Congress is not a party of Indians By 1885, it had become clear to British imperialists and exploiters that the situation would go out of control anytime and it had become imperative to set up an organisation in India with the help of English educated Indians so that they could avert the impending disaster before it was too late. The first initiative was taken by retired British civil servant Allan Octavian Hume. It bears recalling that Hume had worked in Assam as District Collector for years and he knew what was going on beneath the surface. Anxious, alarmed and religiously committed to London as he was, Hume first held discussions with the then Conservative Governor-General and Viceroy of India Lord Dufferin and then Conservative Secretary of State for India and Marquess of Salisbury Lord Randolph Churchill. Hume’s views were appreciated and he was given a freehand to take the required steps. His efforts succeeded in roping in 72 English educated Indians hailing from different parts of the country and the result was the foundation of Indian National Congress in December 1885 at Bombay (now Mumbai). The clear objective was to puncture and defeat the ongoing Indian freedom struggle against the British with the help of some ‘influential’ and ‘moderate’ western educated Indians like WC Bonnerjee, a Christian who believed in “British sense of justice”. Bonnerjee presided over the first session of the Congress. Between 1885 and 1947, the Congress served as a ‘safety-valve’ for the Indian discontent. It was no more than ‘annual forum’ whose deliberations were given what certain leading historians call ‘exaggerated significance’. Indeed, there were leaders in the Congress who were genuinely committed to the cause of the country, but they were just odd faces in the party whose views were never considered. Take, for example, Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Sri Aurobindo Ghose, Bepin Chandra Pal, Lala Lajpat Rai, who represented ‘new Spirit’, and Subhas Chandra Bose and their fate. Those who controlled the Congress organisation did not allow these great leaders to influence the Congress’s policy, which they rightly termed as ‘policy of political mendicancy’ All this should prove that the Congress never ever challenged England. On the contrary, it acted in a manner that always helped the British. Just compare the British social, economic, religious and political policies evolved in England and implemented in India with the policies devised and implemented by the Sonia Congress-led UPA and you would find no fundamental difference between them. In fact, the Congress and the UPA have caused more damage to Indian polity, society and economy as compared to the damage England caused to India between 1600 and 1947. It is no wonder then that Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi terms the Congress as a party of ‘termites’ and urges, like many concerned Indians, the nation to launch another freedom struggle to free India from the Congress misrule. It’s also time to rewrite history and call the bluff of the Congress which says it won freedom for India. niticentral/2013/07/15/congress-is-not-a-party-of-indians-103644.html
Posted on: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 03:14:50 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015