The Early Phase of the Congress

Fifty years have rolled by since the Indian National Congress was founded. During this long period it has covered several stages in the course of India’s national evolution, and whatever differences may have come into being in its counsels in later years, the earlier ones – from 1885 to 1915 or even 1921 – were years of programmes almost common to the different shades of opinion and schools of thought that were slowly developing in Indian politics. Nor were the differences of those earlier years of a very material type.

The greatest difficulty in choosing the fight or arranging the battle lies in selecting the scene of operations and the strategy that should guide them. The contending parties are tossed about between the aggressive and the defensive, between prayer and protest, between contending programmes as to whether we should invite the enemy to our Parlour, and, to that end, play a waiting game, or whether we should take time by the forelock and rush on him unawares and envelope him all round. These are the issues that rack the brains of Generals on the battlefields. These likewise are the issues in politics where the leaders should decide whether agitation should be in words or in conduct, and whether, if they should decide in favour of the latter, they should give fight by direct or indirect action. These issues are rapidly surveyed before our eyes and still more rapidly revolved in our brains. The progressive stages of a political fight take decades to evolve themselves and what appears to-day at the end of fifty years of strenuous struggle to be profoundly easy and simple would not have struck our forbears, who had started the Congress, as anything other than unthinkable. Imagine a proposal placed before men like W. C. Bonnerjee or Surendranath Banerjea, Sir Pherozeshah Mehta or Pandit Ayodhya Nath, Lal Mohan Ghose or Man Mohan Ghose, Subrahmania Aiyar, or Ananda Charlu, A. O. Hume or W. Wedderburn, which pleaded for a boycott of foreign goods or of councils, courts and colleges, or a scheme of Civil Disobedience of select laws. It requires no imagination to see that they would have been scandal­ised by such ideas. Nor could such extreme programmes be evolved before the Partition of Bengal, the reactionary policies of Curzon and Minto, or the South African experiences of Gandhiji, or the Jallianwalla Bagh massacre. During the fifteen Years of strife and struggle which the Congress had put in towards the end of the last century, the leaders of thought were mostly lawyers with a sprinkling of merchants and doctors who believed, and believed sincerely, that what India wanted was a lucid and balanced presentation of her case before Englishmen and their Parliament. For this purpose they wanted a political organisation and they found in the National Congress the required organ through which to voice forth the Nation’s grievances and the National aspira­tions.

In recounting the personal forces that shaped as well as swayed the course of Indian politics and recalling the faith that lay behind them, we cannot lose sight of the several epochs into which the Indian political agitation during the past half a century divides itself. The circumstances under which the aspirations of the people and, prior to that, their grievances called for powerful expression, have been explained and the ground of the Congress has been pictured in some detail. The times and con­ditions would not allow in the earlier years anything else than a reasoned appeal to the authorities for the redress of grievances and a moderate demand of new concessions and privileges. This frame of mind soon developed into an art. Forensic talent on the one hand and a richly imaginative and emotional eloquence on the other, were soon brought to bear on the task that lay before the Indian politicians. An irresistible statement of facts followed by irrebuttable arguments to prove the justice of the popular cause are to be met with everywhere in the speeches supporting the Congress resolutions and the addresses delivered by Congress Presidents. The burden of these utterances was that the English people are essentially just and fair, and that if properly informed they would never deviate from truth and the right, that the problem was the Anglo-Indian and not the English­man, that what was wrong was the system and not the individual, that the Congress was essentially loyal to the British Throne and fell foul only of the Indian bureaucracy, that the English Constitution was the bulwark of popular liberties everywhere and the English Parliament was the Mother of Democracy all over, that the British Constitution was the best of all constitutions, that the Congress was not a seditious body, that the Indian politicians were the natural interpreters of Government to people and of people to Government, that Indians must be admitted into public services in larger measure, should be educated and made fit for high positions, that universities, the Local Bodies and the public services should form the training ground for India, that the legislatures should be thrown open to election and the right of interpellation and discussion of budgets should be conceded that the Press and the Forest Laws should be relaxed, the Police should become friendly to the people, that the taxes should be moderate, that the military expenditure should be curtailed by India’s burdens being at least shared in part by England, that the Judiciary and Executive must be separated, and Indians should be given a place in the Executive Councils of Provincial and Central Governments and in the Council of the Secretary of State that India should have direct representation in the British Parliament at the rate of two members to each Province, that the non-Regulation Provinces should be brought into line with the Regulation ones, that eminent Englishmen in the public life of England should be sent over as Governors instead of members of the Civil Service, that simultaneous competitive examinations should be held in India for the Services, that the annual drain to England should be stemmed and indigenous industries fostered, that Land Revenue should be reduced and Permanent Settlement should be adopted. The Congress went to the length of deprecating the Salt Tax as an iniquity, Excise Duties on cotton goods as unfair, and Exchange Compensation Allowance to civilians as an illegal gratification. So early as in 1893 Pandit Malaviya had the vision to sponsor a resolution on the resuscitation of the village industries of this ancient land.

