MODERN

INDIAn
HISTORY
Indian National Congress:
Foundation and the Moderate
Phase
amit Varidhi kilhor
Indian National
Congress: Foundation
and the Moderate
Phase
•Foundation of the Indian National Congress In
the later 1870s and early 1880s, a solid ground
had been prepared for the establishment of an
all-India organisation. The final shape to this idea
was given by a retired English civil servant, A.O.
Hume, who mobilised leading intellectuals of the
time and, with their cooperation, organised the
first session of the Indian National Congress at
Gokuldas Tejpal Sanskrit College in Bombay in
December 1885.
• As a prelude to this, two sessions of the Indian
National Conference had been held in 1883 and
1885, which had representatives drawn from all
major towns of India. Surendranath Banerjea and
Ananda Mohan Bose were the main architects of
the Indian National Conference
•The first session of the Indian National Congress
was attended by 72 delegates and presided over
by Womesh Chandra (or Chunder) Bonnerjee.
Hereafter, the Congress met every year in
December, in a different part of the country each
time. Some of the great presidents of the
Congress during this early phase were Dadabhai
Naoroji (thrice president), Badruddin Tyabji,
Pherozeshah Mehta, P. Anandacharlu,
Surendranath Banerjea, Romesh Chandra Dutt,
Ananda Mohan Bose, and Gopal Krishna
Gokhale.
• Other prominent leaders included Mahadev
Govind Ranade, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Sisir Kumar
Ghosh, Motilal Ghosh, Madan Mohan Malaviya,
G. Subramania Aiyar, C. Vijayaraghavachariar,
Dinshaw E. Wacha
Valve?
•There is a theory that Hume formed the
Congress with the idea that it would prove
to be a ‘safety valve’ for releasing the
growing discontent of the Indians. To this
end, he convinced Lord Dufferin not to
obstruct the formation of the Congress. The
extremist leaders like Lala Lajpat Rai
believed in the ‘safety valve’ theory.
•Even the Marxist historian’s ‘conspiracy
theory’ was an offspring of the ‘safety valve’
notion. For example, R.P. Dutt opined that
the Indian National Congress was born out
of a conspiracy to abort a popular uprising
in India and the bourgeois leaders were a
party to it
•In 1890, Kadambini Ganguly, the
first woman graduate of Calcutta
University, addressed the Congress
session, which symbolised the
commitment of the freedom
struggle to give the women of India
their due status in national life.
Apart from the Indian National
Congress, nationalist activity was
carried out through provincial
conferences and associations,
newspapers, and literature
•Modern Indian historians, however, dispute the
idea of ‘safety valve’. In their opinion, the Indian
National Congress represented the urge of the
politically conscious Indians to set up a national
body to express the political and economic demands
of the Indians. If the Indians had convened such a
body on their own, there would have been
unsurmountable opposition from the officials; such
an organisation would not have been allowed to
form.
•In the circumstances,, the early Congress leaders
used Hume as a ‘lightning conductor’, i.e., as a
catalyst to bring together the nationalistic forces
even if under the guise of a ‘safety valve
• Aims and Objectives of the Congress
• The main aims of the Indian National Congress in the initial stage were to:
• (i) found a democratic, nationalist movement;
• (ii) politicise and politically educate people;
• (iii) establish the headquarters for a movement;
• (iv) promote friendly relations among nationalist political workers from different
parts of the country;
• (v) develop and propagate an anti-colonial nationalist ideology;
• (vi) formulate and present popular demands before the government with a view
to unifying the people over a common economic and political programme;
• (vii) develop and consolidate a feeling of national unity among people
irrespective of religion, caste, or province.
• (viii) carefully promote and nurture Indian nationhood
 Era of Moderates
(1885–1905)
Important Leaders
The national leaders like Dadabhai
Naoroji, Pherozeshah Mehta, D.E. Wacha,
W.C. Bonnerjea, S.N. Banerjea who
dominated the Congress policies during
the early period (1885–1905) were
staunch believers in ‘liberalism’ and
‘moderate’ politics and came to be
labelled as Moderates to distinguish
them from the neo-nationalists of the
early twentieth century who were
Moderate
Approach
•The moderate political activity involved
constitutional agitation within the
confines of law and showed a slow but
orderly political progress.
•The Moderates believed that the British
basically wanted to be just to the Indians
but were not aware of the real conditions.
Therefore, if public opinion could be
created in the country and public
demands be presented to the government
through resolutions, petitions, meetings,
etc., the authorities would concede these
demands gradually.
To achieve these ends, they worked on
a two-pronged methodology—one,
create a strong public opinion to
arouse consciousness and national
spirit and then educate and unite
people on common political questions;
and two, persuade the British
Government and British public opinion
to introduce reforms in India on the
lines laid out by the nationalists.
They used the method of ‘prayer and
petition’ and if that failed, they
resorted to constitutional agitation.
A British committee of the Indian National Congress
was established in London in 1889 which had India
as its organ.
Dadabhai Naoroji spent a substantial portion of his
life and income campaigning for India’s case abroad.
In 1890, it was decided to hold a session of the
Indian National Congress in London in 1892, but
owing to the British elections of 1891 the proposal
was postponed and never revived later
The Moderate leaders believed that
political connections with Britain were
in India’s interest at that stage of
history and that the time was not ripe
for a direct challenge to the British rule.
Therefore, it was considered to be
appropriate to try and transform the
colonial rule to be as close to a national
rule as possible
Contributions of Moderate
Nationalists
•Economic Critique of British Imperialism
•The early nationalists, led by Dadabhai Naoroji,
R.C. Dutt, Dinshaw Wacha and others, carefully
analysed the political economy of British rule in
India, and put forward the “drain theory” to
explain British exploitation of India. They
opposed the transformation of a basically self-
sufficient Indian economy into a colonial
economy (i.e., a supplier of raw materials and
food stuff, an importer of finished goods and a
field of investment for British capital).
•Thus, the Moderates were able to create an all-
India public opinion that British rule in India was
the major cause of India’s poverty and economic
backwardness
•early nationalists demanded severance
of India’s economic subservience to
Britain and development of an
independent economy through
involvement of Indian capital and
enterprise.
•The early nationalists demanded
reduction in land revenue, abolition of
salt tax, improvement in working
conditions of plantation labour,
reduction in military expenditure, and
encouragement to modern industry
through tariff protection and direct
government aid
Constitutional Reforms and Propaganda in Legislature

