The “Address to Indian First National Congress 1885” was written by W.C. Bonnerji and was mainly about the changed political minds of members in the First National Congress. They demanded sovereignty from the British government in the Indian Empire. Dadabhia Naoroji and his presidency were also concerned about how to solve the provincial prejudices of each Indian province. These provinces constantly told British representatives that the First National Congress in the Indian Empire was struggling with the British government. The government then released the authority to allow self-rule to keep the loyalty to the British government in the Indian Empire. Moreover, in the “Address to the Indian National Congress 1907,” written by Bal Gangahar Tilak, the text mainly discussed the Indian independence among the monetarist and extremists in the First National Congress of 1907. He was concerned the members in the First National Congress thought Indian independence was necessary. He also thought struggling with the British government throughout this disloyalty to the British government had changed over time.
First, in analyzing the Address to National Congress 1885, it is clear that the Bonnerji and the Indian National Congress demanded the British government to allow them to build the basic British democratic system as the real congressional system in the Indian Empire, which was an important symbolic gesture of British government. They agreed and released the authorities to self-rule to the Indian National Congress, and the Indian people at large in the Indian Empire. Moreover, he strongly agreed that the First National Congress should have the same representatives as the British in the Indian Empire. He thought the First National Congress would have been more powerful than the British government in the Indian Empire. Also, he mentioned that the majority of Indian National Congress and ordinary Indian people are still willing loyalists to the British government when the British government allowed the self-ruling of Indians in the Indian Empire. As Bonnerji states, “He was only thoroughly loyal and consistent well-wishers of the British Government then were himself and the friends around him” (Bonnerji,1885). He mentioned the British government had enabled them to self-rule and he suspected their loyalty to the British government. But he still declared the ordinary Indian was not disloyal to the British government, they just wanted to democracy.
Second, in the analysis of Address to Indian Nation Congress, 1907, the Bal Gangahar Tilak was more relevant than Bonnerji, His article was from 20 years before Bonnerji’s and he showed the Indian perspective to the British government from loyal to disloyal. This is especially true given the change of Dadabhai’s view. He agreed that India should be independent in both the extreme ways and the moderate. Moreover, he mentioned the Indian National Congress has been struggling with Indian independence through the extreme and moderates.
As Gangahar states, “When the National Congress was first started and Mr. Dadabhai vies, which now god for Moderate, were given to the public, he styled an Extremist, so that you will see the term Extremist is expression of progress”(Gangahar, 1907).
Gangahar Tilak thought the extremists would became modern acceptable and common in the perspective of modern Indian in the Indian Empire in 1907.
Comparatively, both authors in these articles were concerned about the future of Indian democracy. This is because it would make India a real democratic country and dissatisfy the British government. As Gangadhar states, “There is not difference of opinions about this fundamental proposition between the old and new schools. One fact is that this alien government has ruined the country”(Gangadgar, 1907). However, there are some contrasts between both authors in these articles. Even the Bonnerji was dissatisfied about the British government’s ability to release the authorities for Indian democracy, and he still showed his loyalty to British and his willingness to be ruled by British. On the other hand, Ganagadhar was disloyal to British and supported the Indian independence in the extreme way, to the point where he would be violent against the British government. Moreover, the political minds for both of Bonnerji and Gangadhar had obviously contrasted with the loyalty of the British during the past 20 years.
In my opinion, both authors are trying to say the Indian democracy was mainly concerned with how the future of Indian democracy would play out, and the different perspectives of how they struggled with the British government for Indian self-ruling through extreme and moderate lobbying. During the 20 years that have passed between them, their political perspectives contrast from loyal to disloyal, depending on the Indian National Congress’s dissatisfied sense of the British government. They did not release authorities of Indian self-ruling for Indian democracy more and more during the past 20 years.