From this rapid review of the themes that engaged the attention of the Indian politicians one can easily see how their minds should have been constituted. We cannot blame them for the attitude they adopted as pioneers of Indian political Reform, any more than we can blame the brick and mortar that is buried six feet deep in the foundation and plinth of a modern edifice. They, it is, that have made possible the superstructure, storey by storey, of Colonial Self-Government, Home Rule within, the Empire, Swaraj, and on the top of all, Complete Independence. Let us express our deep and abiding sense of gratitude to the great men that led the van of progress in the earlier generations of our public life. They had largely to quote English authorities in support of obvious propositions. They had laboured hard and made heavy sacrifices according to their lights and their capacities. If to-day, our course is plain and our goal is obvious, we owe it all to our forbears who did the spade work and cleared the forest.

Whatever periodical excitement and exacerbation of feelings there might have existed off and on amongst Congressmen, there is no doubt that the progress of the Congress from its inception in 1885 to 1905 was one even march based on a firm faith in constitutional agitation and in the unfailing regard for justice attributed to the Englishman. It was in that view that the Congress was represented in 1893 by Sardar Dyal Singh Majithia, Chairman, Reception Committee, “as the greatest glory of British Rule in this country.” For the obverse of the idea he added, “We happily live under a Constitution whose watchword is freedom and whose main pillar is toleration.” Lord Ripon’s view that “the Queen’s Proclamation is not a treaty; it is not a diplomatic instrument; it is a declaration of principles of Government” was quoted by the official Representative of the fourth session of the Congress (1888, Allahabad). Lord Salisbury’s dictum that “Government by representation does not suit Eastern traditions” was deeply resented and Sir Pherozeshah Mehta declared in 1890, “I have no fears but that British statesmanship will ultimately respond to the call.” Mabommed Rahimtulla Sayani’s declaration as president of the 12th Congress in 1896 was unambi­guous: “A more honest or sturdy nation does not exist under the sun than this English Nation.” And when the nation met India’s approaches and appeals with repression, Ananda Mohan Bose who presided over the Madras Congress in 1898 exhorted saying, “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.” The faith placed in the Englishman and in England by those who have gone before us may sometimes appear pathetic and even abject, but it is our duty to recognize their limitations and extend, to quote from Dr. Rash Behari Ghose’s speech at the 23rd Congress in Madras, 1908, “some kindly thoughts for those who too, in their day, strove to do their duty, however imperfectly, through good report and through evil report with, it may be, somewhat chastened fervour, but I may say without boasting, a fervour as genuine as that which stirs and inspires younger hearts.” The first serious agitation in the history of the Congress spread over five long years (1906­-1911) and was attended with a measure of repression considered barbarous at the time, leading to a reaction in the outbreak of violence of a sporadic character, and was ultimately crowned with unqualified success in 1911 in the Royal Proclamation annulling the Partition. This led to a gushing praise of the British Govern­ment, a renewed faith in its sense of justice and a sense of pro­found gratitude expressing itself in unmeasured flights of oratory. “Every heart is beating in unison with reverence and devotion to the British Throne, overflowing with revived confidence in and gratitude towards British statesmanship,” said Mr. Ambika Charan Mazumdar “Some of us never faltered,” he added, “no – not even in the darkest days of our trials and tribulations–in our hope, in our conviction and in our faith in the ultimate triumph and vindication of British Justice”.* At the same time Congressmen did not lose sight of the galling laws still in operation in 1971 and in later years. The Patriarchs of the Congress had doubtless concentrat­ed on reform of administration and the repeal of repressive laws, but it is wrong to suppose that they were thinking only of the parts and not of the whole of the Indian problem. “Self-Government is the ordering of Nature, the will of Divine Providence,” said Surendranath in 1886 at the Calcutta session. “Every nation must be the arbiter of its own destinies – such is the omnipotent fiat inscribed by Nature with her own hands and in her own book.” Presiding over the 20th Congress, Sir Henry Cotton visualized the ideal of “a Federation of free and separate States, the United States of India.” Dadabhai spoke of “Self-Government or Swaraj like that of the United King­dom or the Colonies.”

