# data[].attributes.body
How does the authors use of the word Extremist in the beginning effect the ideas throughout the address?

# data[].attributes.body
Address​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Indian​ ​National​ ​Congress,​ ​1907 Bal​ ​Gangadhar​ ​Tilak The Indian National Congress was created by a group of English-speaking urban intellectuals in 1885. The original "moderate" leadership was soon more "militant" group, led by Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1856-1920), which demanded "Swaraj [self-rule] for India. What follows is an excerpt from Tilak's address to Indian National Congress in 1907 calling for boycott of British goods and resistance to British rule. Two new words have recently come into existence with regard to our politics, and they are Moderates and Extremists. These words have a specific relation to time, and they, therefore, will change with time. The Extremists of today will be Moderates tomorrow, Just as the Moderates of today were Extremists yesterday. When the National Congress was first started and Mr. Dadabhai's views, which now go for Moderates, were given to the public, he was styled an Extremist, so that you will see that the term Extremist is an expression of progress. We are Extremists today and our sons will call themselves Extremists and us Moderates. Every new party begins as Extremists and ends as Moderates. The sphere of practical politics is not unlimited. We cannot say what will or will not happen 1,000 years hence - perhaps during that long period, the whole of the white race will be swept away in another glacial period. We must, therefore, study the present and work out a program to meet the present condition. It is impossible to go into details within the time at my disposal. One thing is granted, namely, that this government does not suit us. As has been said by an eminent statesman - the government of one country by another can never be a successful, and therefore, a permanent government. There is no difference of opinion about this fundamental proposition between the old and new schools. One fact is that this alien government has ruined the country. In the beginning, all of us were taken by surprise. We were almost dazed. We thought that everything that the rulers did was for our good and that this English government has descended from the clouds to save us from the invasions of Tamerlane and Chingis Khan, and, as they say, not only from foreign invasions but from internecine warfare, or the internal or external invasions, as they call it. . . . We are not armed, and there is no necessity for arms either. We have a stronger weapon, a political weapon, in boycott. We have perceived one fact, that the whole of this administration, which is carried on by a handful of Englishmen, is carried on with our assistance. We are all in subordinate service. This whole government is carried on with our assistance and they try to keep us in ignorance of our power of cooperation between ourselves by which that which is in our own hands at present can be claimed by us and administered by us. The point is to have the entire control in our hands. I want to have the key of my house, and not merely one stranger turned out of it. Self-government is our goal; we want a control over our administrative machinery. We don't want to become clerks and remain [clerks]. At present, we are clerks and willing instruments of our own oppression in the hands of' an alien government, and that government is ruling over us not by its innate strength but by keeping us in ignorance and blindness to the perception of this fact. Professor Seeley shares this view. Every Englishman knows that they are a mere handful in this country and it is the business of every one of them to befool you in believing that you are weak and they are strong. This is politics. We have been deceived by such policy so long. What the new party wants you to do is to realize the fact that your future rests entirely in your own hands. If you mean to be free, you can be free; if you do not mean to be free, you will fall and be for ever fallen. So many of you need not like arms; but if you have not the power of active resistance, have you not the power of self-denial and self-abstinence in such a way as not to assist this foreign government to rule over you? This is boycott and this is what is meant when we say, boycott is a political weapon. We shall not give them assistance to collect revenue and keep peace. We shall not assist them in fighting beyond the frontiers or outside India with Indian blood and money. We shall not assist them in carrying on the administration of justice. We shall have our own courts, and when time comes we shall not pay taxes. Can you do that by your united efforts? If you can, you are free from tomorrow. Some gentlemen who spoke this evening referred to half bread as against the whole bread. I say I want the whole bread and that immediately. But if I can not get the whole, don't think that I have no patience. I will take the half they give me and then try for the remainder. This is the line of thought and action in which you must train yourself. We have not raised this cry from a mere impulse. It Is a reasoned impulse. Try to understand that reason and try to strengthen that impulse by your logical convictions. I do not ask you to blindly follow us. Think over the whole problem for yourselves. If you accept our advice, we feel sure we can achieve our salvation thereby. This is the advice of the new party. Perhaps we have not obtained a full recognition of our principles. Old prejudices die very hard. Neither of us wanted to wreck the Congress, so we compromised, and were satisfied that our principles were recognized, and only to a certain extent. That does not mean that we have accepted the whole situation. We may have a step in advance next year, so that within a few years our principles will be recognized, and recognized to such an extent that the generations who come after us may consider us Moderates. This is the way in which a nation progresses, and this is the lesson you have to learn from the struggle now going on. This is a lesson of progress, a lesson of helping yourself as much as possible, and if you really perceive the force of it, if you are convinced by these arguments, then and then only is it possible for you to effect your salvation from the alien rule under which you labor at this moment. Source: Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1856-1920): Address to the Indian National Congress, 1907, reprinted in William T. de Bary et al., Sources of Indian Tradition (New York: Columbia University Press, 1958), pp. 719-723.

