Question map
What was the main reason for the split in the Indian National Congress at Surat in 1907?
Explanation
By the last decade of the nineteenth century, there was conspicuous resentment against moderate politics within the Indian National Congress, which evolved into an 'Extremist' trend. The extremist group was critical of the moderates for their cautious approach and the "mendicant policy" of appealing to the British by way of prayers and petitions.[1] 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.[2] The Extremists wanted Tilak or Lajpat Rai as president with resolutions on swadeshi and boycott, while the Moderates wanted Rashbehari Ghosh as president and sought to drop these resolutions. Both sides adopted rigid positions, leaving no room for compromise.[3] The fundamental issue was the Extremists' loss of faith in the Moderates' ability to effectively negotiate with the British through constitutional methods alone. The other options—communalism, Muslim League's foundation, and Aurobindo Ghosh's candidature—were not the primary causes of the Surat Split.
Sources- [1] History , class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.) > Chapter 2: Rise of Extremism and Swadeshi Movement > Introduction > p. 16
- [2] 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
- [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
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Full viewThis is a 'Bread and Butter' question from standard Modern History texts (Spectrum/NCERT). It tests fundamental conceptual clarity on the Moderate-Extremist divide rather than obscure trivia. If you miss this, you are statistically out of the race.
This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.
- Statement 1: Was the introduction of communalism into Indian politics by Lord Minto the main reason for the split in the Indian National Congress at Surat in 1907?
- Statement 2: Was the extremists' lack of faith in the moderates' capacity to negotiate with the British Government the main reason for the split in the Indian National Congress at Surat in 1907?
- Statement 3: Was the foundation of the Muslim League the main reason for the split in the Indian National Congress at Surat in 1907?
- Statement 4: Was Aurobindo Ghosh's inability to be elected as President of the Indian National Congress the main reason for the split at Surat in 1907?
- Links British policy and officials (mentions Lord Minto) to having 'won' after dividing the Congress.
- States the British next step was to divide India on religious lines and that the 'seed of communalism' developed by earlier policy became a plant by 1906.
- Attributes the Surat split directly to an intense conflict between Moderates and Extremists (internal Congress factionalism).
- Specifically names the clash between Pherozshah Mehta (Moderate) and Bal Gangadhar Tilak (Extremist) as leading to the split.
- States that 'seeds of communalism were sown in Indian politics' leading to Hindu-Muslim clashes in 1907, linking communal tensions to the period of the split.
- Implies communalism affected the broader political environment around 1907, which could have influenced Congress unity.
States that the appointment of Lord Minto (1906) increased tensions between moderates and militants and that venue shifts were made fearing extremist gains.
A student could check the timeline (Minto's appointment 1906 → Surat split 1907) and weigh whether a viceregal appointment plausibly escalated intra‑Congress factionalism independent of formal communal measures.
Describes concrete internal Congress disputes (choice of venue, presidency, and resolutions on swadeshi/boycott/education) showing organizational and ideological causes for the split.
One could map these procedural/ideological fault‑lines against any external communal policies to judge if internal Congress issues alone could have produced the split.
Explains the Morley‑Minto Reforms (1909) introduced separate electorates and formal communal representation—linking Lord Minto to institutional communal measures.
Use the reform date (1909) versus the Surat split (1907) to test causation: if communal institutionalisation came after Surat, it weakens the claim that Minto's introduction of communalism was the main cause of the 1907 split.
Directly links the Surat split to the contemporaneous rise in revolutionary activity, suggesting non‑communal political radicalism as a factor.
Compare intensity/timing of revolutionary activity and factional demands in 1907 with any communal interventions to assess which pressures were immediate causes.
Evaluates the 1909 reforms as aimed at dividing nationalists via separate electorates, framing communal measures as a British strategy to split national unity rather than a primary immediate trigger for Congress splits.
A student could combine this assessment with the 1909 date to argue that communal institutional strategies were part of a longer process, and check whether the Surat split fits that longer timeline or was driven by immediate internal disputes.
- Explicitly records extremist resentment against 'moderate politics' and criticism of the moderates' 'mendicant policy' of appealing to the British — indicating lack of faith in moderate methods.
- Links this resentment to the rise of the extremist trend that challenged the moderates' approach, a structural cause of factional conflict.
- States the Moderate–Extremist dispute over the pace and techniques of struggle reached a deadlock at the Surat session and caused the party split.
- Connects tactical/method differences (which include faith in negotiation vs militant methods) directly to the Surat rupture.
- Describes concrete clashes at Surat: extremists demanding swadeshi/boycott and a Tilak/Lajpat Rai presidency, moderates manoeuvring to exclude Tilak — showing irreconcilable positions and refusal to compromise.
- Shows the split resulted from rigid stances on leadership and methods rather than purely personal or external factors.
- Explicitly attributes the Surat split to intense conflict between Moderate and Extremist leaders (Pherozshah Mehta vs Bal Gangadhar Tilak).
