GS Notes

Modern Indian History Notes 26

14 min read

Formation of Indian National Congress (INC)

  • The Safety Valve Theory (SVT): This theory posits that the INC was a deliberate creation of the British, specifically Allan Octavian Hume, a retired British civil servant, with the tacit approval of the Viceroy, Lord Dufferin (1884-1888). The primary source for this theory is William Wedderburn’s biography, Allan Octavian Hume, C.B.; “Father of the Indian National Congress” (1913). Wedderburn, a close associate of Hume, claimed that Hume had come across seven volumes of secret reports from his network of religious gurus (sadhus) indicating widespread discontent that could culminate in a violent uprising far more severe than the Revolt of 1857. To avert this, Hume purportedly conceived of a national organization that would act as a “safety valve,” channeling this discontent into constitutional and peaceful agitation, thereby safeguarding the British Empire.
  • Critique and Rejection of the Safety Valve Theory: Modern historians, most notably Bipan Chandra in his work India’s Struggle for Independence, have systematically dismantled this theory.
    1. Lack of Evidence: The alleged seven volumes of secret reports that formed the bedrock of Wedderburn’s claim have never been found. Their existence remains unproven, making the foundation of the theory highly speculative.
    2. Dufferin’s Hostility: Historical records, including Dufferin’s private correspondence, reveal his disdain for the nascent Congress. He famously referred to it as representing a “microscopic minority” of educated Indians and was deeply suspicious of its intentions, fearing it would evolve into an Indian equivalent of the Irish Home Rule movement, which was a significant challenge to the British government at the time. He did not consider Hume a serious political actor and was annoyed by his activities.
    3. Indigenous Political Evolution: The formation of the INC was not an isolated event but the culmination of a long process of political awakening and organization in India. Several precursor organizations laid the groundwork:
      • The British Indian Association (1851) had already attempted to create branches in Bombay and Madras, showing an early impulse towards pan-Indian organization.
      • The Indian Association, founded by Surendranath Banerjea and Ananda Mohan Bose in 1876, was a significant predecessor. It organized an all-India agitation against the reduction of the age limit for the Indian Civil Service examination.
      • Banerjea’s Indian Association convened an All-India National Conference in Calcutta in December 1883, which was attended by representatives from across India. A second conference was scheduled for December 1885, coinciding with the first session of the INC. This demonstrates that an all-India political body was already in the process of formation, independent of Hume’s efforts.
    4. The Lightning Conductor Theory: This is the more accepted alternative perspective. Early Indian nationalists were aware that a purely Indian-led all-India organization would likely face immediate and severe repression from the British authorities. They pragmatically used Hume, with his background as a British ex-official, as a ‘lightning conductor.’ His involvement provided a veneer of legitimacy and deflected official suspicion, allowing the organization to establish itself without being crushed in its infancy. As Gopal Krishna Gokhale later stated in 1913, “No Indian could have started the Indian National Congress…if an Indian had…come forward to start such a movement, the officials would not have allowed it to come into existence.” Hume’s role was also instrumental in bridging regional differences and persuading provincial leaders to unite under a single banner.

The Moderate Phase (1885-1905)

  • Ideology and Beliefs: The first two decades of the INC were dominated by leaders whose political outlook and methods were moderate.
    • Constitutionalism: The Moderates had an unwavering faith in constitutional methods of agitation. They believed in the ‘3 Ps’ - Prayer, Petition, and Protest. Their activities were confined to passing resolutions, sending petitions and memorials to the British government, and delivering speeches. This approach was rooted in the British liberal tradition.
    • Providential Nature of British Rule: Leaders like Dadabhai Naoroji, Pherozeshah Mehta, and Surendranath Banerjea acknowledged the exploitative aspects of British rule. Naoroji’s seminal work, Poverty and Un-British Rule in India (1901), meticulously detailed the “Drain of Wealth.” However, they also believed that British rule was, on the whole, a force for modernization and that the British themselves were guided by a sense of justice. They distinguished between the colonial bureaucracy in India and the British Parliament, believing the latter could be persuaded to reform Indian administration.
    • Goal of Limited Self-Government: The Moderates did not demand immediate independence or an end to the British connection. Their primary goal was to secure a greater share for Indians in governance and administration. They aimed for a form of self-government within the British Empire, similar to the self-governing colonies of Canada and Australia. They believed that Indians were not yet prepared for full self-rule, citing the lack of widespread western education and national consciousness as impediments.
    • Belief in Western Ideals: They were deeply influenced by Western liberal thought, capitalism, and democratic principles. They believed that the adoption of these modern institutions was essential for India’s progress and national unity. Their outlook was fundamentally secular and pan-Indian.

The Concept of Swaraj

The term ‘Swaraj’ (self-rule) has been interpreted differently through various phases of the national movement.