# data[].attributes.headline
1.) In what way did the Indian National Congress go from moderate to militant? What was the last straw that contributed to this change?          2.) What affect did Bal Gangadhar Tilak's speech had on the societal structure of India?

# data[].attributes.subject
1.) In what way did the Indian National Congress go from moderate to militant? What was the last straw that contributed to this change?          2.) What affect did Bal Gangadhar Tilak's speech had on the societal structure of India?

# data[].attributes.body
In the text it mentioned the extremist of today will become the moderates of tomorrow. If you think that is so, why? Is this acceptable in our society and should we make a change to stop it?

# data[].attributes.headline
Is it possible that if communication between the native people and the British government was stronger than the natives wouldn't have rebelled.

# data[].attributes.subject
Is it possible that if communication between the native people and the British government was stronger than the natives wouldn't have rebelled.

# data[].attributes.headline
What are the definitions of "moderates" and "extremists"? How do they change to the other?

# data[].attributes.subject
What are the definitions of "moderates" and "extremists"? How do they change to the other?

# data[].attributes.headline
Connection- How is this argument written? Is the tone strong, mean, harsh, nice, positive, ect? How does the tone of the article tell the reader more about the circumstances of what's going on in India during the time of which this was written?

# data[].attributes.subject
Connection- How is this argument written? Is the tone strong, mean, harsh, nice, positive, ect? How does the tone of the article tell the reader more about the circumstances of what's going on in India during the time of which this was written?

# data[].attributes.headline
What does it mean when it is said that "we are clerks and willing instruments of our own oppresion in the hands of an alien government"

# data[].attributes.subject
What does it mean when it is said that "we are clerks and willing instruments of our own oppresion in the hands of an alien government"

# data[].attributes.body
When Gangadhar states, "try to reason and try to strengthen that impulse by your logical convictions," what is he inferring about the lack of self-governance of the native people?

# data[].attributes.headline
What was the main reason in both documents that the Indians began to have a sense of patriotism?

# data[].attributes.subject
What was the main reason in both documents that the Indians began to have a sense of patriotism?

# data[].attributes.body
Inference- Do you think the authors extreme bias of the issue makes the article an untrustworthy argument? If it is then how are we able to take away any valuable knowledge or information after reading the article?

# data[].attributes.headline
How do you think the names moderates and extremists relate to the Indian National Congress?

# data[].attributes.subject
How do you think the names moderates and extremists relate to the Indian National Congress?

# data[].attributes.body
Why might the boycott against the British Government be considered an extremist action?

# data[].attributes.headline
What does Bal​ ​Gangadhar​ ​Tilak mean by ''Extremists of today will be Moderates tomorrow, Just as the Moderates of today were Extremists yesterday.''

# data[].attributes.subject
What does Bal​ ​Gangadhar​ ​Tilak mean by ''Extremists of today will be Moderates tomorrow, Just as the Moderates of today were Extremists yesterday.''

# data[].attributes.body
What does  a permanent government do?

# data[].attributes.body
Was the Indian National Congress successful? If so, what did they do to become successful and why were these actions successful?

# data[].attributes.body
Was there a problem in the Indian National Congress regarding whether they full represent everyone's views?

# data[].attributes.body
What do they mean when they say just as the moderates of today were the extremists of yesterday?

# data[].attributes.body
1) To what extent was the British domination of India a result of the Indians being ignorant of their power and rights to self-govern? What made such ignorance so common among the Indians?

2) Tilak defended his politics by saying that "the extremists today will be moderates tomorrow". Is his argument always true that all political standpoints will experience the progress of being regarded as extreme, moderate, and possibly, conservative? Are the opposite sides in the political spectrum always changing as time goes? What are some examples of this shift?