Surat Split of 1907: Causes, Moderates and Extremists, Impact

The Surat Split of 1907 was not only a remarkable and unfortunate event in the history of the Indian National Congress but also in the overall history of India’s independence struggle. This is because after the Surat Split, the British government not only started implementing a policy of division between the moderates and extremist leaders of Congress to weaken the national movement, but they also got a huge opportunity to apply this divide-and-rule policy among the general public.

What is Surat Split of 1907

The Indian National Congress was established on December 28, 1885. Twenty years after the establishment of the Indian National Congress, two groups emerged within Congress: Moderates and Extremists in 1907. The moderates wanted Rash Behari Ghosh to be elected president during the 1907 National Congress session in Surat, while the extremists wanted Lala Lajpat Rai to be elected president.

There was ideological conflict between both groups from the beginning for gradual reforms, boycotts, swaraj etc. After the anti-partition Swadeshi movement of 1905, the conflict between these two groups continued to grow. Between 1905 and 1907, the disagreement between both groups became so intense that finally, the National Congress split into two parts, extremists and moderates. Hence, the Surat session is also called the ‘Surat Split of 1907.’

You can aslo read about Simon Commission 1927: Objectives, Recommendations, Impact.

Background and Causes of the Surat Split of 1907

• The biggest background factor that fueled the Surat Split was Lord Curzon‘s announcement of the Bengal Partition plan on July 19, 1905. This plan was implemented on October 16. There was intense disagreement between the two groups of Congress regarding the Swadeshi and Boycott movements to prevent this partition. Targeting this ideological divide, the government resorted to a policy of discrimination to weaken the national movement. The main aim of this policy was to win over the moderates and isolate the extremists. This approach was advocated by Lord Morley, who was the Secretary of State for India at that time. To implement the objective of this policy, Morley and Viceroy Lord Minto made some administrative reforms to satisfy the moderates while suppressing the extremists and later also promised some new reforms.
• While moderate leaders were willing to cooperate and discuss with the British government, extremist leaders refused any form of cooperation with the government. They wanted more than just self-governance; they wanted Swaraj, meaning complete independence. Mocking their opposition, moderate leader Gopal Krishna Gokhale commented, “Only mad men outside lunatic asylums could think to talk of independence.”
• Additionally, there were intense disagreements between the two groups regarding Swaraj, the boycott, and the national education policy. The extremists wanted to spread the Swadeshi and boycott movements beyond Bengal throughout India. But the moderates objected to this. In fact, from the extremists’ perspective, a boycott meant not just boycotting foreign goods but also foreign titles, schools, colleges, and everything. The moderates objected to this as well.
• The conflict between both groups became public during the 1905 Banaras Congress session. The main point of conflict was how to implement the boycott. However, at this time, the extremists’ strength wasn’t very significant. Gopal Krishna Gokhale presided over the Banaras Congress session. He strongly protested against the partition of Bengal and government repression, and the Swadeshi and Boycott movements in Bengal were accepted by the Congress, including Gokhale. However, despite the extremists’ demands, Congress rejected the proposal to spread this movement to other parts of India. On the other hand, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Lala Lajpat Rai, and Motilal Ghosh opposed the proposal adopted by Congress welcoming the Prince of Wales to India. Finally, in this session, the moderates’ dominance remained intact. But from then on, the extremists began to gather strength.
• Close contact was established between Bengal’s extremist leaders and Maharashtra’s extremist leaders. In June 1906, Tilak came to Calcutta and met with Aurobindo Ghosh and Bipin Chandra Pal, who requested he accept the presidency of the next Congress session. However, due to opposition from moderates, Dadabhai Naoroji became the president of the Congress session held in Calcutta in 1906. Under pressure from extremists, four resolutions – boycott, Swadeshi, Swadeshi industries, and Swaraj – were adopted in this session. Here too, the conflict between both sides took an intense form, and there was no resolution to the dispute.
• The conflict reached its peak at the Surat session in 1907. When the National Congress session was held in Surat in 1907, the moderates wanted to elect Rash Behari Ghosh as the president, and the extremists wanted to elect Lala Lajpat Rai as the president. When the ideological differences between these two parties were seen, the dispute had reached its peak. Due to opposition from Surendranath Banerjee and Gopal Krishna Gokhale, their demand was rejected. When moderates tried to suppress the previous four resolutions in this session, conflict became inevitable. Even after this disturbance at the Surat session, Lala Lajpat Rai, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, and many Bengali extremist leaders were eager to restore Congress unity. But Bombay’s moderate leaders remained rigid and inflexible. Frustrated by this incident, leaders like Aurobindo Ghosh, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal, and Lala Lajpat Rai were expelled from Congress and attempted to form a new party. This is how in this session, the Congress was divided into two separate groups, the moderates and the extremists.

Also, read about the Wavell Plan 1945: Objectives, Simla Conference, Its Failure.

Impact of Surat Split 1907

• The impact of the Surat Split 1907 was not favourable for Congress, particularly for the moderate leaders. However, J. Mclane, while explaining the reaction of the Surat session on moderates, said, “Although the Congress did split at Surat in 1907, this was by no means a total defeat for the Congress of its moderate leaders.” But his statement is not entirely correct. At first glance, it appears that the moderates had achieved complete victory at the Surat session. The way they destroyed the power of extremist leaders temporarily ensured their dominance in Congress. But looking deeper, one can understand what a great defeat they suffered through the Surat Split.
• In the eyes of politically conscious Indians, especially the youth, they were disgraced. They lost the respect and trust of the people. Eventually, they had become a narrow group. Their defeat was a moral defeat. Whatever fighting spirit they had shown in the Congress sessions at Banaras and Calcutta, they moved even further away from that at the Surat session and seemed to completely surrender to the British government. But the moderates didn’t gain much from this. Because the ‘Morley Minto Reforms‘ of 1909 disappointed them. This reform law didn’t recognize the ideals of self-governance or democracy. Instead, this law provided separate elections for the Muslim community, fueling communalism. In the overall analysis, the Surat Split of 1907 hindered the progress of India’s national movement.
• Finally, it can be said that from one perspective, the extremists were not defeated at the Surat session. Their ideals of boycott, Swadeshi, and Swaraj were recognized as Congress’s ideals and goals. Using these very weapons, Mahatma Gandhi was able to unite people from all levels in India’s independence movement. Therefore, the movement of the extremist leaders was not a failure. Rather, they infused new momentum into India’s independence movement by using different paths and methods.

You can also read about Chittaranjan Das: Life, Role as Lawyer, Political Activities.

Conclusion

Realizing the adverse effects of the Surat Split of 1907, many historians made various comments. According to Annie Besant, “The Surat incident was the most unfortunate event in the history of Congress.” Again, Lokmanya Tilak termed the Surat incident as a “disaster.” On the other hand, Viceroy Lord Minto wrote to Secretary of State Lord Morley regarding this matter, “The split in Congress at Surat is our great victory.”

Surat Split of 1907 FAQ’s