Consider the following statements : 1. Annie Besant was the first woman President of the Indian National Congress. 2. The historic Lucknow session of the Congress in 1916 was presided by Madan Mohan Malviya. 3. Mahatma Gandhi presided over the annual session of Congress only once at Belgaum in 192 4. Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?

1. Birth and Early Phase of the Congress (1885–1905) (basic)

The birth of the Indian National Congress (INC) in December 1885 was not a sudden accident but the culmination of a growing political consciousness in India. While there were several regional associations earlier, the need for an all-India body became urgent by the late 1870s. The final shape was given by A.O. Hume, a retired English civil servant, who organized the first session at Gokuldas Tejpal Sanskrit College in Bombay. Interestingly, the organization was initially called the 'Indian National Union' before being renamed the Indian National Congress Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, p.247.

Historians often debate why the British allowed such a body to form. This has led to three major theories regarding its foundation:

Theory	Proponent	Core Idea
Safety Valve Theory	Lala Lajpat Rai	Hume founded the INC to provide a "safe" outlet for Indian discontent, preventing another violent revolt like 1857 Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, p.256.
Conspiracy Theory	R.P. Dutt	The INC was a secret plan by the British elite to keep the burgeoning national movement under control.
Lightning Conductor Theory	G.K. Gokhale	Indian leaders used Hume as a "lightning conductor" — using his British identity to protect the movement from early suppression by the colonial government Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, p.256.

The early phase (1885–1905) is known as the Moderate Phase. Leaders like Dadabhai Naoroji, Pherozeshah Mehta, and Surendranath Banerjea dominated this era. Their approach was characterized by constitutional agitation — using prayers, petitions, and public meetings to seek reforms rather than direct confrontation. Their primary demands included the expansion of legislative councils and greater Indian participation in the administration Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, p.251.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India, Indian National Congress: Foundation and the Moderate Phase, p.247; A Brief History of Modern India, Indian National Congress: Foundation and the Moderate Phase, p.251; A Brief History of Modern India, Indian National Congress: Foundation and the Moderate Phase, p.256

2. The Ideological Rift: Moderates vs. Extremists (intermediate)

To understand the Indian National Congress, we must look at the ideological tug-of-war that nearly tore it apart in its early years. For the first two decades, the Congress was dominated by the Moderates—leaders like Pherozeshah Mehta and Gopal Krishna Gokhale who believed in constitutional methods, prayers, and petitions. They had a deep-seated faith in the British sense of justice and saw the British connection as beneficial for India’s development Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909), p.271. However, by the early 1900s, a younger, more radical group known as the Extremists (or Militant Nationalists), led by the famous trio Lal-Bal-Pal (Lala Lajpat Rai, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, and Bipin Chandra Pal), began to challenge this 'mendicant' approach.

The differences weren't just about tactics; they were deeply structural and ideological, as shown in the comparison below:

Feature	Moderates	Extremists
Social Base	Zamindars and upper-middle class in towns.	Educated middle and lower-middle classes.
Ideology	Inspired by Western liberal thought.	Inspired by Indian history and traditional symbols.
Method	Constitutional agitation (3Ps: Prayer, Petition, Protest).	Extra-constitutional methods like Boycott and Swadeshi.
Goal	Self-government within the British Empire.	Swaraj (Complete Independence/Self-rule).

This tension reached a breaking point during the Surat Split of 1907. While a split was narrowly avoided in the 1906 Calcutta session by electing the respected Dadabhai Naoroji as President, the venue for 1907 was strategically shifted from Poona (an Extremist stronghold) to Surat to weaken the radical faction History, class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Rise of Extremism and Swadeshi Movement, p.22. The British government masterfully exploited this rift using a three-pronged strategy: Repression of Extremists to scare Moderates, Conciliation of Moderates with minor reforms to isolate the radicals, and finally, the total Suppression of the Extremists once they were left without the Congress umbrella Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909), p.276.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India, Era of Militant Nationalism (1905-1909), p.271, 272, 276; History, class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Rise of Extremism and Swadeshi Movement, p.22

3. The Lucknow Pact and Political Re-unification (exam-level)

The 1916 Lucknow Session of the Indian National Congress stands as a landmark in the freedom struggle, primarily for two reasons: the re-unification of the Congress factions and the Lucknow Pact with the Muslim League. After the disastrous 1907 Surat Split, the Congress had lost much of its political momentum. However, by 1915, the political landscape shifted. The death of moderate leaders like Gokhale and Pherozeshah Mehta, combined with the rising influence of Annie Besant and Bal Gangadhar Tilak through their Home Rule Leagues, created an environment ripe for reconciliation. In fact, it was the 1915 Bombay session that first amended the Congress constitution to allow the re-entry of the 'Extremists' History, class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Impact of World War I on Indian Freedom Movement, p.33.

