating Indian States followed by
Lord Dalhousie was in a sense a background for the emergence of
the idea of nationalism in India.
With the British rule came ideas, both political and economic,
which were dominating the West. The intellectual contact and the
moral influence which was at work as a result of the British conquest
of India brought into existence political institutions anxious to advance
political ideas and to ultimately achieve political freedom from foreign
domination. The Indian National Congress coordinated and conso-
lidated the several efforts by several institutions that were working
immediately after the mutiny was put down. The Indian National
Congress gradually grew into a big movement and with its growth the
negative idea of nationalism disappeared and a positive content came
into existence. This book in a way deals with the history of the
development of political thought as illustrated by the speeches and
writings of the stalwart leaders of the Indian National Congress. In
the early days of the Congress, Indian leadership was inevitably
moderate, moved slowly and its activities did not go beyond representa¬
tions, and resolutions, but the conception of India being ultimately
a free country was occasionally expressed by a few leaders as well.
That the British connection was a divine dispensation was a concep¬
tion which gave way to a demand for self-government which in its
place gave place to the idea of complete independence. The Indian
National Congress within a period of fifteen years grew to enormous
proportions, and in the first quarter of this century it became a move¬
ment for complete freedom to be achieved by evolutionary methods if
possible or by revolutionary methods if necessary. India become
free in 1947.
In my view, this book is useful for every student of politics in

India, for this gives a detailed background as to how political thought
of the modern type originated and developed in this country. To the
politician this will also be of great practical help, which will impress
on him that any big movement where the interests involved concern
millions of people, things have to go slowly, gradually if tangible
results are to be achieved. In other words, he will be impressed by
the fact that even Indian experience has shown the inevitability of
gradualness. To the common reader, who is now the real maker of his
country’s policies, this book will be extremely useful. A voter in a
democracy has the responsibility to formulate the correct policy, no
less to implement it. An intelligent electorate is a guarantee of
good government and every elector is expected to be vigilant so
that authority may not encroach on his fundamental rights. This
book will give him the necessary light to enable him to shoulder
his responsibility and discharge his duties.
N.V. GADGIL
419, Shanwar,
Poona-2
12-2-64
PREFACE
The book is an attempt to delineate the political thought of the

Moderate and Extremist leaders of the 19th century and the early
20th century. It is a result of my researches and is based on my
teaching experience of Modern Indian Political Thought to the Post-
Graduate students of Panjab University, Chandigarh. The book
opens with a background chapter which discusses the development
of nationalism in India, Nature of Modern Indian Political Thought
and Western influences thereupon. Political Thought and Political
theory have been carefully distinguished and the need for the study
of Political Thought is emphasized. The second chapter on Raja
Ram Mohan Roy owes its inspiration to a lecture by Justice Gajendra
Gadkar, Supreme Court of India. He was kind enough to go
through it and my respectful thanks are due to him. In the third
Chapter on the Political Thought of Dadabhai Naoroji, his theory of
the Drain has been discussed extensively and a comparison has been
drawn with Lenin’s theory of Imperialism. The fourth chapter
is on the Political Thought of Justice M.G. Ranade. His views on
the nature and functions of the state have been particularly emphasised.
His views on social reforms and on the role of the state have been dis¬
cussed, in the context of contemporary conditions and hostile criti¬
cism. The Political thought of Tilak follows that of Ranade and
the two represent the different schools of Political Thought in 19th
century India. The Political Thought of B.C. Pal is discussed in the
context of the extremist political thought in India. His idea of the
Imperial Federation and his moderatist climbdown have been brought
out. For the chapter on Lala Lajpat Rai, his personal library has been
thoroughly searched to investigate the development and nature of
his ideas. The chapter on Aurobindo discusses the political thought
of his nationalist phase of life. The academic formulations and theo¬
retical speculations of the times of his Ashram life have been discussed
in their bearings on political thought. The book concludes with a
chapter on Ideological disparities between the Moderates and the
Extremists. The main contention is that the differences between the
Moderates and the Extremists were not purely temperamental, they
were mainly ideological and yet their ideologies were not necessarily
in conflict though there were disparities.
My acknowledgments are various but it is difficult to list them

all. Shri N.V. Gadgil has been a source of inspiration at every stage
of this work. He has been very kind to write a foreword. I would
never be able to repay the detached interest he has taken in my
works. My students have been of invaluable help both in and
outside the class. Various people were kind enough to go through
the manuscript and to suggest improvements. For their suggestions
I am very grateful to them. However, I own the entire responsibility
of any errors in fact or in interpretations. I am also grateful to the
Editors of the Indian Journal of Political Science, A.I.C.C. Economic
Review and the Modern Review for the kind favour of publishing in
their esteemed journals the following respectively:—
1. Political Ideas of Justice M.G. Ranade. Indian Journal of

Political Science.
2. Nationalism in India—A Retrospect. A.I.C.C. Economic

Review.
3. Idea of the Nation in Extremist Political Thought. Modern

Review.
August 15, 1963.

Panjab University, O.P. Goyal
Chandigarh.
CONTENTS
Page
Chapter One Nationalism in India—A Retrospect X

Nature of Modern Indian Political Thought
Influences.
Chapter Two Political Thought of Raja Ram Mohan Roy i7
Chapter Three Political Thought of Dadabhai Naoroji 29
Chapter Four Political Thought of Justice Ranade 37
Chapter Five Political Thought of B.G. Tilak 49
Chapter Six Political Thought of B.C. Pal 59
Chapter Seven Political Thought of Sri Aurobindo 72
Chapter Eight Political Thought of Lala Lajpat Rai 81
Chapter Nine The Moderates and the Extremists—A 93

Study in ideological disparities
Appendix Idea of the Nation in Extremist Political 99

Thought
Bibliography 103
Index
CHAPTER ONE
NATIONALISM IN INDIA: A RETROSPECT
Though nationalism has its roots deep in the past,1 most histo¬
rians are agreed upon the modern origin of nationalism2. In its
modern sense, it is not older than the second half of the eighteenth
century3. One might say with Gooch that, “Nationalism is a child
of the French Revolution.”4 As the historian of the French Revo¬
lutionary diplomacy, Albert Sorel, observed, “The great mass of
Frenchmen saw something very practical and real in the Revolution,
the abolition of the feudal regime.... they saw in the armed emigra¬
tion an attempt to re-establish by force this hateful regime. The j
Revolution was being accomplished to assure Frenchmen free posse¬
ssion of the soil of France. The foreign invasion was taking place
to destory the Revolution, dismember France and subjugate French¬
men. They quite naturally indentified love of France with love of
the Revolution..”5 And though the political, economic and intelle¬
ctual developments, which made the emergence of nationalism
1. See Kohn Hans, The Idea of Nationalism, New York, Macmillan and
Co., 1951, P. 3.
2. Hayes says, “Nationalism is modem, very modem.” Essays on Nation¬
alism, New York. Macmillan and Co. 1936; P. 29. See also H.A.L. Fisher. The
Common Weal, London; Oxford University Press 1924 P. 196 and James Bryce,
Studies in History and Jurisprudence, Oxford Clarendon Press, 1901. Vol. One,
P. 268.
3. Shafer says, “Any use of the word nationalism to describe historical
happenings before the eighteenth century is probably anachronistic. Loyalty to
family and tribe appeared in pre-historic societies. Patriotism towards city-
State and Empire existed in ancient Greece and Rome. Consciousness of
nadonality and some forms of national patriotism can be traced back to the late
medieval period in France and England. The idea that patriotism is identifiable
with devotion to the nation spread widely and became popular in Western
Europe only towards the end of the eighteenth century during the era of the
French Revolution. It is with reference to this era that the term nationalism can
accurately be used for the first time.” Shafer Boyd. C. Nationalism Myth and
Reality, New York, Harcourt Co. 1955, P. 5.
4. Gooch, G.P., Studies in Modern History, London, Longmans, 1931, P. 217.
5. Quoted by Shafer, op. cit., P. 134.
2 MODERN INDIAN POLITICAL THOUGHT
possible were taking place for centuries in different countries at

different places, the French Revolution worked as a catalytic agent
for the birth of different nationalisms in Western Europe. It is well
to remember here that hostility to France’s Revolution gave birth
to those classic statements of British patriots viz--, Edmund Burke’s
famous Reflections on the Revolution in France and the Letters on a
Regicide Peace. Also, the French conquests and oppression in
many of the German lands, including Prussia and Austria, stimu¬
lated a national patriotism that finally achieved its goal of an inde¬
pendent German nation in 1871. By 1865 peoples in the West
had formed or were forming nations.6
Indian nationalism was inspired by this idea of nationalism which

originated in the West. But before we discuss the origin, birth and
development of Indian nationalism, let us first find a working defini¬
tion for the word ‘nationalism’.
A Working Definition
A short, scholarly definition of a sentence or two is almost

impossible7 for various reasons.8 Yet it is necessary to be clear in
mind as to what we generally understand by the word nationalism.9
Most of the historians10 believe that the existence of a nation, which
G. Shafer says, “Conscious of cultural similarities, the peoples of these

nations possessed or wished to obtain their own sovereign Governments, their
own nation-States. The people, the Government, the State, long separated,
were becoming one in the minds of many particularly and at least in the view of
the middle classes. The national governments unified their respective peoples
still further, exacting from them devotion and service to death. To all good
patriots their national cultures, territory, and Governments became sacred.” Ibid.
7. Some scholars consider the meaning of nationalism to be so complex
that they explicitly state that definition is impossible. Thus John A. Marriot
concluded, “The principle of nationality has defied definition and even analysis.”
Bryce modestly disclaimed the ability to define nationality. Similarly G.P.
Gooch said, “Nationalism is an organism, a spiritual entity and all attempts to
penetrate its secrets by the light of mechanical interpretation break down before
the test of experience and H.L. Featherstone stated : “Nationalism is not capable
of scientific definition.” See Synder Louis, L., The Aleaning of Nationalism, New
Jersey, Rutgars University Press 1954 P. 5.
8. For some of these reasons, See Synder, Loc. cited, p. 4.
9. For the meaning of nationalism, see Synder, Ibid. It is an appraisal
from a multidisciplinary point of view of the meaning of nationalism.
10. Synder started with the criticism; “Historians are prone to regard
nationalism as their special province.”
NATIONALISM IN INDIA: A RETROSPECT 3
is the basic term of nationalism, implies ‘common political senti¬

ment.’ Thus a nation, in the view of H.A.L. Fisher, “implies a
common political sentiment”11. According to Carlton J.H. Hayes,
the word ‘nation’ has been employed since the seventeenth century
to describe the population of a sovereign political state regardless
of any racial or linguistic unity and this description still holds gene¬
ral sanction.12 Flans Kohn designates as the distinguishing chara¬
cteristic of modern nations the political doctrine of sovereignty.13
And Earnest Barker says, “A nation is a body of men inhabiting a
definite territory, who normally are drawn from different races but
possess a common stock of thoughts and feelings acquired and trans¬
mitted during the course of a common history, who on the whole
and in the main though more in the past than in the present, include
in that common stock a common religious belief, who generally and
as a rule use a common language as the vehicle of their thoughts and
feelings; and who, besides common thoughts and feelings also cherish
a common will, and accordingly form, or tend to form a separate
state for the expression of that will.”14
Origin of Indian Nationalism

There were many factors that led to the birth of the Indian
National Congress as the national organ of the political aspirations
of the Indian people. The socio-religious movements of the 19th
century and the realization of the contemporary economic situation
by prominent Indians like Dadabhai Naoroji and Justice M.G.
Ranade were among the eminent ones. The Indian Union started
by Mr. Hume after his retirement from the Civil Service seems to
have served only as a catalytic agent. The idea was already in the
air. Actually, as early as the forties and fifties of the 19th century,
a British India Society was working in Bengal and the Bombay
Association in the Western Presidency.
In the seventies, the East India Association replaced the Bombay

Association in Bombay. In the year 1876 Sir Surendranath Banne-
rjee also, after dismissal from the Indian Civil Service in 1872,
11. H.A.L. Fisher, The Common Weal, London 1924; P. 196.

12. Hayes Carlton J.H., Essays on Nationalism, New York, 1941. P. 3.
13. Hans Kohn, Force or Reason (Cambridge, Mass 1937) P. 198, quoted
by Synder op. cit. P. 38.
14. Barker Earnest, National Character and the Factors in Its Formation.
London, 1927, P. 17.
founded the Indian Association in Bengal. In 1881, the Madras

Mahajan Sabha was established. In 1883, a group of young poli¬
tical workers held their first national conference at Albert Hall,
Calcutta. On January 31, 1885 the Bombay Presidency Associa¬
tion was formed. Thus the need for a nation-wide political organi¬
zation was being felt by the elder statesmen of India, who therefore,
responded to Hume’s invitation immediately and unhesitatingly.
The Indian National Congress was, therefore, the natural and ine¬
vitable outcome of the developments that had taken place already
before Hume took the initiative of convening the first Indian
National Congress Union to meet at Poona in December, 1885.
Growth and Development

From the point of view of growth and development, Indian
nationalism can be divided into two phases. The early phase (1885-
1920) and the later phase (1921-1947) under the leadership of Mahatma
Gandhi when Indian nationalism culminated in independence and
sovereignty.
The Early Phase

The Indian National Congress in the early years of the early
phase was a body of moderates. The Congress during this period
was essentially loyal to the British throne and did not talk of inde¬
pendence, but of inter-dependence within the British Empire. They
concentrated on reforms of administration and the repeal of the
respective laws.15 Therefore they believed in the method of pra¬
yers and petitions.
However in the year 1905 and after, the situation was changing
rapidly. It was in this year that the young Japanese nation defea¬
ted the forces of Imperial Russia in the Russo-Japanese War. It
was also in this year that Bengal was partitioned. The non-fulfil¬
ment of the most important of their demands even within the
15. In the words of Pattabhi, “The Congress at that time honestly believed
that the English Constitution was the bulwark of popular liberties everywhere
and the English Parliament was the mother of democracy all over, the British
Constitution was the best of all constitutions... .That the press and the forest
laws should be relaxed, the police should become friendly to the people, that the
taxes should be moderate, that the military expenditure should be curtailed.. .. ”
Pattabhi Sitaramayya, The History of the Indian National Congress, Vol. 1, Bombay,
Padma Publications, P. 34.
system of British Rule and the policy of repression were already

bringing about moods of disillusionment among the early Indian
political leaders. Political discontent among the people was also
accentuated by the high-handed measures of Lord Curzon during
his career as Viceroy. Moreover, unemployment among educated
youths had considerably increased in the beginning of the twentieth
century, especially in Bengal. All these factors prepared a good
ground for the play of the ‘extremist forces’ in Indian politics.
Even the Moderate leadership was influenced at this time by the
philosophy and slogan of the Extremist trio Lal-Bal-Pal i.e. Lala
Lajpat Rai, Bal Gangadhar Tilak and B.C. Pal.
In his Congress Presidential speech at Benaras, 1905, Gokhale

criticized the government for its utter contempt of public opinion,
its arrogant pretensions to superior wisdom, its reckless disregard
of the most cherished feelings of the people, its cool preference of
service interests to those of the governed. He also put the goal of
Congress as self-government which had been since 1889 merely
good government. The Calcutta Congress in 1906 passed the four
famous resolutions on swaraj, swadeshi, boycott and national
education which in main was the programme of the ‘Extremists’ in
India.
The Extremists condemned the moderates for their denationa¬

lization and Western reformism. They did not, like the latter,
imitate the Western idea of the nation. On the other hand, they
developed a distinctly Indian idea of the nation which was unique
and clearly distinguishable from the Western idea of the nation.16
They condemned the method of prayers and petitions. Thus

Lala Lajpat Rai remarked, “Prayers to the ruling nation may be
useful to you in proving the uselessness of appealing to the higher
sense of man in matters political where the interests of one nation
clash with those of another.”17 Tilak added, “Political rights will
have to be fought for. The moderates think that these can be
won by persuasion; we think that they can only be got by strong
pressure.”18 Instead of prayers and petitions, they believed in the
programme of swadeshi, boycott and national education. Lala
16. See the author’s “Idea of the Nation in Extremist Political Thought.”
Modern Review, March, 1962. Pp. 211-12.
17. Quoted by Buch, M.A., Rise & Growth of Militant Nationalism, P. 144.
18. Ibid. P. 45.
Lajpat Rai considered swadeshi to be the common religion of

India. He said, “The swadeshi movement ought to make us self-
respecting, self-reliant, self-supporting and last but not the least,
manly.”19 B.C. Pal in his article on “The Bed-Rock of Indian
Nationalism” in 1908 characterized the swadeshi movement as a
spiritual movement. Thus he said, “It is not a mere economic
movement, though it openly strives for the economic reconstruction
of the country. It is not a mere political movement though it has
boldly declared itself for absolute political independence. It is an
intensely spiritual movement having as its object not simply the
development of economic life or the attainment of political free¬
dom, but really the emancipation, in every sense of the term, of
the Indian manhood and womanhood.”20
The idea behind boycott was to make it inconvenient if not

impossible for the British to stay on in India. Thus Lala Lajpat
Rai preferred the method of boycott to that of prayers and petitions
by pointing out that, “The logic of losing business is more likely
to impress this nation of shopkeepers than any arguments based on
the ethics of justice.”21
According to Aurobindo Ghosh, (1907) the idea of boycott was

to, “Propose to render the further exploitation of the country impo¬
ssible—we refuse to send our boys to government schools or to
schools aided and controlled by the government—propose to make
the bureaucratic administration of justice impossible while these
conditions continued—propose to reduce executive control and
interference to a mere skeleton of its former-self.”22 Thus the idea
of non-cooperation was implicit in the idea of boycott.
The Extremists had realized that the British ruled India only
with the cooperation or the acquiescence of the people of India.
Tilak, therefore, wanted the Indian masses to realize that they essen¬
tially were the power behind the stability of the British government
in India. Thus in a speech at Poona in 1902 he said, “Though
downtrodden and neglected, }T)u must be conscious of your power
of making the administration impossible if you but choose to make
19. Buch, vol. 2. Pp. 127-28.

20. See Mukherjee, Plaridas and Uma, India’s Fight for Freedom, Pp.
198-99.
21. Quoted by Buch, Vol. 2. Pp. 145-6.
22. Aurobindo Ghosh, The Doctrine of Passive Resistance, Pp. 35-38.
it so. It is you, who make settlement and collect revenues, it is in

fact you who do everything for administradon though in a subordi¬
nate capacity, you must consider whether you cannot turn your hand
to better use for your nation than drudging on in this fashion.”23
The boycott became a political weapon and it foreshadowed

non-cooperation. It was because of this and because these were
the interpretations given to the Extremists’ programme that the writer
of the Legacy of Lokmanya was led to say, “Tilak left for Gandhi
a philosophy of struggle because long before him, Tilak had set
before the nation the whole programme of non-cooperation.”24
After the partition of Bengal, the terrorist organizations and

revolutionary movements had become very active. They were
particularly active in Punjab, Bengal and Maharashtra—the centres
of Extremist politics in India. It was generally suspected that some
of the Extremist leaders were connected with the leaders of these
movements. There is no reason to believe that any important
Extremist leader subscribed to the philosophy of individual assassi¬
nations or collective assassination. Perhaps both the solutions were
ruled out by the Extremists. The first because it was unwise and the
second because it was inexpedient.
The Later Phase
Gandhi surprised the entire Congress leadership25 by assuming

at the Amritsar Session in 1920 undisputed leadership of Indian
nationalism by standing for non-cooperation against the British
Government on the issues of Khilafat and the Punjab atrocities.
Lala Lajpat Rai, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Mrs. Annie Besant and all
others of this variety were side-tracked, the Liberals having left
the Congress already. However, the civil disobedience movement
was suspended, on the directions of Gandhi by the Congress Wor¬
king Committee at Bardoli on February 12, 1922, because 22 police¬
men had been killed by the crowd at Chauri Chaura. Under the
magnificent leadership of Gandhiji, Congress concentrated on a
constructive programme of spinning, anti-untouchability, prohibi¬
tion and educational work.
23. Tilak, His Writings & Speeches, P. 77.

24. T.L. Shay, Legacy of Lokmanya, P. xx.
25. See Munshi, K.M., Gandhi—As I knew him.
The period of 1922 to 1930 in the history of Indian nationalist

movement has been described by a well-known Indian Communist
as “the winter of discontent.”26 However, the significance of the
constructive programme during this period cannot be belittled nor
can the work of the Swarajist party done in the Legislative Councils
be ignored despite the record of the perpetual strifes27 in the Councils.
After the stalemate, again in 1928 there was a rise in the poli¬
tical thermometer.28 There was unrest and discontent in the coun¬
try. The year 1929 was a year of preparations29 and the Lahore
Congress under the presidentship of Jawaharlal Nehru declared that
the Nehru (Motilal) Report postulating Dominion Status had
lapsed and that the goal of the Congress was Purna Swaraj i.e.
complete independence. January 26, 1930 was celebrated all over
India as the first Independence Day.
On March 5, 1931, the Gandhi-Irwin agreement was signed

as a result of which Gandhiji attended the Second Round Table
Conference. However he came back from the Conference dis¬
appointed30 and was imprisoned on January 4, 1932 on the revival
of the Civil Disobedience Movement which was met by ruthless
repression on the part of the British Government in India.
In March, 1933, the official White Paper was published. The

White Paper accepted the idea of a Federation for India. In the
words of two British historians, Thompson Edward and G.T.
Garratt, “Although it (the White Paper) followed roughly the lines
laid down in the Round Table Conference, it was a document wri¬
tten for the British politician, with the emphasis upon the safeguards
and without any attempt to win Indian support or interest. There
was no concession to Indian demands for some voice in military
26. Mukerjee, Hiren, Gandhi—A Study, Delhi; People’s Publishing House,

1958, P. 74.
27. See Pattabhi, op. cited-, P. 307.
28. See Kripalani, J.B., Gandhi—The Statesman, Delhi, Ranjit Printers,
1951. P. 34.
29. See Pattabhi, op. cited-, Pp. 339-361.
30. According to Pattabhi, “He was never willing to go to the R.T.C.
The shadows of the coming conference were cast even in the months of July and
August. But the Working Committee had insisted on his going. He had an
opportunity later, on the ground of breach of the truce, of avoiding the London
visit. But the Labour Government was anxious that he should be bundled into
the steamer somehow.” P. 510. Vol. 1.
policy, and the future of the Civil Service was left to be reconsidered
after live years. There was no suggestion that safeguards should
automatically come to an end, and the course of future develop¬
ments was left in the hands of the British Government.”
In July, 1937, the Congress Working Committee resolved to

accept office under the Government of India Act, 1935 after an
assurance had been given that the Governors will not interfere with
the day-to-day working of the Provincial Governments. However,
the provincial ministries in eight provinces resigned on the issue that
the Indian National Congress was not consulted at the time of the
declaration of the participation of India in Second World War.
After the departure of Cripps,31 Gandhiji thought of launching

the Quit India Movement. He was so enthusiastic about it and he
was so convinced of the rightness of his step that he was prepared to
stand alone and start the Quit India Movement with those who
believed in it and in him rather than abandon the idea of resistance.32
However, the A.I.CC. passed the famous ‘Quit India Resolution’
on August 7 and 8, 1942.
In 1945 the Cabinet Mission to India was appointed which con¬

sisted of the Secretary of State, Lord Pathick Lawrence, Sir Stafford
Cripps and Mr. H.V. Alexander, First Lord of Admiralty. The
Cabinet Mission was accorded a fair welcome in India because it
came, in the words of Sir Stafford Cripps, “to find out means for the
transfer of power to Indian hands.”33 The Interim Government
was formed on September 2, 1946. This event represented the
fufilment of the old promise—the promise of India’s deliverance
from bondage.34
31. Gandhiji told Louis Fisher on June 9, 1942 that the idea came to him
during one Monday of his silence after the departure of Cripps. See Fisher
Louis, A Week with Gandhi.
32. See Kripalani, J.B. op. cited, P. 55.
33. Quoted by Pattabhi, op. cited. P. 792. Vol. 2.
34. Pattabhi has commented on this event like this: “The soil that was
prepared by Macaulay in the thirties of the 18th century on the proud day in the
annals of the British Empire when India would have self-government, the seed
that was sown by YV.C. Bannerjee in 1885 to gather under one banner the different
sub-nationalities of India, the plant that was nursed by the waters of ‘Love and
Service’ poured out by Ananda Mohan Bose in Madras in 1898, the tree that
was christened ‘Swaraj’ by the Grand Old Man of India in 1906 in Calcutta,
the flower that blossomed as Home Rule in 1917 at the hands of Mrs. Besant,
the fruit that made its appearance as complete independence or Puma Swaraj
In March, 1947, Lord Mountbatten was appointed successor to

Lord Wavell and at the dead of night on August 15, 1947, in the
words of Dr. Pattabhi, “India once again raised her head before the
comity of nations as a Sovereign Independent Republic, holding
aloft the torch of freedom to the gaze of the two hemispheres, focus¬
sing its rays once again on that not far off Divine Event, The
Parliament of Man and the Federation of the World, under the ins¬
piration and guidance of the greatest man of the world—saint, philoso¬
pher and statesman all in one, who has established the unity of the
world by a new synthesis and worked out the unity of man through
the beatitudes of life.”35
Independence was only a partial fulfilment of Indian nationalism

because its goal was ‘The Parliament of Man’ and the ‘Federation
of the World’ and also because it was only a means to internationalism.36
In 1921, there was an unfortunate controversy between Rabin-

dra Nath Tagore and Mahatma Gandhi. Superficially, the contro¬
versy might seem to represent Gandhi as the spearhead of nationa¬
lism and Tagore as the apostle of internationalism. But, in fact,
both Gandhi and Tagore had a universal world outlook. Both
had in their minds the vision of a new world order. They only
differed in their approach towards the achievements of their inter¬
national ideals. Gandhi believed in internationalism and therefore
in nationalism as an intermediary stage in our evolution towards
a world order, whereas Tagore believed in cosmopolitanism.
Similarly, Gandhiji had a small controversy with Jawaharlal

Nehru again over the question of nationalism and inter nationalism
(along with a few other issues) in the thirties. But this also came
to an end when Gandhiji wrote to Jawaharlal Nehru in 1933, “Nor
have I the slightest difficulty in agreeing with you that in these days
of rapid communication and growing consciousness of the oneness
of all mankind we must recognize that our nationalism must not be
inconsistent with progressive internationalism. I can, therefore, go the
whole length with you and say that we should range ourselves with
with Jawaharlal. .all these marked the stages of the fulfilment of the hope
and the promise of sixty years in the formation of the Provincial National
Government (the Interim Govt.) History of Indian National Congress Vol. 2.
35. Pattabhi, Ibid, P. 826.
36. Refer to my article, Gandhi—An Internationalist, A.I.C.C. Economic
Review, May 22, 1961, P. 71.
nationalism'in India: a retrospect 11
the progressive forces of the world. India cannot stand in isolation

and unaffected by what is going on in other parts of the world.”37
Indian nationalism is not exclusive. It is not a disintegrating

force, dividing humanity into water-tight compartments. On the
other hand, it is an integrating force to weld together the diverse
masses that occupy this sub-continent.
Nature of Modern Indian Political Thought
The term “Political Thought” has been deliberately chosen to

designate Modern Indian Political thinking. Descriptions like
“Political philosophy” or “Political Theory” have been purposively
dropped since the same in political science are customarily used to
refer to discussion of political values or the philosophy of politics.
There has been more of Political Thought in Modern India than
Political philosophy or Political theory. A distinction between
Political theory and political thought has been made by Sir Earnest
Barker in his article ‘Reflections on English Political Theory’* 1
and that distinction has been observed here in this book. He says?
“Political Thought is a broader thing. It is a general raising of
questions about political issues—the issue of the relation between
Churches and the State, or the issue of the relation between Government
and the citizen—and a general attempt to find answers to the questi¬
ons raised. Political theory in comparison is an affair of students;
it is a theory or speculation of the inquiring mind; and though there
are students and students—some touched and moved by the general
thought of the whole community and some remote and withdrawn—
we may none-the-less say of their theory that it largely lives in the
lecture-room or on the printed page.”2 He further continues to
tell us that, “I am inclined myself to lay stress on the element of
political thought; and I should judge my country, or any other
country by the activity and the volume of the general thinking of
all its citizens about the issues of Politics.”3
In so far as Political Thought is concerned, we have been parti¬

cularly fortunate in Modern India. The Hindu renaissance in the
37. A Letter. Published by Tendulkar, Mahatma, Vol. Ilf. Bombay,

