The moderates' reliance on constitutional methods proved largely ineffective in achieving substantial reforms in the context of British colonial policies during the discussed period. Although they aimed for gradual reforms through cooperation, the British used token gestures, like Council Reforms, as tools to divide and rule by appeasing moderates while isolating extremists . The moderates' strategy failed to bring significant administrative power or autonomy and became a source of frustration for the broader nationalist movement, which sought more direct actions against colonial rule . Their approach, seen by many as too conciliatory and ineffectual, ultimately weakened popular support and left them without substantial leverage against the British . This ineffectiveness contributed to the decline of the national movement’s momentum until a more unified and assertive strategy re-emerged later with figures like Tilak .

The Surat Split resulted in the Indian National Congress becoming dominated by moderates who adhered strictly to constitutional methods of protest within the framework of the British Empire . This shift led the Congress to retreat from the earlier radicalism advocated by extremists, focusing instead on securing gradual reforms from within the legal structure provided by the colonial administration. Consequently, the momentum for direct action and aggressive resistance waned, reducing the Congress’s appeal to younger and more radical supporters who increasingly turned to revolutionary terrorism as an alternative . This strategic shift caused the national movement to stagnate until figures like Tilak revitalized it following his release in 1914 .

Both moderates and extremists made strategic miscalculations that affected the independence struggle. Moderates mistakenly believed that distancing from extremists would lead to significant political concessions from the British, not realizing that the Council Reforms were intended to isolate extremists rather than reward moderates . They underestimated the benefits of presenting a united front against British imperialism and over-relied on constitutional means which failed to galvanize popular support . Extremists, on the other hand, misjudged their strength and the readiness of the people for sustained mass resistance, neglecting the potential moderates had as allies against state repression. Their inability to form a viable alternative movement after the split further limited their influence . Both sides failed to see that a broad-based nationalist unity was crucial in a vast country like India against a powerful colonial regime .

The perceived opportunities for Indian administrative participation significantly shaped the moderates' approach within the Indian National Congress. Moderates believed that partial reforms like the Council Reforms could be stepping stones towards greater Indian involvement in governance, providing a pathway to realize their goal of self-government within the British Empire . This belief led them to prioritize engagement with the colonial administration through constitutional methods, hoping to demonstrate political maturity and win incremental concessions . Their strategy was based on the assumption that peaceful cooperation and distancing from extremist actions would secure British favor and facilitate a gradual transition to more substantial political participation for Indians . This approach, however, was repeatedly undermined by the colonial government's manipulation of reform promises to divide and control nationalist factions .

The British legislative measures introduced between 1907 and 1911 were effective in controlling nationalist unrest to a significant extent. The seditious meetings, press, and criminal acts targeted the methods of dissemination and organization used by nationalists, especially the extremists, limiting their ability to mobilize popular support . By arresting key figures like Tilak and forcing other leaders out of active politics, the British government effectively decapitated the extremist leadership, diminishing their capacity to sustain momentum . These actions demonstrated a tactical approach aimed at curbing dissent while further isolating extremists from moderates through the promise of reforms, thereby meeting the government's short-term objective of suppressing anti-imperial activities .

Revolutionary terrorism emerged as a by-product of militant nationalism and was an expression of dissatisfaction with the leadership's inability to sustain a vigorous struggle . It provided an outlet for young nationalists seeking active engagement in the independence movement after the decline of open mass movements. Extremist leaders called for sacrifices but failed to create effective organizations, leaving many young radicals disillusioned and turning to revolutionary violence . Within the Indian National Congress, extremists were more sympathetic to these measures, aligning with their push for a more immediate departure from British rule, while moderates viewed such actions as dangerous and likely to provoke severe government repression, thereby distancing themselves from supporting revolutionary activities .

The British government's 'carrot and stick' strategy significantly contributed to the divide within the Indian National Congress. This strategy involved moderately repressing extremists to frighten the moderates, offering concessions to pacify the moderates, and hinting at further reforms if they distanced themselves from the extremists . By creating a wedge between the factions within Congress, the government successfully isolated the extremists and gained temporary sympathy from moderates. This division weakened the collective strength of the independence movement, as the moderates lacked popular support and the extremists were unable to form a cohesive alternate party, leading to a decline in nationalist momentum until later revived by leaders like Tilak after 1914 .

The moderates and extremists within the Indian National Congress held differing perspectives on the boycott and Swadeshi movement, which contributed significantly to the Surat Split. The extremists aimed to expand the boycott and Swadeshi movement beyond Bengal to initiate a nationwide mass movement, advocating for passive resistance and total boycott of British institutions such as law courts and legislative councils . In contrast, the moderates were cautious and preferred constitutional methods, fearing that the aggressive stance of the extremists could provoke harsh repression from the British . This ideological clash led to irreconcilable differences, causing the Congress to split at the Surat session in December 1907, with the moderates retaining control and steering clear of extremist policies .

The extremists argued that the 1907 Congress session should be held in Nagpur and wanted leaders like Tilak or Lala Lajpat Rai to preside, aiming to reaffirm resolutions on Swadeshi, boycott, and national education, thus continuing a radical agenda . This choice reflected their desire to maintain momentum for widespread activist engagement. Conversely, the moderates proposed the session be held in Surat to exclude Tilak from being elected president due to geographical rules and sought to elect Ras Behari Ghosh, aiming to drop radical resolutions . This reflected their strategic goal of moderating the Congress's approach and aligning more closely with constitutional methods, leveraging proximity to British ideas of governance to secure gradual reforms .

The ideological differences within the Indian National Congress, especially between moderates and extremists, significantly influenced the formation and actions of revolutionary terrorist groups. The inability of the Congress to sustain a unified, aggressive strategy against British rule post-Surat Split led many young nationalists to seek alternative means of struggle. Extremists, unable to effectively organize or direct the heightened zeal among youth towards structured political action, inadvertently pushed them towards more radical measures, as revolutionary terrorism became a channel for expressing their disillusionment and patriotism . These groups emerged in the wake of dissatisfaction with the Congress's moderation and the perceived ineffectiveness of its strategies post-split, embodying the more militant nationalist trends in their quest for immediate action against colonial authority .