  1. Swaraj as Political Control over the State:

    • Limited Self-Government (Moderate Goal): This entailed a partnership between Indians and the British in governing India. The primary demand was the reform of legislative councils to include more elected Indian representatives, thereby giving Indians a voice in law-making and administration.
    • Self-Government or Dominion Status (Extremist Goal): Articulated forcefully by leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak, who declared, “Swaraj is my birthright, and I shall have it.” This was a more assertive demand for self-government on the lines of the white-settler colonies like Canada and Australia. It meant complete control over internal affairs (home rule), while defense, foreign affairs, and communication might remain with the British Crown. This represented a significant radicalization from the moderate position.
    • Poorna Swaraj or Complete Independence: This concept gained prominence in the late 1920s, championed by a younger generation of leaders including Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhas Chandra Bose. It signified a complete break from the British Empire. This was formally adopted as the goal of the INC at its Lahore Session in December 1929.

  2. Swaraj as Self-Rule of the Individual (Gandhian Concept):

    • Mahatma Gandhi conceptualized Swaraj in his seminal text, Hind Swaraj (1909), as a much deeper, more philosophical idea. For him, it was not merely the transfer of political power from British to Indian hands (“English rule without the Englishman”). True Swaraj meant ‘self-rule’ or ‘rule over self’—the liberation of each individual from their internal weaknesses and external dependencies. It was an enlightened state where individuals are governed by their own sense of morality and duty (Dharma), not by the coercive power of the state. He envisioned a decentralized, self-sufficient society of village republics (Gram Swaraj), which he termed ‘Ram Rajya’—a stateless, enlightened anarchy.

Indian Councils Act, 1861

  • Historical Context: The Act was a direct consequence of the Revolt of 1857. The British administration realized that its complete exclusion of Indians from the legislative process had created a dangerous gap between the rulers and the ruled, preventing them from gauging Indian opinion. The Act was intended to co-opt influential and loyalist sections of Indian society (princes, zamindars, wealthy merchants) into the legislative framework.
  • Key Provisions:
    1. Legislative Structure: The Governor-General’s Council was bifurcated. For executive purposes, it was the Viceroy’s Executive Council (VEC). For legislative purposes, additional non-official members were added, and it was known as the Imperial Legislative Council (ILC). Similar Provincial Legislative Councils (PLCs) were established.
    2. Introduction of Indian Members: The Viceroy was empowered to nominate between 6 to 12 ‘additional’ members to the ILC, with at least half being non-officials (who could be Indian or European). This was the first, albeit very limited, inclusion of Indians in the law-making process. In 1862, Lord Canning nominated three Indians: the Maharaja of Patiala, the Raja of Benaras, and Sir Dinkar Rao.
    3. Limited Powers of Councils: The ILC was not a parliament. Its functions were strictly legislative. It had no power to discuss the budget, ask questions, or move resolutions on the actions of the administration. The Viceroy’s prior sanction was required to introduce bills on key subjects, and he held an absolute veto power.
    4. Executive Changes:
      • Portfolio System: The Act gave legal recognition to the portfolio system, introduced by Lord Canning in 1859. Each member of the VEC was placed in charge of specific departments, laying the foundation for a cabinet-style government.
      • Ordinance Power: The Viceroy was granted the power to issue ordinances without the concurrence of the legislative council during emergencies. These ordinances had a validity of six months.
    5. Decentralization: The Act marked a reversal of the centralizing trend that had peaked with the Charter Act of 1833. It restored the legislative powers to the Presidencies of Bombay and Madras and provided for the establishment of new legislative councils in other provinces like Bengal, North-Western Provinces, and Punjab. This initiated the process of legislative devolution that would culminate in provincial autonomy under the Government of India Act, 1935.

Demands and Weaknesses of the Moderates

  • Core Demands:

    • Constitutional: Expansion of the ILC and PLCs, with an elected majority of non-official members. Granting of wider powers to these councils, including the right to discuss the budget and ask supplementary questions.
    • Administrative: Indianization of higher civil services by holding simultaneous ICS examinations in India and England. Separation of the judiciary from the executive.
    • Economic: Reduction in military expenditure, which consumed a large part of the Indian budget. A critical analysis of the “Drain of Wealth” and a demand for its cessation. Reduction of high land revenue rates and abolition of the salt tax.
    • Civil Liberties: Repeal of the repressive Arms Act of 1878 (which disarmed Indians) and the Vernacular Press Act (though repealed in 1881). Demand for freedom of speech and association.

  • Weaknesses and Criticisms:

    1. Narrow Social Base: The movement was dominated by a small group of Western-educated urban elites—lawyers, doctors, journalists, and merchants. It had no connect with the vast rural masses, peasants, or the working class.
    2. Limited Goals and Methods: Their goal of limited self-government and their methods of petitioning were seen as timid. The Extremists later derided their approach as “political mendicancy” or a policy of begging.
    3. Lack of Mass Participation: They developed a rich culture of political debate and critique but made no effort to mobilize the masses for a political struggle.
    4. Organizational Structure: For most of its early years, the INC functioned more as a three-day annual spectacle rather than a full-fledged political party with a permanent cadre and local branches.
    5. Exclusion of Social Issues: In its 1886 session, under Dadabhai Naoroji, the INC decided not to take up social reform issues to avoid alienating conservative sections and to maintain a united front on political issues. This limited its appeal and relevance to many sections of society.
    6. Faith in British Justice: Their foundational belief that Britain would eventually grant reforms out of its sense of justice and fair play proved to be largely misplaced, as the British government was primarily driven by its own imperial interests.

