Four resolutions were passed at the famous Calcutta session of Indian National Congress in 1906. The of either retention OR of rejection of these four resolutions became the cause of a split in congress at the next Congress session held in Surat in 1907. Which one of the following was not one of those resolutions?

1. Partition of Bengal (1905) and its Aftermath (basic)

The Partition of Bengal in 1905 was a watershed moment that transformed the Indian National Congress from a platform of petitions into a mass movement. While the British government, led by Lord Curzon, officially claimed the province (with 78 million people) was too large to administer effectively, the underlying motive was political. By splitting Bengal, the British aimed to weaken the 'nerve center' of Indian nationalism and create a communal divide between the Hindu-majority West and the Muslim-majority East Bipin Chandra, Modern India, Chapter 14, p.240. This 'Divide and Rule' strategy was thinly veiled behind the Risley Papers, which argued for the relief of Bengal and the development of Assam Tamilnadu State Board, History Class XII, p.18. In response, the nationalist movement entered a militant phase. At the Calcutta Session of 1906, presided over by Dadabhai Naoroji, the Congress adopted a radical four-point program to channel the public's anger. These four resolutions were: Swadeshi (using Indian goods), Boycott (rejecting British goods), National Education, and Swaraj (self-government) Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 12, p.273. Interestingly, while the entire movement was a reaction to the partition, the 'Annulment of Partition' was the goal, but it was not listed as one of these four specific operational resolutions.

Reasoning	Official British Version	Nationalist Interpretation
Administrative	Bengal is too large to govern (quarter of India's population).	A move to divide the Bengali-speaking population into minorities in their own provinces.
Communal	To help the development of the backward regions of Assam/East Bengal.	A 'Divide and Rule' tactic to foster a rift between Hindus and Muslims.

These resolutions eventually became the flashpoint for the internal struggle within the Congress. The Moderates wanted to limit the Boycott and Swadeshi movement strictly to Bengal, while the Extremists (led by Tilak, Pal, and Aurobindo Ghose) wanted to expand it into a full-scale mass struggle across India Bipin Chandra, Modern India, Chapter 14, p.243. This tension between the two factions over the implementation of the 1906 resolutions set the stage for the famous Surat Split of 1907.

Sources: Modern India (Bipin Chandra), Nationalist Movement 1905—1918, p.240-243; A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909), p.273-274; History (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Rise of Extremism and Swadeshi Movement, p.18

2. Moderates vs. Extremists: Ideological Divergence (basic)

To understand the evolution of the Indian National Congress (INC), we must look at the two distinct souls that dwelled within it during the early 20th century: the Moderates and the Extremists (or Militant Nationalists). While both groups were united by their love for India and their awareness of the economic drain caused by British rule, they were worlds apart in their philosophy, social base, and methods of action.

The Moderates, who led the Congress from its birth in 1885 until 1905, were largely drawn from the upper-middle-class intelligentsia—lawyers, doctors, and journalists. They were deeply influenced by Western liberal thought and believed that the British connection was actually in India's long-term interest, often describing it as a "providential mission" Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 12, p.271. Their method was Constitutional Agitation: a patient cycle of petitions, speeches, and resolutions designed to persuade the British to grant reforms. They feared that involving the masses too early would lead to chaos, as they believed the common people were not yet politically ready.

In contrast, the Extremists (led by the famous Lal-Bal-Pal trio: Lala Lajpat Rai, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, and Bipin Chandra Pal) felt a deep resentment toward this "mendicant policy" of begging for rights History Class XII (Tamilnadu State Board), Rise of Extremism and Swadeshi Movement, p.16. They drew inspiration from Indian history and heritage rather than Western philosophy. For them, the goal was Swaraj (Self-rule), and the method was Passive Resistance—using tools like the boycott of foreign goods and the promotion of national education to force the British hand. They had immense faith in the strength of the masses and sought to transform the movement from a middle-class debate into a popular crusade.

