MODERATES AND EXTREMISTS

(i)Differences between Moderates and Extremists-Surat Split 26th Dec (1907) and Its
Impact.
SURAT SPLIT –
Introduction –

• The Indian National Congress, the first all India political organization founded in 1885,
witnessed a political split early in its life at the 1907- Annual Congress Session at Surat.
• Historians have pointed out various political differences between the moderates and
extremists factions of the Congress plus other factors that led to the famous “Surat Split”.
• Yet one must also place the split in its historiographical context- the Swadeshi movement
which emerged strongest in Bengal-opposing the partition of Bengal. It was during this
movement, that moderate methods/goals took a back seat and the extremists emerged
developing new political methods and goals.

Immediate Cause of the Surat Split –

• A year before the “Surat Split”, at the Calcutta Session of 1906, the Bengali Moderates and
Bengali and Maratha Extremists had managed to come together, which led to four pro-
Extremist resolutions of –Boycott, Swadeshi, National Education and Self Government
being accepted against the wishes of the strong Bombay moderates led by Pherozshah Mehta.
• The next Congress session, slated for Nagpur- another Extremist stronghold, was cleverly
shifted by Pherozshah Mehta to Surat (moderate stronghold) to ensure that the Reception
Committee that elected the Congress President, would elect the moderate-Rash Behari Ghosh
and revise/reject the four Calcutta resolutions.
• The Extremists aware of this move led by Tilak were determined to keep intact their four
resolutions. Thus at the Surat Session tensions ran high as Pherozshah Mehta omitted the
Calcutta resolutions from the agenda.
• The Extremists in return decided to oppose the nomination of Rash Behari Ghosh as President
unless their resolutions were retained. This constituted the immediate cause for the split.
• Pandemonium broke out as soon as The Reception Committee declared Rash Behari Ghosh as
the President even as Tilak moved to oppose this- very soon violence broke out with a famous
“M arathi Chappal” hitting Surendranath Banerjea and Pherozshah Mehta. The congress
was dissolved.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MODERATES AND EXTREMISTS – Differences between the

Moderates and Extremists in their political objectives and methods played a crucial role in the
Surat Split.

Moderates:

• The Moderate Phase(1885-1905) saw a general uniformity in objectives/demands and

methods.
• Their demands fell into three categories -
1. Political demands-the principle demand being reform of the Supreme and Local
legislative councils– to introduce 50% Indian elected representatives from local bodies
etc, right to discuss and vote on the budget etc. The immediate Moderates goal was
never demanding self government/swaraj though in the long run they wanted a slow
move towards freedom. They only demanded rights for educated Indians as they
didn’t believe the masses were educated enough to participate in politics.
2. Administrative demands included- Demand for Indianization of Indian Civil Services
through simultaneous ICS examinations in England and India and increase in the age
 limit for appearing for such exams from 19 to 23. Other demands included –separation
of judiciary, extension of trial by jury, repeal of the Arms Act etc.
3. Economic demands included reduction of military expenditure, cut in Home Charges,
end of unfair tariffs, enquiry into famines etc.
• Since the early congress leaders were highly anglicized professionals concerned about
politics only intermittently at the Congress session, they were ambivalent in their attitudes
towards the British while they criticized them on certain policies yet they admired them on
the other hand.
• Thus Moderate methods of political protest were mild and included- petitions, speeches,
articles that stressed presentation of a tight logical case to their primary target audience- the
liberal minded Englishmen in England whose sympathy they hoped to gain.
• Once some other their demands were met they were often prone to complacency. Sarkar points
out they had a disdain for the uneducated masses and cultivated support primarily amongst the
professional intelligentsia, proprieted groups and industrialists.

Extremists –

• The Extremists emerged strong from 1905 for various reasons such as –
1. Factionalism as the Cambridge School points out
2. Frustration with failure of early Moderate policies/methods,
3.The belligerent Curzonian administrative policies – Indian Universities Act-1904 , Indian
Official Secrets Amendment Act(1904) and finally the Partition of Bengal(16th oct1905)
• The Extremists differed greatly in their goals and methods from the Moderates. Shekhar
Bandhopadhyay says their goal was swaraj-self government- which was interpreted
differently by various extremists ranging from Bipin Chandra Pal and Aurobindo Ghosh who
defined it complete freedom to some who saw it as self rule within British imperialism.
• Being second generation leaders they differed in their outlook towards British rule and didn’t
see it as beneficial as the moderates did. Thus their methods were highly radical and included-
violation of unjust law, boycott of British goods institutions, Swadeshi or self reliance which
stressed development of indigenous industry and education and later even revolutionary
terrorism.
• They also stressed involvement of the masses in politics for which some of them used- Hindu
revivalism to garner mass support.

REASONS FOR THE SURAT SPLIT –

Even though the immediate cause of the split seemed to be the rejection of the four Calcutta
Resolutions the reasons for the split ran deeper –

1. MARXISTS:
• Some Soviet Indologists and Marxists (R.C. Dutt, M.N. Roy) conceptualized the split as a
result of class conflict- as Rajat Kanta Ray points out.
• They held that the Moderates came from and represented the bourgeoisie or the “big
bourgeoisies” – i.e. the native capitalist class which collaborated with the colonialists. Initially
such men led the Moderate struggle and due to their economic and intellectual ties with British
rule they readily compromised with British rule.
• On the other hand the Extremists came from and represented the “Petty Bourgeoisie”. They
came from smaller towns and not all were English educated. Thus they were less compromising
towards British rule as they had lesser economic and intellectual ties with the British.
• For the Marxists this class difference between the Moderates and Extremists and the
different class interests they represented ultimately led to the Split.

2. The Cambridge School Historians – David Washbrook, J.R. McLane

• They explained the rise of the Extremists as a result of factional conflict between ‘ins’ and
‘outs’ for the control of the Congress.
• Cambridge School pointed to numerous factional struggles that had developed in Indian politics
by 1880s –
1. In Bengal the factional struggle developed between the moderate leader
Surendranath Banerjea and radical Motilal Ghosh, which was articulated
through their respective newspapers-Bengalee and Amrita Bazaar Patrika.
2. Similarly in Maharashtra competition emerged between Moderate leader G.K.
Gokhlale and Extremist leader B.G. Tilak over the control of the Poona
Sarvajanik Sabha with Tilak gaining control in 1895 and Gokhlae leaving.
3. David Washbrook analysed the factional struggle in Madras politics in terms of
triangular conflict between-‘Mylapore clique’-the ‘in’ group (led by VB Iyengar,
S.Subramania Iyer and VK Iyer), their rivals the ‘Egmore Clique’(some Extremists)
and the mofussil/suburban ‘outs’(Extremists) led by T. Prakasam and Krishna Rao
in Andhra and Chidambaram Pillai in Tuticorin. By 1905- some Egmore men and
the mofussil outs allied to constitute Madras Extremists.
• The Cambridge school saw the struggle for power between moderate and extremist
factions as responsible for the split.

• Cambridge School historian Anil Seal described the ‘Surat Split’ as the ‘most conspicuous
form’ of Extremism and held that the extremists were ‘an all India coalition of dissidents who tried
to reverse at the top the defeats they had suffered at in the localities’. Thus he argues that the
Extremists tried to take over Congress leadership at the Surat Session in order to compensate
for the losses they accrued at the local level during the Swadeshi Movement and this led to the
split.

• His view was critiqued by Marxist Sumit Sarkar who says firstly the Congress was not a
proper political party waiting to be ‘captured’, but more an annual forum of discussion. Secondly
he says that the Extremists right till 1907-8 were still strong in their regional bases of Bengal,
Punjab, Maharashtra and Madras.