Times of India Press, Appendix.
1. Political Studies. Feb. 1953.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
19th century gave rise to various Socio-religious movements like

the Brahmo Samaj, the Prarthana Samaj and the Arya Samaj which
were bound to have their impact on the political ideas in contempo¬
rary India. Once the authority of the Scriptures had been questi¬
oned, once the enquiring mind had entered the religious field and
once there was a challenge to social customs and tyranny, these
ideas and this spirit was bound to penetrate the political field. The
controversies between the various socio-religious reformers and the
controversy between the so-called Reformists and Revivalists was
the mother of Modern Indian Political Thought. The Indian Nati¬
onalist Movement was the child of Hindu Renaissance. The issues
and controversies between the different schools of Nationalism in
the 19th century were particularly fruitful for Modern Indian Poli¬
tical Thought. The 19th century Nationalist Movement was sharply
and very clearly divided between what has come to be known as
the “Moderates” and the “Extremists”. The leaders dubbed with
these descriptions differed widely. They differed in their concept
of Nationalism itself. They differed in their Political Goals, their
Political Programme and Political Methods. They differed in
their view of the State and nature of political obligation. These
differences provide the best source for the study of Political Thought
of their times.
Not that we did not have any political theory in Modern India
but we had political theory only if the same is considered not merely
speculative and divorced from the realities of public life. We have
to borrow an expression from Prof. Barker, “Immersed Political
Theory” because the Personalities that we discuss in Modern Indian
Political Thought were politicians first and political theorist only
later. However, theories of Politics are themselves a part of politics.
In the words of Prof. Sabine, “They do not refer to an external
reality but are produced as a normal part of the social milieu
in which politics itself has its being.”4 We had deep and inti¬
mate connections between theory and practice in Modern Indian
Politics.
The whole approach in Modern India was pragmatic and empi¬

rical rather than scholastic and systematic. The personalities dis¬
cussed did not intend the construction of an integrated or coherent
4. George, H. Sabine, A History of Political Theory, Third Edition,

(London, George, G. Harrap & Co.) 1957, p. 7.
system of Thought. They had their views only in regard to certain

political issues and controversies of their times. They also deri¬
ved their ideas from different and sometimes antagonistic sources.
It was very common, for instance, for a person like Justice Ranade
to derive from India his religion and values, but to borrow his poli¬
tical ideas from England and yet to tap the continental sources for
his economic ideas. It is in no case possible to correlate the politi¬
cal ideas of these personalities with their religious ideas much less
with their metaphysical views. Wherever such correlation does
exist, it is more accidental than intentional. Being practical politi¬
cians, these personalities were more concerned with politics than with
its academics or philosophies. However, attempts have been made
in different countries of the world to include in the history of poli¬
tical thought the ideas of those who have been dominant in the
public life of that country during a certain period. Thus in America,
Prof. C.E. Merriam wrote the history of American political ideas.
He uses the words ‘ideas’ and ‘thought’ interchangeably. In the
preface to his book, he wrote very significantly that, “The purpose
of the writer is to trace the broad currents of American Political
Thought in their relation to the social, economic and political ten¬
dencies of the time. Sometimes these ideas have been best expre¬
ssed in political institutions. Sometimes in laws, judicial decisions,
administration, or customs; again in the utterances of statesmen and
publicists or leaders of various causes; sometimes by the formal
statements of the systematic philosophers.”5 It is mainly the infor¬
mal statements of the politicians, lawyers, statesmen, publicists or
leaders of various causes rather than the formal statements of the
systematic philosophers that we shall discuss in Modern Indian
Political Thought.
It may be questioned whether we can really describe these people

as political thinkers much less political philosophers who have
merely devoted their attention to the specific issues and controver¬
sies of their times bearing on practical politics. In recent attempts
on Modern Indian Political Thought, they have been invested with
the attributes of being not only the philosophers of politics but also
the philosophers of life and civilisadon. Practically, each one of
them has been supposed to have had a philosophy of history. Such
5. C.E. Merriam, American Political Ideas (New York, MacMillan & Co.)
1920. p. 1.
attempts are certainly farfetched and wild. However, it cannot be

denied that the political ideas of these personalities had either power¬
ful impact on the working of the various movements of their times
or are their ideological expressions. The importance of these ideas
is not purely historical. They constitute a legacy for contemporary
India and a legacy which cannot be ignored.
Influences on Modern Indian Political Thought
The contact of the West, literary, educational, economic, cultural

and political—was a decisive step and constituted a land-mark in
Modern Indian History. It was the mother of a very wide range
of problems in India. The solution to these problems was also
a child of this mother. The great problem that the contact created
was the suspicion that swept the contemporary Indian public mind
in regard to their existing ideas and institutions—religious, social
and political. The contact created its own solutions and suggested
reforms in the image of what was happening in the west. The
history of the progressive movements in the West became the model
for the western reformists in India. The leaders of thought in the
various fields of public life in modern India looked to the West for
inspiration and guidance in their attempts to reconstruct India.
Thus the prospect of an India approximating to the European stan¬
dards of culture was never absent from the mind of Raja Ram Mohan
Roy—the father of Modern India. In the petition against the Press
Regulation to the King-in-Council, the Raja wrote, ..your
dutiful subjects consequently have not viewed the English as a body
of conquerors, but rather as deliverers, and look up to your majesty
not only as a ruler, but also as a father and protector.”1 Similarly,
the Raja concluded his ‘Final Appeal to the Christian Public’ by
offering thanks to the Supreme Disposer of the universe for “having
unexpectedly delivered this country from the long continued tyra¬
nny of its former rulers and placed it under the Government of the
English, a nation who not only are blessed with the enjoyment of
civil and political liberty, but also interest themselves, in promo¬
ting liberty and social happiness, as well as free inquiry into literary
and religious subjects, among those nations to which their influence
extends.”2 After the Raja, Justice Ranade worked on the lines which
1. G.A. Natesan & Co. (ed. by) Raja Ram Mohun Roy, his life, writings
and speeches. Madras, p. 48.
2. Ibid.
had been laid down and went to the extent of describing the British
connection as providential.
A reaction to the attempts of the Western Reformists to recons¬

truct India in the image of the West was inevitable. The rise of
extremism was the result. The rise of extremism in Indian politics
may be dated back to the last few years of the 19th century. It
was at this time that the extremist leaders condemned the Western
Reformists for their admiration and imitation of the West, particularly
because of its denationalising consequences. Thus B.C. Pal criticized
the standard of judgment which the reformer applied to the
examination of his own country and culture, “that it derived neither
from the rational generalisations of the course of history in India
itself, nor even from those of universal history and culture but from
the crude conclusions of European empiricism.. . .Judging them (the
Indian masses) in the light of the history and achievements of Europe,
he constantly condemns his own country and culture and with
the relentless pity of the missionary propagandist seeks to ruthlessly
improve them more or less after these alien ideals.”3 Similarly,
Lala Lajpat Rai pointed out how the English-knowing Indian prided
himself in imitating his master. “He took his dress, he took his
cheroot and pipe and also his cup and beefsteak. He began to live
in houses built and furnished in the English way. He detested
Indian life and took pride in being anglicized. Everything Indian
was odious in his eyes.”4 However, it may be said in fairness to
the Western Reformists that at least the serious-minded amongst
them, did not recommend the wholesale imitation of tilings Western.
They only wanted India to borrow certain things from the West and
to be adapted in order to be applicable to the Indian conditions. In
fact, the major difference between the Western ‘Reformists and the
so-called Revivalists’ or ‘Extremists’ was only in the degree of em¬
phasis placed on the usefulness of the Western model for the recons¬
truction of the contemporary Indian society and institutions.
Neither the Reformist nor the revivalist wanted India to be an exact
replica of a Western country. The revivalist also did not deny comple¬
tely the usefulness of the western example in our attempts for recons¬
truction of contemporary Indian Society. In fact, the difference
between the two schools was a difference of degree than of kind.
3. B.C. Pal, Soul of India. (Chowdhry and Chowdhry). pp. 73-74.

4. Quoted by D.V. Tahmankar, Lokmanya Tilak. p. 59.
We find that the serious-minded Western reformists like Justice

Ranade did not want to be completely uprooted from the Indian
traditions. Thus he recognised that, “you are unconsciously
influenced by the traditions in which you are born, by the surroun¬
dings in which you are brought up, by the very milk which you
have drunk from your mother’s breast or influenced by these things
in the world which you cannot disown.”5 His enthusiasm for
religion and the nature of his religion was distinctly Indian.
The ‘revivalists’ were as much influenced by the western ideas

as the western reformists were rooted in Indian traditions. Thus
B.C. Pal believed that the revivalist was equally dominated by the
alien ideas, the only difference being that whereas the reformer was
“trying to consciously control and regulate his social evolution
after the manner of Europe, the reactionary is unconscious of the
domination of these alien ideas.”6 “Both the reformer and the
reactionary are thus, found at the final analysis, to be equally inspi¬
red, the one consciously, and the other unconsciously, by the spirit
of Europe. Both have, more or less, imbibed the European tempe¬
rament.”7 We shall see as we proceed how Lala Lajpat Rai and Bal
Gangadhar Tilak were also influenced by western thought, litera¬
ture and Personalities with the only difference that they did not want
to be uprooted from their own traditions and wanted to refer to
India’s past as much as possible in their struggle for the recons¬
truction of contemporary Indian Society.
5. M.G. Ranade, Miscellaneous Writings, p. 158.

See also P.J. Jagirdar. Western Elements in the Social Thought of Mahadeo
Govind Ranade. Indian Journal of Political Science April-June, 1962. Vol.
XXIII No. 2.
6. B.C. Pal, Soul of India, pp. 76.
7. Ibid. pp. 76-77.
CHAPTER TWO
POLITICAL THOUGHT OF RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY
Raja Ram Mohan Roy (1772-1833) was the pioneer of religious

reform, the first advocate of Social reconstruction and of the intro¬
duction of Western education in modern India. He was the father
of Constitutional Agitation in India. In fact he has been described
as the father of all progressive movements in modern India. Miss
Collet tells us, “The prospect of an educated India, of an India
approximating to European standards of culture seems to have never
been long absent from Ram Mohan’s mind; and he did, however,
vaguely claim in advance for his countrymen the political rights
which progress in civilization inevitably involves. Here again
Ram Mohan stands forth as the tribune and prophet of New India.”1
The editor of the life and letters of Raja Ram Mohan Roy compiled
by Miss Collet also reminds us how, “....Before the time of Raja
Ram Mohan Roy’s public activities in Calcutta there was no glim¬
mering of a political life in the country. People had no concep¬
tion of their civil rights and privileges; nobody ever thought of
approaching government to make known their grievances and ask for
redress. Raja Ram Mohan Roy was the first to enunciate the rights
and privileges of the people and in the name of the nation to speak
to the government of their duties and responsibilities as the Sovereign
power. The first stand made by the people of India in defence of
the civil rights was when Raja Ram Mohan Roy in his own name
and in the name of five of his friends submitted a memorial to the
Supreme Court in Calcutta on the 31st March, 1823 against the
Ordinance of the then acting G.G. Mr. Adam, prescribing that
thenceforth no one should publish a newspaper or other periodical
without having obtained a licence from the G.G. in Council.”2
Whether the various activities of the Raja had a certain political
objective or not, he was at least considered to be the father of poli-
1. Sophia Dobson Collet, Life and Letters of Raja Ram Mohan Roy.
Calcutta, (A.C. Sarkar & Co. 211 Cornwallis Street) 1913 p. 155.
2. Ibid. Introduction by Hem Chandra Sarkar. pp. XLVII-XLVIII.
tical movements in modern India by his Bengali successors like

Babu Surendra Nath Bannerjee and Bipin Chandra Pal. Thus Babu
Surendra Nath Bannerjee said, “Raja Ram Mohan Roy was not
only the founder of the ‘Brahmo Samaj and the pioneer of all social
reform in Bengal, but he was also the father of Constitutional Agita¬
tion in India.”3 4 Similarly B.C. Pal said, “The Raja worked both
for personal and social freedom. His was a movement of revolt
like the freedom movements against misunderstood and misinterpreted
scriptural and sacerdotal authority in religion. It was a revolt
against the inhuman customs in society and the disabilities, both
religious and social, imposed upon either individuals or castes owing
to the accident of sex or birth. There was no call as yet for any
■revolt against the newly established political authority in the country.
But the Raja even in politics powerfully pleaded for legal and admi¬
nistrative reforms aiming at the protection and expansion of the rights
and liberties of the people. His scheme for the separation of the judi¬
cial and revenue branches of the administration, his views on the land
revenue system, his pleadings before the parliamentary commission..
and finally his hope expressed to his Secretary Mr. Arnold and publi¬
shed in Miss Collet’s life of the Raja that the real work of the British
in India, which was to place the Indians upon their feet and help
them to organise their government themselves on modern lines, would
be finished in about forty years, i.e. by the third quarter of the 19th
century—all these show how the Raja was the pioneer of the freedom
movement even in politics... .it cannot be denied that the Nationa¬
list movement in Bengal owes a good deal of what is of real spiritual
worth, national value, of practical importance in it to the life and
teachings of this founder of the modern freedom movement among
us...
The Raja was a profound scholar of Sanskrit and of the theolo¬

gical works written in it, which contain the body of Hindu literature
law and religion. In Arabic and Persian, he had got for himself the
title of J^abardust Maulvie. He had also acquired perfect mastery
over Hebrew and Greek. He had studied Arabic translations from
Euclid and Aristotle.5 He was a great admirer of that great English
philosopher, Jeremy Bentham. Bentham’s “Fragments on Govt.”
3. Quoted in Ibid. p. 254.
4. Bipin Chandra Pal, Writings & Speeches. Vol. I (Calcutta Yugayatri)
1958. pp. 173-174.
5. Life and letters of Raja Ram Mohan Roy. op. cit., p. 5.
POLITICAL THOUGHT OF RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY 19
(T776) and the ‘introduction to Morals and legislation’ (1789) had

a real hold on him. However, the Raja did not go a whole hog in
becoming with Bentham the prophet of utilitarianism in India. In
fact, the relationship between the two was more in the nature of
comradeship and collaboration than of the type which exists between
a Guru and a disciple. Bentham was also one of the admirers of the
Raja. In a letter to the Raja, Bentham wrote, “your works are made
known to me by a book in which I read a style which but for the
name of a Hindu, I should certainly have ascribed to the pen of a
superiorly educated and instructed Englishman.”6 In the same
letter while praising the great works of James Mill on the History
of India, he makes the remark, “though as to style I wish I could
with truth and sincerity pronounce it equal to yours.”7 Miss Collet
tells us how Bentham came to see the Raja as soon as he had arrived
in London8 9 and the great English philosopher addressed the Raja as
his “intensely admired and dearly beloved collaborator in the service
of mankind.”Sa The Raja also met Robert Owen, the father of
British Socialism. Miss Collet tells us, “The religious and the
economic reformers were guests of Dr. Arnot and Owen did his
best to convert Ram Mohan to Socialism. As the Scot finally lost
his temper the Hindu was considered to have had the best of the
argument.”8 The Raja talked of the idea of the separation of powers
and more particularly of the separation of the judiciary and the exe¬
cutive at the district level in some of his writings. However, he
did not know the French language till January 1833 and even then
his knowledge was not enough to enable him to understand Mon¬
tesquieu’s ‘Spirit of Laws’ (1748). But it cannot be ruled out that
he might have gone through some English translation of the Spirit
of Laws or through some work containing references to Montes¬
quieu’s ideas on the separation of powers.
At about the age of sixteen, the Raja composed a manuscript

calling in question the validity of the idolatrous system of the Hindus.
Since then he was a prolific writer but the following are particularly
useful and constitute the source-material for the study of his poli¬
tical ideas:—
6. Bowring. Works of Bentham. Vol. X, p. 586.

7. Ibid.
8. Life and letters of Raja Ram Mohan Roy. p. 183.
8A. Bengal Harukaru.
9. Life and letters of Raja Ram Mohan Roy. p. 200.
1. Petitions against the Press Regulation to the Supreme

Court and to the King-in-Council (1823).
2. A letter to Lord Ahmerst on English education (1823).
3. A tract on the Religious Toleration (1823).
4. Rights of Hindus over ancestral Property according to
Law of Bengal (1830).
5. Remarks on settlement in India by Europeans (1831).
6. Questions and Answers on the judicial and revenue system
of India.
In the beginning, the Raja had ‘a feeling of great aversion to

the establishment of the British power in India’10 but he gave up
his prejudice against them, and became inclined in their favour,
feeling persuaded that their rule, though a foreign yoke, would
lead more speedily and surely to the amelioration of the native in¬
habitants.* 11 In the year 1823 the Raja protested against the esta¬
blishment of a Sanskrit College by the British government in India
and demanded instead that the College might be utilised for imparting
‘ca liberal and enlightened system of instruction embracing Mathe¬
matics, Natural Philosophy, Chemistry, Anatomy and other useful
sciences” through the medium of English. Thus in his letter to
Lord Ahmerst on English education be concluded “... .the Sans¬
krit system of education would be the best calculated to keep this
country in darkness, if such had been the policy of the British legis¬
lature. But as the improvement of the native population is the
object of the government it will consequently promote a more liberal
and enlightened system of instruction, embracing Mathematics,
Natural philosophy, Chemistry, Anatomy, with other useful sciences
which may be accomplished with the sums proposed by employing
a few gentlemen of talent and learning educated in Europe and
providing a college furnished with necessary books, instruments
and other apparatus.”12 However, his admiration for the British
Rule in India or his enthusiasm for the introduction of western
education in India is not to be misunderstood to imply his wholesale
denunciation of every thing Indian. It is true that he was not a
mere revivalist and that he wanted to remake the image of India
10. G.A. Natesan & Co. (ed. by). Raja Ram Mohan Roy. Writings and
speeches. Madras, p. 273.
11. Ibid, p.274. Autobiography.
12. Ibid. p. 89. English Education in India.
in the light of the west but the ground which he took in all controver¬
sies was not opposition to things Indian but to a perversion of them
in contemporary times. Thus in his brief autobiography, he wrote,
“The ground which I took in all my controversies was not that of
opposition to Brahmanism, but to a perversion of it and I endea¬
voured to show that the idolatry of the Brahmins was contrary to
the practice of their ancestors, and the principle of the ancient books
and authorities which they prefer to revere and obey.”13
The Raja was a passionate lover of liberty whether it was in the

field of politics or in that of spirituality. As a Hindu he was the
most unhesitant advocate of religious toleration and Spiritual indi¬
viduality. Thus in his tract on religious toleration he was of the
view that, “we should feel no reluctance to co-operate with them
(the Christians) in religious matters, merely because they consider
Jesus Christ as the Messenger of God and their spiritual teacher; for
oneness in the object of religious practice should produce attach¬
ment between the worshippers.”14 He concluded that when the
Europeans endeavour to make converts of us, the believers in the
only living and true God, even then we should feel no resentment
towards them, but rather compassion, on account of their blindness
to the errors in which they themselves have fallen.”15
The Raja was always on the side of liberty and constitutionalism.

On the news that the people of Naples were thrown back under
Austrian despotism, the Raja wrote to Mr. Buchingham, begging to
be excused from an important engagement, as he was much “depre¬
ssed by the late news from Europe.” He added “I am obliged to
conclude that I shall not live to see liberty universally restored to
the nations of Europe and Asiatic nations, specially those that are
European colonies... .under these circumstances I consider the
cause of the Neopolitians as my own and their enemy as ours. Ene¬
mies to liberty and friends of despotism have never been and never
will be ultimately successful.”16 Miss Collet also tells us how
“at Cape Colony on his way to England, the sight of the tricolour
flag on two French ships lying at anchor in Table Bay fired his en¬
thusiasm. Lame as he then was owing to a serious fall from the
13. Ibid. p. 274. Autobiography.

14. Ibid. p. 91. Religious Toleration.
15. Ibid. p. 92. Religious Toleration.
16. Life and letters of Raja Ram Mohan Roy. op.cit., Introduction, p. LXXIII.
gang way ladder he insisted on visiting them. The sight of the

republican flag seemed to render him insensible to pain.”17 His
enthusiasm for the Reform Act 1832 was also due to his love for
liberty which was liberty not only for the Englishman but for
mankind. Thus speaking on the Bill, he said, “The struggles are
not merely between the reformers and anti-reformers, but between
liberty and oppression throughout the world; between justice and
injustice, and between right and wrong. We clearly perceive that
liberal principles in politics and religion have been since long
gradually but speedily gaining ground notwithstanding the opposi¬
tion and obstinacy of despots and bigots.”18
The Raja advocated the freedom of expression and the freedom

of the Press in his Memorial to the Supreme Court and to the
King-in-Council. The Raja maintained that the freedom of the
Press “is equally necessary for the sake of the governors and the
governed.”19 It was necessary for the sake of the governors because
“the political axiom so often acted upon by Asiatic Princes, that the
more a people are kept in darkness, their Rulers will derive the
greater advantages from them since, by reference to History it is
found that this was but a short-sighted policy which did not ulti¬
mately answer the purpose of its authors. On the contrary, it
rather proved disadvantageous to them ; for we find that as often
as an ignorant people, when an opportunity offers revolted against
their Rulers, all sorts of barbarous excesses and cruelties have been
the consequence.”20 “And when placed under a good Government
from which they experience just and liberal treatment must become the
more attached to it in proportion as they become enlightened.... ”21
He also pointed out that the argument that the spread of knowledge
is dangerous to the existence of all legitimate authority because
“as a people become enlightened, they will discover that by a unity
of effort the many may easily shake off the yoke of the few, and thus
become emancipated from the restraints of power altogether” is
countered by the lesson derived from history that “the resistance of
a people advanced in knowledge has ever been—not against the
17. Ibid. p. 178.

18. Ibid. p. 203.
19. G.A. Natesan & Co. (ed. by). Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Speeches and
Writings, p. 71. Freedom of the Press. Memorial to the King-in-Council.
20. Ibid. pp. 43-44. Freedom of the Press. Memorial to the Supreme Court.
21. Ibid. p. 44.
existence—but against the abuses of the governing power.”22 The

freedom of expression was necessary for the governed because it
was according to the Raja, “an invaluable privilege firmly secured
to us by the laws of the land, which we had so long enjoyed and
could not be charged with ever having abused.”23 The Raja ex¬
plained how the Indians under the power of Muslim rulers enjoyed
every political privilege in common with Muslims “being eligible
to the highest offices in the State, entrusted with the command of
armies and the Government of provinces and often chosen as advisers
to their princes without, disqualification or degrading distinction on
account of their religion or the place of their birth.”24 And added
“Notwithstanding the loss of political rank and power, they
(The Natives of India) considered themselves much happier in the
enjoyment of civil and religious liberty than were their ancestors.”25
However, in case of an invasion over these sacred liberties, the Raja
does not appear to have ruled out the natural possibility of a revolt
against the governing power. In fact a free press is a safety-valve.
Thus the Raja said that, “a free Press has never yet caused a revolu¬
tion in any part of the world, because, while men can easily represent
the grievances arising from the conduct of the local authorities to
the Supreme Government and thus get them redressed, the grounds of
discontent that excite revolution are removed; whereas, where no
freedom of the Press existed and grievances consequently remained
unrepresented and unredressed, innumerable revolutions have
taken place in all parts of the Globe, or if prevented by the
armed force of the Government the people continued ready for
insurrection.”25 Moreover, a free Press is also necessary to improve
their minds and ameliorate their condition.”26
However, the Raja was not against restraints on the right of the
Freedom of Press. So much so that he accepted that restraints
other than those which were imposed in England might be nece¬
ssary in India in order to enact a penalty to be inflicted on such per¬
sons as might endeavour to excite hatred in the minds of the natives
of India against the English nation27 and he added that penalty
22. Ibid. p. 70. Freedom of the Press. Memorial to the King-in-Council.

23. Ibid. p. 53.
24. Ibid. p. 75.
25. Ibid. p. 66.
26. Ibid. p. 40. Freedom of the Press. Memorial to the Supreme Court.
27. Ibid. p. 71. Memorial to the King-in-Council.
should be inflicted on such as might seditiously attempt to excite

hostilities with neighbouring or friendly States.28 In fact he was
not against restraints legally inflicted but was against the introduc¬
tion of arbitrary restrictions, uncalled for by the circumstances of
the country, and imposed by the British bureaucracy in India to
substitute their own pleasure for the Laws of England, by which
the natives of India were hitherto governed. 9 Thus his demand
for the freedom of the Press in India was also a plea for the establish¬
ment of the Rule of Law in place of the Rule of Persons.
In his memorial on the Freedom of the Press presented to the

King-in-Council the Raja concluded his observations on the various
restrictions imposed on the freedom of the Press by saying that,
“... either the government does not intend to put them in force at
all, or it is anxious to interrupt the regular course of justice, abolish
the right of Trial by jury and taking the law into its own hands to
combine the legislative and judicial power, which is destructive of
all civil liberty.”30 The Raja defended not only the separation of
the legislative and judicial power but also protested against the
union of the offices of the revenue commissionership and the judge-
ship of the circuit court. Thus he pointed out in his Evidence before
the Select Committee of the House of Commons on the affairs of the
East India Company that although the former Muslim Government
was subject to the charge of indifference about the administration
of justice even they had perceived “the evils liable to arise from an
union of revenue and judicial duties. No judge or judicial officer
empowered to try capital crimes, (as Kazees or Muftis) was ever
suffered to become a collector of revenue.”31 He also advised
the separation of the duties of Judges and Magistrates but this he
did not because it was meant to promote individual liberty but to
28. Ibid.
29. Ibid. p. 51.
30. Ibid. p. 63.
Similarly in his Essay on the Rights of Hindus over Ancestral property
according to the law of Bengal he wrote, “.any being capable of reasoning
would not, I think, countenance the investiture, in one person, of the power of
legislation with the office of judge. In every civilized country, rules and codes
are found proceeding from one authority, and their execution left to another.
Experience shows that the unchecked power often leads the best men wrong,
and produces general mischief”. Ibid. p. 123.
31. Ibid. p. 226. The judicial system of India. Evidence before the Select
Committee of the Commons on the affairs of the East India Company.
relieve, “the great weight of the business in the Zillah and city
courts.32
The Raja considered both custom as well as command of the

sacred writings as constituting the sources of law but he did not
identify either with law itself. In his Essay on the Rights of
Hindus over Ancestral Property he said, “In every country, rules
determining the rights of succession to and alienation of property
first originated in the conventional choice of the people, or in the
discretion of the highest authority, secular or spiritual and these
rules have been subsequently established by the common usage of
the country, and confirmed by judicial proceedings.”33 Thus the
Raja accepted both custom and command as the essential ingredients
of law-making. Like his English contemporaries, the Raja also
made a broad distinction between the spheres of law and that of
Morality. He asked, “How shall we draw a line of distinction bet¬
ween those immoral acts that should not be considered invalid
and those that should be regarded as null in the eye of the law”34
and replied, “we must refer to the common law and the established
usages of every country, as furnishing the distinctions admitted
between the one class and the other.”35 He added, “Granting
for a moment that the doctrine of free disposal by a father of his
ancestral property is opposed to the authority of Jeemutvahan, but
that this doctrine has been prevalent in Bengal for upwards of three
centuries, in consequence of the erroneous exposition of Raghuna-
ndan, the greatest authority of Hindu Law in the province of Bengal,
... yet it would, I presume, be generally considered as a most
rash and injurious, as well as ill-advised innovation, for any admi¬
nistrator of Hindu law of the present day to set himself up as the
corrector of successive expositions, admitted to have been received
and acted upon as authoritative for a period extending to upwards
of three centuries back”36
The Raja was surprised when his attention was drawn to an
article in the “Calcutta Quarterly Magazine” No. VI April-June,
1825 wherein the writer had recommended the principle that we
32. Ibid. p. 223.

33. Ibid. pp. 118-120. Rights of Hindus over Ancestral property according to
the Law of Bengal. 1930.
34. Ibid. p. 145.
35. Ibid.
36. Ibid. p. 150.
ought to make that invalid which was considered immoral “..To

give a daughter in marriage to an unworthy man, on account of his
rank or fortune, or other such consideration, is a deed of mean and
immoral example; Is the union to be therefore considered invalid,
and their children illegitimate... ”38
These illustrations clearly show how the Raja knew about the
distinction between Law and Morality when he wrote his Essay on
the Rights of the Hindus over Ancestral Property according to the
law of Bengal in the year 1830. This has even been described as
a “capital discovery”39 of the Raja whose credit has been given to
John Austin. The same writer also concludes that, “It must be
admitted that Raja Ram Mohan Roy’s theory about the spheres of
law and Morality is much more explicit than the utilitarian doctrine
of Bentham, who only emphasized that the existence of a law is no
justification of it, unless it agrees with the greatest good of all.”40
It has also been pointed out that the Raja had published his Essay
in 1830 whereas Austin published his ‘Providence of Jurisprudence
defined’ wherein he explains the distinction between law and
Morality only in 1832. However, any possibility of Raja’s influen¬
cing either Bentham or Austin in this regard is completely ruled
out not only because Austin had prepared his lectures much before
they were published in 1832 but more so because the Raja admits in
his own Essay that he is aware that the British legislators do not
believe in the maxim that we ought to make that invalid which was
considered immoral. That is the reason why the Raja rebuffed
the writer in the Calcutta Quarterly Magazine by saying that,
“.. . when the author of the Review shall have succeded in inducing
British legislators to adopt his maxim, and declare that the validity
of every act shall be determined by its consistence with morality,
we may then listen to his suggestion, for applying the same rule
to the Bengal law of Inheritance.”41
Moreover, the distinction between law and morality was not

a capital discovery of the Raja. In the Essay itself, the Raja makes
no secret of how he has borrowed this distinction between law and
37. Quoted in the Essay Ibid. p. 143.

