INTRODUCTION

One of the greatest Indian liberal thinkers, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, was born on May 9, 1866, at a serene village called Kotluk, in the Chiplun taluka of Ratnagiri district of the Bomaby Presidency. Gokhale showed great promise and intelligence right from his early years. Though not much is known about his earliest years of education, his first school, teachers or friends, it is recorded that he sought his elementary education in Kagal, presently a border town on Maharashtra-Karnataka boundary. Gokhale inherited quite a few values like discipline and strong sense of duty from his family of Chitpavan Brahmins. His parents were not affluent but were also not destitute. His father, Krishnarao Gokhale shifted from his native village to Kagal as he got a job of a clerk there. Gokhale’s father, despite his humble background was conscious enough of the changing socio- political scenario of India and for that reason he enrolled young Gopal in an English medium school that imparted the kind of modern education made available by the British in India. It proved decisive in influencing his ideas and activities in later years.
When he completed his elementary education, Gopal along with his brother was sent to Kolhapur for further studies. When he was 13 year old and still in a school in Kolhapur his father died. It was because of the pressure of his elder brother Govind and uncle Anantji that Gokhale had to marry even before he could complete matriculation. He passed his matriculation examination when he was 15, a comparatively young age to complete school education in those days. Gokhale had intense desire to seek higher education but he was also aware of the precarious financial position of his elder brother and other relatives He had no intention to put further pressure on them by expressing his wish to go to college, Besides, he had to look after his wife. In the circumstances he made up his mind to find out some job and start earning himself. However, his brother did not allow him to discontinue his education and prevailed upon him to acquire higher education. Accordingly, in the beginning of 1882, Gokhale joined Rajaram College at Kolhapur. Though he was not known as a brilliant student of the college, he could acquire the reputation of a student with exceptional memory. He was also good at the usage of English language. On completing his first year B.A. he moved to Elphinstone College, Bombay from where he ultimately completed his graduation.
The completion of college education threw open quite a few options before him. He could have enrolled for a masters course, could have joined the law education and become a lawyer or he could even make attempt to clear the I. C. S. examination and become a bureaucrat. He also had the desire to become an engineer as mathematics was one of his subjects in the under graduation course. With much reflection and consultation, he ultimately decided to go for the legal profession because law in those days was a much sought after education. Since, by nature he was a man of strong commitment and had a sense of duty towards his family members who had greatly sacrificed to send him to college, he decided to share the financial burden of his elder brother as well. He sought admission for the law course in the Deccan College, Poona and simultaneously started working as a teacher in the New English School. Though he passed the first year examination of law, he could not continue his law education for financial constraint.

 A LIBERAL THINKER

Mahadev Govind Ranade, the political guru of Gokhale was a great admirer of classical liberal thought that flourished in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in England in particular and other parts of Europe in general. Gokhale too got attracted to the politics of liberalism. Nevertheless, the liberal ideas of both Ranade and Gokhale were not absolutely identical to those propounded in British liberalism. It was natural because of tremendous differences between British and Indian society. Liberalism, as is understood in the western world is essentially about the liberty of the individual. It is the core idea and in all spheres of human activity, social interaction, political institutions, economic activities, culture, religion etc. the solitary point of reference is individual whose ideas, aspirations, feelings and opinions must be respected unconditionally. The political implication of liberalism is of course the establishment of a liberal democracy based on universal adult franchise with secularism as the operating principle. The extreme example of economic liberalism is laissez faire or free market economy. In such a system state is not allowed to regulate let alone control the economic activities.
The liberal ideas of Gokhale were slightly different from the British classical liberalism. He was not in favour of giving unbridled freedom to individual that, he feared, might lead to chaos or social upheaval. He respected discipline and order. He did not believe that liberty essentially meant absence of restraints. He prescribed that each individual should have a positive/ constructive purpose in his life that could only be accomplished with discipline, self-restraint. In politics, Gokhale believed that liberal ideas should be realized in India gradually. For that reason throughout his political career he kept appealing to the British to establish representative institutions and let them function freely to manage public affairs of India. However, Gokhale did not favour the principle of universal adult franchise. He was in favour of property qualification for the enjoyment of political rights. In case of Panchayat elections too Gokhale recommended that the right to vote should be made available to those who paid revenue. These ideas were the complete negation of the western ideology of liberalism. He, nonetheless, was completely in favour of the freedom of the Press and for that reason he opposed the Amendment Bill in 1904 that aimed to include even civil matters in Official Secrets Act. Gokhale wanted to establish a political order that should reflect the social reality of India. He, therefore, emphasized the need of communal harmony and for the sake of ensuring Muslim representation he even gave his consent to communal electorates. In the field of economy too his ideas were in variance with classical liberalism. Though Gokhale supported the institution of private property, he did not believe in absolute restriction on state to intervene in economic activities. His argument was that for an industrially backward country like India it would be only through State intervention the industrial revolution would take place. Additionally, he demanded that the British Government should utilize the revenue surpluses to create industrial jobs and other employments to remove mass poverty from the country. Similarly, Gokhale approved of state intervention in the area of social reforms. He pleaded with the British rulers to make suitable laws to prohibit unhealthy and superstitious practices of Indian society. This, in fact, was one of the major controversial points between Tilak and Gokhale. 