Feature	Moderates	Extremists
Inspiration	Western Liberalism & European History	Indian Heritage & Traditional Symbols
Social Base	Zamindars & Upper Middle Class	Educated Middle & Lower Middle Class
Method	Prayers, Petitions, & Protests	Boycott, Swadeshi, & Mass Action
View of British	Believed in British sense of justice	Believed British rule was inherently exploitative

The tension between these two ideologies reached a boiling point during the 1906 Calcutta Session. Under the presidency of Dadabhai Naoroji, the Congress adopted four major resolutions: Swadeshi, Boycott, National Education, and Swaraj Modern India (Bipin Chandra), Chapter 14, p.247. While this temporarily papered over the cracks, the disagreement over how to implement these resolutions—and whether they should apply to the whole of India or just Bengal—eventually led to the historic Surat Split in 1907.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India (Rajiv Ahir), Chapter 12: Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909), p.271; History Class XII (Tamilnadu State Board 2024 ed.), Rise of Extremism and Swadeshi Movement, p.16; Modern India (Bipin Chandra, Old NCERT), Chapter 14: Nationalist Movement 1905—1918, p.247

3. Techniques of the Swadeshi and Boycott Movement (intermediate)

The Swadeshi and Boycott Movement (1905–1911) was a watershed moment that transformed the Indian National Congress from a middle-class pressure group into a more assertive political force. At its heart, the movement was not just about rejecting foreign goods; it was about building indigenous strength. The movement reached a formal peak during the 1906 Calcutta Session of the Congress, presided over by Dadabhai Naoroji. Here, four crucial resolutions were adopted: Swadeshi, Boycott, National Education, and Swaraj (self-rule). These pillars became the foundation of 'Extremist' politics and eventually led to the internal friction that caused the Surat Split in 1907 Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 12, p. 273.

The techniques employed were diverse and creative, moving beyond mere petitioning to active Passive Resistance. This included the public burning of foreign cloth, boycotting foreign-made salt and sugar, and even organized social boycotts. For instance, washermen refused to wash foreign clothes, and priests refused to perform rituals for families using foreign products Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 12, p. 265. Crucially, the movement also sparked a communication revolution. Political propaganda shifted from elite English circles to the masses by using regional (Swadeshi) languages, making the struggle more accessible to the common man History Class XII Tamil Nadu State Board, Rise of Extremism and Swadeshi Movement, p. 27.

However, the movement faced significant practical challenges. The 'Constructive Swadeshi' program aimed to establish national educational institutions and indigenous industries to replace British ones. While this boosted Indian textile mills and handlooms, the movement struggled in the long run because Khadi was often more expensive than mass-produced British mill cloth, making it difficult for the poor to sustain the boycott. Additionally, the lack of a sufficient number of alternative Indian institutions made it hard for students and professionals to abandon British schools and courts indefinitely NCERT Class X, Nationalism in India, p. 34.

Technique	Description
Economic Boycott	Refusal to buy foreign goods and public bonfires of imported cloth.
National Education	Setting up Indian-run schools/colleges to bypass British-controlled education.
Social Boycott	Refusal of service by priests, barbers, and washermen to those using foreign goods.
Passive Resistance	Non-cooperation with the government to make administration impossible.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India (Rajiv Ahir), Chapter 12: Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909), p.273; A Brief History of Modern India (Rajiv Ahir), Chapter 12: Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909), p.265; History Class XII (Tamil Nadu State Board), Rise of Extremism and Swadeshi Movement, p.27; Nationalism in India (NCERT Class X), Nationalism in India, p.34

4. Simla Deputation and the Birth of Muslim League (1906) (intermediate)

To understand the trajectory of the Indian National Congress (INC), we must look at the parallel emergence of communal politics, which the British actively encouraged as a 'counterpoise' to the growing nationalist movement. By 1906, as the INC was becoming more assertive with demands for Swaraj, a group of Muslim elites felt the need to protect their community's interests separately. This led to the Simla Deputation on October 1, 1906, where a 35-member delegation of nobles, aristocrats, and legal professionals, led by the Aga Khan, met the Viceroy, Lord Minto History class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Communalism in Nationalist Politics, p.75. Their primary demand was not just for representation, but for Separate Electorates—a system where Muslim candidates would be elected only by Muslim voters—and representation in excess of their numerical strength based on their 'political importance' and contribution to the defense of the Empire Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.), Chapter 12: Era of Militant Nationalism, p.276.