38. Ibid. p. 144.
39. B.B. Mazumdar, Political Thought of Bengal. Raja Ram Mohan Roy
to Dayananda. (University of Calcutta). 1934.
40. Ibid.
41. Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Speeches and Writings, op. cit. p. 145.
morality from Hindu legislators of repute. However, what is sig¬

nificant is that he has borrowed this not from Austin or Bentham
but from the authors of the Hindu law. Thus the Raja tells us in
the Essay, “.... in reply to the question what might be the conse¬
quence of disregard to the prohibition conveyed by the above
texts of Vyasa12 the author (of Daya Bhaga) says: ‘But the texts
of Vyasa exhibiting a prohibition, are intended to show a moral
offence; since the family is distressed by a sale, gift or other transfer,
which shows a disposition in the person to make an ill use of his
power as owner. They are not meant to invalidate the sale or other
transfer.” (Ch. II. Sec 2 8).43 The Raja not only admits this mode
of exposition of the law but also points out that, “In adopting this
mode of exposition of the law, the author of the Dayabhaga has
pursued the course frequently inculcated by Manu and others”41
and proceeds to illustrate his comment in the Essay itself. The Raja
also quotes the author of the Dayabhaga who concludes the subject
with the positive decision that, “Therefore, since it is denied that
a gift or sale should be made, the precept is infringed by making
one. But the gift or transfer is not null for a fact cannot be altered
by a hundred texts” (Ch. II. Sec. 30)45 Thus the influence of the
Hindu legislators over the Raja is very obvious. It is also proved
that the Hindu Legislators clearly perceived the distinction between
the spheres of law and that of morality. However, it is yet to be
investigated by some future researcher as to how back does the
distinction go in the history and traditions of Hindu Law.
The Raja was the earliest Indian liberal. He was in India the
predecessor of the Liberal Movement of the late nineteenth century.
He had passion for liberty, respect for property and believed in the
freedom of contract. In his Essay over the Rights of the Hindus
over Ancestral Property he maintained that the “validity of existing
titles to Property should not be disturbed, nor the contracts foun¬
ded on the received interpretation of the law should be violated by the
Government”16 However he never believed in the Laissez-faire policy.
42. Which prohibits the disposal, by a single partner of his share in the
immovables, under the notion that each partner has his property in the whole
estate jointly possessed.
43. Ibid. p. 138.
44. Ibid. pp. 138-39.
45. Ibid. p. 141.
46. Ibid. p. 151.
On the other hand, he wanted the State to protect the tenant from
the landlord and the Hindu-female from social custom and tyrannies.
Thus he reminded the British Government in India that in forming the
permanent settlement, the Government had declared it to be its right
and duty to protect the cultivators from their hopeless situation and
proposed that “the least which Government can do for bettering the
condition of the peasantry, is absolutely to interdict any further in¬
crease of rent on any pretence whatsoever.... ” Similarly he, in his
Address to Lord William Bentinck, offered the “warmest acknowled¬
gements for the invaluable protection which your Lordship’s Govern¬
ment has recently afforded to the lives of the Hindu female part of
your subjects.”48 It was this type of liberalism which was developed
and elaborated by Justice M.G. Ranade in the late nineteenth century.
Not only that Justice Ranade acknowledged his debt to the Raja,
the members of the National Liberal Federation in India also accepted
him as the father of Modern India. Thus in one of their publica¬
tions, the writer of the “Indian liberalism” pointed out that, “Him¬
self a devout worshipper at the shrine of liberty, he realized even
so far back as 1820 that liberty to be properly enjoyed must be regu¬
lated liberty, that freedom has its own restraints as much as order.
In the field of social and religious reform no less than in journalism
and politics, his one endeavour was to awaken his countrymen
not only to their rights as free men, but also to their obligations to
society.”49
47. Ibid. p. 164. The Revenue System of India. Evidence before the Select
Committee of the Commons on the affairs of the East India Company.
48. Ibid. p. 14. Address to Lord William Bentinck on the passing of Suttee Act.
49. V.N. Naik. Indian Liberalism. (Bombay, Padma Publications)
CHAPTER THREE
POLITICAL THOUGHT OF DADABHAI NAOROJI
Dadabhai Naoroji (1825-1917) is popularly known as the Grand

old man of India. He was one of the founders of the Bombay
Association in 1853. In 1867, he inspired the foundation of the
East India Association in London and in 1873 he gave evidence
before the Fawcett Select Committee on Indian Finance. During
1892-1895 he was a member of the British Parliament. In 1897 he
appeared before the Welby Commission on Indian expenditure.
Thrice he became the president of the Indian National Congress.
He wrote ‘Poverty and un-British rule in India’ wherein he propoun¬
ded his theory of the drain. His theory of the drain was one of the
earliest attempts to expose the nature and impact of imperialism
which was a product of capitalism of the nineteenth century.
Dadabhai had faith in British fair-play and justice. Thus in

his presidential address to the Lahore Session of Indian National
Congress he proclaimed “I, for one, have not the shadow of a
doubt that in dealing with such justice—loving, fair minded people
as the British, we may rest fully assured.... have always believed
that the time will come when the sentiments of the British nation
and our gracious Queen’s proclamation of 1858 will be realised.”1
He also understood the civilizing influence of the British connection
with India and in his presidential address at Calcutta, 1886, he enu¬
merated the various blessings that India owed to Britain. In fact,
he was so enthusiastic about these blessings that he wanted the
British to prolong their stay in India until they had completed their
sacred trust. It was because of this misplaced admiration that he
exhorted the people of India to “Go on united and earnest, in con¬
cord and harmony, with moderation, with loyalty to the British
rule and patriotism towards our country.... ”2 He sincerely
1. Naoroji Dadabhai, Speeches & Writings of. Madras, G. Natesen & Co.
pp. 66-67.
2. Ibid. p. 67.
believed “. . the day, I hope, is not distant when the world will see
the noblest spectacle of a great nation like the British holding out
the hand of true fellow-citizenship and of justice to the vast mass
of humanity of this great and ancient land of India with benefits and
blessings to the human race.”3
He believed that the interests (including the economic interest)

of India and England were allied rather than antagonistic. It was
because of this belief that he said that, “If we do really ask what is
right and reasonable, we may be sure that, sooner or later the British
Government will actually give what we ask for. We should, therefore,
persevere having confidence in the conscience of England and rest
assured that the English nation will grudge no sacrifice to prove
the sincerity of their desire to do whatever is just and right.”4 He
believed in the method of prayers and petitions and more so in the
efficacy of this method. “The whole parliament, press and platform is
simply all agitation”, he said, “Small agitation is the civilized peaceful
weapon of moral force and infinitely preferable to brute physical
force when possible.”5 However, prayers and petitions were not
a method of mendicancy nor did Dadabhai believe in a politics of
mendicancy. Militancy was ruled out in the circumstances in wffiich
Dadabhai worked but he did explain “these petitions are not
any begging for any favours any more than that the conventional
‘your obedient servant’ in letters makes a man an obedient servant.
It is the conventional way of approaching higher authorities.”6
He pointed out, ‘‘The petitions are claims for rights or for justice
or for reforms,—to influence and put pressure on Parliament by
showing how the public regard any particular matter.”7
In the Lahore Session of the Indian National Congress,

Dadabhai proclaimed that to be free or to have freedom was our
birth-right as a citizen of the British empire. “The moment a
people came under the British flag” he said, “they are “free” and
British ‘fellow-citizens’. We Indians have been free British citi¬
zens as our birth-right. . from the first moment we come under the
British flag.”8 However, in doing so, Dadabhai was not asserting
3. Ibid. p. 67.
4. Ibid. p. 9.
5. Ibid. p. 92.
6. Ibid. p. 93.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid. p. 72.
POLITICAL THOUGHT OF DADABHAI NAOROJI 31
or proclaiming the Natural rights of mankind nor demanding our

inherent or birth rights. This is quite obvious and more so because
he follows this argument by another in which he claims these rights
since these are the pledged rights of the British Indian citizens
because of the various royal proclamations and solemn pledges held
out by the British statesmen to India. In fact, his emphasis was
on an appeal to human conscience “the diviner thing which he
wanted to be extended to India.”9 Such being the character and
basis of our rights, he proceeded to enumerate them substantially in
the form of demands for (i) Indianisation of services (2) Introduction
of representative Institutions and (3) just and equal financial relations
between England and India.
The demand for the Indianisation of Services was not simply

a matter of gratifying the aspirations of the few educated people of
India. In his mind, it was connected with the poverty of the coun¬
try. In his papers on the Poverty of India, his thesis was that the
sole cause of India’s degradation both moral and material was a result
of the inordinate employment of foreign agency in the government of
the country and the consequent material loss to and drain from the
country. On the moral side, “They could not rise; they could not
develop their capacity for higher government, because they had no
opportunity; the result was, of course, that their faculties must be
stunted. “Lastly, every European displaced an Indian who should
fill that post. In short, the evil of the foreign rule involved the
triple loss of wealth, wisdom, and work.”10 At the first session of
the Congress at Bombay 1885, Dadabhai spoke on the necessity of
reforming the legislative council and was thereafter associated more
and more with the demand for the introduction of representative
institutions in India. “What makes us proud to be British subjects,
what attaches us to this foreign rule with deeper loyalty than even
our own past Native rule”, Dadabhai said, “is the fact that Britain
is the parent of free and representative government, and, that we as her
subjects and children are entitled to inherit the great blessings of
freedom and representation.”* 11 Dadabhai claimed and asked for
this inheritance. In 1885, he aspired for Representative legislative
councils in India, with full financial control and interpellatory powers.
9. Ibid. p. 75.
10. Ibid. p. 134.
11. Ibid. p. 105.
In 1906, he wanted a systematic beginning to be made towards the

development of full legislatures of self-government like those of the
self-governing colonies. He also refuted the British feeling that repre¬
sentative institutions must be introduced in India on the principle
‘first deserve and then desire’ On the other hand, he said, “It is
futile to tell me that we must wait till all the people are ready. The
British people did not so wait for their parliament. We are not
allowed to be fit for 150 years. We can never be fit unless we actu¬
ally undertake the work and the responsibility.”12
The main contentio n of the papers on the poverty o f India

wa s that the existing financial relations between England and India
were unjust and unfair. The sole cause of India’s degradation was
the disastrous drain of the country “....not till this disastrous
drain was duly checked and not till the people of India were restored
to their natural rights in their own country was there any hope for
the material amelioration of India.”13 These papers were published
in the form of a book entitled “Poverty and un-British Rule in
India”. The purpose of the title was to show how the existing
system of Government was despotic for the Indians and un-British
and suicidal to Britain. It was pointed out how a truly British course
can and will certainly be beneficent both to Britain and India. The
first paper in this book is on the ‘Poverty7 of India’ read before the
Bombay Branch of the East India Association of London in 1876.
In this paper, Dadabhai calculated that the average income per head
in India was 40 shillings and commented “even for such food
and clothing as a criminal obtains there is hardly enough of produc¬
tion even in a good season, leaving alone all luxuries, all social and
religious wants, all expenses of occasions of joy and sorrow, and any
provision for bad season.”14 He dismissed the usual explanations
offered to account for the economic ruin of India such as her over¬
population or the interplay of economic Laws and said, “It is not
the operations of economic laws, but it is the thoughtless and pitiless
action of the British policy, it is the pitiless eating of India’s subs¬
tance in India; and the further pitiless drain to England.”15 Acco¬
rding to him, from 1835 to 1872 India imported goods worth only
12. Ibid. p. 82.

13. Dadabhai Naoroji, Poverty & Un-British Rule in India, (London, Swan
Sonnenschein, 1901), p. 203.
14. Ibid. p. 31.
15. Ibid. p. 216.
about £ 943,000,000 against exports valued at £ 143,000,000 leaving

a balance of about £ 500,000,000. This according to Dadabhai
did not represent the total tribute which India paid to England.
Had interest been calculated the drain would have amounted to a
higher figure. He said further, “This drain consists of two elements—
first, that arising from the remittances by European officials of their
savings, and for their expenditure in England for their various
wants both there and in India; from pensions and salaries paid in
England; and from Government expenditure in England and India.
And the second, that arising from similar remittances by non¬
official Europeans.”16 The drain was the basic evil that prevented
just and fair financial relations between England and India. Unfortu¬
nately this was not the only factor. Dadabhai realised how the evil
was compounded when this drain from India was being brought
back in the shape of British capital in India. This process resulted
not only in further drain of India but also prevented capital formation
in the country. Thus Dadabhai said, “As the drain prevents India
from making any capital, the British by bringing back the capital
which they have drained from India itself secure almost a monopoly
of all trade and important industries, and thereby further exploit
and drain India.”17 In the same paper, under the heading ‘Drain
through Investment of English capital’, he pointed out how under
ordinary economic circumstances, a country derives benefit from
the help of loans from other countries. However, he said, “In
India in the construction of the rail-road, a large amount of the
loan goes towards the payment of Europeans a portion of which,
as I have explained before, goes out of the country. Then, again,
in the working of the railway there is the same drawback, leaving
therefore hardly any benefit at all to India itself and the whole in¬
terest of the loan must also go out of the country. So our condi¬
tion is a very anomalous one - like that of a child to whom a fond
parent gives a sweet but to whom in its exhausted condition, the very
sweet acts like poison, and, as a foreign substance, by irritating the
weak stomach make it throw out more, and causes greater exhaus¬
tion. In India’s present condition the very sweets of every other
nation appear to act on it as poison.”18 In his evidence before the
Indian Expenditure Commission, he was more emphatic when he
16. Ibid. p. 38.

17. Ibid.
18. Ibid. p. 54 (Emphasis original).
said, “If we were free to accumulate our own capital fully we should
be able then to compete on equal and fair terms with the foreign
capital coming in and there would be perhaps more benefit than
evil by the foreign capital. At present we suffer it as an evil because
we are helpless and on the ground, and foreign capital comes in and
develops the resources for their benefit, and carries away the whole
profit that is obtained out of these resources. We are simply used
as common labourers, mere hewers of wood and drawers of water.
That is the only position to which we are reduced.”19 This empha¬
sis on the evil of the foreign capital in India illustrates how Dada-
ibhai understood the implications of the British rule in India. It is
really remarkable how he exposed the finance - imperialism of the
British in India as early as 1876. That in fact was the time when
capitalism entered the era of finance—Imperialism and this was one
of the earliest attempts to portray the nature of this Imperialism.
It is interesting to remember how Marx and Dadabhai were contem¬
poraries and were readers of the same library in London. What
Marx could not know from the records available in the London
Museum, Dadabhai did because of his experiences with British Capi¬
talism. Dadabhai like Marx knew how the British Government was
a tool in the hands of the Manchester interests. Marx knew how the
British capitalist wanted India as a market for his commodities but
Dadabhai added that the British wanted India as much for the in¬
vestment of their capital as for the disposal of their goods. Lenin’s
theory of Imperialism was to be later a more systematic account
of what Dadabhai had experienced and perceived. However it
was different from what Dadabhai had seen and stated only because
it was studded with the usual marxist jargon. Thus Lenin gene¬
ralised what Dadabhai had seen when he wrote, “As long as Capi¬
talism remains what it is, surplus capital will be utilized not for the
purpose of raising the standard of living of the masses in a given
country for this would mean a decline in profits for the capitalists
but for the purposes of increasing profits by exporting capital
abroad to the backward countries.”20 According to Lenin, the
main characteristic of finance—Imperialism was the domination of
monopolist Combines of the big capitalists. The big capitalists
could dominate Monopolist Combines with the help of their colo-
19. Naoroji, Speeches & Writings of, Appendix A. pp. 6-7.

20. V.I. Lenin. Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism, 1950. Moscow.
Foreign Languages Publishing House, p. 99.
nial possessions. Thus “Colonial possession alone gives the

monopolies guarantee against all contingencies in the struggle with
competitors, including the contingency that the latter will defend
themselves by means of a law establishing a State-monopoly. The
more capitalism is developed, the more strongly the shortage of raw
materials is felt, the more intense the competition and the hunt for
sources of raw materials throughout the whole world, the more
desperate is the struggle for the acquisition of colonies.”21 Howe¬
ver Dadabhai wanted that the British Capital in India should com¬
pete on fair and equal terms and that it should not enjoy a monopoly
position. That was, however, involved in the nature of British rule
in India. A man with a liberal outlook, Dadabhai believed in free
trade. However, he realised that free trade is possible only between
countries which have equal command over their own resources.
The conditions in which India was placed, he felt that free trade
could only be disastrous. Free trade between England and India
was “something like a race between a starving, exhausting invalid;
and a strong man with a horse to ride on. Before powerful English
interests, India must and does go to the wall.”22 However, he
accepted that India could be prepared for free trade in case the drain
from India could be brought within reasonable limits. That was,
of course, the inherent limitation of British imperialism in India.
Therefore, he supported the movement of Swadeshi which, accor¬
ding to him, was a ‘‘forced necessity for India in its unnatural
economic muddle.”23
In his presidential address at Calcutta in 1906, Dadabhai summed

up his demands in one word “Self-Government” or Swaraj like
that of the United Kingdom or the colonies. He emphasized that
there can be no national greatness, strength and hope except by the
right political principles of self-government. He agreed that simul¬
taneous progress should be made in all spheres political, social and
industrial since progress in one sphere has influence on the other
but he urged that political progress is at the root of real national
greatness.
Dadabhai Naoroji was one of the founders of secular nationalism

in India. According to him, one of the important pre-requisites
21. Ibid. p. 133.

22. Dadabhai Naoroji, Poverty and un-British Rule in India, p. 62.
23. Ibid. p. 95.
for the gain of Swaraj to India was a thorough political union among
the Indian people of all creeds and classes. Thus he said, “All the
people in their political position are in one boat. They must sink
or swim together. Without this union all efforts will be vain.”24
It was because of this type of nationalism that Dadabhai had attained
a very high place in the heart of the Indian people without the disti¬
nction of race or creed. It was, therefore, that Gokhale spoke of
him as “the most perfect example of the highest type of patriotism
that any country has ever produced.”25
In his later days, Dadabhai showed considerable interest in the

activities of the extremist leaders of the Indian National Congress.
He went to the extent of joining the Home Rule League which was
led by Mrs. Annie Besant and Bal Gangadhar Tilak. This was
done inspite of the displeasure of Sir Pherozeshah Mehta. Similarly,
Dadabhai associated himself with the British Socialists. He atten¬
ded the International Socialist Congress at Amsterdam which met
from August 14 to August 20, 1904. However these were transitory
deviations. Fundamentally, he was the patron-Saint of Moderatism
and Liberalism in Indian Politics. Thus in his presidential address
at Calcutta 1906 he did hope that British conscience would tri¬
umph and India would be granted “responsbile self-government
in the shortest possible period”. “Perseverance” that was the
essence of his philosophy.
24. Ibid. p. 97.

25. G.K. Gokhale, Speeches & Writings of. (Madras, G. Natesan & Co.)
1918. p. 911.
CHAPTER FOUR
POLITICAL THOUGHT OF JUSTICE M.G. RANADE
Mahadev Govind Ranade (1841—1901) was “a great man, a

fervent patriot, a religious reformer, a leader of thought, a guide of
men, an able historian and an eminent economist.”1 In 1892 he
delivered before the Deccan College Union his famous speech on
Indian Economics. It was published in the quarterly Journal of the
Poona Sarvajanik Sabha for October, 1892 (Vol. XV No. 2). In this
essay, he “endeavoured to lay down a few general principles which
should regulate the action of the State in respect of the develop¬
ment of industrial enterprise in India.”2 He was promoted to the
Bench of the Bombay High Court to fill in the vacancy caused by
the death of K.T. Telang. He also published the Rise of the Maratha
Power in the closing year of the nineteenth century which is a
masterly exposition of the causes of the rise of the Maratha Power
under the great Maratha Leader Shivaji and his successors.3
Jusdce Ranade is generally characterised as a Western Reformist
and was a member of the Prarthana Samaj founded in March, 1867
under the inspiration of Keshav Chandra Sen. He, in fact, accepted
the British connection as providential. Thus he pointed out how
“both Hindus and Mohamedans lack many of these virtues represen-
1. D.G. Karve, Ranade: The Prophet of Liberated India, (Poona, Arya

Bhusan Press 1942), p. 1.
2. M.G. Ranade, Essay on Indian Economics, p. 152.
3. His treatment of the Maratha History is particularly significant and
unique in view of the fact that he was the one who pointed out how
“the secret of the ultimate success of Shivaji and his successors lay in a
national force which had been agitating the Maratha nation from a
time long even anterior to the advent of Aurangzeb upon the political
scene and gathered immense strength during his reign and found
vent in the genius of Shivaji. That force was a religious and social
upheaval which agitated the entire Maratha nation just as in Europe
towards the close of the Middle Ages the Revival of letters and Reform¬
ation Religion stirred the European nationalities to their innermost
depths.” G.A. Mankar, A Sketch of the Life and Works of Ranade, Vol. II,
(Bombay, 1902) p. 35.
ted by the love of order and regulated authority. Both are wanting
in the love of Municipal freedom, in the exercise of virtues necessary
for civic life and in aptitudes for mechanical skill, in the love of
science and research, in the love and daring of adventurous discovery,
the resolution to master difficulties, and in chivalrous respect for
womankind. Neither the old Hindu nor the old Mohamedan
civilisation was in a condition to train these virtues in a way to bring
up the races of India on a level with those of Western Europe, and
so the work of education had to be renewed, and it has now been
going on for the past century and more under the Pax Britanica with
results which all of us are witnesses to in ourselves.”4 But he was
a traditionalist in the sense that he recognised “you are uncon¬
sciously influenced by the traditions in which you are born, by
the surroundings in which you are brought up, by the very milk
which you have drunk from your mother’s breasts or influenced by
these things in the world which you cannot disown.”5 His disciple
Gopal Krishan Gokhale also tells us of him that he (Ranade) decla¬
red, “we could not break with the past, if we would, we must
not break with it if we could.”6 But Ranade did not want to live in
the past. Actually, he was a staunch opponent of Revivalism prea¬
ched in the name of a Golden Age in the past. Thus he asked,
“what shall we revive ?.... shall we revive the twelve forms of sons,
or eight forms of marriage, which included capture and recognised
mixed and illegitimate intercourse ? Shall we revive the Niyoga
System of procreating sons on our brother’s wives when widowed ?
Shall we revive the old liberties taken by the Rishis and by the wives
of Rishis with the marital tie ?....”7 And he continued to reco¬
mmend that, “in a living organisation, as society is, no revival is
possible. The dead and the buried or burnt, are dead buried and
burnt once for all, and the dead past cannot, therefore, be revived
except by a reformaion of the old materials into new organized
beings. If revival is impossible, reformation is the only alternative
open to sensibe people.8
Justice Ranade was the first among the modern Indian Political
Thinkers who devoted himself to the study of the Nature and Func-
4. M.G. Ranade, Miscellaneous Essays (Madras), p. 226.

5. Ibid., p. 158.
6. G.K. Gokhale, Speeches and Writings (Madras), p. 788.
7. Miscellaneous Essays, op. cit., p. 190.
8. Ibid., p. 191.
POLITICAL THOUGHT OF JUSTICE M.G. RANADE 39
tions of the State. He believed in the organic unity of the State.

He looked upon the State as “representing the highest and most
disinterested wisdom of the times, working to give effect to the
other tendencies, concentrating and popularizing them.”9 “The
State in its collective capacity represents the power, the wisdom,
the mercy and charity of its best citizens.”10 These statements
appear to show as if Ranade was influenced by the thinkers of the
German idealist school. But paradoxical as it looks, Ranade was
basically an individualist who had faith in individual initiative and
individual responsibility and who had nothing against private pro¬
perty and the freedom of contract as matters of general principles
to which exceptions could, however, be made. To Ranade, not the
State but the individual was the end and the state was merely a means
to further the well-being of the man. But he was not a doctrinaire
individualist. He was an individualist only in the sense that the
individual was the supreme consideration with him. But his indi¬
vidual was an individual-in-society.* 11 His individual did not demand
unchecked or unlimited liberties or a general hostility towards the
State. The purpose of the State was defined by Ranade as one of
making “individual members composing it nobler, happier, richer,
and more perfect in every attribute with which we are endowed.”12
But this definition is followed by his general conviction (a part of
the definition which is generally ignored by the students of the
Political Thought of Ranade) that “this perfection of our being can
never be insured by any outside arrangement, however excellent,
unless the individual member concerned is in himself prepared in
his own private social sphere of duties to co-operate in his own
wellbeing.”13 Similarly he recognised “State help is after all a
subordinate factor in the problem. Our own exertion and our re¬
solutions must conquer the difficulties which are chiefly of our own
9. Ibid., p. 77.
10. Ibid., p. 78.
11. Thus he said, “Modern thought is veering to the conclusion that the
individual and his interests are not the centre round which the theory
should revolve, that the true centre is the body politic of which that
individual is a member, and that collective defence and well-being,
social education and discipline and the duties, and not merely the
interests of men, must be taken into account if the theory is not to be
merely utopian.” “Essay on Indian Economics” pp. 20-21.
12. Ibid., p. 172.
13. Ibid., p. 172.
creation.”14 Talking of individual liberty also he pointed out

“liberties bestowed on us by foreigners are concessions forced
on us by the force of circumstances. These are not really ours;
they are possessions only and not developments. But when multi¬
tudes of people in different parts of the country yearn for a change
in their social surroundings, and each in his place seeks to work it
out at great sacrifice of his present interests, it can hardly be
said that these yearnings and struggles must bear fruit.”15 More¬
over, the end that he set before himself was “to renovate, to purify
and also to perfect the whole man by liberating his intellect, eleva¬
ting his standard of duty, and perfecting all his powers.”16 Thus
his implicit faith in individualism.
Ranade’s individualism was not the individualism of the nine¬

teenth century but that of the twentieth. In India he was the one
who heralded the age of the ideas of the welfare State. It would
certainly be wrong to describe Ranade as the father of the Welfare
State or the pioneer of Economic Planning or the first socialist of
India but it cannot be denied that he was one of the earliest Indivi¬
dualist thinkers who clearly perceived the increasing role of the
State in an industrial society—a role which has generally been accep¬
ted in the twentieth century.
“The state is now more and more recognised” ,said Ranade in

1892, “as the national organ for taking care of national needs in all
matters in which individual and co-operative efforts are not likely
to be so effective and economical as national effort. This is the
correct view to take of the pure functions of a State. To relegate
them to the simple duty of maintaining peace and order is really to
deprive the community of many of the advantages of the social
union.”17 Actually, Ranade wanted not only that the state should
give up the nineteenth century model of a police state but must
assume functions, both in the sphere of production as well as in the
process of distribution—functions which he held were not only
necessary but indispensable in the socially and economically back¬
ward countries of the world.
In the circumstances in which India was placed, Ranade held
14. Ibid., p. 187.