The 1916 session was presided over by Ambica Charan Mazumdar, who poignantly remarked that 'brothers have at last met brothers' after a decade of separation History, class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Impact of World War I on Indian Freedom Movement, p.35. This internal unity was immediately followed by an external alliance known as the Lucknow Pact. Under this agreement, the Congress and the Muslim League presented a joint set of political demands to the British government. A pivotal role was played by Mohammed Ali Jinnah (then a member of both organizations) and Tilak to bridge the gap between the two parties Modern India, Bipin Chandra, Nationalist Movement 1905—1918, p.259.

In a significant, albeit controversial, move to ensure unity, the Congress accepted the principle of separate electorates for Muslims. In return, both organizations jointly demanded self-government for India at an early date and urged the British to make a formal declaration to this effect. This newfound unity was so potent that it forced the British government to change its 'carrot and stick' policy, eventually leading to the Montagu Declaration of 1917 Modern India, Bipin Chandra, Nationalist Movement 1905—1918, p.259.

Sources: History, class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Impact of World War I on Indian Freedom Movement, p.33, 35; Modern India, Bipin Chandra (NCERT 1982 ed.), Nationalist Movement 1905—1918, p.259

4. Madan Mohan Malviya and Parallel Nationalist Streams (intermediate)

Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya, often called 'Mahamana,' represents a unique bridge in Indian nationalism. While he was a staunch member of the Indian National Congress from its early years Bipin Chandra, Modern India, p.209, he also pioneered a parallel stream of nationalist politics that sought to protect and promote Hindu cultural identity. Unlike many of his contemporaries who viewed secularism and religious identity as mutually exclusive, Malaviya believed that a strong, educated Hindu community was essential for a strong Indian nation. This led him to preside over the Congress sessions in 1909 (Lahore) and 1918 (Delhi), even as he navigated the rising communal complexities of the era.

Malaviya’s most enduring legacy lies at the intersection of education and nation-building. In 1916, he founded the Benaras Hindu University (BHU), a project that aimed to combine modern scientific education with Indian cultural values Spectrum, A Brief History of Modern India, p.569. This period (1916–1921) was a fertile ground for educational expansion, seeing the rise of other institutions like the Indian Women's University and Lady Hardinge Medical College Spectrum, Socio-Religious Reform Movements, p.197. For Malaviya, education was the primary tool to uplift the masses and prepare them for self-rule.

However, as the national movement progressed, the 'parallel stream' Malaviya led sometimes created friction within the Congress. In 1915, he established the Hindu Mahasabha to provide a dedicated political platform for Hindu interests Spectrum, A Brief History of Modern India, p.820. This dual identity—being both a Congress leader and a Mahasabha founder—occasionally led to electoral and ideological clashes with other Congress factions. For instance, in the 1923 municipal elections in Allahabad, Malaviya’s faction found itself in direct competition with the faction led by Motilal Nehru, illustrating how internal diversities and religious passions began to influence nationalist politics at the grassroots level Tamilnadu State Board, History Class XII, p.77.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), After Nehru..., p.820; Modern India (Bipin Chandra), Growth of New India—The Nationalist Movement 1858—1905, p.209; History Class XII (Tamilnadu State Board), Communalism in Nationalist Politics, p.77; A Brief History of Modern India (Spectrum), Development of Education, p.569

5. Women's Leadership in the National Movement (exam-level)

For much of the 19th century, women’s involvement in the national struggle was largely confined to supportive roles or social reform within the domestic sphere. However, the early 20th century marked a radical shift as women transitioned from the 'home-centered' life to the frontlines of political agitation. This transformation was significantly catalyzed by the Home Rule Movement and the arrival of Annie Besant, an Irish theosophist who became a towering figure in Indian politics. Her election as the first woman President of the Indian National Congress at the 1917 Calcutta session was a watershed moment, signaling that women were no longer just participants, but leaders capable of steering the national discourse History, class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Impact of World War I on Indian Freedom Movement, p.34. Following Besant’s lead, the indigenous leadership of women found its voice in Sarojini Naidu, known as the 'Nightingale of India.' Naidu broke further barriers by becoming the first Indian woman to preside over a Congress session at Kanpur in 1925 Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.), Socio-Religious Reform Movements: General Features, p.198. These leadership roles were not merely symbolic; they reflected a broader grassroots mobilization. After 1918, women’s participation became more militant and widespread. They faced lathis, bullets, and imprisonment while picketing liquor shops and foreign cloth stores, and they actively joined trade unions and revolutionary groups. This evolution in leadership eventually translated into institutional power. By the late 1920s and 30s, women were not only voting but also standing for and winning elections to legislatures and local bodies. This trajectory of empowerment, which began with the struggle for Swaraj, eventually culminated in women holding the highest offices in independent India, including the Presidency and the Prime Ministership Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.), After Nehru..., p.762.

