A Brief History of Congress Party

Image Courtesy: http://www.udaykumar.info/uday.htm

Allan Octavian Hume, a Scottish civil servant in British India, was very outspoken and never feared to criticize the government, which he was serving. He had many ideas for reformation; and he desperately wished to implement government-policies that make life of the native people better. [It is important to note that during the freedom struggle of 1857, Hume was saved & protected by his loyal Indian officials.] He had openly criticized several policies of the government, including a strong protest of ‘land revenue policy’. His superiors were irritated and attempted to restrict his powers and this led him to publish a book on Agricultural Reform in India in 1879. He repeatedly noticed that the interest of the native people was not of concern to the British-government, and this frustrated him. In 1883 he wrote an open letter to the graduates of Calcutta University, calling upon them to form their own national political movement to secure the rights of the India people. As a result, some like-minded British-officers and educated Indians, all members of Theosophical Society, formed the Indian National Congress party to represent the voice of all of the Indians. Gradually, this party gained popularity among educated Indians and Dadabhai Navrogi became the first Indian Member of Parliament in the British House of Commons. By the end of the 19^th century, Congress had prominent leaders like – Gopal Krishna Gokhle, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal, Lala Lajpat Rai, Mohammed Ali Jinnah etc.

            However, the ideological and methodological differences among the party members were clear in early 20^th century. By 1907 the party was split into two halves—the Garam Dal (literally "hot faction") of Bal Gangadhar Tilak, and the Naram Dal (literally "soft faction") of Gopal Krishna Gokhale. Tilak was a hard-liner and was openly opposing the British-government. Whereas Gokhle was a moderate; and he believed that things can be worked out by working closely with the government. Naturally, the British preferred Gokhle’s methods and were valuing his voice. However, under the influence of Tilak, the Congress became the first integrated mass organization in the country, bringing together urban people against the British. And later on, when Mahatma Gandhi returned to India, he expanded the reach of the Congress to the villages of India, making it representative of all Indians in a true sense.

The Indian National Congress was the only political party to provide harmony to all the sects of the Indian society without appeasing to any in the pre-independence era. The masses of India blindly believed anything and everything that the Congress said. Ordinary villagers would travel to cities to listen to some ‘UK-return’ Congress-men giving speeches in English, maybe because they could read their eyes and listen to their hearts. When the Congress-men said that violence was not the way to fight against the Brits, the people restrained their cumulative anger of many decades and created nation-wide non-violent mass movements. They fasted for days, peacefully protested and got arrested, suffered ‘lathi-charge’ and torture without showing a hint of aggression, only because some Congress-men had asked for that. When the Congress-men asked for boycotting the imperialists, thousands of people left government jobs; students left government colleges; and the masses completely boycotted foreign goods and happily celebrated the burning of their foreign-made clothes. They had appointed those few Congress-men as architects of their lives and their future. Some say the people of India were very lucky to have great Congress-leaders at that time, but I truly believe that all those Congress-leaders were equally lucky, if not more, to have millions of Indians behind them with complete faith. Undoubtedly, in those times, Congress party must have been having the world's largest public mandate. 

The moral of the story:

• For the current member of the Congress-party: Your party neither was created nor gained the national acceptance by the “Feroze Jahangir Gandhi” family. Please have some respect for the legacy of your party. The party, which was one of the biggest unifying factors of India, has turned into a political-dynasty today. How long will you use (misuse) “Gandhi” last name? 

In fact, the actual surname in Parsis is "GHANDHY", so it should be Indira Feroze Ghandhy, Rajiv Ghandhy, Sonia Ghandhy, Rahul Ghandhy and so on. Are they ashamed of Feroze Ghandhy's Parsi descent? Why do all these "secular" people spell like Hindu-sounding last name "Gandhi"? 

Reference: Arun Gandhi, grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, responding to a question on Indira Ghandhy: 

• For all Politicians: People were/are/will be willingly following you devotedly if you demonstrate a combination of “competence and character”.
• For common citizens: Let’s get more involved with the political-world. Let’s make sure the candidate with “competence and character” wins every-time and everywhere. Let’s create an environment where all “dumb and/or characterless” politicians find themselves as “misfits” and are forced to change profession.    

If you're interested in Indian Politics, you may like to read: Understanding the present dysfunction  and Solution through ideology of value-based centrist pragmatism

·    NOTE: I am not a BJP (or any other party) activist. Read my other articles, which clearly criticizes religious politics. I consider myself politically a pragmatic-centrist; and vote for a candidate who seem to be doing a better job at Human Development Index and Knowledge Economy Index.

I welcome your comments....