Question map
Which one of the following movements has contributed to a split in the Indian National Congress resulting in the emergence of 'moderates' and 'extremists'?
Explanation
The Moderate-Extremist dispute over the pace of the movement and techniques of struggle reached a deadlock at the Surat session of the Indian National Congress (1907) where the party split with serious consequences for the Swadeshi Movement.[1] The repressive measures adopted by The British Government gave rise to extremists within Congress like Bipin Chandra Pal, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, and Lala Lajpat Rai (Lal, Bal, Pal), and the Indian National Congress split into Extremist and Moderates.[2]
The Extremists wanted the 1907 session to be held in Nagpur with Tilak or Lajpat Rai as president along with a reiteration of swadeshi, boycott and national education resolutions, while the Moderates wanted the session at Surat to exclude Tilak from the presidency, preferred Rashbehari Ghosh as president and sought to drop the resolutions on swadeshi, boycott and national education. Both sides adopted rigid positions, leaving no room for compromise.[3] The moderates were against utilizing the campaign to start a full-scale passive resistance, while militant nationalists were in favor of extending the movement to other provinces and launching a full-fledged mass struggle.[4] This ideological divide during the Swadeshi Movement led to the historic split at Surat in 1907.
Sources- [1] Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 12: Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909) > The Congress's Position > p. 264
- [2] https://www.iipa.org.in/upload/indian+national+movement.pdf
- [3] Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 12: Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909) > Split Takes Place > p. 274
- [4] History , class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.) > Chapter 2: Rise of Extremism and Swadeshi Movement > 2.2 Anti-Partition Movement > p. 19
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Full viewThis is a classic 'Sitter' found in every standard Modern History textbook (Spectrum/NCERT). It tests the fundamental cause-and-effect relationship between the Swadeshi Movement's radicalization and the organizational breakdown of the Congress at Surat.
This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.
- Statement 1: Did the Swadeshi Movement contribute to a split in the Indian National Congress resulting in the emergence of "moderates" and "extremists"?
- Statement 2: Did the Quit India Movement contribute to a split in the Indian National Congress resulting in the emergence of "moderates" and "extremists"?
- Statement 3: Did the Non-Cooperation Movement contribute to a split in the Indian National Congress resulting in the emergence of "moderates" and "extremists"?
- Statement 4: Did the Civil Disobedience Movement contribute to a split in the Indian National Congress resulting in the emergence of "moderates" and "extremists"?
- Explicitly links the Moderate–Extremist dispute over strategy to a deadlock at the Surat session (1907) where the party split.
- Frames the split as having serious consequences for the Swadeshi Movement, implying causal connection between Swadeshi-related disagreements and the schism.
- Describes the concrete demands of Extremists (swadeshi, boycott, national education) and Moderates' efforts to drop those resolutions, showing irreconcilable differences.
- States that both sides adopted rigid positions making the split inevitable, directly linking Swadeshi/Boycott disputes to the Congress split.
- Shows how failure to stop Bengal's partition and pressure from radical leaders pushed Moderates to accept boycott, yet they limited the Swadeshi agenda while militants sought mass struggle.
- Demonstrates the tactical/methodological divergence (limited Swadeshi vs full-scale passive resistance) that underpinned the Moderates–Extremists divide.
- Explicitly states the Congress split into Extremists and Moderates and identifies causes tied to earlier repressive British measures.
- Implies the split arose from events predating Quit India (names extremist leaders of the early 20th century).
- Notes the split occurred at the Surat session (an early-20th-century event), indicating the division predates the 1942 Quit India Movement.
- Discusses early leaders and conflicts around Tilak and others tied to the Moderates/Extremists split.
States that the Moderate-Extremist dispute reached a deadlock and the party split at the Surat session of the Indian National Congress (1907).
A student can compare the date of this documented split (1907) with the date of the Quit India Movement to judge temporal plausibility of a causal link.