Encouraged by the positive reception from the Viceroy, this same group moved to establish a permanent political platform. In December 1906, during the All India Muslim Education Conference at Dacca, the All India Muslim League (AIML) was formally floated. The initiative was spearheaded by Nawab Salimullah of Dacca, supported by figures like Nawabs Mohsin-ul-Mulk and Waqar-ul-Mulk Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.), Chapter 12: Era of Militant Nationalism, p.276. Initially, the League was an elitist, urbanized organization whose primary objectives were to promote loyalty to the British Government and to ensure that the Muslim intelligentsia remained distanced from the 'subversive' activities of the Congress History class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Communalism in Nationalist Politics, p.76.

While the Congress was striving for a secular, united front against colonial rule, the birth of the League introduced a dualistic track in Indian politics. The British government favored the League to weaken the INC’s claim of representing all Indians. This strategic support helped the League eventually transform from an elitist club into a significant political force that would later demand a separate state in the 1940 Lahore Resolution D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India (26th ed.), The Making of the Constitution, p.20.

Sources: History class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Communalism in Nationalist Politics, p.75, 76, 82; Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum, 2019 ed.), Chapter 12: Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909), p.276; D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India (26th ed.), The Making of the Constitution, p.20

5. The Morley-Minto Reforms (1909) (intermediate)

Following the Surat Split of 1907, the British government sought to stabilize its rule by using a 'Carrot and Stick' policy. While the 'stick' was used to suppress Extremists, the 'carrot' came in the form of the Morley-Minto Reforms (formally known as the Indian Councils Act of 1909). Named after John Morley (Secretary of State) and Lord Minto (Viceroy), these reforms were designed to placate the Moderates and the Muslim elite, thereby driving a wedge between different nationalist groups Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909), p.277.

The Act significantly expanded the size of the Legislative Councils at both the Central and Provincial levels. However, a crucial distinction was maintained regarding their composition. While the Official Majority (government officials) was retained in the Imperial Legislative Council (Central), the Provincial Legislative Councils were allowed to have a Non-official Majority D. D. Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India, THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND, p.4. Furthermore, the deliberative powers of these councils were enhanced; for the first time, members could move resolutions on the Budget and matters of general public interest, though they could not yet vote on the budget as a whole.

Feature	Imperial Legislative Council (Center)	Provincial Legislative Councils
Majority Type	Official Majority retained	Non-official Majority permitted
Election Element	Introduced but indirect	Introduced via local bodies/chambers

The most controversial and long-lasting legacy of the 1909 Act was the introduction of Separate Electorates for Muslims. Under this system, Muslim candidates would be elected only by Muslim voters. This effectively institutionalized communalism in the Indian political fabric, sowing the seeds of separatism that eventually led to the Partition Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909), p.277. Lord Minto is often referred to as the 'Father of Communal Electorate' because of this specific provision.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909), p.277; Introduction to the Constitution of India (D.D. Basu), The Historical Background, p.4; Democratic Politics-II (NCERT Class X), Gender, Religion and Caste, p.37

6. Calcutta Session (1906): The Four Resolutions (exam-level)

The 1906 Calcutta Session of the Indian National Congress stands as a pivotal moment in the freedom struggle, acting as both a bridge and a breaking point between two eras of nationalism. To prevent a direct confrontation between the Moderates (who favored constitutional agitation) and the Extremists or Militants (who advocated for passive resistance), the venerable Dadabhai Naoroji was chosen as a compromise President. Under his leadership, the Congress took a massive leap forward by declaring that the ultimate goal of the Indian people was 'Swaraj' (self-government), similar to the systems in the United Kingdom or its colonies Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909), p.263.

The core legacy of this session lies in the adoption of Four Specific Resolutions. These were designed to give teeth to the anti-partition movement in Bengal and expand the nationalist struggle:

• Swaraj: The formal demand for self-rule.
• Swadeshi: Promoting indigenous industries, such as the Bengal Chemicals Factory, to foster economic self-reliance Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, After Nehru..., p.804.
• Boycott: The rejection of foreign (British) goods to exert economic pressure on the Raj.
• National Education: Establishing educational institutions controlled by Indians to move away from the colonial system.

