thanks for accepting my invitation . yes, we should have some ground rules for the debate(also applicable to RS when he joins us).

1. We all make our concluding arguments by April 15th.

2. Since this is a huge topic we will narrow it down to focus on the formative years of the Congress and the period from 1885-1922, the disobedience movement and the rise of Gandhi as a national level leader.

This is because we can then concentrate on the charter of the party and what the founding fathers of the congress intended.

Thereafter there are two periods starting from Gandhi’s rise to prominence and the later post-independence period. we will leave out both of them unless we need to refer them to make some points relevant to the topic and even then only if absolutely necessary like for example we want to analyse the effects of a decision taken in 1918 perhaps for some reason that made sense then and had some other consequences in the later years.

I would like to go first, i will post a brief on the beginnings of the Congress party and its charter in a short while.

From what I have studied, the “safety-valve” theory (i.e, Congress was created so that people don’t revolt violently, but only peacefully petition to the British) has long been de-bunked.

Anyway, I like your idea. I think it is a worthwhile pursuit. However, I am busy with my civils preparation (!). Yeah, I should ideally not be surfing either So, my contribution could be very sparse till my exams.

So, the debate is on the role of Congress in the freedom struggle, right?

But, before we analyse all these issues, there should be a firmer framework for debating here, I think. For example, we should choose a basic issue, collect facts about that particular issue, settle it, and use that as data for future etc..

ps: I should probably stop using the name not_a_fan now maybe something like Zeus to match my opponent

it is obvious that Rajinder Puri does not like the Congress. but that does not make him any more or less reliable source of information than say someone who likes the Congress.

I would like to invite both yourself and RS to take this debate further along with me, check many sources, both online and offline and together lets come to a firm conclusion.

I think it’s weird to fault Congress for the lack of public support to other parties. Congress had no power or position. All it did was convince masses of its policies and methods.

Had Congress not been “paranoid” about some parties, we would have ended up with a weak centre with large autonomous powers to at least some states.. And the country would have been pulled apart in a thousand directions in its initial years. Had it not been “paranoid”, Congress would have accused of diluting its ideological position too.

If today, we are able to sustain our coalition polities and regional parties, it’s because of the way our constitution was written. And regional/religious parties did not have much say in it. Constitutionally, we have created a strong centre and weaker states. While the constitution may have been abused multiple times, the constitution’s intentions in keeping the country integrated with President’s rule are beyond question.

I’am not saying that the pre-independence congress used its “popularity” to prevent others rising to occupy the centerstage.

What i’am saying is that the Congress used its “position” to prevent others from rising to occupy the centerstage both during the pre-independence and post-independence period.

The Congress party holds the record for the most number of dismissals of opposition governments in the states. And it also pulled down every coalition government it was involved in before the current UPA.

During the pre-independence period when it did not have the political power it did this by positioning itself as the only possible “pan-national” organisation capable of presenting a united face to the British rulers.

It treated any other political group which deviated even slightly from its “pan-national” position with suspicion and also encouraged that suspicion whether it was justified or not via the writings of its leaders and supporters, party propoganda and sympathetic journalists.

It also tried to effectively pull the rug from under the feet of other political outfits by trying to appease their constituencies with the kind of stands which even those parties wouldn’t take and in the same breath branded those parties as narrow minded.Examples range from AIML to Dalits to Communists to RSS to many more.This left all these parties with no other option but to take more extreme stands to keep themselves relevant.

I don’t agree that the Congress was the only possible way to rally around for the national cause.It is possible that all the above groups plus many others e would have moderated their stand and moved to the political center as they participated more and more in the political process and built stakes on a broad basis.

And even the AIML fiasco wouldn’t have happened if the Congress was less paranoid. If it had let others a broader playing field there would have been more serious players.And it would have been difficult for the AIML to project itself as the sole representative voice of all the Indian muslims if say for example there was a regional party in Bengal or Punjab with large number of muslim and non-muslim members, perhaps even the socialists(I’am not taking about the treacherous CPI) with many members from different backgrounds, all this could have put paid to AIML’s agenda since then it would have been only one voice among the many and it could easily have been branded as “extremist and communal” and sidelined.

Apollo,
Remember it is about the freedom struggle we are talking about.

I dont think INC really used its popularity among the public to prevent other political parites from coming up. INC can’t be faulted if the then public trusted them more than others.

If there were numerous equally strong political parties with different agendas, then IMO we still would have been under the British rule coz the Brits would have it easy playing off one against the other. See just what one Muslim league did to India – they took away a good chunk of our land and the Brits actively encouraged Jinnah to have it by dividing India.

I agree that the Congress in the pre-independence period made a conscious effort to be a pan-Indian party representing all views, regions, religions etc… that is to be considered good in one way.

But there is a flip side to it. By trying to be everything to everyone the Congress not only reduced its own coherence within but also like a big overarching banyan tree prevented other parties/players from coming up and competing for the political center. This could be because of three reasons,

1) Its very charter aimed at being a pan-national organisation and it took that a tad too seriously.

2) There was a paranoia among its leadership that if any other player other than a pan-national organisation is allowed to come up then it could splinter ‘national unity’ and make the Indian position vis-a-vis the British rulers weak.

3)It considered itself as the only possible such group and looked at all other political groups with suspicion.

This explains why the Congress insisted on being a big umbrella group that represented all communities to the chagrin of the AIML, the marxists, dalits and the sangh parivar and some regional groups who claimed that they were better positioned to represent their respective constituencies.

Even to this day the Congress stand officially remains the same though somewhat moderated in practice.

And the reason why Congress did so well in the 1937 elections and in the post independence period till the 1980s is quite simple. It was the only organisation then which was wired down to the block level. A very strong grassroots presence unmatched by any other party not even the AIML even in areas that subsequently went on to be part of Pakistan.

So effectively the Congress by monopolising the political center in the country left other political players with no other option but to take extreme positions and make their own dealings with the British rulers- Which each one of the above mentioned players did.

And in the case of one i.e., the AIML led to horrific tragedy.