Explains concrete issues (venue, presidency, and resolutions on swadeshi/boycott/education) that caused both sides to adopt rigid positions making the split inevitable.
One can use this pattern (splits arising from tactical/agenda disagreements) to assess whether the Quit India Movement involved similar intra-Congress disputes at the relevant time.
Notes that in 1905–1906 the Extremists wanted to extend boycott and Swadeshi, indicating the split was rooted in earlier Swadeshi-era conflicts and trajectories.
A student could trace continuity from Swadeshi-era conflicts to the 1907 split and then check whether Quit India belongs to that conflict sequence or to a later period.
Describes how moderates intentionally shifted venue to avoid militant dominance and that tensions culminated at Surat, highlighting tactical/organizational causes rather than actions of a later movement.
Use this example of venue/presidential maneuvering as a pattern to evaluate whether the Quit India Movement involved analogous internal contestation leading to a fresh emergence of 'moderates' and 'extremists'.
Records a later Moderate–Extremist reunion at Lucknow (1916), showing that the moderate/extremist division was an early-20th-century phenomenon with its own timeline of split and reunion.
A student can place both the 1907 split and the 1916 reunion on a timeline and then situate the Quit India Movement to see if it fits as cause or is temporally separate.
- Explicitly references a split in the Indian National Congress (Surat session) and discusses the emergence of 'Moderates' and figures like Tilak.
- Places the factional conflict in the context of earlier Congress sessions (Calcutta 1906, Surat), implying the moderates/extremists split predates the Non-Cooperation Movement.
- Gives the start date of the Non-Cooperation Movement as September 5, 1920.
- Establishes timing of Non-Cooperation (1920) which is later than the splits discussed in passage 7 (early 1900s), undermining the claim that Non-Cooperation caused the moderates/extremists split.
States that a Moderate–Extremist dispute in the Congress reached a deadlock and led to a party split (Surat, 1907).
A student could use this pattern (internal disagreement over methods leading to formal splits) to compare whether disputes during/after Non-Cooperation produced similar breakaways.
Notes that during the Non-Cooperation period some leaders (e.g., Jinnah, Annie Besant, Surendranath Banerjea) left the Congress because they preferred constitutional methods.
A student could map who left and when to judge if departures after Non-Cooperation amount to a split analogous to the earlier Moderate–Extremist division.
Describes an intense tussle within the Congress over adopting Non-Cooperation and a negotiated compromise at Nagpur 1920.
Use this example of intra-party conflict over strategy to assess whether the Non-Cooperation debate had the same polarity and permanence as the Moderate–Extremist conflict.
Explains how at the 1906 Calcutta session extremists' popularity forced concessions to moderates and underlines factional tensions preceding the Surat split.
Compare these pre-Surat factional dynamics to factional alignments during Non-Cooperation to see if similar patterns of leadership contest and outcomes occurred.
Gives concrete narrative of the Congress split at Surat, showing venue shifts and electoral defeats as markers of factional victory/defeat.
A student might look for comparable markers (venue changes, contested elections, formal breakaway groups) during/post-Non-Cooperation to evaluate whether a similar structural split emerged.
- Explicitly states that the Indian National Congress split into 'Extremist and Moderates' and connects this to 'repressive measures' rather than the Civil Disobedience Movement.
- Names leaders (Bipin Chandra Pal, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Lala Lajpat Rai) associated with the extremist group, implying the split arose from earlier conflicts.
- Poses the question which movement led to emergence of 'moderates' and 'extremists' and lists 'Swadeshi Movement' as an option, not the Civil Disobedience Movement.
- This suggests the split is attributed to a movement other than Civil Disobedience in the cited material.
- Specifically references 'The split of Indian National Congress in Surat session', indicating the split event and intra-party conflict (Tilak vs moderates).
- Links the emergence of extremists to earlier internal conflicts rather than to the Civil Disobedience Movement.
States that a distinct 'Extremist' trend arose from resentment against moderates and differences over cautious tactics and petitions.
A student could apply this general rule (tactical disagreement producing 'extremist' vs 'moderate' tendencies) to ask whether Civil Disobedience produced comparable tactical rifts.
Explicitly links tactical disagreement (pace and techniques) to a party split at Surat (1907).
Use this concrete precedent (movement → tactical dispute → split) to evaluate whether the Civil Disobedience Movement produced similar tactical disputes leading to factional breakaway.
Describes the Congress split at Surat and shows how venue, leadership and militant vs moderate tensions produced an organisational split.
Compare the organisational dynamics and leadership disagreements at Surat with those during the Civil Disobedience period to judge plausibility of a similar split.
Notes that in 1930 Swarajists walked out because of the Lahore resolution/Civil Disobedience Movement, showing a mass movement can trigger resignations or exits.
Treat this as an example that major campaigns can cause departures; check whether those departures during Civil Disobedience corresponded to 'moderate' vs 'extremist' categories.
Records resignations from the Working Committee when a decision to launch civil disobedience was taken (1942 Wardha meeting), showing policy decisions tied to movements can provoke resignations.
Use this as another example to ask if resignations around the Civil Disobedience Movement aligned with the classic moderate/extremist fault-line.
- [THE VERDICT]: Sitter. Direct hit from Spectrum (Chapter: Era of Militant Nationalism) or Old NCERT Bipin Chandra.
- [THE CONCEPTUAL TRIGGER]: The 'Surat Split' (1907) and the ideological clash between the 'Mendicant politics' of Moderates and the 'Passive Resistance' of Extremists.
- [THE HORIZONTAL EXPANSION]: Map the Congress Splits & Realignments: 1906 Calcutta (4 Resolutions: Swaraj, Swadeshi, Boycott, National Education) → 1907 Surat (Split) → 1916 Lucknow (Reunion) → 1918 (Second Split: Liberals led by S.N. Banerjea left over Montagu-Chelmsford reforms) → 1922 Gaya (Swarajists vs No-Changers).
- [THE STRATEGIC METACOGNITION]: Do not view movements in isolation. Always ask: 'What was the internal political fallout of this movement?' The Swadeshi movement's debate over 'extending the boycott outside Bengal' was the specific wedge that caused the split.
The provided references identify the Surat session as the point where disagreements over Swadeshi/Boycott tactics led to a formal split between moderate and extremist factions.
High-yield for polity/modern history: explains intra-party divisions within INC and the timing (Surat 1907). Useful for questions on factionalism, movement dynamics, and causes of splits. Prepare by linking session-wise Congress developments with major movements (Swadeshi) and leaders.
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 12: Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909) > The Congress's Position > p. 264
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 12: Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909) > Split Takes Place > p. 274
- History , class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.) > Chapter 2: Rise of Extremism and Swadeshi Movement > Surat Split > p. 22
References show the 1905 Partition spurred the Swadeshi campaign and intensified resentment against moderate politics, fostering the 'Extremist' trend.
Frequently tested cause-and-effect: connects a British administrative decision (Partition) to mass nationalist response (Swadeshi) and ideological shifts within INC. Helps answer causation questions and essays; study by mapping events → reactions → factional outcomes.
- History , class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.) > Chapter 2: Rise of Extremism and Swadeshi Movement > Introduction > p. 16
- History , class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.) > Chapter 2: Rise of Extremism and Swadeshi Movement > 2.2 Anti-Partition Movement > p. 19
- Modern India ,Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.)[Old NCERT] > Chapter 14: Nationalist Movement 1905—1918 > THE INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS, 1905-1914 > p. 247
Evidence highlights disagreement over scope and methods of Swadeshi/Boycott (limited, Bengal-only vs nationwide mass struggle), which underpinned the moderate–extremist split.
