Answer:
During the Indian freedom struggle, the politics of the radicals within the Congress was different from that of the moderate leaders in terms of their goals and methods.
The moderate leaders, who dominated the Congress until the early 1900s, sought to achieve limited self-government for India within the framework of the British Empire. They believed in using constitutional means, such as petitions, protests, and negotiations, to achieve their goals. They were largely composed of lawyers, journalists, and intellectuals who were educated in the West, and they tended to be cautious and moderate in their approach.
In contrast, the radicals, who emerged as a significant force in the Congress in the early 1900s, were more militant in their approach and sought to achieve complete independence for India. They believed in using more direct action, such as boycotts, strikes, and civil disobedience, to achieve their goals. They tended to be more nationalist and less Westernized than the moderate leaders, and were often drawn from the ranks of students, workers, and peasants.
Overall, the radicals were more willing to challenge the British authorities directly and to take risks to achieve their goals, while the moderates tended to be more cautious and focused on achieving incremental change through negotiation and compromise. However, both groups were committed to the goal of Indian independence and worked together to achieve it, albeit through different means and methods.