- This passage identifies internal factional dispute as the cause rather than any external party such as the Muslim League.
- States that at the Surat session (1907) the Congress split into two factions: extremists and moderates.
- Names leaders of both factions (Tilak, Lajpat Rai, Bipin Chandra Pal vs Gopal Krishna Gokhale), supporting an internal leadership conflict explanation.
- Confirms the All-India Muslim League was founded in 1906 and aimed to secure Muslim interests via a separate organisation.
- Notes the League's formation "gave a handle to the British to divide the people of India politically," but does not link the League directly as the main cause of the 1907 Surat split.
Links timing: it notes the Surat split (Dec 1907) occurred 'around the time' revolutionary activity had gained momentum, suggesting multiple contemporaneous factors rather than a single cause.
A student could place the League's 1906 founding on a timeline with rising revolutionary activity to judge relative causal weight.
Describes the immediate procedural and political causes of the Surat split—venue, presidency, and disagreement over swadeshi/boycott/national education—highlighting intra-Congress factional issues.
Compare these internal Congress procedural disputes with the League's founding to see if the split arose from internal factionalism rather than the League.
Explains the Simla Deputation and the founding purpose of the Muslim League (to preach loyalty and keep Muslim intelligentsia away from Congress), showing the League's initial stance was to separate Muslim political concerns from Congress.
Use this to assess whether the League's agenda (separate Muslim representation) directly targeted Congress unity in 1907 or was oriented to later constitutional demands.
Lists major contemporaneous developments together (Swadeshi movement, Congress split 1907, establishment of Muslim League 1906), implying temporal correlation but not causation.
A student could correlate dates and sequence to test whether the League's founding preceded and plausibly influenced the split or was one of several parallel events.
States the Muslim League was founded to keep Muslim intelligentsia away from Congress and that separate electorates followed in 1909, indicating the League pursued communal political strategies that became significant later.
Compare the League's early objectives with the issues that caused the 1907 split to evaluate temporal and substantive linkage.
- Explicitly names Ras Bihari Ghosh as the Surat president and links the Moderates' success in securing their president to neglect of extremists' demands.
- Attributes the split to rising conflict between Moderate and Extremist leaders (Pherozshah Mehta vs Bal Gangadhar Tilak), not to any failed bid by Aurobindo Ghosh.
- Notes ideological and personal differences between Moderates and Extremists and says Ras Behari Ghosh's election worsened relations.
- Mentions 'open conflict' over Ghosh's election as the immediate flashpoint, implying the split arose from that contest between groups rather than Aurobindo's own failed candidacy.
Describes a concrete dispute over the choice of session venue and presidency (Moderates wanted Rashbehari Ghosh and to exclude Tilak), showing leadership selection was an explicit flashpoint at Surat.
A student could check lists of proposed presidential candidates and who was actually blocked to see if Aurobindo's failed candidacy mirrored this pattern and whether it escalated tensions.
States militants opposed the election of the Moderates' candidate (Rash Behari Ghosh) and that the militants had proposed rival names; links the contested presidency directly to the session ending in chaos and the split.
One could compare whether Aurobindo was among the militants' proposed names and whether opposition to a specific Moderate candidate (rather than to Aurobindo personally) was decisive.
Shows that presidential elections at Congress sessions were used as concessions to militants (e.g., electing Dadabhai Naoroji in 1906), indicating presidency contests could defuse or inflame factional tensions.
A student could assess whether Aurobindo's (in)ability to be elected fit this pattern of presidency as a pressure valve and whether its failure removed a possible compromise.
Explains deeper ideological differences: Extremists wanted nationwide mass struggle and swaraj, Moderates preferred constitutional methods—showing the split had ideological roots beyond any single election.
Use this to judge whether a single failed presidential bid (Aurobindo's) could plausibly be the main cause, or whether long-standing ideological divergence makes that unlikely.
Provides a general precedent (Congress 1969) where defeat of an official presidential candidate formalised a split, indicating contested presidential elections can precipitate party division.
A student could analogize this pattern: if Aurobindo's non-election played the same formalising role at Surat, it strengthens the claim; otherwise it suggests presidency contests are one of several triggers.
- [THE VERDICT]: Absolute Sitter. Directly covered in Spectrum (Chapter 12) and TN Class XII History (Chapter 2).
- [THE CONCEPTUAL TRIGGER]: The 'Surat Split' is not an isolated event but the climax of the ideological clash between 'Mendicancy' (Prayer/Petition) and 'Passive Resistance'.
- [THE HORIZONTAL EXPANSION]: Memorize the Session Arc: 1905 Benaras (Gokhale, resentment starts) → 1906 Calcutta (Naoroji, 4 Resolutions: Swaraj, Swadeshi, Boycott, National Education) → 1907 Surat (Split, Rash Behari Ghosh) → 1916 Lucknow (Reunion, A.C. Majumdar).
