Page 129 - DHIS204_DHIS205_INDIAN_FREEDOM_STRUGGLE_HINDI

Indian Freedom Struggle (1707–1947 A.D.)

Notes The Congress had been founded by A.O. Hume after consultations with Lord Dufferin (Viceroy,
1884-88). The congress leaders were full of admiration for British history and culture and spok of
the British connection as ‘providential’. It was their cardinal faith that British rule in India was in
the interest of the Indians. As such they looked upon the British Government not as an antagonist
but as an ally ; in the course of time, they believed, Britain would help them to acquire the capacity
to govern themselves in accordance with the highest standards of the West. In 1886, Dadabhai
Naoroji presiding over the Calcutta session of the Congress dwelt at length on the ‘Blessings of
British Rule’ and his remarks were cheered by the audience. Mr. Hume moved a resolution for
three times three cheers for Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen Empress and a further resolution
for long life of the Queen. Ananda Mohan Bose as Congress President (1898) declared, “The
educated classes are the friends and not the foes of England—her natural and necessary allies in
the great work that lies before her.” Thus, it was generally believed that the chief obtacle in the
path of India’s progress was not British colonial rule but the social and economic backwardness of
the Indian people and the reactionary role of the Anglo-Indian bureaucracy.
The Moderate leaders stood for the maintenance, reather strengthening of the British Empire. This
approach was the outcome of their apprehension that anarchy and disorder would reappear in
India if British Government was superseded. In their eyes British rule was the embodiment of
Peace and Order in the country and as such British rule was indispensable in India for a long time
to come. Gokhale explained this viewpoint when he said, “Whatever the shortcomings of
bureaucracy, and however intolerable at times the insolence of the individual Englishman, they
alone stand to-day in the country for order; and without continued order, no real progress is
possible for our people. It is not difficult at any time to create disorder in our country—it was our
position for centuries—but it is not so easy to substitute another form of order for that which has
been evolved in the course of a century”. The Moderates sincerely believed that India’s progress
could be possible only under the supervision of the British. Hence their loyalty to the British
Crown. Badr-ud-din Tyabji, the third Congress President, declared that nowhere among the millions
of Her Majesty’s subject in India were to be found “more truly loyal nay, more devoted friends of
the British Empire than among these educated natives”. Thus, the Moderates would do nothing to
weaken the Empire. Loyalty to the Crown was their faith, one important article of their political
religion.
Most of the Congress leaders of the period believed that the British people were just, righteous
and freedom-loving. They were further convinced that the British people meant justice to be done
to India. If Indians had certain grievances, these were only due to the reactionary policy of the
British bureaucracy in India or ignorance of the British people about these grievances. As such the
nationalist leaders believed that all they had to do was to prepare their case and present and plead
it before the British Parliament and nation and their grievances would be redressed and justice
done. As a natural corollary the Congress leaders put great emphasis on Congress propaganda in
England. A British Committee of the Indian National Congress was set up in Londen which
published a weekly journal India to present India’s case before the British public. Dadabhai Naoroji
was never tried of telling the Congress leaders: “Nothing is more dear to the heart of England—
and I speak from actual knowledge—than India’s welfare; and, if we only speak out loud enough
and persistently enough, to reach that busy heart, we shall not speak in vain.” Thus, with a view
to educating the English people about the real needs of India, in 1890 a decision was taken 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 afterwards never revived.
During the period under review, the Congress demanded a few concessions and not freedom for
the nation. True, Lokamanya Tilak used the word Swaraj or self-government towards the last
decade of the nineteenth century but it did not become popular nor did it figure in the official
resolutions of the Congress. Presiding over the Poona Congress in 1895, Surendranath Banerjee
declared that the Congress had never asked for “representative institutions for the masses but
“representative institutions of a modified character for the educated community, who by reason of
their culture and enlightenment, their assimilation of English ideas and their familiarity with

124 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY