The Surat Split and Its Impact on Indian Nationalism

The 1907 Congress split at Surat coincided with the burgeoning momentum of revolutionary activities in India. Though not directly causal, the split underscored the growing ideological schism between Congress moderates and extremists resulting in the emergence of ‘moderates’ and ‘extremists’. The extremists’ letter advocated more assertive measures against British rule.  The main reason for the Surat split in the Indian National Congress in 1907  was the Extremists’ lack of faith in the capacity of the moderates to negotiate with the British Government.

The simultaneous rise of revolutionary fervor accentuated this ideological discord, reflecting differing strategies for India’s independence struggle within the Congress, contributing to the rift between those advocating gradual reforms and those favouring more immediate, radical actions.

Congress Rift (1905-1906): Extremist-Moderate Ideological Clash

Ideological Divisions at the Benaras Session (1905): During the Benaras session of the Indian National Congress in December 1905, ideological divisions between the Moderates and Extremists surfaced prominently. 

• Extremists’ Bold Vision: The Extremists, led by figures like Tilak and Pal, advocated an aggressive nationwide approach, expanding the Boycott and Swadeshi Movement beyond Bengal. 
• Moderates’ Cautious Approach: In contrast, Moderates, led by Gokhale, preferred a cautious and incremental strategy, limiting the movement’s scope.
• Compromise and Continued Schism: To avoid a split within the Congress, a compromise was reached, adopting a milder resolution at the Benaras session. It condemned the partition of Bengal and supported the Swadeshi and boycott program in Bengal. 
  • The compromise temporarily averted a complete rupture but failed to bridge the growing ideological gap between Moderates and Extremists.
• Turning Point at the Calcutta Session (1906): The Calcutta session marked a turning point, with the Extremists gaining popularity. Dadabhai Naoroji, a unifying figure, became the Congress president. 
• The term “swaraj” was introduced, but its definition remained ambiguous. The resolution supporting Swadeshi and the boycott reflected the growing influence of both ideologies within the Congress.
• Escalation of Strategies and Divergence (Post-1906): After the Calcutta session, Extremists called for a wide-scale passive resistance movement, while Moderates, anticipating council reforms, moderated their stance. 
• The Moderates aimed for increased Indian participation through reforms, underestimating the government’s intentions. 
• The Extremists failed to recognize the protective role Moderates could play against British repression.
• Failure to Grasp the Need for Unity: Both factions misunderstood the broader dynamics. Moderates hoped for government support, while Extremists underestimated the potential repression. 
• The failure to comprehend the need for a unified nationalist movement, inclusive of both ideologies, hindered India’s struggle for independence against a powerful imperialist force. 
• The absence of unity between Moderates and Extremists impeded meaningful progress towards self-government.

Inevitable Event of Separation

In 1907, the Indian National Congress faced an irreconcilable divide between its Extremist and Moderate factions, leading to the crucial session at Surat. 

• Extremists Stance: The Extremists, pushing for the session to be hosted in Nagpur, Central Provinces, aimed to have Tilak or Lajpat Rai as the president. 
  • Their agenda focused on reasserting resolutions on swadeshi, boycotts, and national education. 
• Moderates Stance: In contrast, the Moderates insisted on Surat as the session venue to prevent Tilak’s presidency, following a rule that prohibited a leader from the host province from assuming the presidency. 
  • They supported Rashbehari Ghosh for the presidency and aimed to discard the resolutions on swadeshi, boycott, and national education. 
• The rigid stances adopted by both factions left no room for reconciliation, resulting in an inevitable split. 
  • The Congress was then predominantly under the control of the Moderates, swiftly reiterating their commitment to self-government within the British Empire and advocating for constitutional means to achieve this objective. 
• This split marked a significant shift, sidelining the Extremists’ agenda and solidifying the Congress’s adoption of more Moderate, constitutional methods for pursuing India’s self-governance.

