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

1. Formation and Objectives of the INC (1885) (basic)

The birth of the Indian National Congress (INC) in 1885 was not a sudden event but the culmination of a growing political consciousness across India. While many regional associations existed, there was a pressing need for a pan-India platform to unite nationalist workers. This idea took a concrete shape through the initiative of Allan Octavian Hume, a retired English civil servant, who organized the first session with the cooperation of prominent Indian leaders Bipin Chandra, Growth of New India—The Nationalist Movement 1858—1905, p.207. The seed for this organization was planted earlier in December 1884 during a meeting of the Theosophical Society in Madras, where the formation of an all-India political body was first discussed History (TN State Board), Rise of Nationalism in India, p.10. The historic first session took place at Bombay in December 1885. It was presided over by Womesh Chandra Bonnerjee and attended by 72 delegates from various parts of the country Rajiv Ahir (Spectrum), Indian National Congress: Foundation and the Moderate Phase, p.247. From its inception, the Congress aimed to be inclusive, working to bring every section of society into its fold. The primary objectives were to promote national unity, create a common political program, and provide a platform to articulate Indian grievances to the British government through constitutional means like petitions and memoranda History (TN State Board), Rise of Nationalism in India, p.10. One of the most debated aspects of the INC’s formation is the "Safety Valve" Theory. Proponents like Lala Lajpat Rai argued that Hume’s primary motive was to provide a safe outlet for rising Indian discontent to prevent a violent outburst against British rule Bipin Chandra, Growth of New India—The Nationalist Movement 1858—1905, p.207. Conversely, nationalist leader G.K. Gokhale proposed the "Lightning Conductor" Theory. He believed that the early Indian leaders used Hume as a protective shield—much like a metallic rod protects a building from lightning—to ensure the colonial government did not crush the organization in its infancy Rajiv Ahir (Spectrum), Indian National Congress: Foundation and the Moderate Phase, p.256.

Sources: Modern India (Bipin Chandra, Old NCERT), Growth of New India—The Nationalist Movement 1858—1905, p.207; History (Tamilnadu State Board 2024), Rise of Nationalism in India, p.10; A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Indian National Congress: Foundation and the Moderate Phase, p.256; A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Indian National Congress: Foundation and the Moderate Phase, p.247

2. The Moderate Phase of Congress (1885–1905) (basic)

Welcome back! Now that we’ve seen how the Indian National Congress (INC) was founded, let’s look at its first twenty years, known as the Moderate Phase (1885–1905). During this time, the Congress was led by figures like Dadabhai Naoroji (the 'Grand Old Man of India'), Pherozeshah Mehta, Surendranath Banerjea, and Gopal Krishna Gokhale. These leaders are called 'Moderates' because they believed in liberalism and moderate politics, preferring to work within the existing legal and constitutional framework rather than seeking a sudden or violent break from British rule Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. | Indian National Congress: Foundation and the Moderate Phase | p.249.

The Moderates operated on a fundamental belief: they felt the British were essentially just and fair, but were simply unaware of the real conditions in India. Their strategy, often summarized as the '3Ps' (Prayers, Petitions, and Protests), aimed to educate both the Indian public and the British Parliament. They didn't demand immediate independence; instead, they asked for administrative reforms, such as the Indianization of civil services and the expansion of legislative councils, so that Indians could have a say in their own governance.

One of their most significant contributions was the economic critique of British rule. Leaders like Dadabhai Naoroji popularized the 'Drain of Wealth' theory, arguing that Britain was systematically extracting India’s resources. Even though they remained loyal to the Crown, they used facts and figures to prove that British economic policies were impoverishing India. To help you remember their approach, look at this summary of their methods:

Feature	Moderate Approach
Goal	Self-government within the British Empire (similar to Canada or Australia).
Methods	Constitutional agitation: resolutions, petitions, and mobilizing public opinion.
Audience	The educated elite in India and the British public/Parliament in England.

Sources: Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM., Indian National Congress: Foundation and the Moderate Phase, p.249

3. Rise of Extremism and Militant Nationalism (intermediate)

To understand the Rise of Extremism, we must first look at the growing frustration among the younger generation of nationalists. For twenty years, the early Congress leaders (Moderates) had followed a policy of 'Prayer, Petition, and Protest.' However, by the early 1900s, many felt these methods were yielding no real results while the British became more reactionary under Lord Curzon. This led to the birth of Militant Nationalism—a more assertive, self-reliant form of patriotism that replaced the 'politics of mendicancy' (begging) with a demand for Swaraj (self-rule) as a matter of right Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM, Chapter 12: Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909), p. 260.