While these resolutions were passed, they became the primary source of friction between the two factions. The Extremists wanted to extend the Boycott and Swadeshi movements across India and include a boycott of government services, whereas the Moderates wanted to keep these movements localized to Bengal and limited to the boycott of goods. This ideological tug-of-war over the retention and interpretation of these four items ultimately paved the way for the Surat Split in 1907 History Class XII (Tamilnadu State Board), Rise of Extremism and Swadeshi Movement, p.22.

It is a common misconception that the 'Annulment of the Partition of Bengal' was one of these formal resolutions. While the Congress certainly demanded the annulment, the specific 1906 'Calcutta Program' that defined the era's militant nationalism consisted strictly of Swaraj, Swadeshi, Boycott, and National Education.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909), p.263; A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), After Nehru..., p.804; History Class XII (Tamilnadu State Board), Rise of Extremism and Swadeshi Movement, p.22

7. The Surat Split (1907): Causes and Impact (exam-level)

The Surat Split of 1907 was not a sudden accident but the climax of a deepening ideological rift within the Indian National Congress. To understand why the party fractured, we must look back at the 1906 Calcutta Session. At that time, a split was narrowly avoided only because Dadabhai Naoroji, a leader respected by all, was chosen as President. In that session, the Congress passed four historic resolutions: Swadeshi, Boycott, National Education, and Swaraj Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 12, p.273. However, the meaning of 'Swaraj' was left vague, allowing both the Moderates and the Extremists to interpret it in their own way.

By 1907, the friction reached a breaking point. The Extremists (led by Tilak, Lajpat Rai, and Bipin Chandra Pal) wanted to extend the Boycott movement beyond Bengal to the rest of India and transform it into a full-scale Passive Resistance. Conversely, the Moderates (led by Pherozeshah Mehta and Gopal Krishna Gokhale) were wary of radical methods and hoped that upcoming British council reforms would grant India more representation. They feared that the Extremists' militant stance would provoke British repression and jeopardize these reforms Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 12, p.274.

Feature	Moderates	Extremists
Goal	Constitutional reforms/Self-government within the Empire	Swaraj (interpreted as complete autonomy/independence)
Method	Prayers, Petitions, and Constitutional agitation	Boycott, Swadeshi, and Passive Resistance
Scope	Limited to Bengal (for Boycott/Swadeshi)	Pan-India movement

The actual split occurred at the Surat session in December 1907. The Extremists wanted Lala Lajpat Rai to be the President, while the Moderates pushed for Rash Behari Ghosh. Furthermore, the Extremists suspected the Moderates were planning to drop the four resolutions passed at Calcutta. The session ended in chaos—literally with shoes being thrown—and the Congress split into two History, class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), p.22. The impact was disastrous for the national movement: the British government used a 'carrot and stick' policy, rewarding the Moderates with minor reforms (the 'carrot') while brutally suppressing the leaderless Extremists (the 'stick'). Neither side realized that their strength lay in unity Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 12, p.274.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India, Chapter 12: Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909), p.273-274; 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 ideological rift between the Moderates and the Extremists, and this question tests your ability to distinguish between the cause of the movement and its formal program. In the 1906 Calcutta session, the presence of Dadabhai Naoroji acted as a temporary bridge between the two factions. To solve this, you must recall the four-fold program adopted to appease the Extremists: Swadeshi, Boycott, National Education, and Swaraj. As noted in Rajiv Ahir, Spectrum: A Brief History of Modern India, these resolutions were the specific tools of resistance that the Moderates later tried to dilute or drop, eventually triggering the 1907 Surat Split.

When analyzing the options, you can see that (B) Boycott, (C) National Education, and (D) Swadeshi are all methods of protest included in that 1906 program. The correct answer, (A) Annulment of partition of Bengal, was the ultimate objective of the entire Swadeshi movement, but it was not one of the four specific procedural resolutions passed at that session. This is a classic UPSC trap where a historically accurate fact (that the Congress wanted the partition annulled) is placed alongside specific administrative items to test your precision. According to Bipin Chandra, Modern India, the conflict at Surat was specifically over the scope and retention of the methods (like Boycott and National Education), not the general opposition to the partition itself.