The Surat Split: Key Events in Indian National Congress History

The Surat Split of 1907 was a watershed moment in the Indian freedom struggle, marking a formal division within the Indian National Congress. This significant event saw the fragmentation of the nationalist movement into two distinct factions: the Moderates and the Extremists. Understanding the causes, events, and consequences of this split is essential for UPSC, SSC, and other competitive exam preparation, as it highlights the differing ideological and methodological approaches to achieving Indian independence.

The Surat Split (1907): Causes & Ideological Divide Between Moderates & Extremists

• A growing ideological rift over the methods and goals of the nationalist movement led to the inevitable confrontation at the 1907 Surat session.
  • (i) The ideological differences became apparent during the Benaras Session of 1905, where Extremists advocated for a nationwide Boycott and Swadeshi Movement, while Moderates preferred a more restrained approach, limited to condemning the Partition of Bengal.
  • (ii) At the Calcutta Session of 1906, although Dadabhai Naoroji was elected president, a resolution was passed supporting Swadeshi, Boycott, and National Education, with the term 'swaraj' being introduced, albeit ambiguously.
  • (iii) The rising popularity of Extremists fueled tensions, as they called for widespread passive resistance and the boycott of various British institutions, a strategy the Moderates were unwilling to support.

• The Clash at Surat: The 1907 Congress Session

  The final confrontation occurred when the Moderates and Extremists failed to agree on the location of the session, the presidential candidate, and the scope of nationalist resolutions.

  • Surat Session Events & Its Outcome on Congress

    • (i) Extremists wanted the 1907 session in Nagpur to ensure the election of an Extremist leader like Tilak or Lajpat Rai as president.
    • (ii) Moderates successfully moved the session to Surat and proposed Rashbehari Ghosh as president, while also seeking to drop the resolutions on Swadeshi and Boycott.
    • (iii) The ensuing chaos resulted in a formal split, with the Moderates gaining control of the Indian National Congress, which then adopted a constitution emphasizing constitutional methods and loyalty to the British Empire.

• Government Repression & The Decline of the Nationalist Movement

  Following the split, the British government launched a systematic crackdown on Extremist leaders and nationalist activities, leading to a temporary decline in the movement.

  • Anti-Nationalist Laws & Punishment of Extremist Leaders

    • (a) The government enacted a series of repressive laws between 1907 and 1911, including the Seditious Meetings Act, Indian Newspapers Act, and the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
    • (b) Extremist leaders were severely punished; Bal Gangadhar Tilak was sentenced to six years' transportation for sedition, while others like Aurobindo Ghosh and B.C. Pal withdrew from politics.

• The British 'Carrot and Stick' Strategy & Its Impact on Indian Nationalism

  The British government astutely exploited the internal divisions within the Congress, employing a dual policy of concession and repression to weaken the nationalist movement.

  • The Three-Pronged Approach of the British Government in India

    • Repression: A strategy of mild repression was used against the Extremists to intimidate and push the Moderates towards an alliance with the government.
    • Conciliation: The Moderates were offered political reforms and concessions as a 'carrot' to encourage them to distance themselves from the more radical Extremists.
    • Suppression: Once the Moderates were placated, the government felt empowered to launch a full-scale suppression campaign against the leaderless Extremists.

• Summary: The Impact of the Surat Split & Its Relevance for Students

  The Surat Split was a devastating blow to the Indian National Congress, paralyzing the nationalist movement for several years. It highlighted the fundamental ideological divide between those who believed in constitutional agitation (Moderates) and those who advocated for militant passive resistance (Extremists). The split served the British government's divide-and-rule policy and delayed the freedom struggle, demonstrating the importance of a united front against imperialist powers. This topic is vital for students to grasp the complexities of the Indian freedom movement and the different strategies employed by its leaders.