Prelims Pointers

  • Safety Valve Theory: Associated with A.O. Hume and Lord Dufferin. Its primary source is William Wedderburn’s biography of Hume.
  • Lightning Conductor Theory: The alternative view that Indian leaders used Hume to protect the nascent INC from official wrath.
  • Pre-INC Organizations:
    • British Indian Association (1851)
    • Indian Association (1876), founded by Surendranath Banerjea and Ananda Mohan Bose.
    • All-India National Conference (1883) in Calcutta.
  • Viceroy during INC formation: Lord Dufferin (1884-1888).
  • Moderate Phase of INC: 1885-1905.
  • Key Moderate Leaders: Dadabhai Naoroji, Pherozeshah Mehta, G.K. Gokhale, W.C. Bonnerjee, S.N. Banerjea.
  • Drain of Wealth Theory: Propounded by Dadabhai Naoroji in his book Poverty and Un-British Rule in India (1901).
  • Indian Councils Act, 1861:
    1. Passed after the 1857 Revolt.
    2. Introduced a grain of popular element by including non-official Indian members in the legislature for the first time.
    3. First three Indians nominated to the Imperial Legislative Council in 1862: Maharaja of Patiala, Raja of Benaras, and Sir Dinkar Rao.
    4. Legally recognized the Portfolio System introduced by Lord Canning in 1859.
    5. Empowered the Viceroy to issue ordinances.
    6. Initiated the process of legislative decentralization by restoring powers to Bombay and Madras.
  • Poorna Swaraj Resolution: Passed at the INC Lahore Session, 1929.
  • Gandhian Swaraj: Concept explained in his book Hind Swaraj (1909), meaning ‘rule over self’.
  • Arms Act: Passed in 1878 by Lord Lytton.
  • “Political Mendicancy”: Term used by Extremists to criticize the methods of the Moderates.

Mains Insights

1. Historiographical Debate: The Origin of the INC

  • Imperialist/Official View (Safety Valve Theory): This perspective, originating from British sources like Wedderburn, suggests the INC was a British creation to manage Indian discontent. It undermines the agency of Indian leaders and portrays the national movement as a product of British benevolence or strategic manipulation.
  • Nationalist View (Lightning Conductor Theory): Championed by historians like Bipan Chandra, this view asserts that the INC was a natural outcome of decades of political consciousness and organizational efforts by Indians themselves. It argues that Indian leaders were politically astute, using Hume as a strategic tool to navigate the hostile colonial environment. This perspective restores agency to Indian founders and frames the INC as a genuine nationalist organization from its inception.
  • Conclusion: The modern consensus is that while Hume played a crucial catalytic role, the real impetus and driving force for the INC’s formation were the Indian political leaders and the socio-political conditions of the time.

2. Evaluating the Moderates: A Phase of Failures or Foundations?

  • The “Failure” Argument (Extremist and Marxist Critique):
    • Cause: Their methods of petitioning were ineffective against an imperial power. Their narrow social base prevented them from building a mass movement. Their goals were too limited.
    • Effect: They failed to secure any significant constitutional concessions from the British. Their politics created a sense of frustration, paving the way for the rise of Extremism.
  • The “Foundation” Argument (Liberal and Modern Nationalist View):
    • Cause: The Moderates were political realists who understood the constraints of their time. The national consciousness was still nascent, and a direct confrontation would have been premature and disastrous.
    • Effect: Despite their limited immediate success, their contributions were foundational:
      1. Economic Critique: Dadabhai Naoroji’s Drain Theory was a powerful and original critique that exposed the true exploitative nature of colonialism, destroying the myth of British benevolence.
      2. National Consciousness: They were the first to create an all-India political platform, fostering a sense of common national identity and shared political goals among the disparate educated elite.
      3. Political Education: Through their speeches, writings, and council debates, they educated the public on complex political and economic issues, preparing the ground for a wider movement.
      4. Laying Democratic Foundations: Their demands for civil liberties, separation of powers, and representative government laid the ideological groundwork for India’s future democratic constitution.

3. The Indian Councils Act, 1861: A Step Forward or a Facade?

  • A Step Forward: The Act can be seen as the beginning of a new chapter in India’s constitutional history. It reversed the extreme centralization of 1833, initiated a process of legislative devolution, and, for the first time, associated Indians with the law-making process. This marked a departure from the pre-1857 system of absolute executive rule. It was the first small step on the long road to representative government.
  • A Facade of Reform: Analytically, the Act was more of a strategic co-option than genuine reform.
    • Cause: The British needed to secure the loyalty of Indian elites post-1857 and create a mechanism to gauge opinion without conceding any real power.
    • Effect: The legislative councils were powerless, derisively called ‘gilded shams.’ The ‘Indian’ members were unrepresentative, nominated loyalists (princes, zamindars) who rarely challenged the government. The Viceroy’s overriding powers ensured that the ultimate authority remained firmly in British hands. The Act was thus a facade designed to project an image of inclusivity while maintaining absolute imperial control.

Graph View