15. Miscellaneous Essays, op. cit., p. 210.
16. Ibid., pp. 179-180.
17. Essay on Indian Economics, op. cit., pp. 31-32.
that the State policy of Laissez-faire and that of State indifference

was the root cause of India’s poverty. He not only belittled but
also denied the significance of the ‘Drain Theory’ as the true expla¬
nation of India’s poverty.18 Instead he believed that the lack of
industrialisation and predominantly agricultural pattern of Indian
economy was the real cause of India’s poverty and this, he held,
could be removed only through State initiative and direction.
Ranade opposed the philosophy of State indifference and Lai¬

ssez-faire by pointing out that “political economy, as a hypothetical,
a priori science is one thing, while practical political economy as
applied to the particular conditions of backward countries is diffe¬
rent thing altogether.”19 He argued “Political economy being
a hypothetical science, its propositions are not based upon axiomatic
truths like those of Euclid, and do not absolutely and universally
hold good, like the latter, true in all climes and in all times... Being
a deductive science or one based upon certain assumptions, its con¬
clusions are only true where those assumptions hold good, and are
not counteracted by circumstances acting in a contrary direction.”20
He pointed out how the assumptions on which the classical English
Economists had built upon their principles of State indifference and
Laissez-faire did not apply in the Indian conditions. Thus he enume¬
rated the assumptions21 on which the English Economists had
built their principles and pointed out how they were not true even
of the European countries except perhaps of England and were
“chiefly conspicuous by their absence,”22 in the Indian context. He
also pointed out how some of the important Western Economic
thinkers like J.S. Mill, Cairns, Bagehot, Sidgwick and Cliff Leslie
freely admitted the hypothetical nature of the principles of Political
Economy and had accepted the unreliability of its conclusions in all
stages of society.
In his views on the relativity of economic doctrines, Ranade
was supported by his studies of Prof. List of Germany with whom
he disagreed only in pointing out that economic doctrines were to
be modified not only for the different stages of economic advance-
18. Ranade was as wrong in denying it as Dadabhai was in over-emphasiz¬

ing it.
19. Essays on Indian Economics, op. cit., p. 85.
20. Mankar, op. cit., p. 2.
21. For the various assumptions see Essays on Indian Economics, pp. 8-9.
22. Ibid., p. 9.
ment but also in their application to different countries because of

their separate social cultural context. He also quoted other Western
Economic thinkers like Gioga, Ludovico, Muller, Raw, Keyness,
Roscher, Hilderbrand, and Wagner who in their own countries had
in their own ways tried to establish the doctrine of relativity in eco¬
nomic science and had sought to free it from a priori conclusions.
In the Indian situation where private initiative in industrial enter¬

prise was not forthcoming,23 Ranade recommended that the province
of State interference and control should be practically extended so
as to restore the good points of the mercantile system without its
absurdities.24 Ranade argued that the government could continue
to do what it had done in respect of the railways in India. He
suggested that if the government was not ready to assume the func¬
tions of an industrialist, it could at least “encourage the growth
of new industries by guaranteeing or subsidising such enterprises
in their pioneering stage.”25 He further recommended “it can
also very well be asked to produce its own stores here, just as it
produces certain minor articles required by its military and postal
departments. It can also undertake to buy leather, wooden goods
etc. from the Indian producer, and thus secure the benefit of sure
custom at remunerative rates to new undertakings. It can finally
help people to join their capital together under such guarantees and
official supervision, and afford such facilities as the governments of
Europe have extended to land improvement banks.”26 The plan
suggested was that the government will be ‘guaranteeing or subsi¬
dising private efforts’ till private enterprise could support itself or
better still, by the plan followed 'in the Netherlands...advancing
loans to private capitalists at low interest and helping them in the
23. Private initiative was not forthcoming because “the general character¬
istics of the industry carried on by the people are petty farming,
retail dealing, and job working on borrowed capital. The absence
of a landed gentry or a wealthy middle class has added to the
misfortunes of the people, who are not noted for an eager desire to
save and whose laws, institutions and religions have accustomed them
to a low standard of living, have led them to effect minute sub¬
divisions of property and have weakened the incentive to the eager
desire of wealth and the accumulation of capital” Mankar, op. cit.,
p. 17.
24. Essay on Indian Economics, op. cit., p. 31.
25. Ibid., p.183.
26. Ibid.
choice of places and the selection of the form of investment.”27

The government could further help “by pioneering the way to new
enterprises, and by affording facilities for emigration and immigra¬
tion, and establishing technical institutes.”28 In favour of these
contentions, he quoted even J.S. Mill who had said in his ‘Political
Economy’ that “a good government will give all its aid in such a
shape as to encourage and nurture any rudiments it may find of a
spirit of individual exertion. It will be assiduous in removing
obstacles and dicouragements to voluntary enterprise, and in giving
whatever facilities and whatever direction and guidance may be
necessary. Its pecuniary means will be applied when practicable
in aid to private efforts rather than in suppression ofthem, and it
will call into play its machinery of rewards and honours to elicit such
efforts.”29 However, the intention of Ranade was to grant more
authority to the State than Mill had prescribed in the sphere of indu¬
strial production. He confined himself to demanding what Mill
had prescribed only because it could be more easily acceptable
to the British mind than otherwise.
Ranade also opposed the Laissez-faire or the free trade policy

of the British government in India, which, according to him was
partly responsible for India’s poverty. He pointed out in a letter
to a friend that “Individual and co-operative capacity for voluntary
action (In India) has been crushed out for centuries, and till the
bondages are removed and full scope is allowed for the higher capa¬
cities to grow there is no possibility of new healthy growth.... we are
at best in the convalescent stage, strict regimen and doctoring is
necessary and the Laissez-faire of health is not for us.”30 He plea¬
ded for a policy of protection for India on the basis of the arguments
provided by Prof. List. Prof. List had argued that industries in
their infant stage have to be protected by the State and secondly that
for the industrial education of a country, a certain amount of indu¬
strialisation is necessary even by artificial measures. Ranade held
that both these arguments were applicable in the Indian situation.
Moreover, he also pointed out that the recent factory legislation,
the poor land system, the qualified recognition of trade-unions and
the Irish land settlement were the instances of a change of view in
27. Ibid., p. 85.

28. Essay on Indian Economics, p. 187.
29. Quoted in Ibid., pp. 85-86.
30. Mankar, op. cit., p. 214.
England whereas on the continent as in America the policy of free

trade had either been given up or followed only with necessary
modifications. He believed with List that the trade policy of a
country was integrated with its general economic policy. Therefore,
he pleaded, though in vain, with the British Government in India
that “A Colbert or a Peter the Great is wanted to give effect to such
a scheme and the ordinary doctrines of Laissez-faire must be set
aside in view of the great interests at stake.”31
Ranade also wanted that “the distribution of produce among

the needy many and the powerful few has to be arranged in a spirit
of equity and fair-play.”32 For this, he suggested firstly that the
State should provide for all such minimum means of betterment
as the resources of the community would allow and secondly that
the unearned income or predatory earnings will be diverted to the
public exchequer either through direct regulation or by taxation on
the unearned surplus.33 Moreover, it was only in the interest of
fair and equitable distribution that he so strongly supported factory
legislation in India which otherwise was introduced only to help
the Manchester interest in India.
To the organisational problems of the government, Ranade paid
very little attention. However, he did believe in a democratic
constitutional type of government, decentralised administration,
and healthy growth of local governmental institutions. The princi¬
pal business of the central government in relationship with the local
units was defined as “to give instructions and to lay down fixed
principles, and it should leave the local bodies to apply them in
practice.”34 Moreover It is the magisterial and police functions
which represent the distinctive features of a sovereign authority,
and these must be localized if local government is not to be a misnomer
and a certain failure.”35 He even went to the extent of suggesting
that existing local Municipal Boards be empowered to borrow from
the government at low interest the money required and advance
them as loans for the improvement of the rural and urban industries.36
Ranade granted these extensive functions to the local governmental
31. Essay on Indian Economics, op. cit., p. 28.

32. Ibid., p. 31.
33. D.G. Karve, op. cit., p. 132.
34. Essay on Indian Economics, p. 214.
35. Ibid.
36. Ibid., pp. 90-91.
institutions because he believed that “election by popular suffrage

(at the local governmental level) enlists public confidence in the
acts of government; and when a majority of elected representatives
and duly mixed with a minority possessed of educational and pro¬
perty qualifications, and these at present must be the nominees of
the central authorities, the organisation so secured can alone afford
full scope for the development of the political education of the people
and the growth of that self-reliant energy, which is the best support
and the highest justification of coercive rule.”37
Ranade also believed that the State may intervene to help the
social reformers when they of their own are not able to succeed in
bringing about a desired social change. In the field of social reform
the change that Ranade sought was “change from constraint to
freedom, from credulity to faith, from status to contract, from
authority to reason, from unorganised to organised life, from bigotry
to toleration, from blind fatalism to sense of human dignity.”38
Moreover he believed in the interdependence of all reform as the
basis of his Swaraj. Thus he said, “you cannot have a good social
system when you find yourself low in the scale of political rights and
privileges unless your social system is based on reason and justice.
You cannot have a good economical system when your social arrange¬
ments are imperfect. If your religious ideas are low and grovelling,
you cannot succeed in social, economical or political sphere. The
inter-dependence is not an accident but is the law of nature.”89 Hence
the importance of the social reform activities carried out under the
inspiration and guidance of Justice Ranade.
Ranade used various methods to bring about social reform.

The introduction of English education in India was in itself one of
these methods. Moreover, he sought to persuade in all possible
ways before making an approach to the State requesting it to use its
coercive power. Thus, like Raja Ram Mohan Roy, he also used the
traditional method which sought to change but on the basis of a re¬
interpretation (in the name of a correct interpretation) of the scrip¬
tures of the past. Moreover, he sought constructive change instead
of revolution and change is, according to Ranade, in itself a part of
the Indian society. In so far as Ranade used these persuasive methods.
37. Ibid., pp. 214-15.

38. Miscellaneous writings, pp. 116-17.
39. Ibid., pp. 231-32.
he had the support of extremist leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak

and was opposed by the orthodox sections of the Hindu population
but not with a vengeance.
Ranade, however, would not hesitate to invite the State to

play the role of an agency of social reform when this became inevi¬
table in view of the nature of the social change sought for. Thus
he said, “the diseased corruptions of the body cannot and should
not, be dealt with in the same way as its normal and healthy develop¬
ments. The sharp surgical operation and not the homoeopathic
infinitesimally small pill, is the proper remedy for the first class of
the disorders and the analogy holds good in the diseases of the body
politic, as well as the material body as also in dealing with the paras¬
itical growth of social degeneration.”40 This brought about a
sharp reaction to the social reform activities of Ranade both from
the side of the extremist nationalist leaders as well as from the ortho¬
dox sections of the Hindu population. The Age of Consent Bill
(1891) gave rise to a very intense and active public controversy when
the role of legislation in social reform was widely discussed and
debated.
Tilak opposed the intervention of the State in social reform

because he believed, “in the imperative necessity of checking, from
the larger national stand-point, the disintegrating forces by fostering
a due sense of pride in and respect for the social and religious insti¬
tutions of the people. He strongly resented State interference for
the simple reason that reform to be durable must be a growth from
within.”41 Moreover, Tilak felt that in the contemporary Indian
situation political reform must precede social reform. He was of
the view that once we have attained Swaraj, social reform would
inevitably be added to it. Actually he was afraid that the whole
controversy over the issue of social reform would divide the natio¬
nalist forces and would therefore weaken our efforts for the attain¬
ment of Swaraj. He was particularly opposed to the intervention
of a foreign government in the social affairs of a religious community.
He strongly advocated that those who sought social reform should
be the first to practise them and that their example in itself would
constitute the best method for seeking such social change. Actually,
he did set up an example himself by the practice of what the Age
40. Ibid., p. 81.

41. Athalye, Lokmanya Tilak, pp. 54-55.
of Consent Bill sought to secure through legislation and would not,

dierefore, allow his daughters to get married before they were 16
years of age.
One of these arguments was meant to be personal to Justice

Ranade in view of the fact that he had not been able to live up to
his ideals in the case of his second marriage which had taken place,
not with a widow but a virgin girl. But Ranade did, in all humble¬
ness and sobriety even in this case provide a defence for the same.
Thus he pointed out that his idea of social reform was not reform
restricted to a few but applicable to everybody in the society. He
also argued that the foreign character of government made no diffe¬
rence as long as the initiative for reform came from the progressive
sections of the Hindu population. Thus he said, “in such matters,
the distinction of foreign and domestic rulers is a distinction without
a difference.”42 He further pointed out that “it has a meaning
and significance where foreign interests over-ride native interests,
but where the foreigners have no interest to serve, and the initiative
is to be all our own, the recognition of state help is not open to the
stock objection urged by those who think that we forfeit our inde¬
pendence by seeking such regulation on lines approved by us.”43
He also drew a line between the interference due to foreign initia¬
tion and the interference due to Indian initiation and said, “the
initiation is to be our own, and based chiefly, upon the example of
our venerated past and dictated by the sense of the most representa¬
tive and enlightened men in the community and all that is sought at
the hands of the foreigners is to give to this responsible sense as
embodied in the practices and usages of the respectable classes, the
force and sanction of law.”44 Finally it must be noted that Ranade
did accept that legislation to bring about social reform is only a
measure of last resort and is to be used only as a catalytic agent
because “superimposed laws will not do service to us unless as in
some extreme cases the surgeon has to be sent for to stop haemorrhage
and allow the physician time to heal the patient. This work of
liberation must be the work of our own hands, each one working
for himself for his own release. It is in this spirit that the work has
42. Ranade, Miscellaneous Writings, p. 80.

43. Ibid.
44. Quoted by M.A. Buch, Rise and Growth of Indian Liberalism, 1938
(Baroda), p. 133.
been carried on during the last thirty years and more.”45 It is a

tribute to Justice Ranade and to his work of social reform that inde¬
pendent India has accepted the role of legislation in bringing about
social reform among the Hindus.
Thus Ranade was the prophet of an intervenist State in India.

He was also one of the prophets of Nationalism in India. It was
he who professed implicit faith in the two articles of his creed.
“This country of ours is the true land of promise. This race of ours
is a chosen race.”46 This even smacks of a narrow nationalism but
was in fact meant to restore our confidence in ourselves that we had
lost under the continued period of subjection and slavery.
45. Ranade, Miscellaneous Writings, p. 208.

46. Ibid., pp. 125-26.
CHAPTER FIVE
POLITICAL THOUGHT OF B.G. TILAR
Shri Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1856-1920), popularly known as

the Lokmanya, was born in a Chitpavan Brahmin family of Mahara¬
shtra. He was a scholar, journalist, educator and the leader of the
Extremist Sections of the Indian National Congress. He was when
it was meant to be a condemnation “The Father of Indian Unrest.”
He was a mass leader and the first who converted the Indian National
Congress into a mass organisation. The historian of the Congress,
Shri P. Sittaramayya, makes a very significant description of his
thought and personality when he contrasts him with the moderate
leader, Shri G.K. Gokhale “Gokhale’s plan was to improve the
existing constitution; Tilak’s was to reconstruct it. Gokhale had
necessarily to work with the bureaucracy; Tilak had necessarily to
fight it. Gokhale stood for cooperation wherever possible and
opposition wherever necessary; Tilak inclined towards a policy of
obstruction. Gokhale’s prime concern was with the administration
and its improvement; Tilak’s supreme consideration was with the
Nation and its upbuilding. Gokhale’s ideal was love and sacrifice.
Tilak’s service and suffering. Gokhale’s methods sought to win
the foreigner, Tilak’s to replace him. Gokhale depended upon
others’ help, Tilak upon self-help. Gokhale looked to the classes
and the intelligentsia, Tilak to the masses and the millions. Gokhale’s
arena was the Council Chamber; Tilak’s forum was the village Mandap.
Gokhale’s medium of expression was English; Tilak’s was Marathi.
Gokhale’s objective was self-Government for which the poeple had to
fight themselves by answering the tests prescribed by the English;
Tilak’s objective was Swaraj which is the birthright of every Indian
and which he shall have without let or hindrance from the foreigner.
Gokhale was on a level with his age. Tilak was in advance of his
times.”1 Thus Tilak was the guide and the prophet of the Natio¬
nalist Movement in contemporary India. It is in this sense that a
1, Sitaramayya, P. The History of the Indian National Congress, (Bombay,

Padma publications), 1946-47. Vol. I, p. 99,
writer was led to say that “For Gandhiji and the Congress he left
a philosophy of struggle and a clearly demarked goal; for Free India
he left the broad outlines of a new political philosophy integrated
with the value system of his people. This is the legacy of the
Lokmanya.”2 Another writer even suggested “Doubtless it is
Tilak’s mantle that has fallen on Mahatma Gandhi and not that of
Gokhale, though the Mahatma regards Gokhale as his political
Guru. For one thing long before Gandhiji preached his gospel
of non-cooperation, Tilak.... had set before the nation the whole
programme of Non-cooperation.”3 These claims might well be
exaggerated and they in fact are. However, a study of the writings
and speeches of the Lokmanya do provide us with an insight into
the fundamentals of the Extremist school of political thought in
Modern India—a school of thought which was peculiarly Indian in
character and particularly significant for the development of the
nationalist movement in the last decade of the 19th century and the
first two decades of the 20th.
Tilak was a revivalist and a revivalist in the sense that he wanted

to revive all that was good and noble in India’s culture and civiliza¬
tion. He himself was a great scholar of Sanskrit and a student of
ancient Indian History and culture. He condemned and repudi¬
ated the blind imitation of the west and the western reformism of
the Indian Moderates. Thus he wrote, “.... a number of our
educated men began to accept uncritically the materialistic doctrines
of the westerners. Thus we have the pathetic situation of the new
generation making on their minds a carbon copy of the gross materi¬
alism of the West.”4 5 * However, he was no narrow-minded bigot
in his outlook. Thus he appreciated the significance of the introdu¬
ction of English Education in India and was himself engaged in its
propagation during a considerable period of his early public life.
It is interesting to note that he resigned from the Deccan Education
Society because he felt it was not running strictly on Jesuit princi¬
ples.8 The writer of an authoritative biography on Tilak published
2. Shay, T.L. The Legacy of the Lokmanya (Oxford University Press), 1956.
pp. XX.
3. Sarma, D.S., Studies in the Renaissance of Hinduism (Benaras, Benaras Hindu
University) 1944, p. 143.
4. Kesari, September 19, 1905.
5. See P.M. Limaye (ed. by). The History of the Deccan Education Society.
(Poona, D.E.S.). Part III. Appendix A.
POLITICAL THOUGHT OF B.G. TILAK 51
by the Kesari Mahratta Trust, also tells us that the sources of inspi¬
ration for Tilak when he started the Ganapati and Shivaji festivals
were not Indian. He tells us how the study of Greek history and
the idea of Olympic games contained therein led to the organisation
of Ganapati festivals and how the inauguration of the Shivaji festival
had its origin in the attitude of hero worship borrowed by Tilak from
Carlyle and Emerson.6 Moreover, Tilak in his college days had
devoted much time to the study of western writers like Hegel, Kant,
Spencer, Mill, Bentham, Voltaire and Rousseau.”7 In fact, Tilak
was not against westernisation or reformism but against the onesided
and dogmatic attitude of those who wanted to remake India in the
image of the west. He wanted that “a proper knowledge of the
old traditions and philosophies must be imparted to the newly edu¬
cated classes, and the Pandits and Shastries must be given information
about newly changed and changing circumstances.”8
It was in the year 1889 that Tilak joined the Indian National
Congress. At this time he had no bitterness against the British go¬
vernment in India. In fact, his views had much in common with the
programme and philosophy of the Moderate leadership. In 1891, at
Nagpur, he defended the Congress by pointing out that,“The charge
sometimes brought against the Congress that it is a mere gathering
place—hunting literates seems to have little weight when on examining
the resolutions we find that the great bulk relates to measures. .. for the
relief of the poverty of the masses.”9 He also believed in praying
for concessions and said, ”... we do not desire to weaken the Govern¬
ment. On the contrary, we wish to strengthen it, to render it
impregnable to all assaults, whether from Russian or any other foe ;
and we ask the government therefore to associate our country. .. .”10
It was only round the year 1895 that he lost his faith in British fair-
play and justice and in his admiration for the British connection with
India. Even after 1895, he wavered, hesitated and sometimes lost
his faith only to regain it at other intervals. It is very interesting
to note here that even towards the close of his life, he undertook a
6. Tahmankar, D.V. Lokmanya Tilak. (London, John Murray) 1956.

pp. 60-61, p. 63.
7. Ibid. p. 16.
8. Kesari, January 21, 1904.
9. Quoted in Ramgopal, Lokmanya Tilak. Bombay (Asia Publishing
House) 1956, p. 76,
10. Ibid. p. 77.
journey all the way to England to sue Chirol only because he had
howsoever uncertain, some amount of faith in British fair-play and
justice. However, by 1895, he had realised that the interests of India
and England were not allied ; that they were antagonistic and that
conflict between the two, at some stage or the other, was inevitable.
It was this change in attitude and the change in convictions that led
him to talk disrespectfully of the Congress method of prayer and
petitions. He dubbed it as mendicancy and demanded the use
of other methods. Thus in one of his articles in the Kesari (January
(12, 1897) he wrote, “For the last twelve years we have been shouting
(ourselves) hoarse desiring that the government should hear us. But
our shouting has no more affected the government than the sound of
a gnat. Our rulers disbelieve our statements or prefer to do so.
Let us now try to force our grievances into their ears by strong cons¬
titutional means.”n The time for the profession and practice
of new methods arrived with the inauguration of the Bengal Parti¬
tion Movement. Tilak’s article in Kesari (August 14, 1905) entitled,
“The Crisis Arrives” and another one entitled “National Boycott”
set up the four-fold programme of Swaraj, Swadeshi, National
Education and Boycott. It was this programme which became the
watch-word of the Extremist School of Thought in India.
Swaraj was set up as the political goal of the Indian Nationalist

Movement. He wrote, “The time has come to demand ‘Swaraj’
or Self-Government. No piece-meal reform will do. The system
of the present administration is ruinous to the country. It must
mend or end”12 He proclaimed “Swaraj is my birth-right and I
shall have it”. Swaraj was his Dharma. Swaraj was for Tilak a
birth-right and a Dharma not because he believed in the philosophy
of Natural Rights, but because, as one of his illustrious interpre¬
ters13 has said Swaraj was according to his classical value
system, a moral necessity. The interpreter makes a distinction
between Swaraj and the Western word ‘Independence’ and says
“Swaraj meant the lawful exercise of the community’s freedom. For
the community it also meant the choice of Order over chaos and the
regulation of all community activities morally in accordance with
Dharma rajya, the rule of Dharma. Unless there was Swaraj, the
11. Kesari, January 12, 1897.
12. Quoted in Tahmankar, op. cit., p. 111.
13. Shay, T.L. Legacy of the Lokmanya. (Bombay, Oxford University
Press) 1956. pp. 215.
conscious, lawful living under Dharmarajya, the right ordering of the

community could never be attained, individual life situations could
not be morally profitable, men could not live in their True Natures,
and the purpose of life and creation could not be fulfilled. The
political community existed only to preserve and promote the Dharma,
and without Swaraj this was not possible. Swaraj, therefore, in the
classical value system was a moral imperative for both the individual
and the community.”14 It is true that the word ‘Swaraj’ is an old
term. It is a vedic term. It is also true that Tilak borrowed it from,
the Hindu Shastras and from the life and times of Shivaji Maharaj.
However, one cannot be too sure, on the basis of the evidence avail¬
able, that Tilak was conscious of the co-relationship that is supposed
to exist between his use of the term ‘Swaraj’ and its meaning in
the classical value system of the ancient Hindus.
As early as June 22, 1897 Tilak wrote “It is true that

Indian Commerce was very insignificant before, but that means that
all the articles needed by us were manufactured by us here. Things
have undergone a complete change during the last sixty years, and
matters have now come to such a pass that we send agricultural pro¬
duce to England and take in English manufactures. It is simply
a delusion that our trade has increased. Whatever be the increase
in India’s commerce, it must not be forgotten that we lose in it
thirty-four crores of rupees annually. Appliances like railways,
telegraph, and roads have increased, but all this is like decorating
another’s wife. Not only do they not belong to us, but we have to
suffer annually loss in interest and exchange on their account. India
will never prosper in this way. Old industries and arts have almost
died out.”15 Therefore he believed in the Swadeshi Move¬
ment and was very emphatic in its profession during the Bengal
Partition Movement. However, Swadeshi was not only an economic
but a political weapon in the hands of Tilak. Thus he said “If we do
not wish to be white men’s slaves, we should vigorously carry on the
Swadeshi Movement. It is the only effective method for our deli¬
verance. The object of the movement is to do away with the system
under which we are treated like slaves by Europeans and to force
government to give us all the rights of British citizenship”.16
14. Ibid. p. 100.

15. Kesari, June 22, 1897.
16. Ramgopal, op. cit., p. 235.
Tilak also believed that there was no use believing in Swadeshi

without believing in boycott of foreign goods because “when you
prefer to accept Swadeshi, you must boycott videshi (foreign) goods.
Without boycott swadeshi cannot flourish”.17 But boycott was a subs¬
titute for war. “As we cannot go to war as did the Boers in South
Africa”, said Tilak “the next best thing is to refuse to buy the British
goods. That is the spirit behind the Swadeshi and boycott move¬
ment”.18 Thus boycott was not merely an economic weapon but
a political weapon. It was, in fact, a new political method. It
was because the boycott movement implied the use of a new political
method that the Moderate Leadership hesitated to approve of it. In
the beginning of the year 1907 Tilak declared “The Congress
agitation based on the so-called ‘constitutional methods’ is sheer
waste of time” and pointed out that the phraseology applicable to
English politics is “totally inapplicable to Indian conditions.”19
He said, “In all seriousness one can suggest that what Mr. Gokhale
called India’s Constitution is really the Indian Penal Code. If he and
his moderate friends suggest that our agitation should be within the
four corners of that code we can appreciate the argument—then it
will mean that it should be legal and legitimate—that is perfectly
understandable” and he continued, “It would be more honest and
realistic to ask the people to be legal in their agitation, the scope of
which can be determined by circumstances, but it is’ futile and mis¬
leading to call it constitutional”.20
Tilak substituted the use of Passive Resistance in place of cons¬

titutional means, hitherto used by the moderate leadership in India’s
struggle for Swaraj. As early as 1902, he had declared publicly
“you must realise that you are a great factor in the power with which
the administration in India is conducted. You are yourselves the
useful lubricants which enable the gigantic machinery to work so
smoothly.” He continued, “Though down-trodden and neglected, you
must be conscious of your power of making the administration impossible
if you but choose to make it so. It is you who manage the railroad and
the telegraph, it is you who make settlements and collect revenues, it is
infact} you who do every thing for the administration, though in a sub¬
ordinate capacity you must consider whether you cannot turn your hand
17. Ibid., p. 260.

18. Tahmankar, op. cit., p. 107.
19. Kesari, Feb. 12, 1907.
20. Ibid.
to better use for your nation than drudging on in this fashion”.21

In another public lecture at Calcutta in 1907, he elaborated the idea
by observing “we are not armed and there is no necessity for
arms either. We have a stronger weapon a political weapon in boy¬
cott” and continued, “What the new party wants you to do is to rea-
li2e the fact that your future rests entirely in your hands. If you mean
to be free, you can be free ; if you do not mean to be free, you will
fall and be for ever fallen. If you have not the power of active
resistance, have you not the power of self-denial and self-abstinance
so as not to assist this foreign Government to rule over you ? This is
boycott, and this is what is meant when we say boycott is a political
weapon. We shall not give them our assistance to collect revenue
and keep the peace. We shall not assist them in fighting beyond
the frontiers or outside India with Indian blood and money. We
shall not assist them in carrying on the administration of justice.
We shall have our own courts, and when the time comes we shall
not pay taxes. Can you do that by your united effort ? If you can
you are free from tomorrow.. .. This is the line of thought and
action in which you must train yourself. This is the way a nation
progresses, this is the way national sentiment progresses and this
is the lesson you have to learn from the struggle now going on”.22
Thus Tilak’s political method was the precursor to the Non-Coope¬
ration Movement started by Gandhi after 1920. However, Gandhian
method was different from that of Tilak in so far as Satyagraha is
different from Passive Resistance.
It is true that Tilak ruled out the use of force or violence in

India’s struggle for Swaraj. However, Tilak was not a votary of
Ahimsa or non-violence. For Tilak, non violent resistance was at
best a policy, a matter of convenience. For Gandhi non-violence
was a principle, a philosophy of life. For Gandhi, Tilak’s Passive
Resistance was the Satyagraha of the weak. Moreover, a Satyagrahi,
according to Gandhi, relies on soul-force whereas Tilak relied on the
militancy of the nation. Tilak believed in Responsive Co-operation ;
Gandhi believed either in Co-operation or in Non-cooperation but
not in conditional co-operation. Tilak created a domain of politics
in India independent of religion ; Gandhi provided an ethical base
to Indian politics. Gandhian Satyagraha was an extension of cons-
21. Tilak, B.G., His Writings and Speeches, p. 77.

22. Ibid. p. 65.
titutional means ; Tilak’s Passive Resistance was a recommendation

for the use of strong constitutional means based on the criticism of
weak constitutional means.
Tilak has been described as the leader of the extremists in

Politics but in matters pertaining to social reform, he was the leader
of the Moderate Party. Even during the formative period of his
career, Tilak believed that social reform could not precede political
reform and differed with his friend, Mr. Agarkar, on this account
“You can shout,” he argued, “your social reform from the house-top,
but what will you say to a peasant if he comes to you and says, ‘You
ask me to put my house in order. All right, but where is the house?’
Then you will have to give him a house first. You see all our acti¬
vities must lead to providing a house for the homeless. What I
say is, ‘Give the people the homes and then ask them to put them in
order’.... ”23 This was later enunciated in his declaration that
Swaraj must come first and that everything else will be added to it
later. However, Tilak was not a social reactionary. In fact, in his
individual life, he was a social revolutionary. Thus in the year
1890, he signed a circular on social reform which was drafted by
Justice Ranade. This circular advocated the following reforms:—
(a) That not more than a year’s income should be expended

on the marriage ceremonies of a son.
(b) That not more than a year’s income should be expended
on the marriage ceremonies of a daughter.
(c) That boys should not marry before the ages of 16, 18 or
20.
(d) That daughters should not be married before the ages of
10, 12 or 14.
(e) That polygamy should be prohibited.
(f) That no one should marry after the age of 60.
(g) That liquor should be taken medicinally only.
(h) That every possible endeavour should be made to promote
female education.24
It is true that Tilak opposed the Age of Consent Bill. The

chief purpose of the Bill was to make co-habitation by a husband and
23. Tahmankar, op. cit., p. 19.

