Surat Congress

(Sri Aurobindo in third person:) “It was known that the Moderate leaders had prepared a new constitution for the Congress which would make it practically impossible for the extreme party to command a majority at any annual session for many years to come. The younger Nationalists, especially those from Maharashtra, were determined to prevent this by any means and it was decided by them to break the Congress if they could not swamp it; this decision was unknown to Tilak and the older leaders but it was known to Sri Aurobindo. At the sessions Tilak went on to the platform to propose a resolution regarding the presidentship of the Congress; the president appointed by the Moderates refused to him the permission to speak but Tilak insisted on his right and began to read his resolution and speak. There was a tremendous uproar, the young Gujerati volunteers lifted up chairs over the head of Tilak to beat him. At that the Mahrattas became furious, a Mahratta shoe came hurtling across the pavilion aimed at the President Dr. Rash Behari Ghose and hit Surendra Nath Banerji on the shoulder. The young Mahrattas in a body charged up to the platform, the Moderate leaders fled and after a short fight on the platform with chairs the session broke up not to be resumed. The Moderate leaders decided to suspend the Congress and replace it by a national conference with a constitution and arrangement which would make it safe for their party. Meanwhile Lajpatrai came to Tilak and informed him that the Government had decided, if the Congress split, to crush the Extremists by the most ruthless repression. Tilak thought, and the event proved that he was right, that the country was not yet ready to face successfully such a repression and he proposed to circumvent both the Moderate plan and the Government plan by the Nationalists joining the conference and signing the statement of adhesion to the new constitution demanded by the Moderates. Sri Aurobindo and some other leaders were opposed to this submission; they did not believe that the Moderates would admit any Nationalists to their conference (and this proved to be the case) and they wanted the country to be asked to face the repression. Thus the Congress ceased for a time to exist”

From Sri Aurobindo's speech “The Aims of the Nationalist Party” at Nagpur, 30 January 1908:
“The motives and hopes with which we went to Surat were unfortunately not realised. But we are helpless in the matter. Several partisan papers have already begun to pass remarks such as “The Nationalist party assembled at Surat solely with the purpose of breaking up the Congress”, “It did not want the Congress”, and “It had a premeditated intention of wrecking it.” But I ask you, What advantage would the Nationalist party derive from destroying the Congress? The Nationalist party wanted the Congress; we required it for the purpose of disseminating our nationalist views. What would we gain by breaking it up?
         Several letters have appeared about the Congress from many leaders of the old party. One of them has remarked that the Bengal Nationalists received from their headquarters a wire to the following effect: “Break up the Congress if everything else fails.” We were greatly surprised to hear that such a telegram had been received. Nationalism has no headquarters in any one town. It is neither at Calcutta nor at Poona; it is spread all over the nation. The whole nation is the seat of Nationalism. Since this is so, we have to ask the Moderates what is meant by the expression “headquarters at Calcutta”. Who sent that wire? The leaders of the Nationalist party in Bengal — our leaders — are the very headquarters of Nationalism. From this standpoint, which of our headquarters had been left behind? If we regard the leaders as the headquarters, one of them is at Buxar at present and the other was at Surat! No such telegram was received by the Nationalist party. The above statement is entirely false. The Nationalist party did not want to wreck the Congress and it never did. I do not blame anyone. But I ask, What were we to gain by wrecking the Congress? It was not the case that Government would have been displeased if we severed our connection with the other party by wrecking the Congress. Where did we get the desire to rally round the British flag by cutting off our connection with the other party? If we consider the three issues raised in the debate of this year’s Congress, it will be possible to decide who was responsible for the wrecking of the Congress.”

“Was it not a fact that in the resolution of this year’s constitution they were going to fasten on the Nationalist party a ‘final goal’ which was unacceptable to it? It is a mockery of the opinions of the Nationalists to make them sign a paper containing false principles of Nationalism which are not acceptable to them. Who has the right to thrust his own idea of the ‘final goal’ upon others and, if they do not consent, to drive them out of the meeting? Mr. Gokhale knew that one particular party did not accept as the final goal partial Swarajya and slow reform. Still, in the draft he had prepared of the constitution, he tried to thrust the final goal of one particular party upon another and to drive out the latter from the Congress. The meaning of the new rule made by Mr. Gokhale was “Accept a certain final goal, otherwise you have no place in the Congress and out you go.” I ask those who say that our intention was to wreck the Congress, Is it not necessary to include people of different views in the National Congress?”

(Sri Aurobindo:) “The first obstacle to our evolution is the internal dispute which has for the moment wrecked the Congress and left in its place the hollow and mutilated simulacrum of a National Assembly which met last year at Madras and, deprived though it is of the support of the most eminent local leaders, purposes to meet again at Lahore. It is a grievous error to suppose that this dispute hung only on personal questions and differences of a trifling importance. As happens inevitably in such popular contests, personal questions and differences of minor importance intervened to perplex and embitter the strife, but the real questions in debate were those which involved the whole future development of the spirit and form of self-government in this country. Were that spirit and form to be democratic or oligarchic? Were they to be constitutional in procedure or governed by arbitrary and individual choice and discretion? Was the movement to be progressive and national or conservative and parochial in its aims, policy and spirit? These were the real issues. The Nationalist party stood for democracy, constitutionalism and progress. The Moderate party, governed by an exaggerated respect for old and esteemed leaders, helped, without clearly understanding what they did, those who stood for oligarchy, arbitrary procedure and an almost reactionary conservatism. Personal idiosyncracies, preferences, aversions settled like a thick cloud over the contest, the combatants on both sides flung themselves on every point of difference material or immaterial as a pretext or a weapon, the tactics of party warfare were freely used and, finally, the deliberate obstinacy of a few Moderate leaders in avoiding discussion of the points of difference and the unruly ardour of the younger men on both sides led to the violent scenes at Surat and the break-up of the Congress. If the question is ever to be settled to the advantage of national progress, the personal and minor differences must be banished from the field and the real issues plainly and dispassionately considered.”

---

• 
• 

See also

• 1907
• Bal Gangadhar Tilak
• Independence of India