This paper traces the history of the Indian National Congress from its founding in 1885 through India's independence in 1947. It examines the ideological divide between the Moderates, who favored gradual constitutional reform, and the Extremists, who demanded complete self-rule. The paper covers key developments including the 1907 Surat split, Tilak's Home Rule Movement, Gandhi's satyagraha and Non-Cooperation Movement, the Rowlatt Act crisis, the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, and the eventual passage of the Indian Independence Act in 1947. Together, these events chart the transformation of the Congress from a deliberative assembly into a mass revolutionary organization.
The paper demonstrates effective use of secondary source citation to synthesize a complex multi-decade historical narrative. By consistently attributing claims to named sources (Indian National Congress 2004, BBC 2007, Edidin 2006), it models how to build an argument from compiled historical accounts rather than primary evidence alone, an approach appropriate for survey-level history writing.
The paper opens with the Congress's founding and moves through the Moderate era, the Extremist challenge and Surat split, Tilak's Home Rule Movement, Gandhi's entry into mass politics with satyagraha and non-cooperation, and finally the Quit India campaign and 1947 independence. Each section connects to the next through cause-and-effect logic, showing how earlier ideological conflicts directly shaped later political strategies.
The Indian National Congress was probably the oldest and the biggest democratic organization in the world (Indian National Congress, 2004). It was the initiative of Allan Octavian Hume, who shared his vision during the 1884 annual convention of the Theosophical Society at Adyar in Madras. A committee was organized to conduct the necessary preparations for a session in Poona the following year. An outbreak of cholera moved the venue of the first session from Poona to Bombay. It was a gathering of 72 delegates — leaders from all parts of India. The Congress was to promote personal intimacy and friendship among all the earnest workers for the country's cause of independence from the British Empire.
After the 1887 session in Madras, an aggressive propaganda campaign was begun among the masses. Hume published a pamphlet through which he appealed to the people of England. The 1889 Congress session in Bombay was held under the leadership of Sir William Wedderburn as president. He was succeeded by Dadabhai Naoroji as president at the 1893 Congress in Lahore (Indian National Congress, 2004).
The early congressmen who dominated the Congress from 1885 to 1905 were called the Moderates (Indian National Congress, 2004). They were Indian by birth but British in taste, opinion, morals, and intellect. They supported British institutions and believed in the British concept of justice and fair play. They believed that India needed a balanced and lucid presentation of its needs before the British government and Parliament. The Moderates believed in orderly progress, constitutional agitation, patience, steadfastness, conciliation, and union. They held that constitutional agitation should be pursued within the limits of the law. They also perceived their main task as educating the people, arousing national political consciousness, and eliciting a shared political position on public issues.
The Moderates expressed opposition through the media, submitted petitions to the government and the British Parliament, and asserted influence toward British leaders and the British public. Their memorials and petitions aimed at enlightening the British public about the prevailing conditions in India (Indian National Congress, 2004).
The Moderates also wanted to employ Indians on a massive scale in higher offices of the public services and to establish representative institutions. With the intention of unifying the Indian people, they set up a common political program and waged an agitation campaign against those who failed to pay tariff duties on imports and cotton excise. This agitation made the Indian people realize the true goal and motive of British rule in India. In response, they demanded cheap credit to the peasantry through agricultural banks and widely available irrigation facilities. They also urged changes in the working conditions of plantation laborers and in the prevailing pattern of taxation and expenditure — a system that moved the heavy burden from the rich, especially foreigners, to the poor of India.
For their part, the Moderates blamed the growing poverty and economic backwardness of India on the policies of the British government. They also deplored the prevailing administrative measures and tried to reform the administrative system. They strongly opposed government restrictions on freedom of speech and the press. In 1897, Tilak and other leaders were arrested and imprisoned for inciting disenchantment among the people against the government through their speeches and writing. The Natu brothers of Poona were deported without the benefit of due process or trial. The arrest of Tilak ignited the start of a new phase of the nationalist movement (Indian National Congress, 2004).
The influence of the Moderates, however, was limited to the urban community. Knowing this, they could not effectively challenge foreign rule. Their programs and policies fought for the cause of the Indian population and represented their interests against colonial exploitation. Their aim was to reform the prevailing system of government through peaceful, gradual, and constitutional means. Their influence gradually diminished with the entry of militants who believed in more extreme measures and blamed the Moderates for their faith in British political institutions.
At that time, the Moderates attempted to make the provincial legislatures more representative and to increase Indian representation in the civil services, despite knowing the long and slow process involved. At center stage were the unsympathetic position of the bureaucracy and the unpopular policies of the Viceroy, Lord Curzon — specifically his decision on the partition of Bengal. In a growing response to these developments, the youth of India protested against the partition in October 1905 by boycotting British goods.