A BRIDGE BETWEEN CONGRESS AND THE GOVERNMENT

Gokhale got increasingly involved in spreading education among Indian as he believed modern education would truly free Indian society from many socio-economic evils. He became the life member of Deccan Education Society. While working for the Society he had the good fortune of coming into contact with Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Agarkar, the great patriots who had influenced the thinking of Gokhale a great deal. Among the two it was Agarkar who left an indelible mark on the ideas of Gokhale. He joined the Indian National Congress in 1889 under the patronage of another renowned social reformer, Mahadev Govind Ranade. In those days the major issue before the Indian National Congress was to seek greater representation for Indians in positions of power and public affairs. The other Congress leaders of the time such as Tilak, Dadabhai Naoroji, Bipin Chandra pal, Lala Lajpat Rai et al were passionately striving to empower Indians. Though they had differences among themselves in terms of strategy to achieve the desired objectives, they were all committed patriots. Tilak, Lajpat Rai and Pal wanted to adopt more assertive and agitational methods to force the British colonialists to concede the genuine demands of the Indians while Gokhale along with Naoroji and some other leaders favoured a moderate and conciliatory strategy to realize their objectives. This created a kind of rift between these prominent leaders of the Congress that was to come in the open in later years.
In 1891-92, the British Imperial Government introduced the Age of Consent Bill. It was about raising the marriageable age of Indians and do away with the social evil of child marriage. Gokhale who was keen to bring about progressive social reforms in Indian society wholeheartedly favoured the proposed law. This led to the first major confrontation between Gokhale and Tilak. The Bill in itself did not recommend any radical change in the institution of marriage in India. It merely recommended to increase the marriageable age from ten to twelve. However, Tilak had serious objection to it. Though Tilak did not have reservation about the elimination of child marriage, his objection was to the idea of the British Government taking the initiative to introduce reforms in matters which he considered to be embedded in Hindu traditions. He thought it to be uncalled for interference in Hindu social order. For Tilak political independence of the country and empowerment of Indians were more pressing objectives. On social reforms his opinion was that an imperial foreign power had no business to initiate the process of social reform of Hindu society. The Indian would themselves do that on becoming the political masters of the land and affairs. For Gokhale the two objectives, social reforms and political independence were of equal importance and he believed that there was nothing wrong in struggling for both simultaneously. The differing positions of these two prominent leaders of the Congress created much bitterness in their relationship that became more intense when the Age of Consent Bill became the law in Bombay Presidency.
In 1903, he became the member of the Imperial Council of India. He once again proved his worth as an impressive speaker and a knowledgeable legislator while deliberating on an Amendment Bill that was introduced with the purpose of altering the Official Secrets Act of 1889, so that civil matters too should be included in its ambit along with the military matters that were already covered by the original Act. It was a blatant anti-people endeavor by the British bureaucracy to deny the people every kind of information that they should have access to. In his characteristic gentle manner Gokhale appealed to the members of the Imperial Council to take into cognizance the public outcry against the proposed amendment and refrain from passing the Bill. Nevertheless, the Bill was passed and Gokhale while intervening later in the discussion sadly observed that in the entire British Empire nowhere the Government was as powerful as it was in India. He also pointed out that nowhere in the Empire the press was so weak to influence the decision making process of the Government as it was in India. In fact the Indian press, he continued, should have been given a helping hand by the Legislature but on the contrary the law making wing had unfortunately armed the Government with more powers that it would use to suppress the freedom of the press.

Gokhale’s commitment to liberalism and his politics of Moderation did attract the attention of Gandhi who was then struggling in South Africa for ensuring a dignified existence for all races in general and for the Indian indentured labourers in particular. Gandhi wanted to draw attention of the important members of the Indian National Congress to the valiant efforts of the Natal Indian Congress that was agitating against the inhuman, racist policy of the colonial Government of South Africa for the sake of hapless labourers who were denied even the rights of settlers in that country. It was Gandhi who prompted Gokhale take up the issue of Indian labourers of South Africa. Gokhale, therefore, moved resolutions on two occasions, in 1910 and 1912, in the Imperial Legislative Council wherein he strongly recommended that the colonial Government should mete out a just and humane treatment to the indentured labourers of Indian origin and grant to them the rights of the settlers. On Gandhi’s invitation Goghale visited South Africa and saw for himself the precarious condition of the Indian labourers. The following year he started a movement to raise funds for the financial support of South African Satya grah Movement. Though Gokhale did not live long to support Gandhi’s struggle, he tremendously impressed Gandhi by his brand of politics, dedication to the cause of nation building and social reforms and above all his strict sense of discipline. In later years Gandhi adopted some of the ideas of Gokhale. Though Gandhi cannot be called a Moderate, he was closer to the political style of Gokhale’s leadership. Gandhi respected Gokhale so much that he called him his political guru.
Gokhale was extremely concerned about the increasing resentment against the Government in the aftermath of partition of Bengal. He feared that any violent agitation on the issue would bring about lots of hardships for the common people and their process of progress would be put off indefinitely. His main aim at that time was to ease the surcharged atmosphere by drawing the attention of the Government to take some necessary measures to attend to various problems of the people. With this intension in 1906, he placed before the Imperial Legislative Council a Seven-point Scheme that according to him would ensure the moral and material uplift of the people of India. The seven points were: (i) the reduction of the state demand upon land, especially in U.P., Bombay and Madras so that some relief might be provided to the agricultural depression that was then prevalent; (ii) to rescue the farmers from the burden of crushing debts; (iii) the establishment of Agricultural Banks like the one introduced in Egypt; (iv) promotion of irrigation and scientific agriculture; (v) promotion of agricultural and technical education; (vi) making available free primary education all across the country and (vii) to foster sanitary improvement. As is obvious that all these measure were mainly related to agricultural and educational advancement of the Indians and there was no mention of any political demand in the Scheme. However, it was a deliberate strategy Gokhale adopted to get the British rulers engaged in the material and educational advancement of the people of India through which he was hoping to pacify incensed feelings of his countrymen.

Thus, all through the years he was associated with the Government, he worked passionately to influence the British decision makers to make available greater degree of freedom to his countrymen and also made valiant efforts to impress upon the foreign rulers to let more and more Indians be involved in public affairs of the country. He made good use of his command over the English language and impressed the British by his knowledge that he displayed while taking part in the deliberations particularly those which pertained to budgetary provisions. This reputation earned him an invite to London by the Secretary of State Lord John Morley. Gokhale and Morley developed mutual liking for each other and it was because of the warm affinity between the two that helped Gokhale to somewhat influence the framing of Morley-Minto Reforms that were introduced in 1909.
Gokhale did also succeed in leaving his impression as a committed member of the Congress and as an able leader to guide not only the rank and file but also the prominent leaders of the organization. In the Madras session of the Indian National Congress held in 1903, Gokhale was elected as Joint General Secretary. In a speech made in Madras in 1904, he exhorted Indians to emulate the patriotic streak and sense of discipline of the Japanese that helped them to emerge as an industrial power. He hoped that if Congress continued to impart political education to more and more people, India would soon become a self-governing part of the British Empire. He insisted that every member of the Congress should be extremely disciplined and be dedicated to participate in the political life of the country. He observed that the political struggle was becoming sharper and that made it necessary for every responsible Indian perform his political duty with greater sense of responsibility and discipline. He wanted to increase the number of political activists so that every province would have sufficient number of devoted persons to take part in public affairs.