24. M.R. Palande (ed. by) Source-Material for A History of the Freedom
Movement in India. Vol. II. Bombay. (Director, Govt. Printing
and Publications) 1958. p. 201.
his minor wife a penal offence. However, Tilak believed and in

fact practised what was the main principle of this Bill. Thus we
are told “He sent his daughters to school to learn English and
did not marry them until they were sixteen; he did not observe
untouchability and caste distinction in his house-hold nor did he do
so in his social and political relations with the lower castes.”52
Therefore, instead of saying that he opposed the bill, it is better
to say that he led the opposition to the bill. Tilak was not a social
reactionary yet he was the leader of the social conservatives. So
writes his official biographer, “One is forced to admit that he never
felt the same moral fervour and enthusiasm for social reform which
he felt for the cause of political independence. This was perhaps
partly due, as some of the critics have claimed, to the narrow
religious influences which prevailed in and around Poona, Tilak’s
main centre of activity. Believing that the division of energies
means the dissipation of energies, he made his choice—to the exclusion
of every other consideration—of working for the political emancipation
of the country.”26 Though he had apathy for social reform, Tilak
was opposed only to the use of the state machinery to bring about
social reform and more so because this machinery was controlled by
a foreign government.27
“I regard India as my Mother land”, said Tilak, “and my Goddess,

the people in India my kith and kin, and loyal and steadfast work
for their political and social emancipation my biggest religion and
duty.28” His concept of Nationalism was neither narrow nor
was it confined to religion. It is true that he used religion as a
political tool, as a weapon in organising our struggle for Swaraj.
However, he did not use his politics for religious ends. In fact,
he was against the mixing up of religious questions with ques¬
tions of a purely political character. That was the reason why he
did not approve of when Gandhi considered the Khilafat wrong
as the main issue for the launching of the Non-cooperation Move¬
ment in India. Tilak considered that the Khilafat wrong was a
religious question and that it was a question that primarily involved
the Indian Muslims. He wanted the Indian Muslims to oppose
25. Tahmankar, op. cit. p. 19.

26. Ibid., p. 322.
27. For reasons as to why he opposed the intervention of the State in Social
Reform See Chapter Four.
28. Quoted in Tahmankar, op. cit. p. 320.
this wrong and the Hindus to give their unhesitant support to them
in their hour of difficulty. But he believed that the Khilafat was not
a political question and therefore advocated that it should not be
mixed up with the political and national issues of India.
By the celebrations of Ganapati and Shivaji festivals, Tilak did

organise the Hindus. However, he considered that the work of the
organisation of the Hindus was not contrary to the work of the or¬
ganisation of the Indian nation. True that the two works were not
one and the same thing but they were not anti-thesis to each other.
On the other hand, they were supplementary—that is how Tilak
viewed it. It is because of these considerations that Tilak was very
eager and enthusiastic about Hindu-Muslim unity. It was in fact
he who may be described as the father of the Congress-League
Scheme evolved at the Lucknow session of the Indian National Con¬
gress. Therefore, Tilak cannot be dismissed as a Hindu Nationalist,
or a Hindu communalist. It was he who, in fact, laid down the
foundations of a broader and more integrating nationalism in India.
He was the prophet of Indian nationalism.
CHAPTER SIX
POLITICAL THOUGHT OF B. C. PAL
Bipin Chandra Pal (1858-1932) was “a man of mission with

original and powerful political conceptions, an ardent nationalist
of the first magnitude, a great publicist and a magnificent orator....
the chief architect of the Swadeshi movement of 1905.”1 “The
literary influence generated by Madhu Sudan Dutta, Bankim Chandra
Chatterjee and Hem Chandra Bannerjee, the ideal religious and social
freedom as organised in the Brahmo Samaj the cult of nationalism
preached by Surendranath Banner jee and the spiritual impact of Sri
Bejoy Krishan Goswami—all these had their contributions to the
making of his life and character.”2 It was in the year 1887 that he
attended the Congress Session at Madras and spoke on the repeal
of the Arms Act. At this time B.C. Pal like the moderate leadership
had admiration for the British connection and faith in British fair-
play and justice. Thus he said, “My right consists in my sincere
loyalty to the British Government....”3 He further added, “and
I thank Him for having brought the English Government to this
country to work out our salvation....”4 5 In the year 1901, he
brought out “New India” which in 1904 became the organ for the
expression of his extremist political ideas. 1904-1908 is the period
during which B.C. Pal was the main spokesman of extremism in
Bengal and one of the triumvirate of extremism in India. It is mainly
the B.C. Pal of this period that we shall study. In August 1908
he left for England and this inaugurated a new era in his
political career as well as his political thought. During 1908-1911
he toyed with the idea of what he called “Imperial Federation.”
It was also the period of his “moderatist climb-down”,6 which
1. Mukherjee, Usha and Haridas, Bipin Chandra Pal and India's struggle
for Swaraj, Calcutta (Firma K.L. Mukhopadhyay) 1958, p. 7.
2. Ibid., pp. 3-4.
3. B.C. Pal, Writings and speeches. Vol. I. Calcutta, Yugayatri, 1958-p. 3.
4. Ibid., See also New India. August 7, 1902.
5. I have borrowed the phrase from Bipin Chandra Pal and India's
struggle for Swaraj written by Uma and Haridas Mukherjee.
continued through the decade 1910-1920 after which he went into

oblivion.
It was during the period 1904-1908 that B.C. Pal lost his faith
in the British Government and consequently in the methods followed
by the contemporary leadership of the Indian National
Congress. He dubbed them as mendicants and their method of
prayers and protests as “political mendicancy.”6 It was during this
period that he along with the Lokmanya and Lala Lajpat Rai, presen¬
ted to the nation the political ideal and political programme of
Swaraj, Swadeshq Boycott and National Education. Not self-govern¬
ment whether colonial or otherwise which expressed the idea of
political freedom in terms of European thought and experience but
Swaraj was proclaimed by B.C. Pal as the new ideal. Swaraj was
not a mere political term. It was borrowed from the highest philo¬
sophical and religious literature of the people. B.C. Pal pointed
out, “The term is used in the Vedanta to indicate the highest spiritual
state, wherein the individual having realised his identity with the
universal, is not merely free from all Bondage, but is established in
perfect harmony with all else in the world.”7 He further added
“The state of Swaraj was attained we read in the Vedas, by the sage
Bama Deva, who, in the enthusiasm of his beatific union with the
universal cried out. ‘I am the Sun, I was Manu.’8 The word
‘Swaraj’ was distinguished from the corresponding English word
‘Freedom’ because the former is not like the latter a negative but
a positive concept. Thus B.C. Pal said “The corresponding term
in our language is not not-subjection which would be a literal
rendering of the English word Independence but self-subjection
which is a positive concept. It does not mean absence of restraint
or regulation or dependence but self-restraint, self-regulation and
self-dependence. In fact our self-subjection means a good deal
more than whatever the terms self-restraint, self-regulation, or self-
dependence would convey in English. For the self in Hindu
thought is a synonym for the universality. Self-subjection mean
therefore in our thought, really and truly subjection to the univer¬
sal. The complete indentification of the individual with the univer¬
sal, in every conscious relation of his life, is thus with us, an absolute
6. B.C. Pal, The Spirit of Indian Nationalism, p. 7.

7. Ibid., p. 46.
8. B.C. Pal, Nationality and Empire, Calcutta, (Thacker, Spink Co.) 1916
p. 34.
POLITICAL THOUGHT OF B. C. PAL 61
condition—precedent of the attainment of freedom, as it would be

called in English.”9 Moreover this conception of Swaraj is suppor¬
ted by the special genius of the Indian Culture and the generalisa¬
tions of the entire course of its past history and evolution. It is
based not on the western but on the Indian value system.
Swadeshi was in the mind of B.C. Pal associated with Boycott.
The two were according to him inseparable. Initially, Boycott was
accepted only as a temporary measure to protest against the grie¬
vance caused by the Bengal Partition but Bipinchandra “endowed
the Boycott category with a dynamic and revolutionary import.”
Intended originally to be an instrument of retaliation against the
British Commerce in the country the boycott category was develo¬
ped by him as an all-comprehensive program of Non-Coopera¬
tion with the alien despotism.10 Thus he said, “It means that it
shall move, move from point to point, move from city to city, move
from division to division, move I hope you will allow me to add
from province to province.. . .In Bengal we have not only tried to
boycott British goods but so far as it may be,—a convenient phrase,
all honorary association with the Government also. That is the
meaning of Boycott which will move from point to point until God
knows where.”* 11
Bipin Chandra ruled out the use of force as a method in our

struggle for freedom. Thus he said, “No one outside a lunatic
asylum will ever think of, or counsel any violent or unlawful methods
in India, in her present helplessness for the attainment of her civil
freedom...”.12 However, he emphasized “...If we may not
oppose physical force by physical force, we may yet make the
administration in India absolutely impossible by simply taking our
hands off the machine of the state...By simply obeying the
government and submitting to its laws, but at the same time refusing
to accept it as our own, and therefore not entitled to our voluntary
and honorary services, a refusal which is in nowise criminal, we can,
we believe, bring this Government down on its knees far more
effectively by absolutely peaceful means than we may ever hope to
do by any violent measures. Our ideal is freedom, which means
absence of all foreign control...Our method is Passive Resistance,
9. Ibid., pp. 33-34.

10. Bipin Chandra Pal & India’s Struggle for Swaraj. op. cit, p. 30.
11. B.C. Pal, Swadeshi & Swaraj, pp. 272-73.
12. B.C. Pal, Swadeshi the Goal and the Way. p. 23.
which means organised determination to refuse to render any

voluntary or honorary service to the government...”.13 And he
defined passive resistance as ‘...resistance that is not active
resistance, not resistance that is non-active, but non-aggressive
resistance...”14 He also agreed that we should stand within
the limits of the law and that we should respect the law. However,
he pointed out “...We shall respect that law...as long as
that law shall respect our primary rights which constitute the
authority of every government, whether that Government be a
despotic government, or a constitutional government, but rights
which no government can create, and which therefore no Govern¬
ment can destroy. As long as the laws of this Government shall
respect our primary rights of life and person of property and similar
primary rights, so long we propose to ourselves to be within the
bounds of law and passive resistance offered by a people from within
the limits of such law. That is in general our method.”15
“The fundamental difference between European Nationalism and

Indian Nationalism,” wrote B.C. Pal, “lies in the excessive empha¬
sis of one on territorial and of the other on cultural unity.”16 He
continued, “Economic conflicts, industrial competitions, greedy
rivalries for the acquisition of unappropriated territories and the
possession of unexplored markets, these are what have contributed
to the quickening and preservation of nationalism in Europe and
have kept the nations apart from one another.”17 And he commen¬
ted “a nationalism of this type must inevitably become narrow
and selfish, intolerant and aggressive.”18 —which according to him
was the general characteristic of nationalism in Europe. “Howe-
13. Ibid., p. 24.

14. B.C. Pal, Swadeshi & Swaraj, pp. 216-217.
15. Ibid. He justified resistance to the State on the grounds of Natural
Rights. Thus he said “There are certain rights which governments
do not create, but right which create governments themselves. These
are not constitutional rights they are natural rights.. rights the
charter of which is received from no man but from Him who stands
High.. and so long as the British government protects uncreated
rights of person and property of Individual Indian citizens so long
we shall respect their laws and our agitation shall be conducted
along such lines” “Swadeshi & Swaraj, p. 135.
16. B.C. Pal, Soul of India, p. 134.
17. Ibid., pp. 134-135.
18. Ibid., p. 143.
ver, this type of narrow, selfish and pathological patriotism was

never developed in ancient India.19
Nationalism was not for B.C. Pal, a mere political sentiment,

but secular both in its origins and implications. “The sacred and
the secular are” he said, “strangely blended together in every
department of the comparatively primitive life and activities of the
people..’20 Actually he believed that, “..the old world distinc¬
tion between the temporal and the external, the religious and
the secular, the sacred and the profane at once melts into thin air.
Religion merges into politics, politics into civics, the secular becomes
sacred; and the temporal spreads its wings into external principles
.... for all these are based upon external principles, all are guided by
eternal law, all are mere evolutions, mere manifestations, under
various conditions of the eternal varieties of human nature and all
are designed by government to help the eternal progress of man.”21
It was because of this belief in the organic unity of fife that he said
“This new Nationalist movement in India is essentially a spi¬
ritual Movement.. The philosophy that stands behind it is the
philosophy of the Absolute, the philosophy of Brahman, as applied
to the interpretation of man’s social and civic life..” The nation
was conceived not as a territory but as a spiritual being.
In introducing a spiritual nationalist movement in Bengal in

the days of the Swadeshi movement, B.C. Pal utilized the efforts
made in that direction both by the “Mother-worshippers” as well
as by the “New Vedantists” Thus in his writings and speeches he
pointed out, “The so-called idolatry of Hinduism is also passing
through a mighty transformation. The process started really with
Bankim Chander Chatterjee, who interpreted the most popular of
the Hindu goddesses as symbolic of the different stages of national
evolution.. This interpretation of the old images of Gods and
Goddesses had imparted a new meaning to the current ceremonialism
of the country and multitudes, while worshipping either Jagatdhari,
or Kali, or Durga accost them with devotion and enthusiasm,
with the inspiring cry of Bande-Mataram.. This wonderful
transfiguration of the old gods and goddesses is carrying the
message of new nationalism to the women and the masses of the
19. Ibid.
20. B.C. Pal, The Spirit of Indian Nationalism p. 11.
21. B.C. Pal, Writings and Speeches. Vol. I. pp. 12-13,
country”22 Similarly, he also pointed out how “Neo-Vedantism,

which forms the very soul and essence of what may be called Neo
Hinduism has been seeking to realise the old spiritual ideals of the
race, not through monkish negations or medieval abstractions, but
by the idealisation and the spiritualisation of the concrete contents
and actual relations of life. It demands consequently, a social and
economic and a political reconstruction, such as will be helpful to the
highest spiritual life of every individual member of the community.
The spiritual note of the present nationalist movement in India, is
entirely derived from this revived vedantic thought.”23 B.C. Pal
tried to integrate these attempts by showing to the people how the
origin of this concept of the land as Mother can be traced back to the
Vedic conception of the Earth God. This concept was now revived.
Bipin Chandra emphasized particularly that the idea of the

nation was not a mere word, a mere abstraction, a mere idea, “It is
something very tangible, something very concrete. It is both word
and thought both an idea and its symbol and manifestation—it is
both abstract and concrete. Its concrete elements are places and
persons sanctified by noble historic associations... .”2h Talking
of the personality of the Mother he wrote, “The mountains, these
rivers, these extensive plains and lofty plateaus are all witnesses
into the life and love of our race, in and through which the very
life and love of the Mother have sought and found uninterrupted
and progressive expression. Our history is the sacred biography
of the Mother. Our philosophies are the revelations of the
Mother’s minds, our poetry and our painting, our music and our
drama, our architecture and our sculptures all are the outflow of the
Mother’s diverse emotional moods and experiences. Our religion
is the organised expression of the Soul of the Mother.”25 He con¬
tinues later, “We are born in this land. It receives us into its
bosom even as our human mothers do. It supports our life with
its own substance even as the nursing mother supports the growing
life of her own baby. This land is literally the Mother of our physical
existence. It is indeed, the physical body of the soul of our land
and nation.”26
22. B.C. Pal. The Spirit of Indian Nationalism, pp. 37-38.

23. Ibid., pp. 39-40.
24. B. C. Pal, Swadeshi and Swaraj, pp. 85-86.
25. B.C. Pal, Soul of India, p. 199.
26. Ibid., p. 191.
Bipin Chandra believed that the type of nationalism that he had

conceived and organized was not negative in nature. It had, on
the other hand a positive value because it did not work in contra¬
diction with internationalism. “That International admixture
does not destroy the personality of a new nation, but on the contrary,
develops it and gives it a new shape and form, in which the older
types are not entirely obliterated, nor from which the older spirit
is absolutely eliminated, but where these are simply transformed and
transmuted.”27 Nationalism is necessary only because, “Every
nation must first and foremost of all be true to its own self. Its
self may not be very pure or refined or noble. But whatever its
state of progress or stage of evolution, it must, above all things, be
true to the special laws of that state or stage...It is the loyalty
of a nation to its own genius, its own nature, its own proper and
true self.”28 In developing the spiritual basis for his extremist
nationalist movement in India, B.C. Pal took pains to show that
his construction of the idea of nationalism was in consonance
with humanity and internationalism. Thus he explained, “...This
new patriotism has also become filliated to universal Humanity
which is symbolised by Maha-Vishnu or Narayana in orthodox
Hindu thought. Bunkim Chander Chatterjee is the discoverer of
this new salvation—Bande Matram and his symbolic presentation
of the “Mother” is significant. Here the essential and permanent
form of the “Mother” rests eternally on the lap of Mahavishnu.
This is her real form,—the national eternally resting in Humanity.”29
During the period 1908-11, the ideas of Bipin Chandra on Nati¬

onalism underwent a certain change. During this period, he came
to believe in what he called the ideal of Federal Internationalism or
Imperial Federation. He frankly confessed in one of his books
“...I cannot see any necessary conflict or anti-thesis between
Nationalism and Imperialism, but on the contrary believe that no
nationalist propaganda has any moral worth or significance which
does not work towards its own fulfilment—in the larger life of some
Federal Empire, which is the next higher step in the process of our
advancement towards that universal Humanity which is the ideal—
End of all social Evolution.”30 This transformation in his views
27. B.C. Pal, Swadeshi & Swaraj, p. 167.

28. Ibid., p. 161.
29. B.C. Pal, The Spirit of Indian Nationalism, pp. 13-14.
30. B.C. Pal, Nationality & Empire, pp. (xix-xx).
took place because he was unduly apprehensive of the Rise of Japan

on one side, that of China on the other and of the emergence of the
Pan-Islamic movement on the third.31 However^ he believed in
Imperialism only because it constituted a step ahead towards inter¬
nationalism. In theory at least, he propounded that, “The family,
the tribe, the race, the nation these form the ascending series of
social evolution...The individual sacrifices his individual freedom
in gaining the larger freedom of the family. The family sacrifices
similarly its older and narrower freedom in the same way and so
on. .This is exactly why in being members of a real Imperial
whole, nations though apparently sacrificing their isolated
Sovereign independence really gain assurance of a much larger
freedom, than what as isolated 800 States they could ever hope to
secure. This is why I hold that National Autonomy inside an
Imperial or International Federation is far more preferable even
ideally than isolated national independence.. ”32 Moreover, he
defined the word Nationality in such a way that it may not conflict
with the development of internationalism. Thus he defined
Nationality as the “Personality of People” and said, “Personality
implies, therefore, not isolation but only differentiation, and the
difference that the concept personality implies is a difference which
only breaks up uniformity in appearance or organisation but in no
way destroys, or even disturbs, the fundamental unity of being.
I would, therefore, describe Nationality rather as the Personality
of people than following Mazzini’s lead, define it as their Individua¬
lity.”33 However, it may be observed that both in his writings and
speeches, Bipin Chandra wavered in his views on nationalism.
There were occasions when he would talk of composite patriotism,34
at other occasions of nothing but Hindu nationalism and still others
when he preached even Bengal Nationalism.35
Bipin Chandra held that “Political institutions are the natural
expressions and embodiment of a people’s political life.”36 It was
31. It is very interesting to note that it was on the basis of these very facts
that Lala Lajpat Rai pressed upon the British to deliver India from
its bondage whereas B.C. Pal made a plea for the continuance of the
British connection.
32. Nationality and Empire, op. cit., p. (xix).
33. Ibid., p. 29.
34. See Swadeshi and Swaraj, pp. 15-16.
35. Refer to the chapter on “Political Thought of Lala Lajpat Rai.”
36. B.C. Pal, Nationality and Empire, p. 216.
because of this that he accepted, “..The institutions of so-called

self-government, as they have been developed in Europe may not
be entirely suited to the special genius and culture of our people..
The whole philosophy of what is called Representative government in
Europe is essentially individualistic and inherently anti-social..
And this being the character of the Representative institutions that
Europe has been able so far to develop, what reason is there for us
to hang down our heads in shame and humiliation if we are told
that these are not suited to our genius and character.”37 However
he contradicts himself when he says and one wonders on what
basis does he say that “Bed rock ideals of advanced political thought
and speculations of the modern world are found in the character
and constitution of ancient Hindu polity. The Swaraj that we
desire to see established in India must therefore, be a Democratic
Swaraj.” The only exceptions that he wanted to make to a whole¬
sale importation of the western political institutions were the idea
of the Federation, Decentralisation and the introduction of initia¬
tive, Recall and Referendum. These ideas are again western in origin
yet it may be pleaded that they are suited to the special genius and
culture of our people.
Bipin Chandra was particularly fascinated by the federal idea.

Thus he wrote, “The higher ideal of a Pan-Indian Federation,
the United State of India, is the only form of Swaraj which is in cons¬
onance with our past evolution and the eternal spirit of our special
thought and life, which has sought progressing realisation from
epoch to epoch through this evolution.”39 He pointed out
“.unitary governments are always centralised governments
and there is an inevitable tendency in all centralised governments
to develop class-rule.”40 And added “no centralised State
especially when it has to direct and control the administration of so
vast a country like India and provide for the defence of its extensive
land border and sea-board, can help growing into a military power.”41
In his scheme of an Indian Federation, Bipin Chandra made a
plea not only for provincial autonomy (Province to be constructed
on the basis of language) but also for District autonomy. Thus he
37. Ibid., pp. 204-205.

38. B.C. Pal, Swaraj, The Goal and the Way. pp. 42-43.
39. Ibid., pp. 54-55.
40. Ibid., p. 47.
41. Ibid., p. 48.
said “To secure real popular control over the provincial

governments, these must be split up into Districts, and the Central
Government in each province must also be a Federation of various
districts. Every district has a special character, its peculiar manners
of thinking and its peculiar marks of notes that distinguish it more
or less from the other districts.... Why should not these districts,
be permitted to grow in their own way, inside the general
provincial Community. On the contrary, to deny this autonomy
to these districts would prevent the development of real democratic
self-Government in the province.”42 He went further and said, “. .and
the District Government also must not be a unitary but a Federal
Government.. what reason is there that instead of Advisory Committees
we may not set up District Parliaments or Legislatures for the full
Government of the district. Legislatures that will be like the State
legislatures in America entirely responsible to its electors for the
administration of their affairs and the District Executive shall be
subject to this District Legislature. This will secure real democra¬
tic control of the administration of the Districts and prevent possible
centralisation and class rule.”43 The ultimate units were to be revi¬
ved and reconstructed village communities. Thus his scheme of
an Indian Federation was complete. “The District Governments
shall be built upon a federation of these village communities. The
provincial Government shall be similarly built upon a federation of
the District Governments. And the Central Government of India
shall be built upon a federation of the various Indian provinces,
reconstituted upon a linguistic basis.”44
Bipin Chandra also considered the objections that could be

raised about the proposed scheme. He was aware of the objection
that such a scheme may lead to parochialism but he countered it by
pointing out, “We have a highly developed system of railways
and public transportations... .Trade and Commerce_A more
liberal culture has been fast growing in the country—All these are,
I submit, ample and effective safeguards against the possible dangers
of the growth of any suicidal parochialism.. . .”45 However, one
may yet wonder how far is this proposed Scheme relevant to Indian
polity now. A reply to that will depend upon the answer to another
42. Ibid., p. 63.

43. Ibid., pp. 64. 64-65.
44. Ibid., pp. 65-66.
45. Ibid., pp. 69-70.
question:—As to whether it is really possible to achieve a rise in the

standard of living of the people of an economically under-developed
country with such highly and heavily decentralised political and
administrative structure. Attainment of Economic Prosperity in
an under-developed country appears to be extremely difficult, if
not altogether impossible, without some sort of centralisation both
in economy and administration.
Bipin Chandra had lot of sympathy for the Bolshevik move¬

ment and saw in it a hope for the oppressed people of the world.
His sympathies were due to the fact that he was, as were the Bol¬
sheviks, against economic and capitalist exploitation. Thus expla¬
ining the meaning of Bolshevism he said, “....and to-day after
the downfall of the German Militarism—after the destruction of the
autocracy of the Czars—there has grown up all over the world a
new power—the power of the peoples determined to rescue their
legitimate rights—the rights of the people to live freely and happily
without being exploited and victimised by the wealthier and the so-
called higher classes.”46 Similarly, he condemned the Peace Treaty
1918 because it was “a compact among the high powers for the
political and economic exploitation of weaker peoples.”47
However, Bipin Chandra was opposed not only to industrial exploi¬
tation but to industrialisation itself. Thus he wrote that, “the
advance of the modern industrial spirit.has already commen¬
ced to break up our old economic and social structure and revolu¬
tionise all the ancient ethical and spiritual values of life.... It has
set up in place of our old caste system based on birth and heredity,
a new order of social precedence and honour based on wealth....
If we desire to preserve what was morally and spiritually the best
in our culture and character, we must immediately put up a strong
fight against the inroads of modern capitalist industrialism.” And
he suggested, “we shall never be able to secure real freedom
unless we are able to stop the onrush of this capitalism upon us.
And the most effective means of doing it lies in the revival of our
old village life.”49
Bipin Chandra believed in securing the economic self-suffici-
46. B.C. Pal, The World-Situation and ourselves, pp. 22-23.

47. Ibid., p. 4.
48. Ibid., pp. 54-55.
49. B.C. Pal, Swaraj, The Goal and the Way p. 106.
ency of every house-hold in the land50 but he was also a vague

socialist. Not only is this a case of contradiction in his thought but
the basis on which he founded his vague socialism are still more
curious. He believed, “.... Socialism in the highest and
truest sense of the term, and not merely what it is understood to
mean by the followers of Marx—this socialism and not individualism
.. are the rudimentary concepts of our social and political philoso¬
phy,”61 and he used the term ‘Hindu Socialism’52 One is really left
wondering what can this term ‘Hindu Socialism’ mean. Moreover
he was encouraged in entertaining these views because of the ex¬
pectancy of help from the British labour circles in the advancement
of India’s struggle for freedom. But he had realised,
“.... British labour will not touch you (the Indians) with a pair
of tongs unless you raise your voice. Unless you rise up against
Indian capitalism as much as British labour has risen up against
British capitalism.”51 He suggested “we must immediately
demand these three things (i) High wages for labour (2) equal hours
of work and (3) the appropriation by the state of all excess
profits... .If it comes to the State we shall have enough money to
pay for every thing that we want—enough money to improve our
sanitation—enough money to educate the people—enough money
to grow to the full stature of our manhood through the help of our
government.”54 This was radical enough and socialistic too.
But it runs counter to his earlier views expressed during the period
1902-1907 when he had said, “In view of this conflict of interests
between the Government and the people of India, the policy of
Indian patriotic politics ought to be the old liberal policy of
Laissez-faire, that is to restrict the Government to their primary
responsibilities only—because every beneficent work that a despotic
Government does^ increases the hold of that despotism upon the
affections and the allegiance, upon the acquiescence of the people.. .
Therefore, our policy is a policy of Laissez-faire... .by restricting
the activities of the government to the primary functions of gran¬
ting protection to the people of this country, we hope to develop
the spirit of self sacrifice, the spirit of self-reliance, and the spirit of
50. See Ibid., pp. 103-104.

51. B.C. Pal, Nationality and Empire, pp. 85-86.
52. Ibid., p. 28.
53. B.C. Pal, The World-Situation and Ourselves, pp. 41-42.
54. Ibid., pp. 44-45.
self-determination in the people, and by this means we hope to

attain the ideal of Swaraj.”65
Lack of consistency in the political thought of Bipin Chandra

appears to be, not a result of intellectual developments of a later
period of his life, but due to the changing shift in his policy toward
the British in the general attempt to attain autonomy or indepen¬
dence for India. However, his emphasis on the ideas of Federa¬
tion, Decentralisation and Initiative, Recall and Referendum, is
a legacy worthy of consideration for independent India.
55. B.C. Pal, Swadeshi and Swaraj, pp. 178-79.

CHAPTER SEVEN
POLITICAL THOUGHT OF SRI AUROBINDO
Sri Aurobindo (1872-1950) has been generally recognised as one

of the great Indian thinkers of the present age. Dr. S. Radha
Krishnan spoke of him as “the most accomplished of modern Indian
thinkers”.1 Rabindranath Tagore hailed him as one of the messiahs
of Indian culture and civilisation. Thus he wrote, “I said to him
(Aurobindo) ‘you have the word and we are waiting to accept it from
you. India will speak through your voice to the world. Hearken to
me’.”2 He was a great Yogi, a great humanist and he was also
a great patriot. Thus Deshbandhu Chittaranjan Das in his address
in the Alipore Conspiracy Case 1909, befittingly pronounced that,
“. . Long after he is dead and gone, Aurobindo will be looked upon
as the poet of patriotism, as the prophet of nationalism and as the
lover of humanity.. . .his words will be echoed and re-echoed not only
in India but across distant seas and lands.”3
It was during the period 1905-1910 that Sri Aurobindo parti¬

cipated actively in Indian Politics. During this period, he was the
editor of the ‘Bande-Mataram’ and was appointed the Principal of a
national college in Calcutta. He wrote extensively and in many journals
of the times. He delivered speeches and composed patriotic poems.
In the year 1910 he left politics and British India to settle down
in Pondicherry to pursue spiritual goals. However, even after leav¬
ing politics, he wrote two important books bearing on political issues
and ideas namely ‘The Human Cycle’4 5 and the ‘Ideal of Human
Unity’.6 These along with his speeches and writings of the period
1. See Iyengar, Srinivasa. Sri Aurobindo. Calcutta, Arya Publishing

House 1945. p. 12.
2. Ibid., pp. 11-12.
3. See Mitra, Sisir Kumar. Sri Aurobindo & Indian Freedom. Madras
Sri Aurobindo Library. 1948. p. 24.
4. Aurobindo, The Human Cycle. New York, Sri Aurobindo Library.
1950. pp. 312.
5. Aurobindo, The Ideal of Human Unity. New York, Sri Aurobindo
Library. 1950. pp. 340.
POLITICAL THOUGHT OF SRI AUROBINDO 73
1905-1910 mainly constitute the source-material for the study of his

political thought.
Sri Aurobindo was a revivalist in the sense that he wanted to

revive “the spirit, ideals and methods of ancient India”.6 He was
against the blind imitation of the west. Thus he said, “It is God’s
will that we should be ourselves and not Europe”.7 However, he
did not intend keeping himself immune from the influence of the
West but he did say “What we have to take from the West we shall
take as Indians”.8 In fact, the late Romain Rolland was right when
he recognized in him “the completest synthesis that has been
realized to this day of the genius of Asia and the genius of Europe”.9
From the very beginning, Aurobindo belonged to the Extremist

School of Politics in India. He was extremely critical of the Indian
moderates and differed widely with them in his vision of the political
future of India, in his views on nationalism and in substituting the
method of passive resistance in place of their method of prayers and
petitions. “To strive for anything less than a strong and glorious
freedom”, Aurobindo said “would be to insult the greatness of our
past and magnificent possibilities of our future.”10 He declared,
“We of the new school would not pitch our ideal one inch lower
than absolute Swaraj—Self—Government as it exists in the United
Kingdom”.11 He further elaborated his ideal by saying, “Our ideal
is that of Swaraj or absolute autonomy free from foreign control.
We claim the right of every nation to live its own life by its own ener¬
gies according to its own nature and ideals. We reject the claim
of aliens to force upon us a civilization inferior to our own or keep
us out of our inheritance on the untenable ground of a superior
fitness.”12 Aurobindo did not have any admiration for the British
connection and would not recognize the inevitability of its existence
like the moderate leadership. He? in fact, raised the slogan of Complete
6. Sri Aurobindo, The Brain of India. Calcutta, Arya Publishing House.