Legislative councils in India had no real official power till 1920.

Yet, work done in them by the nationalists helped the growth of
the national movement.
The Imperial Legislative Council constituted by the Indian
Councils Act (1861) was an impotent body designed to disguise
official measures as having been passed by a representative
body. Indian members were few in number—in the 30 years
from 1862 to 1892 only 45 Indians were nominated to it, most
of them being wealthy, landed, and with loyalist interests.
Only a handful of political figures and independent intellectuals
such as Syed Ahmed Khan, Kristodas Pal, V.N. Mandlik, K.L.
Nulkar, and Rashbehari Ghosh (also written as Rash Behari
Ghose) were among those nominated
From 1885 to 1892, the nationalist
demands for constitutional reforms
were centred around:
(i)expansion of councils—i.e., greater
participation of Indians in councils;
and
(ii)(ii) reform of councils—i.e., more
powers to councils, especially
greater control over finances
•The early nationalists worked with the long-term
objective of a democratic self-government. Their demands
for constitutional reforms were meant to have been
conceded in 1892 in the form of the Indian Councils Act.
•These reforms were severely criticised at Congress
sessions, where the nationalists made no secret of their
dissatisfaction with them. Now, they demanded:
•(i) a majority of elected Indians; and (ii) control over the
budget, i.e., the power to vote upon and amend the
budget. They gave the slogan—“No taxation without
representation”.
• Gradually, the scope of constitutional demands was
widened. Dadabhai Naoroji (1904), Gopal Krishna Gokhale
(1905), and Lokmanya Tilak (1906) demanded self-
government on the lines of the self-governing colonies of
Canada and Australia. Also, leaders like Pherozeshah
Mehta and Gokhale put government policies and
proposals to severe criticism
The Indian Councils Act 1861 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom
that transformed India's executive council to function as a cabinet run on the
portfolio system.
This cabinet had six "ordinary members", who each took charge of a separate
department in Calcutta's government: home, revenue, military, law, finance, and
(after 1874) public works. The military Commander-in-Chief sat in with the council
as an extraordinary member.
•For legislative purposes, the Governor-General’s Council
was enlarged. Now, there were to be between 6 and 12
additional members (nominated by the Governor-General).
•There were appointed for a period of 2 years. Out of these,
at least half of the additional members were to be non-
official (British or Indian).

The Viceroy was allowed to issue ordinances lasting six months if the Legislative
Council is not in session in an emergency.
Lord Canning nominated three Indians to the Council in
1862 namely, the Raja of Benares, the Maharaja of Patiala
and Sir Dinkar Rao.
Indian Councils Act,
1892
Main Provisions
● Number of additional members in Imperial
Legislative Councils and the Provincial Legislative
Councils was raised. In Imperial Legislative
Council, now the governor general could have 10
to 16 non-officials (instead of six to 12 previously).
● The non-official members of the Indian
legislative council were to be nominated by the
Bengal Chamber of Commerce and provincial
legislative councils. The members could be
recommended by universities, municipalities,
zamindars, and chambers of commerce. So, the
principle of representation was introduced.
● Budget could be discussed.
● Questions could be asked
The Indian Councils Act 1892 was an Act of British
Parliament that introduced various amendments to the
composition and function of legislative councils in British
India. Most notably, the act expanded the number of
members in the central and provincial councils.
For example, the number of additional members elected to
the Governor-General's council was increased from twelve
to sixteen members of whom – as per the Indian Councils
Act 1861 – not less than half were to be non-officials, i.e.
persons not in the civil or military service of the Crown.
The Governor-General was empowered to invite different
bodies in India to elect, select or delegate their
representatives and to make regulations for their
nomination.
Limitations
● The officials retained their majority in the
council, thus making ineffective the non-
official voice.
● The ‘reformed’ Imperial Legislative Council
met, during its tenure till 1909, on an average
for only 13 days in a year, and the number of
unofficial Indian members present was only
five out of twenty-four.
● The budget could not be voted upon, nor
could any amendments be made to it.
● Supplementaries could not be asked, nor
could answers to any question be discussed.
The nationalists were, thus, able to enhance
their political stature and build a national
movement while undermining the political and
moral influence of imperialist rule. This helped
in generating anti-imperialist sentiments
among the public.
But, at the same time, the nationalists failed to
widen the democratic base of the movement
by not including the masses, especially women,
and not demanding the right to vote for all
Campaign for General Administrative
Reforms

