How was the politics of the Radicals within the Congress different from that of the Moderates?

Differences Between Radicals and Moderates in Congress:

1. Approach towards British Rule:
– Moderates: Advocated cautious and constitutional methods, preferring gradual reforms and cooperation with the British.
– Radicals: Adopted an assertive stance, demanding immediate and radical measures against British rule, favoring confrontational methods.

2. Political Objectives:
– Moderates: Aimed for reforms within the existing British framework, focusing on gradual political advancements.
– Radicals: Pursued more radical goals, including complete self-governance and immediate independence from British rule.

3. Protest Methods:
– Moderates: Preferred peaceful methods like petitions and discussions within the British system to convey Indian grievances.
– Radicals: Embraced agitational politics, protests, mass movements, and civil disobedience as means of resistance.

4. Representation of Interests:
– Moderates: Represented the educated elite and bourgeoisie, primarily from urban areas.
– Radicals: Had a broader appeal, representing diverse sections of society, including peasants and workers.

5. View of British Rule:
– Moderates: Viewed British rule as a partnership and sought cooperation for gradual reforms.
– Radicals: Perceived British rule as exploitative and oppressive, advocating for immediate and complete independence.

The Radicals pursued a more assertive and confrontational approach, advocating for immediate independence, while the Moderates opted for cautious and cooperative methods within the British framework for gradual reforms.