Sources: History, class XII (Tamilnadu state board 2024 ed.), Impact of World War I on Indian Freedom Movement, p.34; Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.), Socio-Religious Reform Movements: General Features, p.198; Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India (2019 ed.), After Nehru..., p.762

6. Mahatma Gandhi's Structural Reforms in the INC (intermediate)

To understand Mahatma Gandhi’s impact on the Indian National Congress (INC), we must look beyond his philosophy of Ahimsa and examine how he re-engineered the party's very DNA. Before 1920, the Congress was largely an elitist 'debating society' that met once a year. Gandhi realized that to challenge the British Empire, the Congress needed to become a mass-based, disciplined, and year-round political machine. The structural overhaul began in earnest at the Nagpur Session of 1920, where the party’s goal (creed) was shifted from 'self-government through constitutional means' to 'the attainment of Swaraj through peaceful and legitimate means' Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Non-Cooperation Movement and Khilafat Aandolan, p.332.

Gandhi introduced a hierarchical structure that reached from the national level down to the smallest village. The most significant innovation was the creation of the Congress Working Committee (CWC)—a 15-member executive body that acted as the party's 'cabinet,' making decisions throughout the year rather than just during annual sessions. Furthermore, he reorganized the Provincial Congress Committees (PCCs) on a linguistic basis. This was a masterstroke; by using local languages instead of English, the Congress could finally communicate with and mobilize the rural masses Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Non-Cooperation Movement and Khilafat Aandolan, p.332.

Feature	Pre-Gandhian Congress	Gandhian Congress (Post-1920)
Membership	Middle-class, urban elites	Mass-based (Peasants, workers, artisans)
Organization	Loose annual gatherings	Structured hierarchy (CWC, PCCs, Ward Committees)
Language	Primarily English	Regional/Vernacular languages
Methods	Petitions and constitutional prayers	Extra-constitutional mass struggle (Satyagraha)

Beyond administration, Gandhi used his only term as President at the Belgaum Session in 1924 to cement the 'Constructive Programme' as a core party activity Rajiv Ahir, A Brief History of Modern India, Emergence of Swarajists, Socialist Ideas..., p.342. This turned the INC into a social reform organization focused on Khadi (spinning wheel), the removal of untouchability, and Hindu-Muslim unity. This period saw the rise of a new tier of leadership—figures like Vallabhbhai Patel, Jawaharlal Nehru, and C. Rajagopalachari—who bridged the gap between Gandhi's vision and regional implementation THEMES IN INDIAN HISTORY PART III, MAHATMA GANDHI AND THE NATIONALIST MOVEMENT, p.294.

Sources: A Brief History of Modern India, Non-Cooperation Movement and Khilafat Aandolan, p.332; A Brief History of Modern India, Emergence of Swarajists, Socialist Ideas, Revolutionary Activities and Other New Forces, p.342; THEMES IN INDIAN HISTORY PART III, MAHATMA GANDHI AND THE NATIONALIST MOVEMENT, p.294

7. Solving the Original PYQ (exam-level)

This question acts as a bridge between your conceptual understanding of the Indian National Congress (INC) and the factual precision required for the Preliminary exam. You have recently mastered the timelines of the Home Rule Movement and the reunion of the Congress; here, those building blocks are tested through the lens of institutional leadership. To solve this, you must synthesize three distinct historical markers: the emergence of female leadership, the specific presidency during the reunion of the Congress wings, and the singular instance of Mahatma Gandhi's executive role within the party.

Walking through the logic, Statement 1 is a foundational fact—Annie Besant was elected the first woman President at the 1917 Calcutta session following her immense popularity during the Home Rule movement. Statement 3 is another "high-yield" fact frequently targeted by UPSC: Mahatma Gandhi presided over the Congress only once, during the 1924 Belgaum session, which focused on the Constructive Programme and social reforms. By confirming these two, you are already halfway to the answer. The trap lies in Statement 2. While the 1916 session was indeed "historic" for the Lucknow Pact and the Moderate-Extremist reunion, the president was Ambica Charan Mazumdar, not Madan Mohan Malviya. The examiner uses Malviya as a distractor because he was a prominent leader of that era (presiding in 1909 and 1918), testing if your knowledge of the Lucknow session is precise or merely superficial.

By identifying Statement 2 as incorrect, you can immediately eliminate options (A) and (B). Since both 1 and 3 are verified as correct, you arrive at Option (C). This exercise reinforces the importance of the 'Who-When-Where' matrix in your revision. For a comprehensive list of these landmark sessions, you should cross-reference A Brief History of Modern India by Rajiv Ahir (Spectrum) and India's Struggle for Independence by Bipan Chandra.