The closer Gokhale went to the British the farther he went from the fiercely patriotic Indians who were favouring a confrontationist line of action against the British to promote and protect the interests of Indians. They were also seeking a great deal of freedom for their countrymen. The most prominent among the leaders who opposed Gokhale’s line of action was of course Tilak. The year (1905) the British divided Bengal to broaden the gulf between Hindus and Muslims and continue to rule, Gokhale became the President of the Indian National Congress. The year was also marked by extremely tense political atmosphere in the country. The impending visit of the Prince of Wales created a difficult situation because India in general and Bengal in particular did not have any intention to declare loyalty to the British crown and welcome the visiting dignitary. In his presidential address delivered in the session held at Banaras it was the political acumen of Gokhale that made him explain to Indians the distinction between a party government and position of the Crown and Constitution. He clarified that the Crown represented the non-partisan permanent element of the British political system and therefore, Indians had to show respect to the representative of the Crown. He advised Indians to welcome the Prince because by doing so they would be expressing their loyalty to that source of the British polity which issued Queen’s Proclamation, a document that promised Indians rights to freedom and equality within the British Empire.
He also dealt with the issue extending cooperation to the newly appointed viceroy Lord Minto in his presidential address. He hoped that in the changed political set-up the repressive policies of the previous Viceroy, Lord Curzon, would be given up and Indian would extend their fullest cooperation to the government. In this manner he proved to be a bridge between the people of India and the British rulers. His conciliatory gesture made the new Viceroy to adopt a responsive position that was very helpful during the extended negotiations about the future reforms to be introduced in India.
The one factor that had vitiated the political climate of India in the year 1905 and thereafter was the partition of Bengal. The people in Bengal had adopted the policy of boycott. Gokale had to take a clear stand on the issue. He clarified his position by stating that the people had opted for this extreme strategy of boycott to achieve a two-fold objective. Firstly, they were giving expression to their deep resentment against the shabby treatment with which they were being treated. Secondly, they were hoping to attract the attention of responsible and judicious people of England so that they in turn would ask the authorities responsible for Indian affairs to attend to the grievances of Indians. Gokhale made it absolutely clear that in those circumstances people were completely justified to resort to the strategy of boycott. He, however, cautioned the people that the strategy of boycott should be resorted to only in extreme situations because there were risks involved in case it failed. Though he accepted the efficacy of boycott as a political weapon, he felt that its adoption in 1905 was not necessary from the point of view of need and efficacy.

The eminent position of the President of the Congress provided Gokhale an opportunity to oppose Tilak’s brand of politics and thus undermine his stature within the organization. At the extremity of his Presidency, Gokhale refused to endorse the candidature of Tilak for the President of the Congress in 1905. There were serious ideological differences between these two prominent freedom fighters as they belonged to the two antagonistic factions of the Congress. Gokhale, unlike the Extremists, gave priority to social reforms and spread of education. His line of argument was “first deserve then desire” and his ultimate political objective was “a self-governing India within the Empire.” Addressing a gathering of the Congress workers he had clarified his political goals. He said: “I recognize no limits to my aspiration for our motherland. I want my people to be in their own country what other people are in theirs. I want our men and women without distinction of caste or creed to have opportunities to grow to the full height of their stature unhampered by cramping and unnatural restrictions. I want India to take her proper place among the great nations of the world, politically, industrially, in religion, in literature, in science and in arts. I want all this and feel at the same time that the whole of this aspiration, in its essence and its reality, will be realized within this Empire.”
In pursuing the policy of cooperation with the Government, Gokhale wanted to influence the British rulers to accelerate and enlarge the official policy of liberalization and democratization of the political institutions of India. In this context he submitted a note to the Royal Commission on Decentralization wherein he clarified that unless the process of decentralization was accompanied by the measure of political popularization governments the goal of genuine democratic decentralization would not be achieved. Under the façade of the
decentralization of powers the British rulers actually wanted to devolve more powers to the Provincial Governments so that they could suppress the popular uprisings. Gokhale was perceptive enough to see through the British plan and for that reason raised the issue of increasing popular representation in the Provincial Governments. He favoured decentralization of powers because centralization of powers, ore often than not, resulted in the autocratic rule. At the same time he, however, insisted on democratization of the political institutions in the Provinces. He was convinced that decentralization could be effective only if the membership of the provincial council was increased and they were empowered to discuss the budget.

He did not stop only at the provincial level while recommending decentralization and democratization but went further in suggesting that this process should also be extended to District Administration in two ways. As per his proposal the District Local Boards should be truly representative by democratizing them so that they could perform their function more effectively. Secondly, the Collector or Commissioner responsible for performing their functions as representatives of the Provincial Government should do so in consultation with the Advisory Council that should also be majorly constituted on democratic principle. While appearing before the Hobhouse Decntralization Commission in 1908, Gokhale presented his idea of local self government that consisted of three layers of authority, i) village panchayats at the bottom, ii) district councils at the intermediate level, and iii) reformed legislative councils at the top. He persisted with his scheme of administrative reforms whenever he got the opportunity to give expression to constitutional reforms.
Contrary to this strategy, the Extremist leaders such as Tilak, Lajpat Rai, Bipin Chandra Pal, Aurobindo et al were striving to achieve Swaraj as they believed it was their natural right. The Extremist leaders also rejected the Western idea of nation and aimed at establishing a nation that would be based on spiritual character of Indian traditions. On the issue of social reforms the Extremists suggested that on achieving political freedom the Indian themselves would bring about suitable reforms in Indian society and the foreign rulers had no business to interfere in socio-cultural traditions of Indians. The two factions of the Congress failed to reconcile their differences and consequently the Congress split between the Moderates and Extremists in 1907 at the time of the Surat session. The two factions could bury their differences only in 1916 when Gokhale was no more alive.