The Moderates campaigned on the following grounds:

(i) Indianisation of government service: on the economic
grounds that British civil servants got very high
emoluments while inclusion of Indians would be more
economical; on political grounds that, since salaries of
British bureaucrats were remitted back home and
pensions paid in England (all drawn from Indian
revenue), this amounted to economic drain of national
resources;
(ii)and on moral grounds that Indians were being
discriminated against by being kept away from
positions of trust and responsibility
(ii) Call for separation of judicial from executive functions.
(iii) Criticism of an oppressive and tyrannical bureaucracy
and an expensive and time-consuming judicial system.
(iv) Criticism of an aggressive foreign policy which resulted in
annexation of Burma, attack on Afghanistan, and
suppression of tribals in the North-West—all costing heavily
for the Indian treasury.
(v) Call for increase in expenditure on welfare (i.e., health,
sanitation), education—especially elementary and technical
—irrigation works and improvement of agriculture,
agricultural banks for cultivators, etc.
(vi) Demand for better treatment for Indian labour abroad
in other British colonies, where they faced oppression and
racial discrimination
Protection of Civil
Rights

Civil rights included the right to speech, thought,

association, and a free press. Through an incessant
campaign, the nationalists were able to spread
modern democratic ideas, and soon the defence of
civil rights became an integral part of the freedom
struggle.
It was due to the increased consciousness that
there was a great public outrage at the arrest of
Tilak and several other leaders and journalists in
1897 and at the arrest and deportation of the Natu
brothers without a trial.
 An Evaluation of the Early
Nationalists

The early nationalists did a great deal to awaken the national

sentiment, even though they could not draw the masses to
them.
(i) They represented the most progressive forces of the time.
(ii) (ii) They were able to create a wide national awakening of
all Indians having common interests and the need to rally
around a common programme against a common enemy,
and above all, the feeling of belonging to one nation.
(iii)(iii) They trained people in political work and popularised
modern ideas.
(iv)(iv) They exposed the basically exploitative character of
colonial rule, thus undermining its moral foundations
(v) Their political work was based on hard realities,
and not on shallow sentiments, religion, etc.
(vi) They were able to establish the basic political
truth that India should be ruled in the interest of
Indians.
(vii) They created a solid base for a more vigorous,
militant, mass-based national movement in the
years that followed.
(viii) However, they failed to widen their
democratic base and the scope of their demands
 Role of Masses
The moderate phase of the national movement had a
narrow social base and the masses played a passive role.
This was because the early nationalists lacked political faith
in the masses; they felt that there were numerous divisions
and subdivisions in the Indian society, and the masses were
generally ignorant and had conservative ideas and
thoughts.
The Moderates felt that these heterogeneous elements
had first to be welded into a nation before they entered the
political sphere. But they failed to realise that it was only
during a freedom struggle and with political participation
that these diverse elements could come together
Because of the lack of mass participation,
the Moderates could not take militant
political positions against the authorities.
The later nationalists differed from the
Moderates precisely on this point.
Still, the early nationalists represented
the emerging Indian nation against
colonial interests
Attitude of the Government

The British Indian Government was hostile to the

Congress from the beginning despite the latter’s
moderate methods and emphasis on loyalty to the British
Crown.
The official attitude stiffened further after 1887 when the
government failed to persuade the Congress to confine
itself to social issues when the Congress was becoming
increasingly critical of the colonial rule.
Now, the government resorted to open condemnation of
the Congress, calling the nationalists “seditious brahmins”,
“disloyal babus”, etc. Dufferin called the Congress “a
factory of sedition”.
•Later, the government adopted a
‘divide and rule’ policy towards the
Congress. The officials encouraged
reactionary elements like Sir Syed
Ahmed Khan and Raja Shiv Prasad
Singh of Benaras to organise the
United Indian Patriotic Association to
counter Congress propaganda.
•The government also tried to divide
the nationalists on the basis of religion,
and, through a policy of ‘carrot and
stick’, pitted the Moderates against the
Extremists. But the government failed
to check the rising tide of nationalism