The Surat Session of 1907 is one of the most serious and divisive moments in the history of the Indian National Congress. More than an intensification of differences of ideologies within the Congress, it prepared the future course towards freedom for this country. Here, we break down the causes of the Surat Session, its results and implications to the freedom struggle of this country.
Introduction: Indian National Congress
The Indian National Congress was founded in 1885 by A.O. Hume with the aim of providing an open forum for Indian intellectuals in airing their grievances against British colonial rule.
During the initial years, it was dominated by moderationists like Dadabhai Naoroji, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, and Surendranath Banerjee, who favored gradual reforms through drafting petitions, public addresses, and negotiations with the British government.
Their approach was still moderate and focus on constitutional methods, seeking independent status within the British Empire not full independence .
Emergence of Radicalism in the Congress
A new clique, that emerged in the Congress in early 20th century is often referred as radicals. They were not satisfied with this middle course policy.
Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal, and Lala Lajpat Rai were known as Lal-Bal-Pal, who continued to propagandise an aggressive approach of Swaraj, direct action, and mass mobilization.
The partition of Bengal by Lord Curzon during 1905 put a stimulus for extreme glee to be shared among all. Many believe that this division was to make regional bodies to rule and thus the whole province protested openly, particularly in the case of Bengal, which thus had a birth of Swadeshi Movement and boycotting of British goods.
Moderates and Extremists
The growing ideological chasm between the moderates and extremists opened a fissure in the Congress. The former were in favor of a slow movement towards self-governance whereas the latter favoured immediate self-rule and they further believed that the petitions would not much to avail against the British government.
The extremists felt that the moderates were compromising too much before the British rule and not actively trying to come out with issues prevalent within the Indian people.
Whereas, in the moderate view, the extremist approach would bring chaos, anarchy and repression by the British authority; it would be hard to achieve any reform.
Surat Session: Marching Towards the Divide
The annual session of the Congress, held at Calcutta in 1906, marked a rising trend of tension between the two factions. A session presided over by Dadabhai Naoroji did adopt a resolution calling for Swaraj but was interpreted very differently by the moderates and extremists. The moderates looked upon it as a distant goal while the extremists demanded immediate action.
The leadership question for the next session of 1907 became a contentious issue. Extremists wanted either Bal Gangadhar Tilak or Lala Lajpat Rai to preside over the next session, while moderates pressed for Rash Behari Ghosh, a moderate leader.
The venue for the 1907 session was another reason for the split. Initially scheduled in Nagpur, the stronghold of the extremists, it was shifted to Surat, a city more amenable to the moderates.
Surat Session (December 1907)
The Surat Session was highly charged and ended with a dramatic split between the moderates and extremists.
The more extreme elements led by Tilak and his followers did not want the moderate elements to dominate the Congress. They wanted resolutions reflecting their agenda of radicalisation.
The moderates wanted the Congress to be an open platform for constitutional reform and dialogue with the British.
Soon after the session was open on 26 December 1907 a heated controversy arose over the election of the president. The extremists could not agree to the choice made in the person of Rash Behari Ghosh as president and leveled charges against the moderates with trying to gag their voices.
This disagreement took the shape of chaos. Chairs were hurled, and the session turned into a melee. Police were compelled to intervene, and the session was adjourned without any significant talks.
This split the Congress into two factions-moderates and extremists.
Direct after-effect of Congress Splitting
The Surat split marked the Congress’s great loss. The split not only weakened the organization but also delayed the momentum of the freedom struggle.
The British government never failed to take advantage of a divided and weakened Congress. The British government always had it in mind that the more united the Congress, the more of a challenge it presented to their respective rule. Now with the moderates in power, the British government found an easier opposition to deal with.
Most of the extremist leaders like Tilak were arrested and put behind the bars after the Surat session. Tilak was imprisoned for six years and exiled to Mandalay in Burma.
Moderates like Gopal Krishna Gokhale continued with their policy of gradual reformation but without any strength of extremists, it was not worthwhile.
Long-Term Effects of the Division
Impact on Extremists:-
The Surat split put the extremists outside Congress for years. But this allowed them not to be kept in line by Congress and the right to practice more extreme methods than others, such as some fringe groups’ use of revolutionary tactics.
The extreme elements, such as Aurobindo Ghosh and Bipin Chandra Pal, became increasingly disillusioned with the Congress and stepped out of active politics.
Tilak, after his release from the Jail in 1914, worked to revive the nationalist movement and reconciled the conflict of moderates and extremists.
Effect on Moderates:-
The moderates were in control of the Congress for a few years after the Surat session, but their power started to decline.
Importance of Reforms Did not really make any impact because the inclusion of petitions and negotiations did not have some good fruits especially with increasing public unrest and public dissatisfaction of British rule.
By 1916, moderates realized that a much stronger and united Congress needed to be sent packing toward meaningful reforms with the British.
Reunion of Moderates and Extremists
The Surat split was for the short term. By 1916, intransigence from the British had become a reason for both moderates and extremists to finally realize unity was the only solution.
The Lucknow Pact of 1916 made the division within the Congress a thing of the past as it brought the moderates and the extremists under one roof. Simultaneously, the Lucknow Pact was an important agreement between the Congress and the All-India Muslim League and set the agenda for greater cooperation between Hindus and Muslims in the struggle for self-rule.
The leadership of Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Annie Besant also made the Congress more homogeneous than ever before. Thus arose the Home Rule Movement where Indians wanted more self-rule under the British.
The Legacy of the Surat Session
In that context, this session 1907 of Surat remains a memorandum in Indian freedom struggles. It brings into focus certain strong ideological differences within the Congress and the Indian nationalist movement.
It also highlighted the growing impatience among many Indians with the slow pace of constitutional reforms or negotiations with the British government.
It also taught the lesson that unity would be needed among the different factions of Congress if the movement was going to succeed.
The split may have been a short-term setback but it remained instrumental for the development of Congress into an organization that could represent wider Indian aspirations at a broader, multifaceted level.
Conclusion:-
The Surat Session of 1907 was one of the most decisive points in the Indian National Congress’s and the larger Indian freedom struggle’s history. In this session, it had split into moderates and extremists, which essentially brought out the growing divisions in Indian society over the best way to achieve self-rule.
While the immediate fruits of this schism were indeed not very appetizing, the long-term fruit of this split was more positive in character. The re-entry of both the moderates and extremists into the Congress did help ffirm its base while paving the road toward eventual independence in 1947.
That perhaps these lesson constitute, effectively the salutary lessons of this session of Surat—unity is strength, strategy, and adaptability are crucial. We must recall that these are not just relevant lessons from the context of political movements but for any combined effort to bring about meaningful change.
Also Read:- Colonial Control Redefined: British India’s Revolutionary Reforms After 1857