Government Repression

• British Crackdown on Extremists (1907-1911): Between 1907 and 1911, the British government initiated a series of laws targeting Extremists in the Indian nationalist movement. 
• These laws, including the Seditious Meetings Act, of 1907, the Indian Newspapers Act, of 1908, the Criminal Law Amendment Act, of 1908, and the Indian Press Act, of 1910, were designed to suppress anti-government activities.
• Tilak’s Sedition Trial (1909): Extremist leader Bal Gangadhar Tilak faced trial in 1909 for sedition based on his writings in the Kesari. Despite expressing condemnation of violence, Tilak’s articles were deemed seditious by the British authorities. 
• He emphasized the consequences of British tyranny and advocated for ‘Swarajya’ (self-governance) as a means to prevent violence. 
• Tilak was found guilty, sentenced to six years of transportation, and fined Rs 1,000, serving his term in Mandalay Jail in Burma.
• Consequences and Decline of Extremist Movement: Following Tilak’s trial, Aurobindo, B.C. Pal and Lajpat Rai withdrew from active politics, and the Extremists struggled to establish an effective alternative political party. 
• This crackdown led to a pivotal shift, leaving the Moderates without substantial public support and causing a temporary decline in the national movement after 1908.
• Revitalization and Tilak’s Release (1914): In 1914, Tilak’s release from imprisonment rejuvenated the nationalist movement. His re-entry into politics revitalized efforts for Indian self-governance, reigniting momentum within the movement. 
• The release of Tilak marked a turning point, sparking renewed enthusiasm and activity in the struggle for independence.

The Government Tactics

• Hostility Towards Indian National Congress: From its inception, the British government in India maintained a hostile stance toward the Indian National Congress. Despite the Moderates initially dominating the Congress and distancing themselves from militant nationalist tendencies, the government’s animosity persisted, viewing the Moderates as an anti-imperialist force composed of patriotic and liberal intellectuals.
• Shift in Strategy – “Rallying Them”: As the Swadeshi and Boycott Movement gained momentum, and a more militant nationalist trend emerged, the British government, led by John Morley, altered its strategy. 
• Morley described this approach as one of “rallying them” or employing a policy of “carrot and stick,” reflecting a three-pronged approach involving repression, conciliation, and suppression.
• Mild Repression of Extremists: In the initial phase, the Extremists were mildly repressed, primarily to intimidate the Moderates. 
• This was a tactic to create a sense of vulnerability among the Moderates, pressuring them to distance themselves from more radical elements.
• Appeasement of Moderates: In the second stage, efforts were made to appease the Moderates through concessions, with hints of further reforms if they distanced themselves from the Extremists. 
• The goal was to isolate the Extremists by aligning with the Moderates.
• Suppression of Extremists: By aligning with the Moderates, the government aimed to suppress the Extremists effectively. 
• Once the more radical elements were subdued, the government could afford to overlook the Moderates.
• Unrecognized Intent and Surat Split: Regrettably, neither the Moderates nor the Extremists fully grasped the underlying intent behind this strategy. 
• The fallout of the Surat split indicated that the policy of using both rewards and penalties had proven advantageous for the British Indian government.

Morley-Minto Reforms—1909

Simla Deputation: In October 1906, a gathering of influential Muslim leaders known as the Simla Deputation, led by Agha Khan, met with Lord Minto, the Viceroy of India. 

• The delegation put forward a request for separate electorates for Muslims, advocating for representation surpassing their numerical strength. 
• Justification and the Emergence of the Muslim League: They justified this by highlighting the significant contribution of Muslims to the defence of the empire. 
• • Subsequently, this same group assumed control of the Muslim League, which was initially initiated by Nawab Salimullah of Dacca, alongside Nawabs Mohsin-ul-Mulk and Waqar-ul-Mulk in December 1906. 
• The primary aim of the Muslim League was to advocate loyalty to the British Empire and to divert the Muslim intelligentsia away from the Indian National Congress.
• Gokhale’s Mission: Gopal Krishna Gokhale, a prominent leader within the Indian National Congress, journeyed to England to meet with John Morley, the Secretary of State for India. 
• Gokhale’s primary objective was to present the Congress’s demands for a self-governing system akin to that present in other British colonies. 
  • This move was in line with Congress’s aspirations for greater autonomy and self-governance within the Indian context.