3. NATIONALIST HISTORIANS - Nationalist historians like Bipan Chandra while analysing the
causes for the Split keeping in mind these differences highlighted the following reasons for the
Split-

• Failure of Moderates: By1907 the Moderates despite their early achievements (e.g economic
critique of colonial rule) had largely failed in some crucial areas-
1. They failed to acquire support of the masses
2. They were unable to organize any all India campaign unlike the Extremists who
organized such a campaign-the Swadeshi movement.
3. They also failed to get any significant concessions from the British
4. Their main failure was their inability to adapt to the changing demands of the new
stage in the Nationalist movement which was reflected in their failure to attract youth
support.
• New British Policy: Secondly there was a change in British policy with the growth of
Extremism.
1. Instead of sneering at the moderates now the British decided to rally the Moderates around
them with a policy of the ‘carrot and the stick’ or of ‘repression conciliation suppression’.
2. This entailed-mild repression of the Extremists to scare the Moderates, then conciliation
of the Moderates by offering them concessions which they would accept out of fear, followed
by forceful suppression of the Extremists.
3. Thus in 1906 Viceroy Minto invited Moderates to discuss reform of the Legislative
Councils- the Moderates accepted and this caused a “total split in nationalist ranks”, setting
the ground for Surat.
• Increasing Disagreement: Thirdly Chandra and Sumit Sarkar both point to increasing
debate and disagreement between Moderates and Extremists between 1905-1907.
1. Firstly Extremists wanted to extend Boycott and Swadeshi to the rest of India and wanted
boycott a boycott of even foreign institutions to ultimately result in passive resistance.
 2. Yet moderates wanted the movement limited to Bengal and boycott to foreign goods. At
Calcutta(1906) a split was averted over Presidentship as the mutually acceptable figure of
DB Naoroji was elected .
3. Yet through 1907 the four Calcutta resolutions were interpreted differently. By end 1907 a
split loomed as most Bengali Extremists wanted to take the movement forward and saw
Moderates as hampering this similarly on the Bombay Moderates P. Mehta didn’t back
down either as they wanted elimination of the Extremists fearing that their radicalism
would invite Government repression causing the death of the Congress.
• Miscalcutations:Finally a miscalculation on both sides caused the split as -Moderates
misjudged the Minto’s overtures which actually aimed at causing a rift and the Extremists
didn’t recognize the strengths of the Moderates as the Congress interface with the colonial state.

4) RAJAT KANTA RAY:

In his exploration of the Surat Split in “Moderates, Extremists and Revolutionaries:Bengal, 1900-1908”,
Rajat Kanta Ray points out while the there is some element of truth in the Marxist, Cambridge
School and Nationalist reasons for the split, yet there was another reason for the split.

Critique – While critiquing the above schools he says –

• To conceptualize the split as a result of two factions with clearly opposing ideologies is
misleading. As he says the Moderates and Extremists were loose groupings lacking formal
organization and discipline like political parties.
• Secondly critiquing the Cambridge school and Marxists he says the politicians of both
“parties” came from the same social background sharing communal/class/caste interests as
majority were high caste Bengali Hindus who were educated professionals from big towns.
• Yet he explains these men ended up with conflicting political tendencies because established
political leaders perused opportunities offered by the colonial state while less established
leaders probably lacked access to recourses and felt subjugated took up radical measure- and
the personal rivalries between these two types of leaders created a factionalism in Calcutta
politics.
• As opposed to Marxists he says much of the support base of these factions was similar- yet
differed somewhat due to their political ideologies. Moderates support constituted- Bengali
entrepreneurs, middle class investors, established professionals, well placed govt. officials, some
students, teachers and big zamindars. While Extremists drew on few big zamindars, radical
leaning professionals and service men-young barristers etc, lower middle class clerks and govt
employees in Calcutta and muffasal towns, smaller mufassal gentry, a lot of teachers and
students, men with small income-priests etc, and labour from rail, docks and mills. Ray says
majority of these groups didn’t consciously support a faction and differences in support
were marginal because of their similar social background.
• Critiquing the Nationalists he says that goals of the moderates and extremists were also
similar as ultimately both wanted a transfer of power to the Indians.
• Regarding a difference of methods between the two groups pointed out by historians like Amles
Tripathi he says these have been over emphasised.

