Q92 (IAS/2016) History & Culture › National Movement (1857–1947) › Early national politics Official Key

What was the main reason for the split in the Indian National Congress at Surat in 1907?

Introduction of communalism into Indian politics by Lord Minto

Extremists' lack of faith in the capacity of the moderates to negotiate with the British Government

Foundation of Muslim League

Aurobindo Ghosh's inability to be elected as the President of the Indian National Congress

Result

Your answer: — · Correct: B

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

How others answered

Each bar shows the % of students who chose that option. Green bar = correct answer, blue outline = your choice.

Community Performance

Out of everyone who attempted this question.

89%

got it right

Web / Current Affairs

Online pages / news items supporting the statement

Web source

Presence: 4/5

"After this the then Viceroy Lord Minto wrote to the Secretary of State Morley, “Sir we have won”. The next step taken by the Britishers was to divide India on the basis of religion."

Why this source?

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.

Web source

Presence: 5/5

"So, finally when the conflict between Pherozshah Mehta (Moderate) and Bal Gangadhar Tilak (Extremist) became so intense that it led to the split in Indian National Congress. This was the Surat Split of 1907."

Why this source?

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.

Web source

Presence: 4/5

"It was in this way that the seeds of communalism were sown in Indian politics. The immediate result was the Hindu-Muslim clashes in different parts of the country in 1907."

Why this source?

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.

Indirect textbook clues (5)

How books hint at the answer

History , class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.) > Chapter 2: Rise of Extremism and Swadeshi Movement > Surat Split > p. 22

Strength: 4/5

“Congress Split at Surat The tension between the militants and the moderates became more pronounced with the appointment of Lord Minto as the new Viceroy to India in 1906. As the tension was rising between the two groups, a split was avoided, in the 1906 Calcutta session, by accepting demands of moderate leaders and electing Dadabhai Naoroji as president. Most of the moderates, led by Pherozeshah Mehta, were defeated in the election. The next session of Congress was originally planned to be held in Poona, considered to be a stronghold of the militants. Fearing a repeat of the Calcutta session, the moderates shifted the venue to Surat.”

Why relevant

States that the appointment of Lord Minto (1906) increased tensions between moderates and militants and that venue shifts were made fearing extremist gains.

How to extend

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.

Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 12: Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909) > Split Takes Place > p. 274

Strength: 5/5

“The Extremists wanted the 1907 session to be held in Nagpur (Central Provinces) with Tilak or Lajpat Rai as the president along with a reiteration of the swadeshi, boycott and national education resolutions. The Moderates wanted the session at Surat in order to exclude Tilak from the presidency, since a leader from the host province could not be session president (Surat being in Tilak's home province of Bombay). Instead, they wanted Rashbehari Ghosh as the president and sought to drop the resolutions on swadeshi, boycott and national education. Both sides adopted rigid positions, leaving no room for compromise. The split became inevitable, and the Congress was now dominated by the Moderates who lost no time in reiterating Congress' commitment to the goal of self-government within the British Empire and to the use of constitutional methods only to achieve this goal.”

Why relevant

Describes concrete internal Congress disputes (choice of venue, presidency, and resolutions on swadeshi/boycott/education) showing organizational and ideological causes for the split.

How to extend

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.

Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 12: Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909) > The Reforms > p. 277

Strength: 5/5

“The viceroy, Lord Minto, and the Secretary of State for India, John Morley, agreed that some reforms were due so as to placate the Moderates as well as the Muslims. They worked out a set of measures that came to be known as the Morley-Minto (or Minto-Morley) Reforms that translated into the Indian Councils Act of 1909. ● The elective principle was recognised for the nonofficial membership of the councils in India. Indians were allowed to participate in the election of various legislative councils, though on the basis of class and community. ● For the first time, separate electorates for Muslims for election to the central council was established—a most detrimental step for India. ● The number of elected members in the Imperial Legislative Council and the Provincial Legislative Councils was increased.”

Why relevant

Explains the Morley‑Minto Reforms (1909) introduced separate electorates and formal communal representation—linking Lord Minto to institutional communal measures.

How to extend

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.

Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 12: Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909) > The Surat Split > p. 272

Strength: 4/5

“The Congress split at Surat came in December 1907, around the time when revolutionary activity had gained momentum. The two events were not unconnected.”

Why relevant

Directly links the Surat split to the contemporaneous rise in revolutionary activity, suggesting non‑communal political radicalism as a factor.

How to extend

Compare intensity/timing of revolutionary activity and factional demands in 1907 with any communal interventions to assess which pressures were immediate causes.

Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. > Chapter 12: Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909) > Evaluation > p. 278

Strength: 4/5

“The reforms of 1909 afforded no answer to the Indian political problem. Lord Morley made it clear that colonial self-government (as demanded by the Congress) was not suitable for India, and he was against the introduction of parliamentary or responsible government in India. He said, "If it could be said that this chapter of reforms led directly or indirectly to the establishment of a parliamentary system in India, I, for one, would have nothing at all to do with it." The 'constitutional' reforms were, in fact, aimed at dividing the nationalist ranks by confusing the Moderates and at checking the growth of unity among Indians through the obnoxious instrument of separate electorates.”

Why relevant

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.

How to extend

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.

Four resolutions were passed at the famous Calcutta session of Indian National Congress in 1906. The of either retention OR of rejection of these four resolutions became the cause of a split in congress at the next Congress session held in Surat in 1907. Which one of the following was not one of those resolutions?

Assertion (A) : Partition of Bengal in 1905 brought to an end the Moderates’ role in the Indian freedom movement. Reason (R) : The Surat session of Indian National Congress separated the Extremists from the Moderates.

Which one of the following movements has contributed to a split in the Indian National Congress resulting in the emergence of 'moderates' and 'extremists'?

Question map

What was the main reason for the split in the Indian National Congress at Surat in 1907?

Explanation

PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN

SIMILAR QUESTIONS

Assertion (A) : Partition of Bengal in 1905 brought to an end the Moderates’ role in the Indian freedom movement. Reason (R) : The Surat session of Indian National Congress separated the Extremists from the Moderates.

Which one of the following movements has contributed to a split in the Indian National Congress resulting in the emergence of 'moderates' and 'extremists'?

In which one of the following Sessions was the Indian National Congress split into Moderates and Extremists ?

Which one of the following pairs is not correctly matched ?