A MODERATE LEADER:
Gokhale did not consider the British rule as something terribly evil for India. He, therefore, was not primarily concerned about the independence of the country. In fact he was more passionate about social reforms that he believed could be smoothly brought about with the spread of education. He belonged to the Moderate wing of the Congress whose political ideology was popularly defined as politics of moderation in relation to the British rule in India. Gokhale along with other moderate colleagues of the Congress such as Surendranath Bannerjee, Phirozshah Mehta and Dadabhai Naoroji had always tried to convey to the foreign rulers that the Congress had complete faith in the British sense of justice and their organization (Congress) would always function as a communication channel informing the rulers about the aspirations and expectations of the people. The Moderates would frequently express their loyalty to the British Crown and English Constitution and the Congress was only helping the British rulers by exposing the misdeeds of the bureaucracy and the Anglo-Indian personnel who were part of it. More often than not they would impress upon the British rulers that Congress was not a seditious organization but it was performing a significant duty by explaining the policies of the Government to the people and at the same time informing the

authorities about the genuine grievances of the people. Gokhale also believed that the project of social reforms would be effectively executed by co-operating with the British rulers and making the effective use of government institutions. This particular line of strategy incensed the intensely patriotic leaders such as Tilak, Pal et al who started open opposition to Gokhale and his mission. Nevertheless, Gokhale refused to alter his political stance and continued to seek co- operation of the British rulers to accomplish the cause of spreading education and reforming Indian society.
Like, Ranade, who was his political guru, Gokhale sincerely believed that it was the wisdom of Providence that had established the British connection with India. He was totally convinced in holding the view that some kind of benevolent power was guiding the life of the people of the world. He was of the opinion that wisdom and benevolence were the characteristics of the Providence Gokhale in the tradition of Ranade made sincere attempts to rationalize the perception that the coming of the British was a benevolent event for India. Like Ranade, he too held the view that because the British introduced in India the modern education of science and technology that helped develop an industrial culture in some pockets of the country. Gokhale also believed that the British brought with them the political value of freedom and made Indians aware of the concept of a national state. His admiration for the British was primarily because of the democratic institutions that they had promised to fully introduce in India. He argued that the Indian history could not provide any parallels to the democratic political institutions before the coming of the British. His major political objective was to introduce similar type of representative political institutions in India which had created an atmosphere of freedom and political equality in England and some other European nations. For that reason he attached greater importance to the British rule as, in his estimation, it would be through that connection India would become a genuine democratic nation. Though, some of his pro-British ideas could be contested, it was a historical fact that the freedom struggle of India was a spin-off of the British rule.
In spite of being a member of the Moderate faction of the Congress, Gokhale never lost the opportunity to criticize a policy of the Government if it appeared unjust or anti-people to him. The two prominent examples were his criticism about salt tax and the excise duty on cotton goods. He also did not mince words while opposing the unjust policies of Lord Curzon’s administration. He frequently criticized the British policy makers for their failures to introduce British parliamentary institutions in India. He was invited to London to give evidence before the Welby Commission that was inter alia investigating the impact of economic status of Indians. Gokhale made maximum use of the opportunity by giving expression to his ideas about the poverty of Indians, the industrial policy, forest laws and many other socio-economic issues that were prominent at that time. For him the Congress was not an exclusively political organization but the one that also took care of the social and cultural issues of Indians. He therefore desired to have a genial rapport between the Congress and the British rulers for the sake of promoting welfare programmes for the countrymen. Like all Moderate leaders he never nursed the idea of getting rid of the yoke of British imperialism but always strived to increase the number of Indians in public services and in positions of responsibilities. He believed that the interest of Indians could be better protected by increasing cooperation between Indian and the Government.

Gokhale’s position of collaboration with the British became more pronounced when he became the member of the Bombay Legislative Council in 1899. Though he remained the member of the Council only for two years, his impressive performance as a legislator was appreciated by all. One of his important speeches in the Bombay Legislative Council was in regard with the Mofussil Municipalities Bill wherein he expressed his views on Municipal government as well as on the issue of communal electorates that was part of the Bill. He underlined the significance of local government, for through it local problems could be better attended to and local progress could be made. Moreover, he pointed out that people of different faiths, castes and social strata could get opportunity in the local government to work together in the spirit of cooperation. The nature of local self- government, he explained, did not contain anything in it that could give rise to conflict between various sections of society. He did recognize the plural character of Indian society by pointing out that even the Hindu community could not be treated as a single category for it was divided in various castes and sub-castes. He observed that in such a situation the government could not make provisions for each and every community. He, therefore, suggested sticking to the concept of common electorates. Unfortunately this sound advice was not heeded to by the majority of the Council and the consequent Municipal Act did make provision for communal electorates.
In the Congress session held at Banaras Gokhale presented a set of nine demands that together represent the essence of the political philosophy of the Indian Moderates.

Those nine demands were:

1) a reform of the legislative councils by raising the proportion of elected members of one-half , and by providing that the budgets be passed by the councils;

2) the appointments of at least three Indians to the India Council;

3) the creation of advisory boards in all districts throughout the country. It must be made obligatory that the district magistrates were to consult these boards in important matters of administration;

4) the recruitment to the judicial branch of the Indian civil service from the ranks of the legal profession;

5) the separation of judicial and executive administration;

6) the reduction of the ever increasing military budget;

7) the expansion of Primary education;

8) the growth and extension of industrial and technical education and

9) the mitigation of rural indebtedness.

As a Moderate leader he desired the British should take immediate cognizance of the above mentioned demands and for his Congress colleagues he advised to keep pressing for the implementation of these reasonable claims through constitutional methods. He also pleaded with the British authorities to make provisions for the utilization of surplus revenue for the material and moral uplift of the masses. In 1911, he gave expression to what he meant by the moral and material improvement of the people. He submitted that the Government could be judged on the basis of four tests to conclude whether it was working for the uplift of the people or not. Said he: “By measures for the moral and material improvement of the people, I mean what the Government does for education, what the Government does for sanitation, what Government does for agricultural development and so forth; that is my first test. The second test that I would apply is what steps the Government takes to give us a large share in the administration of our local affairs__in municipalities and local boards. My third test is what voice the Government gives us in its Councils__in those deliberative assemblies, where policies are considered. And, lastly, we must consider how far Indians are admitted into the ranks of the public service.” History is witness to the fact that the British rulers did fail all the four tests Gokhale prescribed for the evaluation of the performance of the Government. This, nevertheless, did not dissuade him to give up the politics of Moderation.