Main Argument –

• The basic difference between the moderates and Extremists lay in the fact that “they
represented different psychological moods”. By this he means Moderates represented that
section of opinion which was still capable of being appeased by the political concession made by
the British and the Extremists represented the alienation of the Bengali mind from the British
and that section which couldn’t be appeased- thus it was potentially dangerous for the British.
• A second reason implicit in his discussion of the events of the Surat Congress- was that the split
occurred due to the struggle between the radical Tilakites of Poona and the Moderates of
Bombay.
1. This is because he says prior to the Surat Session at the Medinipur District
Conference(Dec 7) held independent of Moderates by Extremist Aurobindo Ghosh.
2. Tilak opposed the idea of a separate Extremist Congress at Nagpur and having on
eye on the leadership of the United congress according to Ray, proposed that the
Extremists capture the existing Congress.
3. Ray says in the events at the Surat Session- not all moderates were in favour of a split-
AK Dutt (East Bengali extremist) and Lala Lajpat Rai favoured conciliation.
4. It’s also pointed out that Tilak prevented the newly elected President Rash Behari
Ghosh which finally led to violence, which was also carried out by lathi bearing
Extremists that Tilak had gathered from Maharashtra, Madras and Central Provinces.
5. Tilak’s lack of compromise at the Congress against the equally staunch stand of
the Bombay moderates led by Phirozshah Mehta for Ray also played a role in the
split. For him many Bombay moderates and extremists who opposed the Split in order
to preserve the momentum of the Swadeshi movement were dragged into the split.

IMPACT OF THE SURAT SPLIT –

• Post the Surat Congress, Rabindranath Tagore attempted a patch up while, Tilak was willing to
reunite the Congress. However Ray and Shekhar Bandhopadhyay point out that Phirozshah
Mehta was unwilling as according to Sumit Sarkar Moderates were hopeful for Liberal reforms
being offered with Liberals (Morley-Minto) in power. At the Allahabad Convention he purged
the Congress of all Extremist elements and sought to reconstitute the party by expressing firm
loyalty to British Rule. The Bengal moderates led by Surendranath Banerjea reluctantly
accepted this and hoped to soften the Congress internally, while Bengal Extremists led by
Aurobindo Ghosh left the Congress.
• The Extremists then decided to hold parallel Congress Session but government repression
prevented this and lack of a firm support base didn’t help.
• In a period of escalating revolutionary terrorism Aurobindo also planned an armed Revolution
which failed before it started as the police discovered their ammunition. Upon being released
from jail Aurobindo became spiritually inclined and left politics to preach in Pondicherry.
Extremist Bipin Chandra Pal left for London where his activities were confined to writing
radical political articles.
• With the repression and failures of the Swadeshi movement and its leadership missing as
Tilak also went to jail by 1908 for trial radical for publishing radical articles in the Kesari, the
Extremism largely got limited underground revolutionary cells.
• The Moderates on the other hand, reverted back to their “mendicant” methods and were
satisfied by the limited Morley M into Reforms of 1909- which introduced the divisive
separate electorates for Hindus and Muslims and increased the number of members in Imperial
and Indian Legislative councils, but these councils still remained devoid of real power. They also
lost the support of the Youth.
• By 1908 Bipan Chandra points out that the national movement due to this Split declined as a
whole. Only 1915 when Tilak was released and started the Home Rule Movement that the
struggle slowly revived.
• The Congress and the National Movement were successfully crushed by the British and it was
not until 1920 that the Congress was revitalized under Gandhi’s leadership.