Sri Aurobindo, one of the leading figures of the Indian nationalist movement, was highly critical of the political moderates in India, particularly in the context of the early phases of the Indian National Congress (INC) and its approach to British colonial rule.
Get the full solved assignment PDF of MPSE-004 of 2024-25 session now by clicking on above button.
His critique was rooted in his broader philosophical and spiritual views, which called for radical, transformative approaches to both politics and society. Aurobindo’s critique of the moderates in Indian political thought can be seen through several dimensions:
1. Moderates and Their Focus on Constitutional Reform:
The political moderates in the Indian National Congress, such as Dadabhai Naoroji, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, and others, advocated for gradual reforms within the British colonial framework. They believed in constitutional methods, petitions, and negotiations to achieve more autonomy for India, primarily through reforming British policies and promoting social and economic progress.
Aurobindo’s Critique:
- Naivety of Constitutionalism: Sri Aurobindo viewed the moderates’ faith in the British government and their reliance on constitutional methods as naive and ineffective. He believed that the British, as imperial rulers, were inherently interested in maintaining their control over India and would not willingly concede significant powers to Indians through petitions or incremental reforms.
- Gradualism as Futile: Aurobindo was critical of the gradualist approach taken by the moderates. He argued that expecting meaningful political rights and freedom through petitions and discussions within a colonial framework was impractical. In his view, this approach would lead to prolonged stagnation, and would never deliver true independence or sovereignty.
2. The Moderates’ Idealism and Lack of Revolutionary Spirit:
The moderates often believed that India could achieve self-rule through peaceful means, emphasizing reforms in administration, education, and social welfare. They tended to prioritize dialogue with the British and sought greater representation for Indians in the British colonial government.
Aurobindo’s Critique:
- Moral Weakness and Lack of Willpower: Aurobindo criticized the moderates for their moral weakness, their inability to recognize the full extent of British exploitation, and their lack of revolutionary spirit. He believed that true political freedom could not be achieved by passively requesting concessions from a colonial power. He saw the moderate approach as a form of surrender to British rule and its inherent injustice.
- Compromise with Imperialism: Aurobindo was also critical of what he saw as the moderate leaders’ willingness to compromise with British imperialism. While they advocated for reforms, they did not challenge the core structure of colonial rule, which Aurobindo viewed as fundamentally exploitative and unjust.
3. Nationalism and Self-Determination:
The moderates were inclined to pursue reforms within the existing political system, working within the British constitutional framework. Their vision was primarily focused on gaining Indian participation in governance and securing economic benefits through reforms like the reduction of taxes and better conditions for Indian industries.
Aurobindo’s Critique:
- Radical Nationalism: Aurobindo, in contrast, envisioned a far more radical and complete form of nationalism. He believed that India’s struggle should not be merely for reform or representation within a colonial system, but for complete political freedom. His vision of Indian nationalism was not just about obtaining rights within the British system but about overthrowing British imperialism altogether.
- Self-Determination and Swadeshi: Aurobindo emphasized the need for self-reliance (swadeshi) and the revitalization of Indian culture and spirituality. He argued that India’s national identity could only be fully realized by reclaiming complete sovereignty from colonial rule. For him, nationalism was a spiritual and cultural mission, rather than a mere political negotiation. He believed that the Indian masses had the power to overthrow the British, but only through a unified, national struggle, driven by both political and spiritual rejuvenation.
4. Spiritual and Revolutionary Approach to Politics:
Aurobindo’s political philosophy was deeply intertwined with his spiritual views, which saw the political and spiritual spheres as inseparable. He argued that true political freedom required not just external change, but an internal transformation of the individual and the nation.
Aurobindo’s Critique:
- Spiritual Transformation for Political Liberation: Aurobindo believed that the true strength of a nation lay in the spiritual awakening of its people. He critiqued the moderates for ignoring the spiritual dimension of Indian nationalism, which, for him, was crucial for empowering the masses and creating the inner strength required to challenge imperialism.
- Active Resistance and Revolutionary Change: While moderates believed in negotiating with the British, Aurobindo emphasized the need for direct, revolutionary action. His call for a more militant and direct approach to political freedom was encapsulated in his involvement with the Bengal revolutionaries and his advocacy of Bengal’s armed resistance against British rule. He was influenced by the idea that self-determination for India could only be achieved through sacrifice, action, and courage.
5. Criticism of the Moderates’ Political Strategy:
- Moral Submissiveness: Aurobindo believed that the moderates, by submitting to British authority and focusing on gradual reforms, were endorsing a colonial order that was inherently exploitative. For him, political freedom could only come from a firm stand against colonialism, not from seeking favors from the colonial rulers.
- Passive Resistance vs. Active Struggle: The moderate strategy of passive resistance, including civil disobedience and petitions to the British crown, was seen by Aurobindo as insufficient and ineffective. Instead, he advocated for active resistance — a political movement grounded in national unity and directed at complete political and social transformation.
6. The Role of Youth and the Masses:
Aurobindo also differed with the moderates in terms of his vision of the role of the Indian masses in the freedom struggle. While the moderates often emphasized the importance of educating the elites and using intellectual influence to achieve reforms, Aurobindo called for a mass movement that involved all sections of Indian society.
- Empowerment of the Masses: Aurobindo believed that the true power of the Indian nation lay with its people, especially the youth. He criticized the moderates for their elitist focus and argued that it was the youth and the masses, who were disillusioned by British rule, who would be the true agents of change. He believed that the awakening of the youth would trigger a national movement of radical change, built on the ideals of swadeshi, self-rule, and cultural revival.
Conclusion:
Sri Aurobindo’s critique of the political moderates in the Indian National Movement was rooted in his belief that true political freedom could not be achieved through constitutional means, gradual reforms, or compromises with the British colonial state. His call for radical nationalism, spiritual and cultural renewal, and direct action set him apart from the moderates, whose faith in gradual progress and negotiation he deemed insufficient to overthrow the colonial system. For Aurobindo, India’s liberation required a deeper, more transformative struggle, one that involved not just political change but a spiritual awakening and a renewed sense of national identity. His ideas, which later influenced revolutionary movements and the broader Indian freedom struggle, continue to resonate with those who seek to balance political activism with spiritual and cultural rejuvenation.