 

IN THE SERVICE OF THE NATION

Gokhale never lost sight of social reforms and the cause of spreading modern education among Indians. Even his close associations with the British rulers and his engagements as legislator did not let his mind waver from the main task of nation building. When he became President of the Indian National Congress he was at the height of his popularity and commanded the respect from many sections of Indian society. He had already got associated with the Deccan Education Society when he was still a student of law in Poona. He had also served as the secretary of the Sarvajanik Sabha and worked as the principal of Fergusson College. Since those early ventures in the cause of nation building and education he never neglected the cause of education. His position of prominence in 1905 gave him a golden opportunity to undertake the project of spreading education in a well organized manner. With this purpose in mind, he established the Servants of India Society in the same year he became the President of the Congress. Gokhale was firmly convinced that true political freedom in India would not come unless its people got political education. He was also aware of the fact that most of the existing educational institution did not make provision for political education of

the people. The Society thus aimed to spread education among the people in such manner that they would gain political education as well that might enable them to perform their civil and patriotic duties.
The Preamble to the Constitution of the Servants of India Society provided: “The Servants of India Society will train men prepared to devote their lives to the cause of the country in a religious spirit, and will seek to promote, by all constitutional means, the national interests of the Indian people.” It further stated: “The Servants of India Society will train men, prepared to devote their lives to the cause of the country in a religious spirit and will seek to promote by all constitutional means, the national interests of the Indian people. Its members will direct their efforts principally forward: (i) creating among the people, by example and by precept, a deep and passionate love of the motherland, seeing its highest fulfillment in service and sacrifice, (ii) organizing the work of political education and agitation and strengthening the public life of the country, (iii) promoting relations of cordial goodwill cooperation among the different communities, (iv) assisting educational movements, especially those for the education of women, the education of backward classes, and industrial and scientific education, and (v) the elevation of the depressed classes.”
He sincerely believed that with the spread of modern education, the future generations of Indians would become really worthy citizens of India who would be patriotic enough to perform their social and political duties more efficiently. He also believed that the spread of modern, scientific education would also accelerate the process of social reforms. Under his able leadership the volunteers of the Servants of India Society did commendable works such as establishment of schools, making available mobile libraries and arranging night teaching classes for factory workers. Gokhale was well aware of the socio-economic conditions of the people of his countrymen. The hardships of the teeming masses struggling to survive in the face of abject poverty, disease and illiteracy enormously disturbed him and he came to the conclusion that such ills and evils of mammoth proportion could only be eradicated with a large band of dedicated social workers attached to a self-service organization. These volunteers should be committed to the cause of social service and be ready to sacrifice their personal comforts for the cause of the uplift of poor masses. He issued appeals to the privileged sections of Indian society to join the Servants of India Society in order to extend a helping hand to the destitute of the country.
Gokhale was conscious of the difficulties that he was going to face while executing his project of nation building. In his words, “Nation building is nowhere an easy task. In India it is beset with difficulties which are truly formidable and which will tax to the utmost all our resources and all our devotion. Let us not forget that we are at a stage of the country’s progress when our achievements are bound to be small, and our disappointments frequent and trying…We of the present generation, must be content to serve her mainly by our failures.” In this manner he advised the potential social worker to be prepared for failures and disappointments but should continue in their mission because it would be only through failures they might experience successes.

In a speech delivered at a college in Madras he reiterated his firm belief that the future of India depended on the spread of higher education throughout the lengths and breadths of the country. He pointed out that the resources of no Government however liberally spent could be sufficient to overcome the huge deficit in the area of higher education. He urged the students of the college to come forward and help their less-privileged countrymen to seek education. He informed them that there was lot of work they could do for the welfare of their motherland. He called upon the educated Indians to eradicate ignorance and superstitions, elevate the status of women by bringing them in large numbers in the field of education, make more and more Indians aware of political issues, contribute in the industrial development of the country. Gokhale knew it well that all educated Indians would not heed to his call of nation building but he hoped that a fair proportion of the highly educated Indian would join in his efforts. The Servants of India Society did attract many selfless and dedicated workers who played a pivotal role in improving the socio-economic conditions of countless Indians. More importantly the Society inspired many others to dedicate themselves to participate in the process of nation building.
In another speech delivered at Lucknow, Gokhale welcomed the Swadeshi movement that would help Indian industries develop. In his perception Swadeshi represented an intense feeling of love towards the motherland. In his presidential address in the Benaras session of the Congress he said that Swadeshi was not merely an economic movement but also a patriotic one. For him the idea of Swadeshi or ‘the self rule’ was one of the noblest principles that could inspire the people to make sacrifices for their nation. Gokhale pointed out that the Swadeshi movement stirred the imagination of the people in many ways. In his words, “it (the Swadeshi movement) turns their thoughts to their country, accustoms them to the idea of voluntarily making some sacrifice for her sake, enables them to take an intelligent interest in her economic development and teaches them the important lesson of cooperating with one another for a national end.” He, nevertheless, was not in favour of a general boycott of the foreign goods. He cautioned his countrymen that India’s industrial progress would be slower than the expectations of the people but if the patriotic Indians worked with sincerity and dedication no obstacles could slow down the pace of progress. In view of the imminent Reforms that were to be announced in 1909, Gokhale advised his countrymen to focus attention on political issues. The industrial issues would naturally follow them.

Gokhale was a champion of Hindu-Muslim unity which he considered absolutely necessary in the process of nation building in a country like India. He was aware of the disparities in the levels of development between the Hindus and the Muslims and for that reason exhorted the Hindus to extend a helping hand to those communities, in particular, the Muslims who lagged behind in socio-economic development. At the same time he impressed upon the British rulers to recognize the importance of the Hindus and treat them accordingly. He also expected from the Muslims to shun their prejudices against the majority community and join in the process of social assimilation and contribute to the social, political and economic advancement to make India a great nation.
The controversial issue in those days was that of communal electorates that was cunningly devised by the British to keep the two major communities divided. The rise of Muslim separatism, in particular, in the first decade of the twentieth century was an off-shoot of the British policy of ‘divide and rule’. First it was partition of Bengal in 1905 and then the following year the Muslim League was established with full approval of the British. The institutionalization of communalism was first done in the Morely-Minto Reforms of 1909 that provided for communal electorates. Though Gokhale did not approve of mixing religion and politics he reluctantly accepted communal electorates. He, however, made it clear that this practice should be limited only for the Muslim community and this divisive should not be extended any further. In the context he submitted a note to the Secretary of State wherein he suggested: “To throw open a substantial minimum of seats on a territorial basis, in which all qualified to vote should take part without distinction of race or creed. And then supplementary elections should be held for the minorities which, numerically or otherwise, are important enough to need special representation; these supplementary elections should be confined to the minorities only.” His sound advice was ignored by the British as in the subsequent Reforms they kept extending the communal electorates to other religious and caste communities as well. However, Gokhale was no more alive to criticize the mischievous policies of the Government. At the fag-end of his life Gokhale in consultation with Pherozeshah Mehta and the Aga Khan formulated a scheme to make India a truly federal state. In this connection he rejected Aga Khan’s suggestion for the reorganization of provinces on ethnic lines. However, he consented to recognize the
need of separate and direct representation of the Muslims and a few other minorities. It was because of his untimely death that his noble dream of Hindu-Muslim unity could not be realized. Muhammad Ali Jinnah who later championed the divisive two-nation theory and forced the partition of the country was ironically very close to Gokhale. In fact, Jinnah called him his political guru. Thus, Gokhale enjoyed a unique distinction of being political guru of both Gandhi and Jinnah.