Useful for analytical questions on movement strategies and political ideology. Explains how method differences produce organizational splits; link to broader themes of moderates vs militants in freedom struggle. Revise by comparing demands, resolutions, and session outcomes.
- Modern India ,Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.)[Old NCERT] > Chapter 14: Nationalist Movement 1905—1918 > THE INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS, 1905-1914 > p. 247
- History , class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.) > Chapter 2: Rise of Extremism and Swadeshi Movement > 2.2 Anti-Partition Movement > p. 19
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 12: Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909) > Split Takes Place > p. 274
Multiple references describe a decisive split at the Surat session where irreconcilable positions between moderates and extremists became formal.
High-yield for polity/history questions about factionalism in the INC: explains origins of the two trends, their disagreements (presidential contest, swadeshi/boycott, venue politics) and consequences for the national movement. Links to questions on phases of Indian nationalism and internal Congress politics. Learn by mapping causes, events (Surat), key persons and immediate outcomes.
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 12: Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909) > The Congress's Position > p. 264
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 12: Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909) > Split Takes Place > p. 274
- History , class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.) > Chapter 2: Rise of Extremism and Swadeshi Movement > Surat Split > p. 22
Evidence shows the 1905 Bengal partition fuelled resentment against moderates and boosted the extremist/militant trend and swadeshi-boycott tactics.
Essential for essays and prelims on causes of militant nationalism — connects a colonial administrative act (partition) to mass movements (Swadeshi) and shifts in Congress strategy. Study cause→movement→organisational impact; useful for causation and continuity-change questions.
- History , class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.) > Chapter 2: Rise of Extremism and Swadeshi Movement > Introduction > p. 16
- History , class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.) > Chapter 2: Rise of Extremism and Swadeshi Movement > 2.2 Anti-Partition Movement > p. 19
- Modern India ,Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.)[Old NCERT] > Chapter 14: Nationalist Movement 1905—1918 > THE INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS, 1905-1914 > p. 247
Sources note a later reunion (Lucknow 1916) that brought moderates and extremists back together, showing the split was not permanent and Congress strategies evolved.
Helps answer questions on phases of the nationalist movement and organisational adaptability of INC. Useful for comparative questions (split vs reunion), and to trace continuity in leadership and methods. Memorise timeline (split 1907 → reunion 1916) and causes of reconciliation.
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 14: First World War and Nationalist Response > Home Rule League Movement > p. 300
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 12: Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909) > Run-up to Surat > p. 272
Several references describe an earlier intra-Congress split between 'Moderates' and 'Extremists' culminating at the Surat session.
High-yield for UPSC modern history: this concept explains factionalism within Congress, the context for Swadeshi and militant nationalism, and links to later reunification efforts (e.g., Lucknow 1916). Master by mapping timelines (Benaras 1905 → Calcutta 1906 → Surat 1907) and key leaders; it is often asked in questions on phases of the national movement and party politics.
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 12: Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909) > Run-up to Surat > p. 273
- History , class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.) > Chapter 2: Rise of Extremism and Swadeshi Movement > Surat Split > p. 22
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 12: Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909) > The Congress's Position > p. 264
The 'Second Split' of the Congress (1918). While everyone knows Surat (1907), fewer recall that the Moderates left again in 1918 to form the 'Indian National Liberal Federation' because they accepted the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms while the main Congress rejected them.
Chronological Logic: The terms 'Moderates' and 'Extremists' are specific to the pre-Gandhian era (1905–1917). Quit India (1942), Civil Disobedience (1930), and Non-Cooperation (1920) are all Gandhian movements where the factional dynamics had shifted (e.g., Pro-changers vs No-changers, or Socialists vs Rightists). Only Swadeshi fits the timeline.
Connects to GS-IV (Ethics) and GS-I (Post-Independence): The debate between 'Constitutional Morality' (Moderates) vs 'Conscience/Mass Action' (Extremists/Gandhi) is a recurring theme in the ethics of dissent.