The leadership of this movement was spearheaded by the famous Lal-Bal-Pal triumvirate: Lala Lajpat Rai in Punjab, Bal Gangadhar Tilak in Maharashtra, and Bipin Chandra Pal in Bengal, along with Aurobindo Ghosh History, Class XII (Tamilnadu State Board 2024 ed.), Rise of Extremism and Swadeshi Movement, p. 21. These leaders didn't just want administrative reforms; they wanted to mobilize the masses. Unlike the Moderates, who were inspired by Western liberalism, the Extremists drew inspiration from Indian history, cultural heritage, and traditional symbols to instill a sense of pride and sacrifice in the people Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM, Chapter 12: Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909), p. 271.

Feature	Moderates	Extremists (Militants)
Social Base	Zamindars and upper-middle class in towns.	Educated middle and lower-middle classes; aimed for mass support.
Ideology	Believed in British 'providential mission' and sense of justice.	Deeply distrustful of British rule; believed in self-reliance and Swaraj.
Methods	Constitutional agitation, petitions, and resolutions.	Swadeshi, Boycott, and National Education; ready for extra-constitutional methods.

The ideological rift culminated in the Surat Split of 1907. The Extremists wanted to expand the Swadeshi and Boycott movements beyond Bengal to the rest of India and aimed to make Tilak the President of the session. The Moderates, fearing that radical actions would invite British repression, shifted the venue to Surat and insisted on Rashbehari Ghosh as President Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM, Chapter 12: Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909), p. 274. The resulting chaos led to the Extremists being expelled from the Congress for nearly a decade. The British took advantage of this 'house divided' by using a clever strategy: Repression-Conciliation-Suppression. They repressed the Extremists, offered minor concessions (like the Morley-Minto Reforms) to win over the Moderates, and then completely suppressed the movement once the groups were isolated from each other Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM, Chapter 12: Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909), p. 276.

Sources: History, class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Rise of Extremism and Swadeshi Movement, p.21; Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM, Chapter 12: Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909), p.260, 271, 274, 276

4. The Partition of Bengal and Swadeshi Movement (intermediate)

In 1905, the Indian National Congress (INC) faced its first major existential test following the Partition of Bengal by Lord Curzon. To the British, the official justification was administrative necessity; Bengal was a massive province of 78 million people, making it difficult to govern efficiently Rajiv Ahir, Spectrum, Era of Militant Nationalism, p.261. However, Indian nationalists saw through this. The real motive was political: to weaken Bengal, the "nerve center" of Indian nationalism, by dividing it along religious lines—a Hindu-majority West and a Muslim-majority East. As Home Secretary Herbert Risley famously noted, "Bengal united is a power; Bengal divided will pull several different ways" Bipin Chandra, Modern India, Nationalist Movement 1905—1918, p.240.

The response to this partition was the Swadeshi and Boycott Movement. It wasn't just about refusing foreign cloth; it was a cultural and economic revival. People began using Swadeshi (indigenous) goods, opening national schools, and organizing mass rallies. However, this movement also exposed a deep ideological rift within the Congress. The Moderates (led by Gokhale and Banerjea) preferred constitutional methods like petitions and wanted to limit the boycott to Bengal. In contrast, the Extremists (led by the Lal-Bal-Pal trio) wanted to transform it into a full-scale mass struggle and extend the boycott to every corner of India and every government department Rajiv Ahir, Spectrum, Era of Militant Nationalism, p.273.

Feature	Moderate Approach	Extremist Approach
Scope	Limited to Bengal only.	Take it pan-India.
Method	Boycott of foreign goods.	Full boycott of schools, courts, and titles.
Goal	Administrative reform.	Swaraj (Self-rule).

This internal friction over how to handle the Swadeshi movement eventually pushed the Congress toward a breaking point. While a compromise was reached at the 1905 Benaras session, the seeds of the 1907 Surat Split were firmly sown here Rajiv Ahir, Spectrum, Era of Militant Nationalism, p.273.