 

ECONOMIC IDEAS

Among the earliest leaders of the Indian National Congress Gokhale was one of the two stalwarts who consistently spoke on the economic problems of India. The other was Dadabhai Naoroji. If one goes through the speeches he delivered in the Imperial Legislative Council of which he was a member for continuously 13 years (1902- 1915), we may appreciate the enormous contribution he made to bring in focus different aspects of Indian economy. For his insightful reviews of India’s economic problems and his persistence to improve the economic status of Indians, he not only earned tremendous respect of his Indian colleagues but was also praised by some of the British members of the establishment.
Poverty continues to be the foremost economic problem even in the contemporary times. In the days when Gokhale was active in political affairs it was much more excruciating as the Brtish Raj was primarily engaged in exploiting the economic resources of India. The masses were living in abject poverty without any hope of relief from the government agencies. Those who were fortunate to be engaged in services or vocations were also not much better off because of high cost of living and ever- increasing taxes. Since the British entered into India as traders, looting of India’s material wealth had always remained their principal motive. The position did not change with the end of the East India Company’s rule. The British Crown that came to rule over the Indian subcontinent carried on robbing India’s material resources to enrich the British industry and at the same time the colonial masters introduced so many restrictions on the indigenous Indian industry that it almost ruined. It was Dadbhai Naoroji who first gave expression to economic drain from India to Britain and thereafter the other Congress leaders reiterated it on and off. Gokhale had taken up the issue with utmost sincerity and for that reason he persisted in speaking on the economic woes of India whenever he got the opportunity.
Added to the British policies of economic exploitation, India also suffered from severe famines during the last three decades of the 19th century. The famines in Orissa (1866), in Bihar (1873-74), in Madras and Bombay (1876-78), in almost the entire country in 1896, and in 1900 the famine took half of India into its grip. The unfortunate thing was that the foreign rulers hardly did anything to provide relief to the hungry masses. With the establishment of the Congress in 1885, the Indian leaders got a platform to give expression to their concerns about the economic plight of the Indian people and the state of recession in Indian industry. In the second session of the Congress held at Calcutta, Dadabhai Naoroji, devoted a major portion of his Presidential address to the problem of poverty in India and in the resolution moved to focus on this serious problem, it was said that “this Congress regards with the deepest sympathy , and views with grave apprehension, the increasing poverty of vast numbers of the population of India…”
Speaking in the Imperial Legislative Council on Budget of 1902, Gokhale mainly dealt with the issue of poverty and pointed out that despite the so-called measures taken by the Government to improve the material condition of the people, the mass poverty was on the rise. It was unfortunate that the Viceroy, Lord Curzon, consciously ignored all the reasonable arguments that Gokhale submitted in support of the deepening poverty. Instead he reiterated the official line that the economic condition of the people was improving. Participating in the discussion on Budget in 1903, Gokhale criticized the policy of encouraging the imports of the cotton goods would ultimately destroy the indigenous cotton industry. He also countered Government’s position that the increase in revenue was a proof of increasing prosperity of the Indian people by arguing that a measly increase in revenue was no conclusive evidence of the growing prosperity. He pointed out that a huge increase in death rate because of widespread famine and plague and the consequent destitution of the rural masses were the true indicators of growing poverty.

The search for knowing the causes of Indian poverty had always been a major issue before the Indian intellectuals since the coming of the British. For Naoroji, Indian poverty was the direct result of British rulers of unjust policy of economic drain. His theory was that the foreign rulers were transferring the wealth and natural resources of India to England in order to augment British industry. Then the finished goods from England were allowed to flood Indian markets and almost no import duty was collected on many of these foreign goods. In this manner too India’s wealth got transferred to England. Gokhale himself did not say much on the issue of Naoroji’s economic drain theory. There is, however, a reference to it in his evidence before the Welby Commission. Gokhale appeared to agree with Naoroji that Indian industries remained stagnant because much of the material resources and capital was taken away from the country. Had the resources and the capital remained in the country, the Indians would have developed the indigenous industry on a much larger scale. In a speech dealing with the Swadeshi Movement in 1907, Gokhale estimated, “ the annual cost to India of England’s political domination…at 20 crores of rupees… it is incumbent that our men should be employed more and more in the service of the State, so that Pension and furlough charges might be saved to the country.” It must be added that the only time Gokhale referred to the economic drain theory was in justification of the Swadeshi Movement.
Gokhale was aware of the ill effects of economic drain on Indian economy but he was also concerned about the socio-political backwardness of Indians that, he believed could be minimized with the continuation of the British rule. He, therefore, chose to overlook the drain theory and instead on various occasions he pleaded with the Government to utilize revenue surpluses for the economic uplift of the Indian masses. It has already been referred to above that in 1906, he suggested seven economic measures to improve the material conditions of the poorer section of Indian society. These measures included, it cutback on the State demand on land, ii) proper action to free the rural masses from the burden of debts, iii) credit to the farmers on cheaper rate of interests, iv) encouragement of irrigation and scientific agriculture, v) promotion of industrial and technical education, vii) Free and compulsory primary education and vii) Improvement in sanitation. While submitting his seven-point scheme, Gokhale once again appealed to the rulers to utilize revenue surpluses for the implementation of these measures. Another plea he would often make in his speeches on Budgets was reduction in military expenditure. His argument was that the Indian Government was needlessly maintaining a large army that far exceeded the actual requirements. By reducing the size of the armed forces the money thus saved could be utilized for economic condition of the people. In 1912, he moved a resolution in the Imperial Council pertaining to his pet economic argument that by creation of special provincial reserves by means of grants from the imperial surpluses the economic hardships of the people could be reduced. In the speech he said,: “Money is required …especially for education and sanitation and medical relief…The Government, however, is reluctant to make a large regular allotment out of the current revenues. Therefore, I propose another method which, though not equally satisfactory, will be found to answer the requirements to some extent… I urge that two-thirds of this surplus …should be placed at the disposal of provincial governments for non-recurring expenditure on the objects I have mentioned.” Gokhale in demanding the utilization of revenue surpluses for public welfare was appealing to the liberal and judicious traditions that were constantly, though unfairly, propagated by the British themselves. The British liberal traditions had some meaning in England. In India the British rule for the major part of it only looted the material resources of the country.

