257 / 822
FREEDOM MOVEMENT
Eternal India
encyclopedia
Muslim League (1906)
The anti-Hindu policy inaugurated by Sir
Syed Ahmed at Aligarh, culminated in the
formation of the Muslim League, a rival or-
ganization to the Congress, on 30th Decem-
ber, 1906 by Nawab Salimulla in Dacca. The
foundation of the League was the beginning of
an organized opposition on the part of the
Muslims to the Hindus.
The object of the League was to
“support, wherever possible, all meas-
ures emanating from the Government,
and to protect the cause and advance
the interests of our co-religionists
throughout the country, to controvert
the growing influence of the so-called
Indian National Congress which has a
tendency to misinterpret and subvert
British rule in India, or which might
lead to that deplorable situation, and
to enable our young men of education,
who for want of such an association
have joined the Congress, to find scope,
according to their fitness and ability
for public life.
”
The League supported the partition of
Bengal and opposed the boycott of British
goods. First annual session of the All-India
Muslim League was held at Karachi on 29
December, 1907. The League welcomed the
Minto-Morley reforms and continued its
propaganda against the Congress and the Hin-
dus.
1906-1907 Split between
the Moderates and Extremists
The agitation following the partition of
Bengal brought into prominence the rise of a
new political group which differed in essential
points from the Indian National Congress.
The new group which had been surfacing over
the years were called the
extremists.
The
concept of Swaraj took its birth during the
1906
session of the Indian National Congress.
The Congress for the first time in its history
laid down as its goal, "the system of govern-
ment obtaining in the self-governing British
colonies”, which the president Dadabhai
Naoroji summed up in one word,
'Swaraj'.
This new spirit was sponsored by Tilak, Bipin
Chandra Pal, Lajpat Rai and other extremist
leaders. But the
"moderate"
leaders like Suren-
dranath Banerjee, Pheroze Shah-Mehta and
Gokhale did not endorse it and this was re-
flected in the Surat split of 1907 and for the
next 9 years the extremists kept out of the
Congress. One of the most important phases
of the Swadeshi movement was to endow the
militant nationalism with a new and lofty
spirit.
The real differences between the two
parties or groups lay primarily in the political
goal to be achieved and the method to be
adopted for achieving it.
As regards the method, the extremist
party concentrated its whole attention upon
the attainment of Swaraj or self-government.
“Political freedom’
said Aurobindo,
“is
the life breath of a nation; to attempt social
reform, educational reform, industrial ex-
pansion, the moral improvement of the race
without aiming first and foremost at political
freedom, is the very height of ignorance and
futility
.”
Tilak explained the difference between
the moderates and the exteremists in very
simple words.
“I admit’,
Tilak used to say,
'that we
must ask for our rights, but we must ask
with the consciousness that the demand
cannot be refused. There is a great dif-
ference between asking and petitioning....
you must be prepared to fight in the event
of your demand being turned down. Pro-
tests are of no avail. More protests, not
backed by self-reliance will not help the
people.... Three P’s - prayer, pleas and
protest - will not do unless backed by
solid force..."
As the Swadeshi movement gained in
momentum, it was apparent that the moder-
ates were unable to keep pace with the extrem-
ists and the two were gradually drifting apart.
This became evident in their respective
attitude to the scheme of national education.
While the moderates expressed sympathy with
the establishment of the National Council of
Education, they were opposed to the idea of
boycotting schools and colleges. The idea of
boycott appealed to the younger generation.
They veered around B.C Pal and other ex-
tremist leaders who supported the boycott of
Calcutta University.
The difference became further manifest
in the Congress session at Varanasi held in
1905 and it came to a head over the resolution
on boycott. The nationalist ideas and feelings
of the extremists were too pronounced to be
easily accomodated within the framework of
the Congress. Thus, after the session was
over, the advanced section of the
Nationalist
delegates held a conference within the Con-
gress campus and formed a new Nationalist
Party. It decided to remain within the Con-
gress but with a distinct programme of its own.
They adopted the ideas of boycott and passive
resistance which meant ‘withdrawal of all
kinds of co-operation from the British rulers in
every sphere of administrative and public
activity.’
Two important outside events influenced
the moderates and the extremisits during 1905-
6. The victory of Japan over Russia gave a
strong stimulus to the extremists; for it was
now proved that the Europeans were not in-
vincible. The moderates were buoyed up
with the victory of the Liberal Party in the
General Election in Britain.
Through the year 1906, a controversy
was raised in the periodicals that both extrem-
ists and moderates looked forward to a deci-
sive trial of strenght in the forthcoming ses-
sion of the Indian National Congress in De-
cember, 1906.
Aurobindo's articles in the
Bande Ma-
taram
put the extremist party on a high
pedestal all over the country.
Under the leadership of Lala Lajpat Rai,
Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal and Aurobindo and
inspired by their personality, the extremists
found new strength to fight for the realisation
of their objective.
The Congress met in Calcutta on 26
December 1906. The moderates had a triumph
over the extremists in the matter of selecting
the president. The extremists wanted Tilak
for the office but Dadabhai Naoroji (then 82
years old) was sworn in as the president of the
Congress. The chief feature of the Congress
was that it was attended by 1663 delegates
and 20,000 audience - a significant improve-
ment over the previous ones. The only re-
deeming feature of the president's speech was
the reference to Swaraj as the goal of India.
But he did not explain what he meant by
'Swaraj',
the moderates took it as
'self-gov-
ernment'
while the extremists accepted it as
"Full Independence".
The correct interpreta-
tion of the term was the subject of long con-
troversy.
The chief interest of the Congress ses-
sion of 1906 centred round the proposals of
the extremist party regarding Swadeshi and
connected problems.
The draft resolutions on the partition of
Bengal, boycott and other matters led to