- [THE STRATEGIC METACOGNITION]: Distinguish between 'Contemporaneous Events' and 'Causal Factors'. The Muslim League (1906) and Minto's policies (1909) happened *around* the same time, but the *internal* split was caused by the Extremists' rejection of Moderate methods.
Surat split is repeatedly described in the references as arising from a clash between Moderates and Extremists over venue, presidency and policy (swadeshi, boycott, national education).
High-yield for UPSC: explains intra-party dynamics that led to organisational splits; frequently asked in questions on the early Congress history and causes of factionalism. Connects to topics on nationalist strategies (constitutionalism vs agitation) and revolutionary activity. Prepare by comparing session-level disputes (Calcutta 1906, Surat 1907), key personalities (Tilak, Naoroji, Rashbehari Ghosh) and resolutions.
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 12: Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909) > Split Takes Place > p. 274
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 12: Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909) > The Surat Split > p. 272
References attribute introduction of separate electorates and the 1909 reforms to Morley and Minto, linking these measures to the formal introduction of communal representation.
Essential concept: the Morley–Minto reforms are central to questions on constitutional reforms and the institutionalisation of communal politics. It links constitutional history with communalism and later political outcomes (e.g., Muslim League growth). Study the provisions, timing (1909) and political consequences; use source comparisons to evaluate causation vs correlation in political splits.
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 12: Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909) > The Reforms > p. 277
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 12: Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909) > Evaluation > p. 278
Evidence presents separate electorates and official policy as deliberate techniques to foster communal estrangement and to check Indian unity.
Useful for analytical UPSC answers assessing colonial policy impacts on communal identities and nationalist unity. It helps answer 'causes' type questions (e.g., how colonial policies affected the national movement) and to weigh multiple causal factors. Prepare by linking specific policies (separate electorates) to organisational outcomes (Muslim League formation, splits in nationalist groups).
- History , class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.) > Chapter 6: Communalism in Nationalist Politics > Separate Electorates and the Spread of Communalism > p. 76
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 24: Post-War National Scenario > Evolution of the Two-Nation Theory > p. 485
- Modern India ,Bipin Chandra, History class XII (NCERT 1982 ed.)[Old NCERT] > Chapter 15: Struggle for Swaraj > THE SWARAILSTS > p. 279
The references repeatedly contrast moderate 'appeal/petition' methods with extremist calls for swadeshi, boycott and more militant tactics — the core axis of the 1907 split.
High-yield for UPSC: understanding factional differences within Congress explains many early-20th-century events and policies. Links to topics on political strategies, mass movements, and leadership contests. Master by comparing positions, major leaders, and policy outcomes across sessions (Benaras, Calcutta, Surat).
- History , class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.) > Chapter 2: Rise of Extremism and Swadeshi Movement > Introduction > p. 16
- 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
Extremists demanded reiteration and expansion of swadeshi and boycott resolutions; their insistence on these tactics features in the run-up and at Surat.
Frequently tested: connects economic nationalism, popular mobilisation, and party schisms. Helps answer questions on movement techniques and their political consequences. Prepare by tracing resolutions, regional bases (e.g., Bengal), and ensuing government reactions.
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 12: Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909) > Split Takes Place > p. 274
- 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
References show the venue/presidency contest (Tilak exclusion via Surat venue) and uncompromising positions were proximate causes of the split.
Useful for source-based and chronology questions: explains how procedural/leadership disputes can precipitate ideological splits. Practice by mapping session locations, presidential elections, and how they reflected factional strategies.
- 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
The references describe the Surat rupture as driven by a standoff between militant (Extremist) and Moderate factions over venue, presidency and resolutions (swadeshi, boycott, national education).
High-yield for questions on phases of the national movement: explains intra-Congress factionalism and immediate triggers of the 1907 split. Connects to broader themes of methods (constitutional vs. militant) and leadership disputes. Candidates should compare factional causes across sessions (Calcutta 1906, Surat 1907) and practise structuring cause-effect answers.
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 12: Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909) > Split Takes Place > p. 274
- Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 12: Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909) > The Surat Split > p. 272
- History , class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.) > Chapter 2: Rise of Extremism and Swadeshi Movement > Surat Split > p. 22
The 'Four Resolutions' passed in 1906 (Calcutta) were the specific bone of contention at Surat. The Moderates wanted to water them down; Extremists wanted to retain them. Expect a question: 'Which of the following was NOT one of the 4 resolutions of 1906?'
Use the 'Internal vs. External' Logic. The question asks for the reason for a split *in* the Congress. Option A (Minto) and C (Muslim League) are *external* factors involving third parties. Option D is factually weak (the fight was over Tilak/Lajpat Rai vs. Rash Behari Ghosh). Option B describes the *internal* ideological friction, which is the only logical cause for a party split.
Mains Link: The Surat Split created a political vacuum. When open political platforms (Congress) became dysfunctional, it directly led to the 'First Phase of Revolutionary Terrorism' (1907–1917) as youth felt leaderless. This links Political History to Internal Security/Extremism.