Sources: Spectrum: A Brief History of Modern India, Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909), p.261, 273, 280; Modern India (Old NCERT), Nationalist Movement 1905—1918, p.240

5. The Morley-Minto Reforms (1909) (exam-level)

Following the Surat Split of 1907, the British government adopted a strategy often described as 'the carrot and the stick.' While they used the 'stick' of repression against Extremist leaders like Tilak, they offered the 'carrot' of constitutional reforms to win over the Moderates and the Muslim League. This resulted in the Indian Councils Act of 1909, popularly known as the Morley-Minto Reforms—named after Lord Morley (the Secretary of State) and Lord Minto (the Viceroy) Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM. , Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909) , p.277.

The reforms significantly expanded the size of the legislative councils. At the Central level, the number of additional members rose from 16 to 60. While the government maintained an official majority (appointed British officials) at the center, they allowed a non-official majority in the provincial councils Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.). , THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND , p.4. Crucially, for the first time, an Indian was appointed to the Viceroy’s Executive Council; Satyendra Prasad Sinha became the Law Member, breaking a major glass ceiling in the colonial administration.

However, the most controversial and long-lasting legacy of this Act was the introduction of Separate Electorates for Muslims. This meant that in certain constituencies, only Muslim voters could vote for Muslim candidates History , class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.) , Communalism in Nationalist Politics , p.76. While the British framed this as protecting minority interests, nationalists viewed it as a 'divide and rule' tactic designed to prevent a unified Indian identity. As later debated in the Constituent Assembly, many felt these electorates were a 'curse' that barred national progress and sowed the seeds of communalism Indian Constitution at Work, Political Science Class XI (NCERT 2025 ed.) , ELECTION AND REPRESENTATION , p.63.

Feature	Provision in 1909 Act
Central Council	Increased to 60 members; Official majority retained.
Provincial Councils	Non-official majority allowed (though many were nominated, not elected).
Communalism	Introduction of separate electorates for Muslims.
Executive Council	First Indian (S.P. Sinha) joined the Viceroy's Executive Council.

Sources: Rajiv Ahir. A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.). SPECTRUM., Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909), p.277; Introduction to the Constitution of India, D. D. Basu (26th ed.)., THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND, p.4; History , class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Communalism in Nationalist Politics, p.76; Indian Constitution at Work, Political Science Class XI (NCERT 2025 ed.), ELECTION AND REPRESENTATION, p.63

6. The Lucknow Pact and Reunion (1916) (exam-level)

By 1916, the Indian national movement was undergoing a dramatic transformation. After nearly a decade of internal division following the 1907 Surat Split, two major shifts occurred at the Lucknow Session of the Congress that breathed new life into the struggle for independence. This session is historically significant for two reasons: the reunion of the Moderates and Extremists within the Congress, and the signing of the Lucknow Pact between the Congress and the Muslim League.

The reunion was primarily facilitated by the efforts of Annie Besant and Bal Gangadhar Tilak. The death of moderate leaders like Pherozeshah Mehta and Gokhale, who had previously opposed the return of the Extremists, eased the process. At the session, the President Ambika Charan Mazumdar famously remarked that "brothers have at last met brothers," signaling the return of the 'old vigour' to the party History, class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Impact of World War I on Indian Freedom Movement, p.35. This unity was essential because the fragmented nationalist front had struggled to challenge British policy effectively since 1907.

Simultaneously, the Lucknow Pact (1916) represented a rare moment of cooperation between the Congress and the Muslim League. Mohammad Ali Jinnah played a pivotal role in negotiating this agreement. For the first time, both organizations presented a joint scheme of political reforms to the British government, demanding a declaration that self-government would be conferred on India by a specific date Modern India, Bipin Chandra, NCERT 1982 ed., Nationalist Movement 1905—1918, p.259. However, this unity came with a controversial compromise: the Congress formally accepted the principle of separate electorates for Muslims, a move that would have long-term consequences for Indian communal politics.

The immediate impact was a massive surge in political enthusiasm across the country. The British, sensing the newfound strength of a united front, felt pressured to offer concessions, eventually leading to Montagu’s August Declaration in 1917 Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, After Nehru..., p.821. The Lucknow Pact proved that when the various factions of the Indian leadership stood together, the colonial administration was forced to listen.