In 1907, Bipin Pal remarked that Lord Curzon's policy had stirred up enough discontent among Indians to strengthen a national feeling against it. The increasing disillusionment among the extremists led to a policy of boycott, swadeshi, and national education in January 1907. Tilak declared that they expressed opposition without arms and did not need arms to do so. They resorted to swadeshi — a political weapon — by boycotting foreign goods. Tilak, Aurobindo, and Pal asked the people not to cooperate with the government. They theorized that the existence of government depended on the cooperation of the people, and that without that cooperation, the government would cease to function. This concept was eventually implemented by Mahatma Gandhi on a massive scale (Indian National Congress, 2004).
The Moderates wanted to establish self-government under British rule, while the extremists wanted complete autonomy and the elimination of all foreign control. Tilak and his group advocated a policy of direct action and resistance and opposed the political mendicancy pushed by the Moderates. Tilak announced that the need for self-government had arrived during the anti-partition agitation in the first decade of the twentieth century. Another extremist leader, Bipin Pal, saw swaraj as a moral concept of self-determination. The swarajists and other extremists believed that India should rely on her own strength rather than on Britain's goodwill. They felt that any improvement or liberalization of British rule would never benefit Indians as much as self-rule would. The swarajists considered freedom their birthright (Indian National Congress, 2004).
In 1907, the Moderates and the extremists parted ways in Congress. One cause was that the Moderates were losing control of the organization. The younger generation did not find their pace or methods acceptable in leading India toward independence. The split, which occurred in 1907, had its roots in the Calcutta session of the preceding year. At that time, the Moderates had accepted resolutions on swaraj, national education, boycott, and swadeshi under pressure — but were not sincere in accepting them. They feared that a probable national struggle might give the British a pretext to deny the reforms they advocated and to crush all political activity. They did not believe that a sustained and dignified national struggle was either possible or desirable. They viewed the extremists as irresponsible and as placing the future of the country in danger.
The British government threw its support behind the Moderates against the extremists, whom it rebuffed and disfavored. It deported the major leaders of Bengal. The split between the Moderates and the nationalist parties at the Surat Congress wreaked havoc not only in Maharashtra but across all of India. An open and violent fight broke out among delegates to the point that the Indian National Congress name had to be temporarily replaced by a Convention. The National Congress held elections without ceremony, imposed no conditions of membership, and required no fixed numerical representation from any province. Tilak and his companions were removed from the Convention when they refused to sign a creed of political faith. The Convention and the Extremists' Nationalist Party convened in two separate venues at Surat. Despite the split, both parties swore allegiance to the Congress, which they considered the true national assembly for India. Both hoped for the restoration of a united Congress (Indian National Congress, 2004).
The British government viewed the split as an opportunity to enforce a policy of constitutional agitation. After Tilak's conviction, the extremists went almost completely underground. From 1908 to 1912, the Nationalist Party could not agree on how to rejoin Congress. It called for a meeting of an opposition Congress at Nagpur, which the British government banned. There was inherent discord within the extremists' party itself over starting this rival Congress — some members feared it would make the split permanent and render the party ineffective. Some extremist members tried to negotiate with Moderate leaders for the re-entry of the Nationalist Party without the restriction of a creed and under the old policy of free election of delegates. But other negotiators wanted Tilak to return from Mandalay first.
On his return, Tilak expressed opposition to the idea of a rival Congress. It was also discovered that the Moderates lacked sufficient representation in Congress. Though the Moderates were aware of Tilak's loyalty to the Congress, they did not appreciate it and thoroughly resisted his entry and that of his associates. Tilak then cooperated with Annie Besant in forming two home rule leagues — one in Maharashtra and the other in Madras. Their Lucknow Congress in 1916 healed the division. Both sides wanted to restore the old and honorable conditions of Congress, and after agreeing on membership terms, the Moderates accepted the extremists back. The Lucknow Congress honored Tilak as the foremost political hero of the era. The Moderates could have offered Tilak the presidency of the Congress, but Tilak was known for his pledge of self-denial. He withdrew his name at the 1907 Nagpur Congress and suggested it be replaced by that of Lala Lajpat Rai. From 1916 to 1917, Tilak was the most prominent figure at the annual Congress and the special session in Bombay. On the eve of his departure for England, he was elected president of the Congress but was unable to serve in the office due to his involvement in the Chirol case. He resigned from the position but retained the presidency of the Tilak Home Rule League. Another notable record was Mahatma Gandhi's collection of rupees for the Tilak Swaraj Fund, which was reportedly spent on activities not approved by Tilak, such as non-cooperation and ahimsa as a political weapon (Indian National Congress, 2004).
You’re 51% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.