There are several reasons why the 'Moderates' failed to carry conviction with the nation about their proclaimed ideology and political goals by the end of the nineteenth century. These include:

1. Limited Reach: The 'Moderates' primarily represented the educated and the elite in Indian society, such as lawyers, teachers, and professionals. They were unable to mobilize the masses and gain support from the rural and working-class population, which formed the majority of the Indian society at the time. As a result, their influence was limited, and their ideology did not resonate with the common people.

2. Lack of Mass Movement: Unlike the later nationalist leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, the 'Moderates' did not actively participate in mass movements or engage in civil disobedience. They primarily relied on constitutional means, petitions, and propaganda to voice their demands. This passive approach failed to inspire the masses and create a collective sense of national unity and purpose.

3. Divided Goals: The 'Moderates' had a diverse range of political goals and ideologies. While they spoke about Indian nationalism and self-governance, their visions differed. Some advocated for limited reforms within the British framework, while others sought greater autonomy and independence. This lack of a unified message and strategy weakened their impact and prevented them from presenting a cohesive front.

4. Limited Success in Reforms: The 'Moderates' did achieve some reforms like the Indian Councils Act of 1892 and 1909, which expanded Indian representation in governance, but these were largely incremental changes. They were unable to secure significant political concessions from the British rulers. This limited success in achieving tangible results undermined their credibility and made it harder for them to convince the people of their effectiveness.

5. Rising Extremist Movement: Towards the end of the nineteenth century, a more radical and assertive group emerged on the political scene known as the 'Extremists' or the 'New Nationalists.' Led by leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Bipin Chandra Pal, they advocated for more radical methods like Swadeshi (boycotting foreign goods) and passive resistance. Their methods and rhetoric resonated more with the masses and overshadowed the moderate faction, further diminishing their influence.

Overall, the 'Moderates' failed to carry conviction with the nation due to their limited reach, passive approach, lack of a mass movement, divided goals, limited success in reforms, and the rise of more radical alternatives.

The Moderates in India, during the latter half of the 19th century, faced several challenges that hindered their ability to carry conviction with the nation about their ideology and political goals. Here's a breakdown of the key reasons:

1. Limited Scope and Focus:

• Gradualism: Their approach of gradual reform and appealing to the British sense of justice and fairness was seen as too slow and ineffective by many. The growing nationalist sentiment demanded faster progress.
• Elite Focus: Their leadership primarily comprised educated elites, mainly from the upper castes. This led to accusations of being out of touch with the needs of the common people and failing to address broader social issues like poverty and inequality.

2. Lack of Mass Mobilization:

• Limited Reach: The Moderates relied heavily on petitions, appeals, and constitutional methods, which had limited reach to the masses. Their focus on influencing British policy rather than mobilizing the public hindered their ability to build a strong national movement.
• Lack of an Effective Organization: While they formed organizations like the Indian National Congress (INC), these were primarily elite-driven and lacked a robust structure for mobilizing the public.

3. Growing Dissatisfaction and Rise of Nationalism:

• Lack of Concrete Results: The Moderates' efforts to achieve self-government through constitutional means yielded limited results. The British government continued to hold on to power, and their promises of reform remained unfulfilled.
• Rise of Nationalism: The failure of the Moderates to bring about meaningful change fueled the rise of a more radical and assertive nationalism. Leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak, who advocated for active resistance and Swaraj (self-rule), started to gain popularity.

4. Internal Divisions:

• Differences in Ideology: The Moderates themselves were divided on the pace and methods of achieving self-government. This internal division weakened their credibility and hindered their ability to present a unified front.

5. The Rise of Extremist Groups:

• Anti-British Sentiments: The growing influence of nationalist groups like the Ghadar Party, which espoused revolutionary ideologies and advocated for armed struggle, further challenged the Moderates' credibility. Their approach was seen as too accommodating towards the British.

Conclusion:

By the end of the 19th century, the Moderates' appeal waned due to their limited reach, failure to address broader societal issues, and the growing frustration with the pace of reform. The rise of assertive nationalist leaders and extremist groups advocating for more radical actions further eroded their influence. This eventually paved the way for the emergence of the Indian nationalist movement, which ultimately led to the independence of India in 1947.

By the end of the 19th century, the Moderates, a faction of the Indian National Congress, had failed to carry conviction with the nation about their proclaimed ideology and political goals for several reasons:

1. Limited goals: The Moderates' primary goal was to secure reforms within the British Empire, which was seen as a gradual and evolutionary process. They sought to " Indianize" the administration, increase Indian representation in government, and improve education and economic development. However, these goals were too modest and failed to inspire the masses, who were seeking more radical change and independence.

2. Reformist approach: The Moderates believed in constitutional agitation, which meant working within the system to bring about reforms through petitions, resolutions, and peaceful protests. This approach was seen as too slow and ineffective, failing to address the immediacy of India's problems.

3. Lack of mass mobilization: The Moderates' focus was on appealing to the British government through upper-class intellectuals and professionals, rather than mobilizing the masses. They failed to connect with the rural population, workers, and peasants, who were the backbone of Indian society.

4. Limited representation: The Moderates' leadership was largely composed of urban, educated, and upper-caste elites, who were out of touch with the concerns and aspirations of the broader population. This limited their ability to represent the diverse interests of Indian society.

5. Ineffectiveness in the face of British repression: When the British government responded to Moderate demands with repression, such as the Rowlatt Act (1919), the Moderates were unable to muster a strong response, leading to a loss of credibility among the people.

6. Split within the Congress: The Moderates faced opposition from more radical factions within the Congress, such as the Extremists (led by figures like Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Lala Lajpat Rai), who advocated for more militant and immediate action to achieve independence.

7. World War I and the subsequent disillusionment: During World War I, many Moderates supported the British war effort, expecting concessions in return. However, the post-war period saw a rise in nationalism globally, and the British government's failure to grant significant reforms led to widespread disillusionment with the Moderate approach.

8. Rise of alternative ideologies: The early 20th century saw the rise of alternative ideologies, such as Gandhian non-cooperation, socialism, and communism, which attracted many Indians who were disillusioned with the Moderate approach.

By the end of the 19th century, the Moderates' inability to deliver significant reforms, their limited goals, and their lack of connection with the masses led to a decline in their influence and the rise of more radical and militant nationalist movements that eventually replaced them as the dominant force in Indian politics.