Sources: History, class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Impact of World War I on Indian Freedom Movement, p.35; Modern India, Bipin Chandra, NCERT 1982 ed., Nationalist Movement 1905—1918, p.259; Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, After Nehru..., p.821

7. The Surat Session and the 1907 Split (exam-level)

The Surat Split of 1907 was a watershed moment in the Indian National Movement, marking the first major formal division within the Indian National Congress (INC). While the Congress had functioned as a unified front since 1885, by the early 20th century, deep ideological fissures emerged between the Moderates (led by Gokhale and Pherozeshah Mehta) and the Extremists or Militant Nationalists (led by the Lal-Bal-Pal trio). The friction reached a boiling point following the 1905 Partition of Bengal, as the Extremists wanted to expand the Swadeshi and Boycott movements into a full-scale mass struggle across India, while Moderates preferred to confine it to Bengal using constitutional methods Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 12: Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909), p.272.

To understand why the split happened specifically at Surat, we must look at the strategic maneuvering by both factions. In the 1906 Calcutta session, a split was narrowly avoided by electing the respected Dadabhai Naoroji as President, who smoothed over differences by adopting four key resolutions: Swadeshi, Boycott, National Education, and Self-Government History, class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Rise of Extremism and Swadeshi Movement, p.22. However, by 1907, the Moderates sought to dilute these resolutions. They moved the session venue from Poona (an Extremist stronghold) to Surat to ensure their own dominance and to block Bal Gangadhar Tilak from the presidency, as a convention dictated that a leader from the host province could not preside over the session History, class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Rise of Extremism and Swadeshi Movement, p.22.

Feature	Moderates	Extremists (Militants)
Goal	Self-government within the British Empire (Colonial Self-rule).	Complete Independence (Swaraj).
Method	Constitutional agitation: Prayers, Petitions, and Protests (3Ps).	Passive resistance: Boycott, Swadeshi, and Mass Mobilization.
1907 Candidate	Rashbehari Ghosh	Lala Lajpat Rai (or Tilak)

The session ended in absolute chaos. When the Moderates refused to guarantee that the 1906 resolutions would be upheld, and insisted on Rashbehari Ghosh as President, the assembly descended into shouting matches and physical clashes Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 12: Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909), p.274. The Congress formally split, with the Moderates retaining control of the organization and the Extremists being expelled. This division played directly into the British policy of 'Divide and Rule', leaving the national movement weakened and leaderless for nearly a decade until their reunion at the Lucknow Session in 1916.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 12: Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909), p.272, 274; History, class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Rise of Extremism and Swadeshi Movement, p.22

8. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

You have just explored the rising tide of militant nationalism and the internal friction regarding the Swadeshi Movement. These concepts are the building blocks for this question: while the Moderates preferred constitutional agitation restricted to Bengal, the Extremists demanded a nationwide boycott and radical action. This ideological tug-of-war reached its breaking point over the choice of leadership and venue. As a student of history, you should recognize that the split wasn't a sudden event; it was the culmination of tensions brewing since the 1905 Benaras and 1906 Calcutta sessions, where the two wings barely managed to stay together under a thin veil of compromise as noted in A Brief History of Modern India by Rajiv Ahir.

To arrive at the correct answer, think like a strategist. The session was originally scheduled for Nagpur, a stronghold of Bal Gangadhar Tilak. To prevent Tilak from presiding over the session, the Moderates tactically shifted the venue to Surat. This was significant because, according to Congress convention at the time, a leader from the home province could not preside over a session held there—effectively disqualifying Tilak from the presidency in his own Bombay Presidency. When the Moderates insisted on Rashbehari Ghosh as the president over the Extremists' preference, the friction turned into a physical clash. Thus, the Surat session of 1907 became the historic site of the formal schism known as the Surat Split.

UPSC often uses relevant but distinct sessions as traps. Calcutta (1906) is the most common distractor because that is where the conflict nearly began, but was avoided when Dadabhai Naoroji was brought in as a compromise president. Nagpur is another trap; while it was the intended venue, the meeting never actually took place there in 1907. Allahabad is irrelevant to this specific event. By focusing on the tactical shift in geography and the dispute over the President's chair, you can clearly identify (C) Surat as the correct answer.