1923. pp. 10-11.
7. Sri Aurobindo, The Ideal of the Karmayogin Calcutta, Arya Publishing
House, 1921. pp. 6-7.
8. Ibid.
9. See Iyengar, op. cit., p. 12.
10. Sri Aurobindo, The Doctrine of Passive Resistance, Calcutta, Arya
Publishing House, pp. 69-70.
11. Ibid.
12. Sri Aurobindo, Speeches. Calcutta, Arya Publishing House. 1922.
pp. 173-74.
Independence which was not included even by Tilak in his practical

political programme.
In ‘The Ideal of Human Unity’ written after his retirement from

active politics, Aurobindo defined the nation as“a persistent psycho¬
logical unit which Nature has been busy developing throughout
the world in the most various forms and educating into physical
and political unity” and added that, “Political unity is not the
essential factor; it may not yet be realized and yet the nation
persists and moves inevitably towards its realization”.13 This
view of the nation is in no way substantially different from the
western concept of the nation. In the west, there is some broad
agreement on the definition of the term nation and it is generally
understood to imply “a common political sentiment”.14 However,
Aurobindo criticized the western concept of the nation and its imita¬
tion by the Indian moderates, during the period of his active political
life 1905-i 910. The Bengal Partition Movement had under the ins¬
piration of B.C. Pal, evolved a unique type of Indian nationalism.
It was supposed to be a spiritual type of nationalism as contradistin¬
guished from the economic and territorial type of western nationalism.
During that period, Aurobindo also subscribed to the preaching of
that type of unique nationalism. Thus it was conceived not as
a territory but as a spiritual being and the Nation was to be or¬
ganized not on the basis of common self-interest but on the basis of
common feeling that “we are all sons of one common mother”.16
Moreover, the mother was invested with a personality. Thus
Aurobindo said, “.your common Mother that is not merely
the soil. That is not merely a division of land but it is a living
thing. It is the mother in whom you move and have your being”.18
After his release from the Alipur Conspiracy Case (1909), Aurobindo
identified his concept of the nation with Dharma itself. Thus he
said, “The Hindu nation was born with the Sanatana Dharma. With
it, it moves and with it, it grows. When the Sanatana Dharma de¬
clines, then the nation declines and if the Sanatana Dharma were
capable of perishing with the nation it would perish. The Sanatana
Dharma, that is nationalism”.17 He talked of the “birth of the
13. Sri Aurobindo, The Ideal of Human Unity.

14. See Chapter one of this book.
15. Aurobindo, Speeches of. p. 140.
16. Ibid., pp. 33-34.
17. Aurobindo, Uttarpara Speech. Calcutta, Arya Publishing House, p. 20.
Avatar in the nation”18 and described how the idea of the nation
was immortal because”.the three hundred millions of people
of this country are God in the nation, something which cannot be
measured by so much land, or by so much money, or by so many
lives. You will then realize that it is something immortal that the
idea for which you are working is something immortal and that it is
an Immortal Power that is working in you”.19 However, Aurobindo
always explained that “our ideal of patriotism proceeds on the basis
of love and brotherhood and it looks beyond the unity of the nation
and envisages the ultimate unity of mankind.”20 In his ‘Ideal of
Human Unity’ he only discussed ways and means through which the
ultimate unity of mankind could be achieved. He discussed the
various ways in which world unity could be achieved but pointed
out that “this is the conclusion at which we arrive—while it is possible
to construct a precarious and quite mechanical unity by political and
administrative means—the unity of the human race, even if achieved,
can only be secured and can only be made real if the religion of hu¬
manity which is at present the highest active ideal of mankind, spiri¬
tualises itself and becomes the general inner law of human life.”21
Aurobindo dubbed the Moderates as mendicants because they

believed in the effectiveness of the method of prayers and petitions.
However, he was sure that “merely by spending the ink of the jour¬
nalist and petition-framer and the breath of the orator”21 India could
not secure compelte independence. He also exploded Moderatist
misconceptions and superstitions such as their belief in British justice
and the benefits bestowed by a foreign Government on India and
stressed persistently on the emasculation, stagnation, poverty, economic
dependence and many other evil results of an alien Government. In
his articles in the ‘Bandemataram’ he pleaded for self-help and preached
Passive Resistance. However, Passive Resistance was adopted by
Aurobindo as the best policy for the National Movement at that stage
and this was not a part of a gospel of Non-Violence or Ahimsa.
“Sri Aurobindo never concealed his opinion that a nation is entitled
to attain its freedom by violence, if it can do so or if there is no other
way; whether it should do so or not, would depend on what under
particular circumstances is the best policy—not on ethical considerations
18. Ibid., pp. 33-34.

19. Ibid., pp. 29-30.
20. Aurobindo. The Ideal of Human Unity. Calcutta.
21. Aurobindo, The Doctrine of Passive Resistance, p. 71.
of the Gandhian kind”.22 He was by no means a pacifist, much less a

Votary of Ahimsa. In his Essays on the Gita, he supported the
idea of Dharma Yudha and said that to kill national enemies in a
Dharma Yuddha was also a part of the Dharma”.23 He also said
“Politics is the realm of the Kshatriya and the morality of the Kshatriya
ought to govern our political action. To impose in politics the
Brahmanical duty of saintly sacrifice is to preach Varnasankara.”24
He justified aggression and armed revolt on the basis of the teaching
of the Gita. In his article “The morality of Boycott” he said,
“The Gita is the best answer to those who shrink from battle as a
sin and aggression as a lowering of morality.”25 He also pointed
out how the armed revolt as a political method is ‘‘the readiest and
the swiftest, the most thorough in its results, and demands the
least powers of endurance and suffering and the smallest and briefest
sacrifices.”2®
Aurobindo said, “.... a law imposed by a people on itself

has a binding force which cannot be ignored except under extreme
necessity; a law imposed from outside has no such moral sanction,
its claim to obedience must rest on coercive force or on its own
equitable and beneficial character and not on the source from which
it proceeds. If it is unjust and oppressive, it may become a duty to dis¬
obey it and quietly endure the punishment which the law has provided
for its violation”.27 Thus disobedience to the law of a regime which
is unjust and oppressive is not only a right but also a duty enjoined
upon us as is the case in Gandhian Philosophy of Satyagraha. Like
Gandhi, he also preached the technique of non-cooperation including
its extreme form, the non-payment of taxes. Like the slogan
of the American War of Independence “No Taxation Without Re¬
presentation” his slogan was ‘‘No Control, No Cooperation”.28 “If
the Indians no longer consented to teach in Government schools or
work in the Government offices, or serve the alien as police, the
administration could not continue for a day.”29 However, Aurobindo
22. Iyengar, Srinivasa. Sri Aurobindo. p. 168.

23. Aurobindo, Dharma Aur Jatiyata. (In Hindi) p. 43.
24. Aurobindo, Doctrine of Passive Resistance, pp. 81-33.
25. Ibid., p. 81.
26. Ibid., pp. 28-29.
27. Ibid., p. 53.
28. Aurobindo. Speeches of. pp. 177-78.
29. Doctrine of Passive Resistance, op. cit., p. 38.
did not start a non-payment of taxes movement, but confined himself

to the programme of Boycott.
The philosophy of the Passive Resistance and Non-Cooperation

programme of Aurobindo was vitally different from that of Gandhi.
As we have seen earlier, Aurobindo did not condemn violence,
aggression or armed revolt the way in which Gandhi did it. More¬
over, Passive Resistance for Aurobindo was merely a stepping stone
to active resistance, violence and armed revolt whenever necessary
and possible. Thus he said, “we preach defensive resistance mainly
passive in its methods at present but active whenever active resistance
is needed”30 because “Passive Resistance cannot build up a strong
and great nation unless it is masculine, bold and ardent in its spirit and
ready at any moment and at the slightest notice to supplement itself
with active resistance. We do not want to develop a nation of
women who know only how to suffer and not how to strike”.31 This
is what Gandhi would describe as the Satyagraha of the weak.
“There is this deeper truth which Individualism has discovered”,

wrote Aurobindo, “that the individual is not merely a social unit;
his existence, his right and claim to live and grow are not founded
solely on his social work and pack hive or ant-hill; he is something
in himself, a soul, a being, who has to fulfil his own individual truth
and law as well as his natural or his assigned part in the truth and law
of the collective existence.”32 He added that the individual demands
“freedom, space, initiative for his soul, for his nature” and that is an
idea which, he said is a “truth which intellectually recognized and
given its full exterior and superficial significance by Europe, agrees
at its root with the profoundest and highest spiritual conceptions of
Asia and has a large part to play in the moulding of the future.”33
With this concept of the individual Aurobindo was bound to believe
in what he wrote in ‘The Group and the Individual’ that, “The
falsehood lies in the underlying idea that the State is something greater
than the individuals constituting it and can with impugnity.... arrogate
this oppressive supremacy”.31 He, in fact, talked of the “inadequacy
of the State Idea”.35 Thus he asked what, after all, is this State
30. Ibid., p. 67.

31. Ibid., p. 65.
32. Aurobindo. The Human Cycle, pp. 25-26.
33. Ibid., p. 26.
34. The Ideal of Human Unity, op. cit, p. 33.
35. Ibid., pp. 35-42.
Idea and replied, “Theoretically, it is the subordination of the indi¬

vidual to the good of all that is demanded ; Practically it is his subor¬
dination to a collective ego”36 He added, “The organised State
is neither the best mind of the nation .... It is a collective egoism much
inferior to the best of which the community is capable.”37 He also
pointed out how the individual has usually something like a soul or
at least a system of morality and an ethical sense whereas the State
“has no soul or only a rudimentary one. It is a military, political
and economic force ; but it is only in the slightest and undeveloped
degree, if at all, an intellectual and ethical being.”38 Moreover,
“The State is a convenience, and a rather clumsy convenience for our
common development; it ought never to be made an end in itself.”39
With this conception and view of the nature of the State, Auro-
bindo was bound to believe in the limited functions of the State and
therefore, it is wildly exaggerated to talk of him as a Socialist or a
Social Democrat unless the expression is to be used in a very loose
and vague sense. According to Aurobindo, it is the energy of the
individual which is really the effective agent of collective progress.
“The State sometimes comes in to aid if and when; if its aid does not
mean undue control, it serves a positively useful end”.40 However,
the claim of the State that the supremacy and universal activity of the
organized State machine is the best means of human progress “is also
an exaggeration and a fiction”41 because “man lives by the com¬
munity ; he needs it to develop himself individually as well as collec¬
tively”. But he asks “Is it true that a State governed action is the
most capable of developing the individual perfectly as well as of
serving the common ends of the community” and declared, “It is not
true. What is true is that it is capable of providing the co-operative
action of the individuals in the community with all necessary obstacles
which would otherwise interfere with its working. Here the real
utility of the State ceases”.42 Thus he rejects State collectivism but
also disapproves the philosophy of orthodox English Individualism
of the 19th century. “The non-recognition of the possibilities of
36. Ibid., p. 35.

37. Ibid., p. 37.
38. Ibid., pp. 37-38.
39. Ibid., p. 39.
40. Ibid., p. 37.
41. Ibid., p. 39.
42. Ibid., pp. 39-40.
human cooperation,” he wrote, “was the weakness of English Indi¬

vidualism ; the turning of an utility for co-operative action into an
excuse for rigid control by the State is the weakness of the Teutonic
idea of collectivism”.43 He concluded “The business of the State
so long as it continues to be a necessary element in human life and
growth, is to provide all possible facilities for co-operative action, to
remove obstacles to prevent all really harmful waste and friction
... .and removing avoidable injustice to secure for every individual
a just and equal chance of self-development and satisfaction to the ex¬
tent of his powers and in the line of his nature. To this extent the
aim in Modern Socialism is right and good”.44 However, there
is a significant addition to this in which he says, “But all unneces¬
sary interference with the freedom of Man’s growth is to that extent
harmful. Even co-operative action is injurious if, instead of seeking
the good of all, it immolates the individual to a communal egoism
and prevents so much freedom and initiative as is necessary for the
flowering of a more perfectly developed humanity.”45
According to Aurobindo, “The individual does not owe his

ultimate allegiance either to the State, which is a machine, or to the
community which is a part of life and not the whole of fife; his alle¬
giance must be to the Truth, the Self, the Spirit, the Divine which is in
him and in all.46. However, this insistence on individuality in
Aurobindo is not rooted in the ego. Thus he said, “Liberty and
equality, liberty and authority, liberty and organized efficiency can
never be quite satisfactorily reconciled so long as man, individual and
aggregate, fives by egoism, so long as he cannot undergo a great spiri¬
tual and psychological change and rise beyond mere communal
association to that third ideal... .the ideal of fraternity or, less senti¬
mentally and more truly expressed, an inner oneness.”47
By liberty, Aurobindo meant the “freedom to obey the law of our

being ; to grow to our natural self-fulfilment, to find out naturally
and freely our harmony with the environment.48 In the present state
of ignorance of our mind and will, Aurobindo would accept the ex-
43. Ibid., p. 40.

44. Ibid., p. 41.
45. Ibid.
46. Aurobindo, The Life Divine, Vol. II. Calcutta, Arya Publishing
House. 1941. p. 921.
47. The Ideal of Human Unity, op. cit. pp. 124-25.
48. Ibid., p. 166.
ternal restraints enforced by law. However, he did not fail to point

out that, “All repressive or preventive law is only a make-shift, a
substitute for the true law which must develop from within and be
not a check on liberty but its outward image and visible expression.
Human society progresses really and vitally in proportion as law
becomes the child of freedom; it will reach its perfection when
man having learned to know and become spiritually one with his
fellow-man, the spontaneous law of his society exists only as the out¬
ward world of his self-governed inner liberty.”49 The self-govern¬
ed inner liberty was for him more vital and real than the outer liberty.
Particularly after his retirement from active politics, Aurobindo talked
in terms of inner liberty and spiritual freedom. Even in the period
of his political life, the goal that he pursued was the goal of Swaraj
rather than that of Independence and the former conveyed more sense
of inner freedom as the latter conveyes more sense of an outer free¬
dom.
Aurobindo was conscious that the Westerners had found out

the way to external freedom as we had found out the way to internal
freedom. Thus he said, “we have learned from them (the Europeans)
to aspire after external as they will learn from us to aspire after internal
freedom”.50 He emphasized the inner freedom more than the outer
freedom because “The first thing that a nation must do is to realize
the true freedom that is within us and it is only when you understand
that free within is free without, you will be really free. It is for this
reason that we preach the gospel of qualified Swaraj”.51 Later on,
he added, “.... Recover the source of strength in yourselves and
all else will be added to you, social soundness, intellectual pre¬
eminence, political freedom, the mastery of human thought, the
hegemony of the world.”52 However, Aurobindo realised that in the
present state of ignorance of our mind and will, unqualified Swaraj
or the inner freedom might not be completely achieved. In such a
situation, he suggested by implication the possibility of co-relation¬
ship between inner freedom and outer freedom. Thus a pursuit
for inner freedom would be incomplete without an attempt at outer
freedom as the latter would be useless unless it leads to the former.53
49. Ibid., pp. 166-67

50. Speeches of Aurobindo. op. cit., p. 115.
51. Ibid., p. 46.
52. Human Cycle, op. cit. p,
53. See Aurobindo, Evolution. Calcutta, Arya Publishing House, 1923. p. 31.
CHAPTER EIGHT
POLITICAL THOUGHT OF LALA LAJPAT RAI
Lala Lajpat Rai (1865-1928) was bom in an Agarwal (Bania) family

of Jagaraon in the Ludhiana District of the Punjab. His father, Munshi
Radha Krishna, was by profession as well as by practice a follower
of the Muslim sect headed by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan.1 On the
other hand, his mother belonged to a Sikh family of the Punjab and
was deeply devoted to the practice of popular Hinduism.2 In this
context, it is really interesting to find how Lala Lajpat Rai came to
believe and was later to profess the principles of Arya Samaj. It was
mainly under the influence of his colleagues at the college and public
spirited men, who were running the Arya Samaj at Lahore, that Lajpat
Rai joined the Samaj in the year 1882. This was a turning point3
in his life and he wrote later to say—“. .and all that was good and
creditable in me I owe to the Arya Samaj. It was the Arya Samaj
that taught me to love the Vedic religion and to be proud of Aryan
greatness. It was the Arya Samaj that linked me into the Ancient
Aryas and made me their admirer and devotee. It was the Arya Samaj
that instilled into me love for my nation and that breathed into me the
spirit of truth of Dharma and of liberty. My organizing capacity too
I owe to the Arya Samaj. It was the Samaj again that taught me that
Society, Dharma and country command our worship and that those shall
inherit the kingdom of Heaven who make sacrifices to serve these”.4
Lala Lajpat Rai had studied John Stuart Mill and Bentham in
his college days5 and pursued with vigour his study of western politi¬
cal thought while practising at Hissar6. He was during the period
of his active public life at Lahore, acquainted with the latest and the
1. Lala Lajpat Rai, Autobiography (Hindi) Lahore (Navyug Granth Mala)

(Year N.M. p. 21-22.
2. Ibid., pp. 23-27.
3. Ibid., p. 43.
4. The People, May 2, 1926.
5. Lala Lajpat Rai op. cit., p. 54.
6. Ibid., pp. 60-74.
82 POLITICAL THOUGHT OF LALA LAJPAT RAI
most progressive thinkers both in the East and in the West. A reading
of the life and speeches of Joseph Mazzini was particularly fascinating
and to him goes the credit of being described as the Political Guru
of Laia Lajpat Rai. Writing in his autobiography LajpatRai said“..
I determined that all my life I would follow the teachings of Mazzini
and serve my nation. I made Mazzini my Guru and so he continues
to be to this day.. I read Mazzini’s biography from cover to
cover and I was moved by it far more intensely7—than I had been
several years before by Babu Surendra Nath Bannerjee’s speech about
Mazzini. The profound nationalism of the great Italian, his troubles
and tribulations, his moral superiority, his broad humanitarian
sympathies, enthralled me”.
Surprisingly enough, Lala Lajpat Rai though a staunch advocate

of the principles of Arya Samaj and of the Vedic Religion was never
deeply devoted to the study of things religious.8 The reason was
his ignorance of Sanskrit language and his extremely poor know¬
ledge of Hindi in spite of his strong advocacy for the latter as the only
national language for India. In fact, his regards for Hindu religion or
for Vedic religion were not a result of religious education but a by¬
product of his nationalist feelings.9 In his autobiography he describes10
how his hatred and admiration for the Hindu culture and civilization
was based not on any systematic study of the principles that embody
Hinduism, but because of the involvement in a contemporary conflict
raised over the question of Hindi Urdu languages and also because of
stray passages on Hindu Heroism and things of that type picked up
from his study of Urdu literature.
It is interesting to find that Lala Lajpat Rai though a Pucca

Arya Samajist, was not a Hindu Revivalist of the type that Bal Ganga-
dhar Tilak was. In fact, once he described how he differed from the
Lokmanya because “He was an orthodox revivalist. I was a social
reformer. He was a pucca Sanatanist; I was an Arya Samajist”* 11
In one of his open letters to Sir Syed Ahmed Khan he even went to
the extent of saying “Our English education, the study of Eminent
European minds and European Sciences—alas, that you cannot feel
7. The People July 25, 1929.
8. Lala Lajpat Rai op. cit. p. 139.
9. Ibid., p. 142.
10. Ibid., pp. 139-147 and also p. 54.
11. Lala Lajpat Rai (ed. by) The People. A Weekly from Lahore August 2,
1925.
POLITICAL THOUGHT OF LALA LAJPAT RAI 83
this has expanded our souls and we can no longer be selfish ‘Sat
Bachina’ prodigies of your oriental Language.”12 But his more
mature thoughts on the question appear to have been expressed in
one of his articles-entitled Reform or Revival ? Wherein he dis¬
cussed extensively the difference between the Reformist as well as the
Revivalist Schools of Thought and concluded “On our part we here
in the Punjab are prepared to take our inspiration from both these
sources though we prefer to begin with the latter and call in the assis¬
tance of the former mainly to understand and explain what is not
clear and ambiguous in the latter.. ”13 Actually his view was that “ ..
the ancient civilisation of India is superior to the modern civilization
of Europe.. (But) Western Civilization is a gigantic force and we
cannot protect ourselves from its advancing march”.14
In his book Young India, first published in 1916 in the U.S.A.,

Lala Lajpat Rai provided an interpretation to the history of the
Indian Nationalist Movement. In his England'’s Debt to India he
narrated how the story of the British Rule in India was a long pro¬
cess of military and economic exhaustion, a sort of killing by inches
which took a century to complete.15 In Arya Samaj he gave an
account of its origin, doctrines and activities. The National
Education in India.... contained his philosophy of Education and
summary of the reforms he suggested to improve the existing
educational pattern of India. His Unhappy India was a reply to
Miss Catherine Mayo’s Mother India. It was written with the con¬
fession that “it is with extreme reluctance amounting to pain, that I
have referred to certain phases of American life. There is another
side of American life—beautiful, noble5 humane^ full of the milk of hu¬
man kindness of which I had personal experience during my five year’s
residence in that country. In order to expiate the sin of noting down
some of the dark spots of American life in this book I may have to
write another book depicting the bright traits of American character
in the shape of personal narrative of character-sketches”16 The
Political Future of India was sort of a running commentary on the
12. C-anesh & Co. (ed. by) Lala Lajpat Rai The Man in his Word 1907
Madras p. 15.
13. Ibid., p. 28.
14. Ibid., p. 248.
15. Lala Lajpat Rai, England's Debt to India p. 327.
16. Lala Lajpat Rai, Unhappy India Calcutta (Banna Publishing Co.)
1928 p. (X).
Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms which posed a query as to what was the

end of the Indian Nationalist Movement and the answer was.... “The
end is freedom to live .... according to our own conception of what
life should be to pursue our own ideals to develop our own personality
and to secure that unity of purpose which would distinguish us from
the other nations of the world, ensuring for us a position of indepen¬
dence and honour of security from within and non-interference
from without.17 He also wrote on The United States of America,
on the life and manners of the Burmese people, “The story of my
deportation” and on the Evolution of Japan. He wrote a small
history of India in Urdu and small biographies of Sri Krishna, Asoka,
Siva Jee, Guru Datta, Mazzini and Garibaldi and his own autobio¬
graphy. He also edited The Punjabee, The People, and wrote a very
large number of articles not only in these journals but in almost all
the important journals of India and abroad. All this constitutes the
source material for a study of the political ideas of Lala Lajpat Rai.
Unlike the early Indian Leadership, Lala Lajpat Rai had no admira¬
tion for the British sense of fair-play and justice and did not hold that
the economic interests of India and England were allied rather than
antagonistic. Therefore he did not believe in the moderate method
of prayers and petitions. In fact, he said, “Personally I am a believer
in the efficacy of prayer as an instrument of religious discipline....
(But) Prayers to the ruling nation may be useful to you in proving the
uselessness of appealing to the higher sense of man, in matters political
where the interests of one nation clash with those of another and in
driving you to the conclusion that human nature constituted as it is,
is extremely selfish and not likely to change or bend unless the force
of circumstances compels it to do so in spite of itself.”18 Actually
he was more akin to the Extremist School of Politics in his views on
the political goal, political program and political methods which he
visualized and acted upon in his struggle for India’s emancipation from
British bondage. He was particularly close to the Lokmanya. Thus
he said, “... yet with all these differences, we had common political
principles and almost common political ideals with a deep rooted
distrust in foreign rule and lack of faith in foreign help, and in the
sweet words and promises and pledges of British statesman.”19
17. Lala Lajpat Rai The Political Future of India, New York (B.W. Huebsh)
1919 p. 197.
18. Ibid., pp. 181-82.
19. The People. August 2, 1925.
He further wrote, “Many things were done during that session of the
congress (Benaras 1905) which brought Tilak and me nearer each
other and by which he became the acknowledged leader of the Extre¬
mist party throughout India.”20+21 In fact, the trio of words Lal-Bal-
Pal became the symbol of Extremism in Indian politics and the source
of inspiration lor revolutionary movements in India. The bonds of
unity were forged during the Bengal Partition Movement and con¬
tinued unimpaired till the death of the Lokmanya. The trio believed
in and presented to the Nation the political goal of Swaraj, political
program of National Education, Swadeshi and Boycott and “the
political method of Passive Resistance. Writing on National Educa¬
tion he said “However paradoxical it may sound, while it is true
that a nation cannot be properly educated unless it is free to spend
its revenues and to determine its own scheme of education it is equally
true that it cannot achieve its freedom unless it has been properly
used....”22 Applauding the Swadeshi movement, he wrote, “The
Swadeshi ought to make us self-respecting, self-reliant, self-supporting,
self-sacrificing and last but not the least manly. The Swadeshi ought
to teach us how to organize our capital, our resources, our labour,
our energies and our talents to the greatest good of all Indians irres¬
pective of creed, colour or caste. In fact, the Swadeshi ought to be the
common religion of United India.”23 And he also wrote to say,
“The first step of the political ladder then consists in our educating
the people in a school of politics and initiating them into a religion
of true patriotism with a creed of Nationality, liberty and unity to be
believed and striven after... .”24 Moreover, the political method which
Lala Lajpat Rai held perfectly legitimate, perfectly constitutional
and perfectly justifiable is the method of Passive Resistance.”25
However, the extremist trio collapsed after the death of the

Lokmanya. The relations between Lala Lajpat Rai and Shri B.C.
Pal deteriorated to such an extent that the former criticized and con¬
demned very severely the latter’s views on Bengal Hinduism which
had been expressed by B.C. Pal in one of his articles in Englishman.
But he continued to follow the political method which the trio
20+21. Ibid.
22. Lala Lajpat Rai, the Political Future of India, p. 186.
23. Ibid., p. 210.
24 Ibid., p. 151.
25. Lala Lajpat Rai, Ideals of Non-cooperation Madras (S. Ganesan
& Co.) 1924, pp. 115-117
had evolved during the days of the Lokmanya. Actually, he started

the Tilak School of Politics in Lahore during the days of the non¬
cooperation movement initiated by Mahatma Gandhi. During
the non-cooperation movement and thereafter his political method
was always the same as that of the Lokmanya and even during the
days of Swarajist politics, he held firmly to Tilak’s method of
Non-cooperation and non-violence and to his views on the same.
Thus, in one of his articles he explained how his relations with Mahatma
Gandhi were of the most cordial and pleasant nature but “they
differed widely in principles and programmes and even more so in
temperament and behaviour’.’26 He admitted, “I have no faith in
non-violence as a creed but I accept it as a policy best under the cir¬
cumstances.”27 Moreover, he said, “Non-cooperation with the
foreign rulers is the only right course for a subject people... .but
non-cooperation on a rigid program for such a big nation with so
much heterogeneity was doomed to failure.... we are wedded
neither to co-operation nor to non-cooperation. We must do what
is bestj practical and possible under the circumstances.”28 Actually
he started his weekly journal, “The People” with a frank criticism of
Gandhian methods in the first issue itself. Thus, in his first editorial
of the People, he wrote, “Melodrama and an excess of sentimentality
have no place in politics. For some time we have been busy making
experiments with schemes which could not possibly be carried out
without an immediate radical change in human nature. Politics deals
primarily and essentially with the facts of a nation’s life and the
possibilities of its progress in the light of that. Human nature
cannot be changed in months and years. A campaign of political
emancipation of a nation under foreign rule imposed and maintained
at the point of bayonet cannot be based on the attempt to change
human nature quickly. Such attempts are bound to fail and end in
disastrous action.”29
It may also be pointed out that Lala Lajpat Rai had finally decided
that ‘To think of physical force in the existing conditions and
circumstances is folly.’30 That was the reason why he did not
26. The People, July 26, 1925.

