Suppression of Extremists

The Suppression of Extremists in the context of India’s freedom struggle refers to the systematic measures adopted by the British colonial government between the early twentieth century and the First World War to curb the growing influence of revolutionary and extremist elements within the Indian nationalist movement. These “extremists” (also called militant nationalists) sought immediate self-rule (Swaraj) and advocated direct action, boycotts, and at times violent resistance against British authority—contrasting sharply with the moderate constitutional approach of earlier Congress leaders. The British response to their assertive nationalism included legislation, censorship, arrests, deportations, and widespread surveillance aimed at dismantling revolutionary organisations.

Background: Rise of Extremism

The Extremist movement emerged during the first decade of the twentieth century as a reaction to the limitations of moderate politics and the intensifying discontent with British policies. The partition of Bengal in 1905 by Lord Curzon provoked a massive wave of agitation that gave rise to the Swadeshi and Boycott Movements.
Leaders such as Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal, and Lala Lajpat Rai—collectively known as the Lal–Bal–Pal trio—championed assertive nationalism, advocating for Swaraj, national education, and self-reliance. Their ideas found resonance among the youth, students, and urban middle class.
Meanwhile, underground revolutionary groups began to form in Bengal, Maharashtra, and Punjab, aiming to overthrow British rule through armed struggle. Prominent among these were the Anushilan Samiti and the Jugantar Party in Bengal, and the Abhinav Bharat Society in Maharashtra, founded by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.
The increasing radicalisation of the nationalist movement alarmed the colonial administration, prompting it to adopt harsh repressive measures to contain what it perceived as a growing threat to imperial stability.

Causes for British Suppression

The British government’s decision to suppress extremist and revolutionary activities was driven by several interrelated factors:

• Growth of Revolutionary Violence: Assassination attempts on British officials, such as the killing of Magistrate A. M. T. Jackson (1909) and Curzon Wyllie (1909, London), signalled a new phase of militancy.
• Mass Agitations: The Swadeshi and Boycott movements generated unprecedented public mobilisation, challenging British authority.
• Spread of Nationalist Literature: Newspapers and pamphlets like Kesari, Sandhya, and Bande Mataram popularised nationalist ideas and criticised colonial policies.
• Fear of Political Unrest: The British feared a nationwide uprising similar to the Revolt of 1857, especially with increasing discontent among students and workers.
• War-time Security Concerns: During the First World War, the government intensified its repressive apparatus to prevent nationalist collaboration with foreign enemies (notably Germany).

Major Repressive Measures and Legislation

The colonial government introduced a series of laws and administrative measures to suppress extremist and revolutionary activities:
1. Indian Press Act (1908): Aimed to curb nationalist and revolutionary writings, the Act empowered authorities to confiscate publications that incited hatred against the government. Several nationalist journals were banned, and editors prosecuted. Kesari, Jugantar, and Bande Mataram faced censorship and closure.
2. Explosive Substances Act (1908): Introduced in response to bomb attacks, this Act imposed severe penalties on the manufacture and use of explosives for subversive purposes.
3. Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act (1908): This law allowed the government to declare organisations unlawful and arrest their members without trial. It facilitated the suppression of revolutionary groups such as the Anushilan Samiti.
4. Deportations and Detentions: Leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak were arrested and sentenced to imprisonment (Tilak was deported to Mandalay for six years in 1908). Others, including Aurobindo Ghosh, faced trials in the Alipore Bomb Case (1908–09), a landmark prosecution aimed at dismantling the Bengal revolutionary network.
5. Sedition Laws (Section 124A of IPC): The sedition clause was frequently invoked to silence nationalist leaders and journalists who criticised British rule.
6. Defence of India Act (1915): Passed during the First World War, this Act gave the government sweeping powers of arrest, detention, and trial by special tribunals without jury. It was used extensively against members of the Ghadar Party and other revolutionary networks suspected of plotting armed uprisings.

Notable Incidents of Suppression

The Alipore Bomb Case (1908–09): Following a failed attempt to assassinate a British judge, Douglas Kingsford, police raids uncovered the headquarters of the Jugantar group. Aurobindo Ghosh, his brother Barindra Kumar Ghosh, and several others were arrested. Although Aurobindo was acquitted, Barindra and other revolutionaries were sentenced to transportation for life.
Deportation of Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1908): Tilak’s articles in Kesari, particularly “The Country’s Misfortune”, were deemed seditious, leading to his imprisonment in Mandalay. His absence weakened the extremist wing of the Indian National Congress temporarily.
Suppression of the Ghadar Movement (1914–15): The Ghadar Party, formed by Indian expatriates in North America, sought to incite rebellion in India during the war. British intelligence crushed the movement through mass arrests and executions. Leaders such as Lala Hardayal and Kartar Singh Sarabha faced prosecution or exile.
Lahore Conspiracy Case (1915–16): Linked to the Ghadar conspiracy, this case involved revolutionary plots to overthrow British rule. The trial resulted in death sentences for several revolutionaries, intensifying the climate of fear.
Annie Besant and the Home Rule Movement (1917): Although not revolutionary in nature, the Home Rule agitation also faced repression. Besant and her associates were briefly interned, indicating the government’s low tolerance for assertive nationalist movements.

Impact of Repressive Policies

The suppression of extremists had both immediate and long-term effects on India’s nationalist movement:
Immediate Consequences:

• The arrests, deportations, and censorship temporarily weakened the revolutionary networks.
• The Congress experienced a split between moderates and extremists (Surat Session, 1907), reducing organisational unity.
• The government succeeded in restoring a semblance of order through fear and control, especially during World War I.

Long-term Consequences:

• Repression radicalised the younger generation, leading to the re-emergence of revolutionary activity in the 1920s (e.g., Hindustan Socialist Republican Association).
• It deepened distrust of British reform policies, such as the Morley–Minto Reforms (1909), which were seen as attempts to divide rather than empower Indians.
• The imprisonment of Tilak and the persecution of other leaders made them national heroes and inspired wider resistance.
• Many revolutionaries, forced into exile, established international connections, notably with Germany (Berlin Committee) and later with Subhas Chandra Bose’s efforts during the Second World War.

Moderation and the Reunion of Congress

By 1915, recognising the need for unity, efforts were made to reconcile moderates and extremists. The Lucknow Session of 1916 achieved this reunion under Tilak’s leadership and also marked an alliance between the Congress and the Muslim League. The British repressive measures, paradoxically, had pushed Indian political groups towards cooperation and consolidation.

Evaluation of British Policy

The suppression of extremists exposed the dual nature of British rule in India: while promoting limited constitutional reforms, it simultaneously resorted to coercion and censorship to maintain control. The colonial government interpreted assertive nationalism as sedition and refused to address the legitimate grievances that fuelled radicalism.
From a historical perspective, these repressive measures failed to extinguish India’s freedom movement; instead, they transformed it. The militant spirit of the early revolutionaries eventually merged with Gandhian mass politics after 1919, producing a broader, more disciplined struggle for independence.

Significance in the Freedom Struggle

The phase of extremist suppression remains significant for several reasons:

• It demonstrated the limitations of British liberalism in dealing with colonial demands for self-rule.
• It marked the transition from elite petitioning to mass mobilisation in Indian politics.
• It inspired future revolutionaries such as Bhagat Singh, Chandra Shekhar Azad, and Surya Sen.
• It laid the foundation for political radicalism that persisted throughout the twentieth century.