Provisions Of the Reforms of 1909: A Transformation in Indian Legislative Dynamics

Viceroy Lord Minto and Secretary of State for India John Morley proposed significant reforms to address the demands of both Moderates and Muslims, leading to the enactment of the Indian Councils Act of 1909. This pivotal legislation introduced several changes in India’s legislative landscape:

• Recognizing the Elective Principle: Nonofficial membership of the councils allowed Indians to participate in the election process for various legislative councils, categorised based on class and community affiliations.
• Separate Electorates and Special Consideration for Muslims: A groundbreaking but contentious step was the establishment of separate electorates for Muslims for the central council. This move had significant implications for the political scenario in India.
  • Besides separate electorates, Muslims were granted representation exceeding their population share. 
  • Additionally, the income qualification for Muslim voters was set lower than that for Hindus.
• Augmented Elected Membership: The number of elected members in both the Imperial Legislative Council and Provincial Legislative Councils was increased. 
  • Although provincial councils introduced a non-official majority, some members were nominated rather than elected, maintaining an overall non-elected majority.
• Composition of the Imperial Legislative Council: Among the total 69 members, 37 were to be officials. Of the 32 non-officials, 5 were to be nominated. 
  • Among the 27 elected non-officials, 8 seats were specifically reserved for Muslims under separate electorates, 4 for British capitalists, 2 for landlords, and 13 from the general electorate.
• Indirect Election of Members: Elected members followed an indirect election process. Local bodies elected an electoral college, which, in turn, elected members of provincial legislatures, eventually leading to the election of members in the central legislature. 
• Empowerment of Legislatures: Central and provincial legislatures were granted increased powers, enabling them to pass resolutions (subject to acceptance), raise questions, address supplementary, and vote on separate items in the budget, though not on the budget as a whole.
• Inclusion of Indian Representation: A historic move saw the appointment of one Indian, Satyendra Sinha, to the viceroy’s executive council in 1909, marking a significant step in Indian political inclusion at an administrative level.

The Morley-Minto Reforms attempted to accommodate diverse interests within Indian society, particularly those of the Moderates and Muslims, through an intricate system of representation and legislative empowerment. However, the introduction of separate electorates based on religious lines, particularly for Muslims, and the representation structure favouring certain communities, sowed the seeds for future communal tensions in India.

Evaluation of the Reforms

The 1909 reforms in India, spearheaded by Lord Morley, proved inadequate in addressing crucial political issues. 

• Morley staunchly opposed the idea of colonial self-government, explicitly rejecting the introduction of parliamentary or responsible government in India. 
• The ‘constitutional’ reforms, ostensibly aimed at progress, were strategically designed to create discord among nationalist factions. 
• The divisive tool of separate electorates aimed to confuse Moderates and hinder unity among Indians, aligning Moderates and Muslims against the rising nationalist wave.
• Despite the rhetoric of separate electorates benefiting the entire Muslim community, it predominantly appeased a small segment of the Muslim elite. 
• The election system, resembling an “infiltration of legislators through several sieves,” lacked corresponding responsibility for parliamentary structures, resulting in thoughtless and irresponsible government criticism.
• While some council members, like Gokhale, used the platform for constructive purposes, advocating for education and challenging repressive policies, the 1909 reforms were largely symbolic. 

Conclusion

Although the mass movement subsided, it was not a failure. The Swadeshi Movement creatively introduced the concept of nationalism to new segments of the population, challenging colonial ideas and institutions. Its impact on culture and ideas was significant and unparalleled, except for the cultural resurgence of the 1930s influenced by the Left. The demand for self-government went unmet, leaving a form of ‘benevolent despotism.’ These reforms, strategically crafted to maintain control, failed to genuinely empower and represent the people, falling short of fulfilling their aspirations.

DOWNLOAD PDF