27. Ibid.
28. Ibid.
29. The People July 5, 1925.
30. Lala Lajpat Rai, Ideals of Non-cooperation, Madras (S. Ganesan) 1924.
p. 98.
join31 the Indian Revolutionaries and maintained an attitude of

‘benevolent neutrality’32 between the British empire and the Indian re¬
volutionaries. However, short of physical force, Lala Lajpat Rai agreed
to the use of any method howsoever defiant and disobedient for the
British rulers in India32a. Thus, he argued “British laws have in ethics
and according to the latest juristic theory, no binding force upon us.
What is the aim and object of our life ? What is the end we are striv¬
ing for ? The freedom of our country, its emancipation in order to
constitute itself into a sovereign nation for the good of all the com¬
munities forming the nation, as well as for the good of the human race.
The extent to which the British help us in the attainment of these ob¬
jects is the measure of our loyalty to them. Even under a national
government there is always a limit to the desire for peace and order.
These laws are made by them and in the interest of their rule. We or
our people were no party to their making. Consequently; these laws
have no moral claim, on our allegiance”33 Thus; he concluded
“Civil Disobedience is based on truth and on a sense of duty. It is
fundamentally right”.34 However, he emphasized that every step in
our struggle for emancipation is to be taken only at the time of a
favourable opportunity and that every time is not fit enough for
launching either complete non-cooperation or civil disobedience.
In the sphere of social reform, Lala Lajpat Rai adopted a line

more akin to the Indian moderates like Justice Ranade and Gopal
Krishna Gokhale than to the Lokmanya. This was because of
his close and intimate association with Arya Samaj which was
primarily a reformist movement both in the religious and the social
sphere. Thus, he was engaged throughout his life in social reform
activities like widow remarriage, abolition of caste and untouchability
and similar reforms. Moreover, like the Indian Moderates, he also
believed in the intimate relations between social reform and political
workj35 and in the interdependence between the two because
political freedom is, after all, a consequence of national efficiency.
31. Lala Lajpat Rai has given a very vivid description of the pursuit
that the Indian revolutionaries made after him in order to convert
him to their cause. See his Autobiography in Hindi.
32. The People April 13, 1929. From unpublished writings.
32A. Ibid., Jan. 30, 1927 Vol. I.
33. Lala Lajpat Rai Ideals of Non-cooperation pp. 102-104.
34. Ibid., p. 64.
35. The People January 10, 1926.
National efficiency cannot be achieved without such social and econo¬

mic conditions as will make the nation as a whole, self-confident,
selfreliant, physically fit, normally reliable and intellectually alert.”36
Like the Moderates, Lajpat Rai also did not hesitate to use the instru¬
mentality of the state to bring about social reform. Actually, in his
reply to Mother India he regretted ‘‘in India the reformers are
working against heavy odds for they have to contend against
prejudice and ignorance without absolutely any help from the states.
In fact, the alien bureaucracy have devised new methods of perpetuat¬
ing the old system and making it subserve their own ends”37
However, he agreed with the Lokmanya that ‘For us, it seems that the
Indian problem is primarily a politico-economic one and one of social
customs is only secondary’.38
Like the Indian moderates, Lala Lajpat Rai also believed in the
extended functions of the State. He said “Socialist, Fascist and Bol¬
shevik countries alike recognize that it is the duty of the state to see
that its people are not illiterate. This principle finds acceptance in
the over prosperous United States of America as much as in its indi¬
gent neighbour Mexico and as much in the Far Eastern Japan as in
the Western lands. A politically free India would no doubt be no
exception to it. Indians no more love illiteracy and ignorance than
do the masses in the Western countries. But it must be recognised
that progress in literacy in India as in the west cannot be altogether
without compulsion.”39. Similarly, he wrote “as schools must be
provided by the State so must the hospitals. But even more, the
state must take measures not only to prevent the spreading of a disease
but also to make its appearance impossible. .”40
In 1926, Lala Lajpat Rai left the Swaraj Party. First, because he
believed in responsive cooperation and secondly, because he did not like
the walk-out policy of the Swarajist leaders. On the other hand, he
believed that “the sort of Flindu interests I have named above cannot
adequately be taken care of if the Hindus keep out. To that extent I
am a communalist and I do not feel ashamed of that for it in no way
soils my nationalism.”41 But he wras not a Communalist in the sense
36. Ibid.
37. Lala Lajpat Rai, Unhappy India p. 91.
38. Ibid., p. 5.
39. Ibid., p. 11-13.
40. The People, October 3, 1926.
41. Ibid., Sept. 12, 1926.
that he did not want any rapproachement with the Muslims or that he
did not believe in a united front of the Hindu-Moslem brotherhood
in our struggle for freedom. Actually he realised it very well that
“India could easily become an effective nation if we could find a re¬
medy for the clash of creeds that prevents its full realisation of nation¬
hood. That is the problem of India.”42 In the year i<}Z5 he wrote
a series of articles on the Hindu-Moslem problem under the title
“The clash of creeds”. In the concluding article he warned that
“we will thus by a conflict of religions in our own country be a direct
cause of the coloured world’s continued bondage, a cause of their fall
in the whiteman’s march towards world dominion.. Communal
representation is only another name for the continuance of this clash
of creeds in its full fury. Must this clash continue to poison our poli¬
tical life ? It is impossible to eliminate it ?.. He also pointed out
that “..Insistence on religion, religious forms and religious
formulaes by every community and faith and recognition of religious
differences in the field of politics are hardly the correct way of reaching
the ideal.. I do not believe in a unity based on hatred.. to expect
emancipation on the basis of promoting and perpetuating religious
differences by a system of communal representation all along the poli¬
tical field is simply unthinkable. The introduction of religion in the
non-cooperation program was in my judgment a great blunder”44
Thus he believed that the foundations of Hindu-Moslem unity could
be laid not on religious grounds but on other grounds say, economic
grounds and that was precisely the reason why he considered Swadeshi
as the common religion of united India.45
However, Lala Lajpat Rai considered that “Nationalism in India

seems to us to be as far off as Internationalism in the world. Religious
communalism has for the present displaced the former and put it out
of gear. In fact, it seems to have killed it for the moment.”46 and
this according to him was because “They (Muslims) insist on commu¬
nal representation all along the political lines and also on organising
their separate Communal entity so completely as to become the do¬
minating communal entity in India.. under the circumstances it
becomes absolutely essential for the Hindus to organise themselves
in order to avert these consequences. Communal organisation has
42. Ibid., July 26, 1925.

43. Ibid., July 19, 1925.
44. Ibid., July 26, 1925.
45. See earlier part of this chapter.
thus been thrust upon us..”47 and he did not intend closing the
doors of Hinduism. In fact, he wanted that the unity and solidarity
of the Hindus should only lead to good feelings between the Hindus
and other communities in India. Thus, in his Presidential address
at the Bombay Hindu Conference 1925, he defined the objectives of the
conference to be “To promote good feelings between the Hindus and
other communities in India and to act in a friendly way with them with
a view to evolve a united and self-governing Indian Nation.”48
Lajpat Rai also declared that “ours is a unifying and integrating func¬
tion and in no way a disuniting and disintegrating one.”49 It may also
be noted that whereas he was against communal representation he
was also against representation by caste and held that “the communal
representation by religions and castes is a much more unnatural and
mischievous division than separate representation by economic
groups”50. However, Lala Lajpat Rai did define, at times, Nation¬
alism to mean “One common name, a common ancestry, a common
history, a common religion, a common language and a common
future”51 and this is to be regretted unless we accept some such term
as “Hindu Nationalism” in the terminology of Political Science.
After the close of the 1st World war, Lala Lajpat Rai began to
believe that we should adopt the aims of the British Labour Party
as our own and start educating our people on those lines and for¬
mulate measures which would secure for them real freedom and not
the counterfeit which passes for it52 He also condemned the existing
social order of Europe as vicious and immoral and wrote “It is
based on injustice, tyranny, oppression and class-rule, certain phases
of it are inherent in our own system. Certain others we are borrow¬
ing from our masters in order to make a complete mess.”63 There¬
fore, he forewarned “what we want and what we need is not the
power to implant in full force and in full vigour the expiring European
system, but power to keep out its development on vicious lines with
opportunities of gradually and slowly undoing the evil that has
46. The People Sept. 27, 1925.

47. Ibid., Dec. 6, 1925.
48. Ibid.
49. Ibid.
50. Ibid., April 17, 1927.
51. Ganesh (Madras) Lala Lajpat Rai, The Alan in his Word p. 64.
52. Lala Lajpat Rai, the Political Future of India Italitics his own. p. 203.
53. Ibid., p. 202.
political thought of lala lajpat rai 91
already been done.”54 He also wrote “His (Karl Marx’s) pro¬

gnostications have turned to be so true in some of their main conten¬
tions that there is now practical unanimity among western thinkers
about the indescribable evils of the capitalist system.”55 However,
Lajpat Rai was neither a marxist nor a communist. Thus he wrote
in The People “I am neither a communist nor have I great deal of
sympathy for the doctrine of communism”56 He also believed that
“To talk of the solidarity of the Labour Movement all the world
over, to the Indian workers is simply bunkum.. . .what the Indian
worker needs is not dogma but help in organmng and in the redress
of his grievances against the government and the employers. To
feed him on the doctrines of communism or any other ism, to talk to
him of international solidarity as if it had already been achieved, to
ask him to throw himself into international controversies for interna¬
tional affiliation is to lead him astray.”57
Moreover, he w*as also disillusioned and had got disgusted with

the activities of the British Socialists particularly when they supported
the Imperial Preferences. Thus he wrote that “Militarism and Capi¬
talism are in the last resort the two pillars on which Imperial Pre¬
ference like every other thing Imperial is built. These are exactly the
pillars which socialism is out to destroy. How on earth, then, can
anyone who calls himself a socialist support Imperial Preferences.
That is why he decided that no entente was possible between the
British Labour Party and Indian Nationalist forces. He also tried
to dissuade Pandit Jawahar Lai Nehru from expecting too much from
the Socialist forces in Britain which, he told him in an article, he
had tried and failed.
However, he pioneered in India the lines on which the Socialist

path could be erected. He was not a doctrinaire socialist nor can he
be described as a socialist unless Socialism does not mean more than
“a protest against the degradation to which the working part of
humanity has been reduced by the unproductive leisured class.”58
He did believe that “Our goal is real liberty, equality and opportunity
54. Ibid.
55. Lala Lajpat Rai Ideals of Non-cooperation p. 32.
56. The People, Sept. 23, 1928.
57. The People, March 20, 1927.
58. The People, July 19, 1925.
59. Lala Lajpat Rai Ideals of Non-cooperation.
for all”,60 as he also accepted that “If traced to primary causes all the
conflicts originate from economic causes, the desire of profit and gain
and power.”61 But he did not believe in the necessity of class-war
or that of class-antagonism. Then he wrote that “We do not want to
cloister up classes... .we want to avoid if possible the evils of the class-
struggle. We will pass through the mill if we must but we should
like to try to avoid it. For that reason we want freedom to legislate
and freedom to determine our purpose in our demand for Home
Rule.”62
His conception of socialism was also different from that of the

western Socialist thinkers because his ideas were based on Indian
realities and the Indian situation. Thus, Lala Lajpat Rai emphasized
a decentralised economic structure and accepted the economies of
Khaddar.63 None the less, it is significant that the Punjab Socialist
Party which was founded after the death of Lala Lajpat Rai, owed
its intellectual origins to his views and was led by his former friends
and disciples.
60. Lajpat Rai, Political Future of India p. 204.

61. The People.
62. Lajpat Rai, The Political Future of India p. 204.
63. The People, May 17, 1928.
CHAPTER NINE
THE MODERATES AND EXTREMISTS—A STUDY IN

THEIR IDEOLOGICAL DISPARITIES
The early Indian Leadership represented by people like Dada-

bhai Naoroji, Justice M.G. Ranade, Sir Pherozeshah Mehta and
Gopal Krishna Gokhale came to be described as ‘Moderates’. People
like Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal, Aurobindo Ghose and
Lala Lajpat Rai constituted a rival group to the former and were
dubbed by them, as ‘Extremists’. However, the two terms do not
explain much and for purposes of political thought they are not very
significant. They are mere convenient tools to describe the two
schools of thought that existed in India in the last decade of the 19th
century and the early years of the 20th. Apart from such use, the
words ‘Moderates’ and ‘Extremists’ had according to Tilak “a specific
relation to time. The Extremists of today will be Moderates tomor¬
row just as the Moderates of today were extremists yesterday.”1 “When
the National Congress was first started,” he further pointed out, “and
Dadabhai Naoroji’s views were given to the public, he was styled
as an Extremist. We are Extremists today and our sons will call
themselves Extremists and us as Moderates”.2 Similarly, Gokhale
reciprocated by saying, “There is at times a great deal of moderation,
among some of those who are called Extremists and on the other
hand there is no small amount of what is the reverse of moderation
among some who are called Extremists and on the other hand there
is no small amount of what is the reverse of moderation among those
who are called Moderates.”
The terms in themselves do really refer, as has been pointed out

by Tilak and Gokhale, to differences of time and circumstances and
to the differences of temperament. However, the people that have
been generally distinguished on the basis of these terms did not have
1. Quoted by D.V. Tahmankar, Lokmanya Tilak (London) John Murray

1956. p. 130.
2. Quoted by Ramgopal, Lokmanya Tilak (Bombay, Asia Publishing House)
1956 p. 252.
mere temperamental differences. The contention is that the differ¬

ences that divided them were more or less fundamental in nature.
In fact, even within the same group, people had temperamental differ¬
ences and difficulties if not incompatibilities. They had even bitter
personal differences as in the case of Bipin Chandra Pal and Lala
Lajpat Rai. What held these people together was their common out¬
look, common approach to politics and common political thought.
The Moderates wanted to remake India in the image of the west.

They considered the coming of the British as beneficial and provi¬
dential. They wanted to use the British connection in their attempts
to reform contemporary Indian Society. They came to be known as
Western Reformists. In contrast with them, the Extremists did not
want to reconstruct India in the image of the west. They did not have
an exaggerated admiration for the British connection with India nor
did they accept British Raj as providential. They did not think that
the British Society or the western society of which the former was a
good representative, had reached culmination. The Extremist leader
looked more to the past history of India than to the West. They
believed that the Golden Age of Indian history existed somewhere in
the glorious past of India. Therefore they advised the revival of
Ancient Ideas and Institutions. They were as jealous of reform¬
ing the contemporary Indian Society, its ideas and institutions, as were
those who have been described as Western Reformists. However,
the extremist leaders wanted to reform contemporary conditions in
modern India on the lines suggested by a study of the history of An¬
cient India. They did not want to reform India on the lines on which
the west would want them to proceed. Actually, the extremist
leaders condemned the efforts to remake India in the image of the
west. This was because western reformism in India denationalised
the natives of this country. It weakened their confidence in them¬
selves. Therefore, it was their insistent pursuit to prove that India
had much more to learn from its own history than from the history
of progressive movements in the west. It is in this sense that the
extremist leaders were dubbed as ‘Revivalists’ in contrast to the
Moderates who were described as Western Reformists.
However, the terms ‘revivalists’ and ‘reformists’ can be accepted

only if they are to be used for purposes of convenience. Otherwise
such a water-tight compartmentalism or patent-labelling would easily
be a misnomer. All the extremist leaders were, in fact, influenced
THE MODERATES AND THE EXTREMISTS 95
to some extent or the other by western thought. Similarly, the

moderate leaders had their roots in the Indian conditions and some of
them were deeply steeped in the Indian value system. Thus Lala
Lajpat Rai was greatly influenced by the western thought as
Justice Ranade was impressed by quite a few glorious things of
Indian heritage. However, the Extremists took more from the
Indian heritage as the Moderates took more from the western heritage.
For the Extremists, the former was their source of reference in their
attempts to reconstruct Indian Society as for the Moderates, the latter
was their source of inspiration. This in itself was a significant differ¬
ence and apt enough to warrant the descriptions.
The Western concept of Self-government, colonial or otherwise

was the political goal of the Indian Moderates. This goal was to be
achieved through a gradual process based on the principle First
Deserve and then Desire. The Moderates frankly realised that India
could learn the proper use of western political institutions only after it
had undergone, under the British tutelage, a certain period of political
apprenticeship. They also believed that the political reforms should
be introduced in India in instalments and that the next instalment
should depend upon the performance of the first instalment. On the
other hand, the Extremist leaders accepted ‘Swaraj’ as their political
goal. It was their natural right and was to be achieved all at once.
As explained by the Extremist leaders, the concept of Swaraj was a
Vedic concept and it was a spiritual concept. Swaraj was, according
to the classical Indian value system, a moral imperative for the
Indians. It was integrally associated with the Flindu concept of
Dharma Rajya—establishment of Dharma Rajya was not possible
without Swaraj. Moreover, Swaraj, though not defined publicly,
implied not only complete political emancipation but considered
political independence a means to an end. The end being spiri¬
tual, the means i.e. Swaraj was also spiritual.
The Moderates have been considered the pioneers of nationalism

in India. They tried for the first time to weld India into
a nation. The British Government created a geographical unity and
the Moderates created a ‘We-Sentiment’ in India. They created a
loyalty for the land irrespective of the fact whether one was a Parsee,
a Christian, a Mahomedan or a Flindu. They, in fact, said that a Parsee
be a better Parsee, a Musalman a better Musalman and a Hindu a better
Hindu ; the more he was attached to his country and the more he was
bound in brotherly affection and relations to all the children of the

soil. They considered themselves Indians first and Hindus, Muslims
or Christians only afterwards. They preached and practised a secular
type of nationalism in India. Such an idea of nationalism was com¬
pletely alien to India. It was a western importation and it was based
on the imitation of the Western Idea of the Nation. The extremist
leaders condemned this Western Idea of the Nation because it led to
denationalisation and loss of confidence in ourselves. They substi¬
tuted in its place a peculiarly unique idea of the nation. Thus Indian
nationalism was distinguished from Western Nationalism in the exces¬
sive emphasis of one on territorial and of the other on cultural unity.
The distinguishing aspect of their nationalism was its spiritual charac¬
ter and content. Thus the Extremist leaders conceived the Nation not
as a territory but as a spiritual being and the Nation was to be organised
not on the basis of common self-interest but on the basis of a common
feeling that we are all sons of one common mother. Apart from the
cult of the Mother, Neo-Vedantism also became a source of inspira¬
tion for this type of nationalism. This type of nationalism was in¬
tended to be inclusive, broad and humanitarian. The extremist
leaders took pains in explaining how it was not against Progressive
Internationalism but was, in fact, merged into it. This type of na-
nalism was considered to be a means to Internationalism. However
in the Indian conditions, this type of nationalism based on the sources
of the Hindu scriptures led to the particularisation of the Hindus as a
religious and political community. It is no surprise therefore
that some of the Extremist leaders and a large number of their dis¬
ciples later joined the Hindu Maha Sab ha or other Hindu communal
organisations.
The Moderates had faith in British fairplay and justice. They

had admiration for the British Connection with India. They believed
that the interest of India and England were allied rather than anta¬
gonistic. These wTere misconceptions and they became the obsessions
of the moderate school. It was on the basis of these obsessions
that the Moderates believed in the method of Prayers and Petitions.
This method was dubbed by the Extremists as ‘mendicancy’ and was
described as the process of licking the dust of the feet that kick. In
contrast to the mendicant policies of the moderates, the extremist
leaders believed in militant methods. It was, in fact, because of the
differences in their methods that the Moderates could not agree with
THE MODERATES AND THE EXTREMISTS 97
the Extremists in evolving a programme of action in their joint strug¬

gle for Swaraj. For the extremists Swadeshi and Boycott were the
precursors to Non-Cooperation and Passive Resistance and it was
because of this that the two groups could not carry on together. The
Extremist leaders had prepared India for the Non-Cooperation Move¬
ment long before Gandhi started it in 1920. Tilak had preached the
philosophy of Passive Resistance in Maharashtra as early as 1902.
It is true that Gokhale had included Passive Resistance in his method
of Constitutional Agitation but the Moderates considered Passive
Resistance outside the pale of practical politics.
The Indian Moderates have been described as the counterparts

of the English Liberals in India. The English liberal tradition in
general and the political philosophy of J.S. Mill in particular was their
source of inspiration. They had their best friends and allies in the
liberals of England. They rejoiced and were over-whelmed whenever
the liberal party came into power in England. They looked upon
the English liberals as their future emancipators. They had a liberal
outlook and a liberal approach to questions social and political. In
the social field, it was their liberalism that accounted for their zeal.
In the political field, they did however depart from the traditional
liberal creed and in their views on the nature and functions of the
State they were particularly divergent and worked in contradiction to
the approaches of the English Liberal School. The Extremists lacked
unanimity or even a consensus on the question of social reform as
for instance in their views on the nature and functions of the State.
Lala Lajpat Rai was vaguely liberal and even socialistic in his later
days. He was more akin to the moderates in his views on social re¬
form and in his conception of the State and its functions. Bal
Gangadhar Tilak though not conservative in his personal life was the
leader of the Social Conservatives. Tilak and Ranade represented
the two poles in their views on social reform. Tilak has been per¬
tinently described as a social evolutionary and a political revolution¬
ary whereas Ranade was a social revolutionary and a political evolu¬
tionary. One may easily fall into the temptation of describing
Ranade as the father of liberal school in India and Tilak as the
father of Social Conservatism in Indian Politics. To some extent
such characterisations may even be true. Thus it may be pointed out
that Tilak wanted to preserve Hindu Institutions and Ideas whether
political or social. However, it cannot be forgotten that Tilak was
as jealous of reform as any liberal could be and that he was as progres¬

sive in his personal outlook as he in his times could afford to be.
Moreover, he did not want the conservation of the existing Hindu
Institutions and Ideas. He sought their reform though this he did
with a reference to Ancient Indian History. In fact, the Moderates
and Extremists in India had divergent but not contradictory views.
It was because of this that Gandhi after them could pick up useful
points from both schools of thought for they were very often supple¬
mentary and had much in common than in conflict.
APPENDIX A
THE IDEA OF THE NATION IN EXTREMIST POLITICAL

THOUGHT
Historians in the west are generally agreed upon a modern origin

of the idea of a Nation. The idea of a nation which is the basic term
for Nationalism is generally considered to be a product of the French
Revolution and is believed to imply a Comon Political Sentiment.1
The western idea of a nation may be understood to mean a body of
men who have a distinct desire to constitute themselves into a separate
state with a sovereign status for the pursuance of their material ends.
It was this idea of a nation which influenced the Indian Moderate
leadership in India. In fact, their idea of a nation was a complete
imitation of the west. This was criticized by Indian Extremist leaders
like Lala Lajpat Rai, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Bipinchander Pal and
Aurobindo Ghose. Their main contention was that this wholesale
imitation of the Idea of the Nation as it existed in the west only lead
to denationalisation rather than to the organization of an Indian
Nation. Thus, B.C. Pal criticized the standard of judgment which the
Indian Moderate applied to the examination of his own country and
culture. ‘‘Judging them (the Indian masses) in the light of the history
and achievements of Europe,” he wrote, “he (the Indian Moderate)
constantly condemns his own country and culture and with the rele-
lentless pity of the missionary propagandist seeks to ruthlessly im¬
prove them more or less after these alien ideals.”2 Lala Lajpat Rai
also lamented that the English-knowing Indian prided himself in
imitating his master. “He took his dress, he took his cheroot and pipe
and also his cup and beefsteak. He began to live in houses built
1. See H.A.L. Fisher, The Commonwealth, London, 1924, p. 196. See also
Hayes Carlton J.H., Essays on Nationalism, New York,'1941, p. 3. Hans
Kohn. Force or Reason, (Cambridge Mass), 1937, p. 198. Barker,
Earnest, National Character and the Factors in its Formation, London,
1927, p. 7.
2. B.C. Pal, Soul of India, Calcutta, (Chowdhry and Chowdhry n.d.),
pp. 73-74.
and furnished in the English way. He detested Indian life and took
pride in being anglicized. Everything Indian was odious in his eyes.3
Similarly Tilak hated the imitation of the western idea of a nation.
However, the Indian Extremist Leaders did not merely condemn

the Western Idea of the Nation, but also evolved a distinctly Indian Idea
of the Nation which was unique and clearly distinguishable from the
western Idea of the Nation. “The fundamental difference between
European Nationalism and Indian Nationalism”, wrote B.C. Pal,
“lies in the excessive emphasis of one on territorial and of the other
on cultural unity.”4 He continued, “Economic conflicts, industrial
competitions, greedy rivalries for the acquisition of unappropriated
territories and the possession of unexplored markets, these are what
have contributed to the quickening and preservation of nationalism
in Europe and have kept the nations apart from one another.”5 And
he commented “a nationalism of this type must inevitably be¬
come narrow and selfish, intolerant and aggressive”6 which accord¬
ing to him was the general characteristic of nationalism in Europe.
“However, this type of narrow, selfish and pathological patriotism
(and B.C. Pal uses patriotism and nationalism as synonymous terms)
was never developed in ancient India.”7
According to the Extremist leaders, the Nation was conceived

not as a territory but as a spiritual being and the Nation was to be
organised not on the basis of common self-interest but on the basis
of a common feeling that ‘we are all sons of one common mother.’8
The origin of this concept of the Land as Mother can be traced back
to the Vedic conception of the Earth God. This concept was now
revived. Thus Aurobindo pointed out that Land the Mother was a
living thing,”. .Your common Mother that is not merely the
soil. That is not merely a division of land but it is a living thing.
It is the mother in whom you move and have your being.”9 Simi¬
larly, B.C. Pal believed that the mother has a Personality, is a living
being. Talking of the Personality of the Mother^ he wrote, “The
mountains, these rivers, these extensive plains and lofty plateaus are
3. Quoted by D.V. Tahmankar, Lokmanya Tilak, p. 59.

4. Pal, B.G., op. cit., p. 134.
5. Ibid., pp. 134-35.
6. Ibid., p. 143.
7. Ibid.
8. Aurobindo Ghose, Speeches of p. 140.
9. Ibid., pp. 33-34.
THE IDEA OF THE NATION IN EXTREMIST POLITICAL THOUGHT 101
all witnesses into the life and love of our race, in and through which
the very life and love of the Mother have sought and found uninter¬
rupted and progressive expression. Our history is the sacred bio¬
graphy of the Mother. Our philosophies are the revelations of the
Mother’s mind, our arts, our poetry and our painting, our music and
our drama, our architecture and our sculpture, all—are the outflow
of the Mother’s diverse, emotional moods and experiences. Our re¬
ligion is the organised expression of the soul of the Mother.”10
He continues later, “We are born in this land. It receives us into its
bosom even as our human mothers do. It supports our life with its
own substance even as the nursing mother supports the growing
life of her own baby. This land is literally the Mother of our physical
existence. It is, indeed, the physical body of the soul of our land
and nation.”* 11
Moreover, the cult of the Mother among the Hindus is a part of
our general spiritual culture. Therefore, the concept of the land as
a Mother has a distinct spiritual basis. For them the love of their
land and people was“ an organic part of our ideal of the love of God.”12
This is completely different from the secular nationalism of the west
which is a mere civic and at best mere political sentiment. On the
other hand, for the Indian Extremist leaders nationalism was a reli-
ligion that had come from God. Aurobindo Ghose identified it with
Dharma itself. Thus, he said, “The Hindu nation was born with the
Sanatana Dharma, with it, it moves and with it, it grows. When the
Sanatoria Dharma declines then the nation declines and if the Sanatana
Dharma were capable of perishing with the nation it would perish.
The Sanatana Dharma, that is nationalism.”13 The spiritual basis
of this Indian Idea of the Nation strikes to be typically Hegelian.
However, one major difference with the Hegelian line of thinking is
to be noted. The Indian Extremist leaders, in line with the trend in
modern Indian political thinking, do not isolate their Idea of the
nation with their idea of humanity. Actually, “Both individual
humans as well as the collective entity called Humanity are equally
manifestations of Narayana. They are both equally Divine. The
one is inseparable from the other and both from God.”14 Thus,
10. Pal, B.C., op. cit., p. 199.

11. Ibid., p. 191.
12. Ibid., p. 192.
13. A. Ghose, Uttarpara Speech, p. 20.
14. Pal, B.C., op. cit., pp. 198-94.
Aurobindo Ghose explained “our ideal of patriotism proceeds

on the basis of love and brotherhood and it looks beyond the unity
of the nation and envisages the ultimate unity of mankind.”15 It
is this ideal of human unity or that of universal brotherhood which is
implicit in their Idea of the Nation, that separates the Indian Extremist
leaders from Hegel and keeps them apart.
15. Aurobindo Ghose, Speeches, p. 175.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
PRIMARY SOURCES
Roy, Ram Mohan —His Life, Writings and Speeches. Madras, G.A. Natesan
& Co., 1923, 275 pp.
—The English Works of Raja Ram Mohan Roy. (Ed.
by) Jogendra Chandra Ghosh. Calcutta. Srikanta
Roy. 1901.
Naoroji, Dadabhai -—Speeches and Writings of. Madras G.A. Natesan &
Co., 1917. 656-208 pp.
—Poverty and Un-British Rule in India. London, Swan
Sonnenschein & Co., 1901.
Parekh, C.L. (Ed.) —Essays, Speeches, Addresses and Writings of Dadabhai

Naoroji. Bombay. Caxton Works. 1887.
—Letters on the Royal Commission on the Administration of the
Expenditure of India. London. 1895.
Ranade, M.G. —Essays on Indian Economics. Madras. G. Natesan & Co.,

—Miscellaneous Writings.
Bombay. The Manoranjan Press. 1915
-—Rise of the Maralha Power.
—Essays in Religious & Social Reforms.
Bapat, S.V. (Ed.) —Gleanings from Tilak’s Writings <2? Speeches. (Marathi
edition) Poona. S.V. Bapat 1926. 360 pp.
Tilak, Bal Gangadhar —His Writings & Speeches. 3rd edition. Madras.
Ganesh & Co., 1922.
-—Articles of Lokmanya Tilak in the Kesari. 4 Vols.
—Speeches. Thirumali and Co.
—Gita Rahasya.
— The Arctic Home in the Vedas.
— Orion.
— Vedic Chronology and Vedanta Jyolisha.
Karandikar (Ed.) -—Speeches During the Swadeshi Days. (Marathi).