To counter this open loot of Indian material resources many early Congress leaders launched on the Swadeshi movement. For instance as early as 1869, Ganesh Vasudeo Joshi, popularly known as Sarvajanik Kaka, started the Swadeshi movement in Poona. Additionally, the ever-increasing population an off-shoot of early marriages was also thought to be one of the causes of poverty. Gokhale’s political guru Ranade was deeply concerned with the population increase and as a partial solution he supported emigration of the workers to other parts of the Empire. Though Gokhale was an ardent disciple of Ranade, on the issue of emigration of Indian work force he disagreed with his political mentor. He moved a resolution in the Imperial Council in 1910, with the objective to put to an end the recruitment of indentured labour for South Africa. Thereafter, he visited South Africa on the invitation of Gandhi and subsequently moved another resolution in 1912, for the complete prohibition of recruitment of indentured labour. His opposition to the emigration of Indian workers was because of the sub-human treatment meted out to the indentured labourers in South Africa against which Gandhi fighting against the colonial government. For Gokhale who had seen the perilous conditions of the Indian workers, it was an insult to India’s honour to keep sending their countrymen who were being treated worse than animals in the foreign shores.

CRITICAL ASSESSMENT

Gokhale was the product of his time and so were his socio- political ideas. It is true that some of his Congress colleagues notably Tilak, Lajpat Rai and Bipin Chandra Pal advocated a more aggressive strategy to compel the British to concede the demands of Indians. Gokhale too was not happy with most of the policies of the British and on countless occasions he demanded that the Government should work for the socio-economic welfare of the people. He, however, was not in favour of adopting a violent or revolutionary method for the sake of fulfillment of his demands. He was a liberal to the core. He was greatly influenced by the thoughts of J. S. Mills and Edmund Burke. In Poona the rationalist and scientific ideas of Agarkar also impacted his socio-political thinking. He had a steady faith in the benevolent nature of the British rule. He was not alone in pursuing this line of action. His political guru M. G. Ranade and many of the earliest Congress leaders such as W. C. Bannerji, Dadabhai Naorji, Badruddin Tyabji, Phirozshah Mehta, Dinshaw Wacha, Motilal Nehru et al did not approve of a confrontationist approach against the British rule. Instead they adopted an approach for the redress of the genuine demands of the people that could be described as gradualism or moderation. For these reasons these leaders came to be described as Moderates. They believed in the constitutional democracy and were wholeheartedly wedded to non-violence.

Gokhale believed in the constitutional methods to put across his political demands before the rulers and appeal to their sense of justice to concede them. He was a great orator and an able legislator. He spent two years in the provincial Legislative Council and almost thirteen years in the Imperial Legislative Council. During this long tenure as legislator he raised almost all the significant issues, social, educational, political and economic in the Councils, suggested the feasible and reasonable alternatives for the resolve of the problems but on very few occasions he met with concrete success. Despite frequent failures to convince the rulers, he never thought of reviewing his political strategy. Not that he had any kind of apprehension to oppose the British. He was very critical of Lord Curzon’s administration and he openly criticized partition of Bengal. However, he advised the people to refrain from agitation. Similarly he supported the Swadeshi Movement but disapproved of boycott of foreign goods. He failed to understand that the British were primarily interested in exploiting the wealth and material resources of India for the Progress of England. He was very close to Lord Morley and was also hopeful of Minto’s administration. However, when the Morley-Minto Reforms were finally made public in 1909, they fall too short of Indians’ expectations. The worst part was that the communal representation, an idea that Gokhale never liked was introduced in the Reforms. At that point of time Gokhale should have rejected the Reforms in no uncertain terms. He did not do that. Instead he reluctantly accepted the principle of Communal representation with a rider that it should be limited only to the Muslims. The glaring contradiction in the thoughts of Gokhale was his opposition to the principle of universal adult franchise which is the soul of representative government. He had always been fighting for the uplift of the poor masses, exhorting his followers to dedicate themselves for the welfare of the downtrodden and the untouchables. However, on the question of political rights he prescribed property and tax paying capacity as the qualification. This only shows that he could not rise above the prejudices of his class.
He was an extraordinary analyst of political economy and his speeches on budgets were excellent. He had a sound understanding of the economic problems of the country and many of his suggestion could have helped Indian economy improve. Nevertheless, the British rulers though praised him for his insight and oratory, did barely give a serious thought to implement his economic measures. In spite of constant rebukes, Gokhale never became disillusioned with the foreign rule. Gokhale was not only a political figure. He was equally committed to social reforms particularly spread of education. In this area he did some commendable work first through the Deccan Education Society and later through the Servants of India Society. These achievements were without doubt commendable. Nevertheless, he did not make concerted efforts himself to reach to the poorest among the Indian masses. Through his speeches and articles he did guide his volunteers what programmes should be undertaken to make India a great nation but personally he rarely got in touch with the destitute of the country. This was a common weakness of almost all the Moderate leaders who were English educated and mostly urban based intellectuals.