-—Lectures on the Trip to Madras, Ceylon and Burma.
(Marathi).
Rai, Lajpat —India’s Will to Freedom. Writings and Speeches on the

Present Situation. Madras. Ganesan and Co. 1921.
— The Political Future of India. New York. B.W.
Huebsch. 1919. 237 pp.
— Young India. New York. B.W. LIuebsch. 1916. 216 pp.
—Ideals of Non-cooperation and other Essays Madras. S.

Ganesan and Co 1924, 125 pp
—Unhappy India, Calcutta, Banna Publishing Co.
1928. 565 pp.
—Autobiography. (Hindi) Lahore.
Navyug Granthmala. 1932. 223pp.
—The Call to Young India. Madras. Ganeshan and
Co. 1923.
—The Story of My Deportation.
—National Education in India. London. George Allen
and Unwin. 1920.
—The Arya Samaj. 1913.
—England’s Debt to India. New York. B.W. Heubsch,
1917.
—Self Determination for India.
—An Open Letter to Lloyd George.
—The Depressed Classes. Lahore.
—Life of Pandit Gurudatta Vidyarlhi. Lahore.
—Life of Garibaldi. (In Urdu) 1892.
—Life of Mazzini. (In Urdu) 1892.
—Life of Swami Dayanand.
—Chhatrapati Shivaji. 1896.
—The United States of America. A Hindu's Impression and
a study. Calcutta. Cornwallis Street. 1916.
—The Evolution of Japan and other Papers. Calcutta.
Cornwallis Street. 1919.
—Tawarikhe- Hind.
—Life of Mahatma Sri Krishna.
—Great Thoughts. 1928.
Pal, B.C. —Indian Nationalism. Its Principles and Personalities.

Madras. S.R. Murthy and Co. 1918. 238 pp.
—His Life and Utterances. 5th Edition Madras. Ganesh
and Co. 1918. 181 pp.
-—Swadeshi and Swaraj. The Rise of New Patriotism.
Calcutta. Yugayatri Prakashan Ltd., 1954. 295 pp.
—Patriotism. Calcutta. Yugayatri Prakashan Ltd.
1954. 295 pp.
-—The Soul Of India. Calcutta. Chowdhry and
Chowdhry. 315 + 93 pp.
—Non-Cooperation. Calcutta. The Indian Book Club.
1920. 113 pp.
—Responsible Government. Calcutta. Banerjee, Das &
Co., 1917.
—Nationalism and the British Empire. Calcutta. Thacker,
Spink & Co. 1916.
-—The Spirit of Indian Nationalism. London.
—The New Economic Menace to India. Madras. Ganesh
and Co., 1920.
bibliography 105
-—Swaraj. Bombay. Vadhwani and Co. 1922.

—Beginnings of Freedom Movement in Modern India. Cal¬
cutta. Yugayatri Prakashan., 1954.
—Memories of My Life and Times. (1858-1885) Vol. I.
Calcutta. Modern Book Agency. 1932.
-—Memories of My Life and Times. (1885-1900). Volume
II. Calcutta. Yugyatri Prakashan. 1951.
-—Shri Krishna. Madras. Tagore and Co.
-—A mar Rashtriya Natarada. (My Political Ideas). Cal¬
cutta. 1922.
-—The New Policy. Madras. 1918.
— The Mew Spirit. Calcutta. 1907.
—Speeches at Madras. Madras. 1907.
—Swaraj, the Goal and the Way. 1921.
-—World Situation and Ourselves. 1919.
Ghose, Aurobindo -—The Ideal of Human Unity. New York.
The Sri Aurobindo Library. 1950 340 pp.
-—The Human Cycle. New York. The Sri Aurobindo
Library. 1950. 312 pp.
-—Bankim-Tilak-Dayananda. Calcutta, Arya Publish¬
ing House 1940.80 pp.
—The Brain of India. Calcutta. Arya Publishing
House, 1923.
— The Ideal of the Karmayogin. Calcutta. Arya Publish¬
ing House. 1921.
—A System of National Education. Calcutta. Arya
Publishing House. 1924.
—Speeches. Calcutta. Arya Publishing House, 1922.
-—The Renaissance in India. Calcutta. Arya Publishing
House.
—Passive Resistance.
■—Nature and Form of Indian Polity.
Selections From Bandematram.
— War and Self-Determination.
—Dharma Aur Jatiyata (In Hindi).
—The Life Divine.
Essays on the Gita.
—On the Veda.
—The Synthesis of Toga.
SELECT SECONDARY SOURCES
Interpretative and Critical Works
Ball, Upendranath -—Ram Mohan Roy. A Study of his life, Works and Thoughts.
Calcutta. N. Ray and Sons. 1933.
Collet, Sophia Dobson —Life and Letters of Raja Ram Mohan Roy. 1913.
Father of Modern India —Ram Mohan Roy. Centenary Commemoration Volume.
Calcutta. Cornwallis Street 1935.
Ganguly, Nalin —Raja Ram Mohan Roy Y.M.C.A. Publishing House

1939. pp. 229.
Iqbal Singh —Ram Mohan Roy: Vol. I.

Bombay, Asia House, 1958.
Mazumdar, J.K. —Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Progress Movements in Lidia.
Calcutta. 1941.
Masani, R.P. —Dadabhai Naoroji. The Grand Old Man of India.

London. George Allen and Unwin. 1939.
Chintamani, C.Y. —Indian Social Reform. Madras. Thompson and Co.

1901.
Gokhale and Wacha, —Ranade and Telang. Madras G.A. Natesan and Co.
Pathak N.R.
Kcllock, J. —Mahadev Govind Ranade, Patriot and Social Servant.

Calcutta. 1926.
Karve, D.G. —Ranade— The Prophet of Liberated India. Poona.

Aryabhushan Press. 1942.
Mankar Rao Bahadur — A Sketch of the Life and Works of the Late Mr. Justice
G.A. M.G. Ranade. Bombay, 1902, 2 Vols.
Ranade, Mrs. Ramabai —Reminiscences. (Marathi)
Athalye D.V. —Life of Lokmanya Tilak.
Aurobindo, Sri —Bankim- Tilak- Day anand.
Bapat, S.V. —Reminiscences and Anecdot-s of Lokmanya Tilak. 3 Volumes.
Bhat, V.G. —Lokmanya Tilak: His Life, Mind, Politics and Philo¬
sophy. Poona. 1956.
Divakar, D.V. (Ed.) Life and Times of Lokmanya Tilak.
Kanetkar, M.I. —Tilak and Gandhi. A Comparative Character Sketch.

Nagpur. 1935.
Karandikar. S.L. —Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak. The Hercules and
Prometheus of Modern India. Poona. 1957.
Kcer Dhananjay —Lokmanya Tilak. Bombay. 1958 pp. 446.

Kelkar, N.C. (Editor) —Articles on the religious Aspects of Lokmanya Tilak's Life.
(Marathi).
Parvate, T.V. —Bal Gangadhar Tilak. Ahmedabad. Navjivan Pub¬

lishing House. 1958.
Pradhan, T.V. & A.K. —Lokmanya Tilak. A Biography. Prize Winner.
Bhagat
Ramgopal —Tilak. Bombay. Asia Publishing House. 1956.

Sastrulu. —All About Lokmanya Tilak. Madras. 1922.
Shay, T.L. — The Legacy of the Lokmanya. Bombay.

Oxford University Press. 1956. 215 pp.
Tahmankar, D.VT. -—Lokmanya Tilak: Father of Indian Unrest. London 1956.
Mukerjee, Haridas —B.C. Pal and India's Struggle for Swaraj. Calcutta.
and Uma Firma K.L. Chatopadhyay. 1958. 137 pp.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 107
Ghosal, J.C. —Life of Lajpat Rai. 1928.

Shastri, Algurai —Life of Lala Lajpat Rai (Hindi) 1950.
Ghose, H.P. -—Aurobindo, the Prophet of Indian Nationalism 1919. Cal¬
cutta.
Iyengar, Srinivasa —Sri Aurobindo. Calcutta. Arya Publishing House.
1945. Ch. VII, VIII and IX only. pp. 117-172
Mitra, Sisir Kumar —Sri Aurobindo and Indian Freedom. Madras, Sri Auro¬
bindo Library, 1948. 80 pp.
Singh, Karan. -—Aurobindo, the Prophet of Indian Nationalism. London.
George Allen and Unwin. 1963.
Varma, V.P. —The Political Philosophy of Sri Aurobindo Bombay
Asia Publishing House. 1960. 471 pp.
Select Articles in Learned Periodicals: Interpretative and Critical.
Anianeylu, D —Tilak and Gokhale. The Indian Review. LVII: 8.

August, 1956
Barnouw, V —‘The changing Character of a Hindu Festival’
‘American Anthropology. LVI:1. February 1954.
Brown, D.M. —‘The Philosophy of B.G. Tilak’ Karma Vs. Jnana
in the Gita Rahasya. Journal of Asian Studies.
XVII: 2. February 1958.
Brown D. Mackenzie —‘Indian and Western Realism’ The Indian Journal of
Political Science. V.l. XV Jan-Dec. 1954.
Dash, S.C. -—Nature and Significance of Indian Nationalism.
Indian Journal of Political Science. Vol. XIX No. 1.
J anuary- March.
Dubey, S.N. -—‘Political Ideas of the Early Leaders of Indian National
Congress’ Uttar Bharati Journal of Research of the Univer¬
sities of Uttar Pradesh, University of Agra. Agra No.
1958.
Gundappa, D V. —‘Liberalism in India’. Confluence Vol. 3. Autumn

1956.
Mazumdar, Bimanbe- -—Nationalism In India in Pre-congress days. ‘Indian

hari Journal of Political Science’ Vol XIV No. 2 April-June
1958.
Muhar, P.S. -—‘Synthesis or Culturists’: A study of Indian Political

Thought’ In J.S. Bains (Ed.) 'Studies in Political
Science Bombay. Asia Publishing Flouse.
— —Lokmanya Tilak. Indian Review. March 1918 Calcutta.
— Alodern Review. April 1915.
Nikhilanada. —‘Sri Aurobindo’ Philosophy East and West, April 1951.
Sharma, Ram Parkash ‘Swami Dayanand’s contribution to Indian Nationalism

and his political philosophy Indian Journal of Political
Science. January-March.
Singh, St. Niha ‘Tilak’s works in England" Modern Review. October

1919.
Shahani, T.K. Gopal Krishna Gokhale—The Liberal Pioneer who

Spiritualised Indian Politics. The Indian Journal of
Political Science. Vol. VI No. 1 July-Sep. 1944.
Sherwani, H.K. -Side lights on the Growth of Progressive Political

Thought in India. Presidential address. ‘'The
Journal Of Political Science. Vol. XIV No. 1 January-
March. 53.
Suda, J.P. Origins and Significance of the National Movements

in Tndia.’ Indian Journal of Political Science’. Vol
XIV. No. 2. April June 1958.
Varma, Viswanath -Political Philosophy of Lokmanya Tilak. ‘Indian

Prasad Journal of Political Science’. Vol XIX No. 1. January-
March.
Miscellaneous :
Andrews, C.F. —The Renaissance in India.
Bagal, J.C. —History of the Indian Association. 1876-1951 Calcutta.

1953. pp. 262.
Bannerjee, S.N. —A Nation in the Making. Madras, Oxford University

Press, 1925.
Besant, Annie —How India Wrought for Freedom. Madras. Theoso-

phical Society, 1915. pp. 709.
Buch, M.A. ■—7he Development of Contemporary Indian Political Thought.

3 Vols. Baroda. 1938-1940.
Brown, D. Mackenzie —The White Umbrella. California University Press.

1953, pp. 205.
Chatterjee, Ramananda ■—Towards Home Rule.

(Ed. and mostly writ¬ Part I 1917 Calcutta.
ten by him) Part II Calcutta, 1917.
Chintamani, C.Y. —Indian Politics Since Mutiny. London, Goerge Allen

and Unwin, 1940.
(Ed. By) -—Speeches and writings of Sir Pherozeshah Mehta. Allah¬

abad. The Indian Press. 1905.
Chirol, Valentine -—Indian Unrest, 1910.

—India, Old and New.
—India 1926.
Desai, A.R. -—Social Background of Indian Nationalism. Bombay,

Popular Book Dept. 1954. pp 407.
Dutt, R.C. —The Economic History of India in the Victorian Age.

Seventh edition. London. Routledge and Kegan
Paul. 1950. pp. 628.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 109
Dutt, Rajne Palme India to-day. Bombay. People’s Publishing House.

1947. pp. 532.
Farquhar, J.N. —Modern Religious Movements in India. New York.

Macmillan & Co. 1911.
Gadgil, D.R. -—The Industrial Revolution of India. London. Oxford

University Press. 1954. pp. 317.
Gokhale, G.K. —Speeches and Writings of Madras. G.A. Natesan and Co.
Second Edition. 1917.
Gopala Krishanan P.K. —Development of Economic Ideas in India. Delhi. People’s

Publishing House 1959. pp. 808.
Griffths, Sir Percival —The British Impact on India. London 1952. pp. 519.
Gupta, J.N. —Life and Work of Shii R.C. Dutt.
Jayakar, M.R. —The Story of My Life. 2 Vols. Bombay. Asia Pub¬

lishing House, 1958.
Joshi, V.V. -—Speeches and Writings of. Madras. G. Natesan &

Co.
Karunakaran, K.P. —Modern Indian Political Tradition. Delhi, Allied Pub¬

lishers, 1963.
Kelkar, N.C. —The Case for Indian Home Rule.

-A Passing Phase of Indian Politics.
Khan, Agha -India in Transition. Bombay. Times of India 1918
Krishna Rao, M.V. -Rise and Growth of Indian Liberalism. Bangalore.
Limaye, P.M. (Ed.) -The History of the Deccan Education Society. Poona.
1935.
Lovett, Sir Verney -A History of the Indian Nationalist Movement. London.

1921. pp. 303.
Mazumdar, A.C. -Indian National Evolution. Madras. G.A. Natesan

& Co. 1915.
Mazumdar, B.B. -History of Political Thought. Ram Mohan Roy to

Dayanand. (1821-1884) Vol. I Calcutta.
University Press. 1934 pp. 509.
Majumdar, J.K. -Indian Speeches and Documents on British Rule. 1821-1918

Calcutta. Longmans, Green & Co. Ltd., 1937.
Malaviya, Pandit -Speeches and Writings of. Madras. G. Natesan & Co.
Madan Mohan. 1st Edition, pp. 534.
Maxmuller, F. Ram Mohan to Ram Krishna. Calcutta Susil Gupta.

1952. pp. 165.
Modi, H.P. Sir Pherozshah Mehta. A Political Biography. 2 Vols.

Bombay. 1921.
Naik, V.N. -Indian Liberalism. A Study. Bombay. 1945. pp.

353.
Natarajan, S. -A Century of Social Reform in India. Bombay. Asia

Publishing House, 1958.
Natesan, G.A. (Compil- —The Indian National Congress. An Account of its Origin
ed by) and Growth. Full Text of all the Presidential Ad¬
dresses. Madras, G.A. Natesan & Co.
Natesan G.A. & Co. —The Swadeshi Movement. A Symposium. Second

Edition, pp. 307.
Nevinson, H.W. — The New Spirit in India. London 1908.
Palande, M.R. —Source-Material for a History of the Freedom Movement in

India. I. (1818-1885), Bombay
II, (1885-1920) Bombay, 1958.
Pannikar, K.M. —Asia and Western Dominance. London, George Allen

and Unwin 1955
Raghuvanshi, V.P.S. —Indian Nationalist Movements and Thoughts. Agra,

1959, pp. 335.
Ray, P.C. —Autobiography. Calcutta Orient Book Co., 1958.

pp. 40.
Ratcliffe, S.K. —Sir William Wedderburn and the Indian Reform Move¬
ment, London. 1923.
Sarma, D.S. —The Renaissance in India. Benaras. Bcnaras Hindu

University, 1944.
Sastri, Srinivasa, V.S. —The Indian Citizen. His Rights and Duties. Bombay.
Hind Kitab Ltd., 1948. pp. 87.
Setalvad, H. Chamanlal —Recollections and Reflections. Bombay. Padma Pub¬

lications, 1946.
Sitaramayya, Pattabhi —The History of the Indian National Congress. Vol. I

Bombay. Padma Publications.
Smith, V.N. —Nationalism and Reform in India. London, Yale Uni¬

versity Press, 1938.
Varma, V.P. —Modern Indian Political Thought. Agra, 1960.
Underwood, A.C. —Contemporary Thought of India. London. Williams

and Norgate Ltd., 1930.
Wallabank, Walter —India—A Study of the Origin and the Development of the
Indian Union. New York,
Wedderburn, W. —Life of A.O. Hume. London.
Wolpert, Stanley — Tilak and Gokhale. University of California Press. 1962.
Zacharias, H.C.E. -—Renascent India. London. George Allen & Unwin,

1933.
INDEX
Act, Arms, P. 59 Collet, P. 17, 18, 19, 21

Act, Government of India (1935), Commission, Welby, P. 29
P. 9 Committee, Fawcett Select, P. 29
Act, Reforms (1832), P. 22 Conference, Bombay Hindu, P. 90
Adam, P. 17 Congress, Indian National, P. 3, 4, 9,
Agarkar, P. 56 29> 49. 50, 5L 52. 54, 58, 59, 60, 93
Ahmerst Lord, P. 20 Congress, International Socialist, P. 36
Alexander, H.V. P. 9 Cripps, Mission, P. 9
Arnot, Dr. P. 19 Curzon, Lord, P. 35
Association, India, P. 4 Das, Deshbandhu Chittaranjan, P. 2
Association, Bombay, P. 29 Deva, Bam, P. 60
Aurobindo, Sri. P. 6, 72-80; Introduc¬ Dutta, Guru, P. 84
tion, 2; Attitude towards the West, Dutta, Madhusudan, P. 39
P. 73; Contrast with Moderates, Education, national, P. 5
P. 73; Definition of Nation, P. 74; Edward, Thomas, P. 8
Differences with Gandhi, P. 77; Emerson, P. 31
Nature of State, pp. 77-78; Func¬ Extremists, P. 3, 6, 7, 12, 49, 50, 32,
tions of the State, pp. 78-79; Defi¬ 39, 73, 84, 83, 93-98, Differences
nition of liberty, pp. 79, 93, 99. 101, with Moderates, 94-93; Political
102. goal, 95-96, Political Ideas, 96-98;
Austin, John, P. 26, 37. Idea of the Nation, 99-102
Bagehot, P. 41 Federation, Imperial, P. 59
Bande Matram, 72, 73. Fischer, H.A.L., P. 3
Bennrjee, Hemchandra, P. 59 Gandhi, M.K., P. 7, 10, 30, 55, 57,
Bannerjee, Surendranath, P. 3, 18, 76, 86, 88
59. 82 Ganapati, Festival, P. 51
Barker, Earnest, P. 3, 11, 12 Garibaladi, P. 84
Benaras, Session, P. 3 Garratt, G.T., P. 8
Bentham, P. 18, 19, 27, 51, 81 Gokhale, G.K., P. 3, 36, 38, 49, 50,
Besant, Mrs. Annie, P. 7, 36 57, 93
Bill, Age of Consent, P. 36-57 Gooch, P. 1
Boycott, P. 5, 6, 33, 34 Goswami, Vi jay Krishna, P. 59
Burke, Edmund, P. 2 Hayes, Carlton, J.H., P. 3
Cairns, P. 41 Hegel, P. 31, 102
Carlyle, P. 31 Hume, David, P. 3, 4
Case, Alipor Conspiracy (1909), P. 72, India, New, P. 59
74 Jagraon, P. 81
Chamber, Council, P. 49 Japan, P. 4, 66
Chatterjee, Bankimchander, P. 59, Kant, P. 51
63, 63 Kesari, P. 52
China, P. 66 Khan, Sir Syed Ahmed, P. 81, 82
Chirol, P. 32 Khilafat, P. 57
112 INDEX
Kohn, Hans, P. 3 People, The, P. 84, 91

Krishna, Radha, P. 81 Punjabee, The, P. 84
Krishna, Sri, P. 84 Radha Krishnan, S. P. 77
League, Home Rule, P. 36 Rai, Lala Lajpat, P. 5, 6, 15, 16, 60,
Lenin, P. 34 93, 94, 95, 97, 991 81-92; Influence
List, Professor, P. 41, 43, 44 of Arya Samaj, P. 81; Influence of
Mandup, P. 49 Western Thinkers, P. 82; Attitude
Manu, P. 60 towards the British, P. 84; Differen¬
Marx, Karl, P. 34 ces with B.C. Pal, P. 85; Political
Mayo, Katherine, P. 83 Methods, P. 86-87. Social Reforms,
Mazzini, P. 66, 82, 84 87-88; Functions of the State,
Mehta, Sir Pherozeshah, P. 36 P. 88; Attitude towards the Moslems,
Merriam, Professor, P. 1, 3 P. 89; views regarding Socialists,
Mill, James, P. 19 P. 91-92
Mill, J.S., P. 41, 43, 51, 81, 97 Ranade, M.G., P. 3, 13, 14-15, 16,
Moderates, P. 6, 12, 31, 54, 73, 74, 28, 56, 87, 93, 95, 97, 37-48; Atti¬
75, 84, 87, 88, 93-98, differences with tude towards the British, P. 37-38;
Extremists 94-95; Political goal, Traditionalism, P. 38; Nature of the
95-96; Political Ideas, 96-98, 99 State, P. 38-39; Liberty, P. 40;
Movement, Bengal Partition, P. 53, Individualism, P. 40, Functions of
74 the State, P. 41-44; Forms of
Movement, Bolshevike, P. 69 Government 44-45; .Social Reforms,
Movement, Indian Nationalist, P. 52, P. 45-48
83 Reforms, Montagu Chemlsford, P. 84
Nagpur, P. 51 Resistance, Passive, P. 54, 61-62, 75,
Naoroji, Dadabhai, P. 3, 29-36;
77, 85
Attitude towards the British 29-31,
Revolution, French, P. 99
Political Demands, 1-32, 35;
Rolland, Romain, P. 73
Theory of the Drain, 32-34, 35-93
Roy, Raja Ram Mohan, P. 14,
Nationalism, P. 1; Definition, P. 2; 45, 17-28; Introduction, P. 17-20;
Origin, P. 3; Development P. 4-11, W'orks, P. 20, Views on British
Differences between European and connection, P. 20; Love of Liberty,
Indian Nationalism, 62-63, 65, 72, P. 21-22; Freedom of Press, P. 22-25;
95. 96, 99 views on Law and custom, P. 25; Law
Nehru, Jawahar Lai, P. 8, 10, 91 and Morality, P. 25-27; Liberalism,
Owen, Robert, P. 19 P. 27-28
Pal, B.C., P. 5, 6, 15, 18,59-61,85, Sabha, Madras Mahajan, P. 4
93. 94, 99, 100; Attitude towards Sabha, Poona Sarvajanik, P. 37
the British, P. 59; Change in Atti¬ Sabine, P. 12
tude, P. 60; Methods, 61-64; change Samaj, Arya P. 12, 81, 82, 83
in the Idea of Nationalism, P. 65-66; Samaj, Brahmo, P. 12, 18, 59
Scheme of Indian Federation, 67-69; Samaj, Prarthana, P. 12, 37
Socialism, P. 70, 74 Sen, Keshub Chandra, P. 37
Partition, Bengal, P. 61, 85 Session, Indian National Congress;
Party, British Labour, P. 90 Amritsar, P. 7; Lahore, P. 8, 29;
Party, Panjab Socialist, P. 92 Calcutta, P. 29, 35, Madras, P. 59;
Party, Swaraj, P. 86, 88 Benaras, P. 5
INDEX 113
Shivaji, P. 37 51, 53, 84 84, 85, 86, 93, 97, 99, 49-58;
Sidgwick, P. 41 Contrast with Gokhale, P. 49.
itStaramayya, Pattabhi, P. 10, 49 Attitude towards British, P. 50-51,
Change in Attitude, 51-52; Political
Sorel, Albert, P. 1
Goal, 52; Methods, 53-54; Tilak and
Swadeshi, P. 5, 6, 52, 53, 54, 57, 59,
Gandhi, P. 55-56; Social Reforms,
61, 63, 85, 97
56; Evaluation, P. 58
Swaraj, P. 52, 53, 55, 57, 60-61, 66,
Treaty, Peace, P. 69
71, 73, 80, 95
Trust, Kesari Mahratta P. 61
Tagore, Rabindra Nath, P. 10, 72 Voltaire, P. 51
Telang, K.T., P. 37 Vyas, P. 27
Tilak, B.G., P. 5, 16, 36, 46, 74 82, Wavell, Lord, P. 10
MB.,w
• ' ' '
Bn JilSlfflQEii&iii'i

Goyal, O P - Studies in Modern Indian Political Thought The Moderates and The Extr

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Goyal, O P - Studies in Modern Indian Political Thought The Moderates and The Extr

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

STUDIES IN

KITAB MAHAL (W.D.) PVT. LTD.

© All Rights Reserved

Books by the Same Author

2. Contemporary Indian Political Thought

3. Campaigning and Voting-Behaviour—A Case study in the

“Studies in Modern Indian Political Thought” by Dr. O.P.

In my view, this book is useful for every student of politics in

The book is an attempt to delineate the political thought of the

My acknowledgments are various but it is difficult to list them

1. Political Ideas of Justice M.G. Ranade. Indian Journal of

2. Nationalism in India—A Retrospect. A.I.C.C. Economic

3. Idea of the Nation in Extremist Political Thought. Modern

August 15, 1963.

Chapter One Nationalism in India—A Retrospect X

Chapter Two Political Thought of Raja Ram Mohan Roy i7

Chapter Three Political Thought of Dadabhai Naoroji 29

Chapter Four Political Thought of Justice Ranade 37

Chapter Five Political Thought of B.G. Tilak 49

Chapter Six Political Thought of B.C. Pal 59

Chapter Seven Political Thought of Sri Aurobindo 72

Chapter Eight Political Thought of Lala Lajpat Rai 81

Chapter Nine The Moderates and the Extremists—A 93

Appendix Idea of the Nation in Extremist Political 99

NATIONALISM IN INDIA: A RETROSPECT

possible were taking place for centuries in different countries at

Indian nationalism was inspired by this idea of nationalism which

A short, scholarly definition of a sentence or two is almost

G. Shafer says, “Conscious of cultural similarities, the peoples of these

is the basic term of nationalism, implies ‘common political senti¬

Origin of Indian Nationalism

In the seventies, the East India Association replaced the Bombay

11. H.A.L. Fisher, The Common Weal, London 1924; P. 196.

founded the Indian Association in Bengal. In 1881, the Madras

Growth and Development

The Early Phase

system of British Rule and the policy of repression were already

In his Congress Presidential speech at Benaras, 1905, Gokhale

The Extremists condemned the moderates for their denationa¬

They condemned the method of prayers and petitions. Thus

Lajpat Rai considered swadeshi to be the common religion of

The idea behind boycott was to make it inconvenient if not

According to Aurobindo Ghosh, (1907) the idea of boycott was

19. Buch, vol. 2. Pp. 127-28.

it so. It is you, who make settlement and collect revenues, it is in

The boycott became a political weapon and it foreshadowed

After the partition of Bengal, the terrorist organizations and

The Later Phase

Gandhi surprised the entire Congress leadership25 by assuming

23. Tilak, His Writings & Speeches, P. 77.

The period of 1922 to 1930 in the history of Indian nationalist

On March 5, 1931, the Gandhi-Irwin agreement was signed

In March, 1933, the official White Paper was published. The

26. Mukerjee, Hiren, Gandhi—A Study, Delhi; People’s Publishing House,

In July, 1937, the Congress Working Committee resolved to

After the departure of Cripps,31 Gandhiji thought of launching

In 1945 the Cabinet Mission to India was appointed which con¬

In March, 1947, Lord Mountbatten was appointed successor to

Independence was only a partial fulfilment of Indian nationalism

In 1921, there was an unfortunate controversy between Rabin-

Similarly, Gandhiji had a small controversy with Jawaharlal

the progressive forces of the world. India cannot stand in isolation

Indian nationalism is not exclusive. It is not a disintegrating