Despite these obvious drawbacks Gokhale was one of the staunchest nationalists who sincerely wanted to transform India into a great nation. Though he belonged to the Moderate school of politicians, he did not lose any opportunity to criticize the unjust policies of the British. On issues like partition of Bengal, communal representation and Swadeshi, Gokhale did speak without reservation. In the Budget debates he was always critical of the economic policies of the Government. Though he was not opposed to Naoroji’s economic drain theory, he was more in favour of utilization of the surplus revenue for socio-economic development of India. He had an abiding faith in the enlightened Englishmen’s sense of justice and genuinely believed that the ideals contained in the Queen’s Proclamation of 1858 such as justice, freedom and self rule within the Empire would be gradually introduced in India. At the same time he, however, bitterly critical of the highhanded attitude of the bureaucracy and the anti-Indian attitude of the Anglo-Indian personnel. He cleverly used his membership of the Imperial Legislative Council in exposing the misdeeds of the British rulers. Lord Curzon whom Gokhale criticized the most had judged the performance of Gokhale in these words: “Mr. Gokhale was a member of my Legislative council…During this time he was, I think, I may almost say, in invariable opposition to the Government. He was if I may describe him, the leader of the Opposition in the Imperial Legislative Council over which I presided.” This observation of Curzon proves the point that for Gokhale national interests were of prime importance for which he used his position of a legislator to attack the anti-national policies of the British. It is also an evidence against Gokhale’s detractors who would taunt him as the blue-eyed boy of the British.
The Statesman was a newspaper published and managed by the pro-British lobby. The newspaper had barely praised any nationalist leader or any work of the Indian National Congress. Its editor, however, paid tribute to Gokhale when he passed away on February 15, 1915, in these words: Mr. Gokhale was the greatest leader that India had ever produced, perhaps her greatest man.” Gandhi had always shown utmost respect and regard for him. In fact Gandhi borrowed many of Gokhale’s political strategies to fight the British raj. In Gandhi’s words: “To see Gokhale at work was as much a joy as an education. He never wasted a minute…All his talk had reference only to the good of the country…India’s poverty and subjection were matters of constant and intense concern to him.” No wonder Gandhi proudly called him his political Guru.
Gokhale’s significance in the earliest national leaders is also for the fact that he championed the cause of Hindu-Muslim unity at a time when the British were hatching various conspiracies to keep the two communities apart. He got a rousing welcome mostly by the Muslim students when he paid a visit to the Mohammadan-Anglo Oriental College at Aligarh. He firmly believed that communal harmony was one of the essential prerequisites for political freedom of India. Similarly, he was also concerned about the socio-economic plight of the downtrodden sections and untouchables of Indian society and made concerted efforts to uplift them. In the words of Gandhi: “The question of uplifting the ‘untouchable’ was uppermost in the mind of Gokhale and he initiated and carried on various activities for their welfare. If anyone dared to criticize him for this, he frankly told him that we did not commit sin by touching them but by refusing to touch them.” Thus, taking into account the all-encompassing view of Gokhale’s thoughts and works we must acknowledge that he was among the foremost nationalists and his contribution in the field of political economy, constitutional reforms, education, social reforms and communal harmony was exceedingly significant.

 

SUMMARY

Gokhale was one of the pioneers of liberal political thought in India. However, one must be careful not to confuse his liberal ideas with those of British liberalism wherein individual freedom is considered to be sacrosanct and all spheres of society . social, political and economic have to recognize the principle of Individual liberty. In politics liberal democracy based on the principle of universal adult franchise and in economics laissezfaire are the products of British liberalism. Gokhalke, however, does not belive in absolue freedom of individual. He recommends reasonable retraints and discipline. His idea of representative democracy is also not based on universal adult franchise. He prescribes property as qualification. In the economic sphere too he ejects the idea of absolute free markets. He suggest that considering industrial backwardness of India state should regulate industrial growth and contribute to create industrial employment. Similarly in the fields of education and social reforms Gokhale favours the proactive role of the State.
Gokhale was a respectable member of the INC and at the same time he was an influential member of Imperial Legislative Council. It was because of his knowledge of Indian society and commitment to social reforms, promotion of education, agricultural and industrial growth, freedom of the press and so on he could contribute immensely as a legislator. He was in the true sense a bridge between the aspiration of the INC and the Government. It was because of his efforts many progressive Acts were introduced by the British government. His positive contribution to Indian politics and society impressed Gandhi a great deal and he invited him to South Africa to study the precarious condition of the Indian indentured labourers in that country. Gokhale did raise in the legislature the issue of the plight of Indians in South Africa. Gandhi considered him as his political guru. Gokhale emphasised on social reforms and education more than the political empowerment of Indians. This tendency brought him into conflict with the extremist leaders, in particular, Tilak. However, Gokhale made positive contribution for the progress and welfare of Indians by serving as a bridge between the INC and the Government.
Gokhale being an important leader of the Moderate faction of the INC was more passionate about social reforms to be introduced in Indian society through Government initiatives. He was also an enthusiastic crusader to promote the cause of education among Indians. For him political independence from the British rule was an issue of secondary importance. Like his political guru, Ranade, he too believed that the British rule was a benevolent event for India. It must, however, be pointed out that he was not a blind supporter of the Government. He would criticise the policies of the rulers if they appeared unjust or anti-people to him. As a responsible leader of the INC, Gokhale suggested various measures to make the Government more responsible to the people and as member of the legislature spoke in favour of those measures.
Gokhale’s contribution as the nation builder is very significant. From his earliest years of public life he devoted himself to the cause of spreading modern education among Indians. He got associated with the Deccan Education Society and also served as the Principal of the Fergusson College, Poona. He was also active in the Sarvajanik Sabha as its Secretary and in 1905, when he became the President of the INC, he established the Servants of India Society to train Indians who could devote themselves for the service of the nation in all spheres of life. However, the Society’s major contribution remained in the field of education. He was also a supporter of the Swadeshi movement for he believed that through it India would become self- reliant in the field of industry. He was also a staunch champion of Hindu-Muslim unity which he considered to be absolutely necessary for nation building.

Gokhale was one of those rare freedom fighters who had a mastery over Indian economy. Within the sessions of the INC and in the Imperial Legislative Council he consistently spoke on economic issues. After Dadabhai Naoroji, Gokhale was one who was deeply concerned about economic drain from India to Britain. He correctly analysed that poverty was the most prominent problem of India and for its eradication suggested many suitable reforms in agriculture and industry. In addition to the anti-people policies of the Government, frequent famines were also the contributory factors to add to the economic woes of the masses, Gokhale had always suggested appropriate measures to the Government whenever India faced famine condition. His absolute support to the cause of Swadeshi was also an important action to improve the industrial and economic situation in India.
Gokhale, like many Indian elite, was a product of his time. In the second half of the nineteenth century political ideas of British thinkers like J. S. Mill and Edmund Burke were very popular and Gokhale too came under the spell of those ideas. Among Indians he was influenced by the socio-political and economic thought of Ranade, Agarkar, Dadabhai Naoroji and others. All these influences made him a moderate leader of the INC and like all moderates he was committed to constitutional methods. He was not passionate about the cause of Indian independence because like most moderates he had faith in ‘British sense of justice’ and considered the British rule as a blessing for India. Such ideas were naturally opposed by the extremist leaders of the INC who gave prominence to Swaraj. One must, however, remember that despite his proximity to the British Government, Gokhale was a nationalist to the core and his contribution as a nation builder cannot be overlooked.