That the politicians of the earlier half of the Congress Jubilee Term were not the enemies of Government is amply proved, not only by their own unequivocal avowals made every now and then but from the marks of favour and preferment for which these sturdy patriots were singled out by: Government from time to time. The Judiciary was naturally the field selected for such preferment. Sir S. Subrahmania Aiyar of Madras figured in the very first Congress; Mr. V. Krishnaswami Aiyar was solely responsible for the first Convention Congress held in Madras in 1908 under a cut and dry Constitution and Sir Arthur Lawley, then Governor of Madras, was good enough to lend his tents for the Congress session. It was Mr. Krishna­swami Aiyar that said, referring to the Nationalists and the Congress, that “the gangrened limb” must be amputated,

Sir Sankaran Nair presided over the Congress at Amraoti, 1897. Even Mr. Ramesam (Sir Vepa since) was a Congressman from the year 1898 in which he seconded the resolution on South African disabilities. Then there was Mr. T. V. Seshagiri Aiyar who appeared in the Congress in 1910 and Mr. P. R. Sundara Aiyar who was an ardent coadjutor of Mr. Krishnaswami Aiyar in 1908. All these six became Judges of the Madras High Court and two out of them became Members of the Executive Council, one of Madras and the other of Delhi. The first, who should have presided over the Congress in 1899 and was unable to do so as he was made a Judge of the High Court, reverted to the Congress in 1914 and, during the Home Rule agitation of Mrs. Besant, surren­dered his Knighthood and provoked the ire of both Montagu and Chelmsford. It is said that there was a talk at the time of dis­continuing his pension as a Judge, but, apparently, better counsels prevailed. Then again, both Sir P. S. Sivaswamy Aiyar and Sir C. P. Ramaswami Aiyar were Congressmen, the former figuring at the Congress of 1895, and the latter being a more recent recruit but even more ardent than the former, for he actually signed the Passive Resistance pledge during the internment of Dr. Besant and her coadjutors. Between 1917 and 1919, Sir C. P. was the one star on the Congress firmament flooding the horizon of Indian politics with his radiance. Both these rose to the position of Members of the Executive Council. So did Sir Mahommed Habibulla who first appeared on the Congress platform in 1898 and gave a sample of his talents and eloquence. He became a Member later of the Madras and Delhi Governments. Sir M. Krishnan Nair, a Law Member of the Government of Madras, spoke at the Congress of 1904, and his successor – Sir K. V. Reddi – ­was even on the eve of the birth of the Justice Party in 1917 an ardent and well-known Congressman. Sir M. Ramachandra Rao had for long been a devoted Congressman and was actually appointed Member of the Madras Executive Council in 1921, but was passed over at the last moment. Thus we had, from Madras alone, six Judges and six Executive Councillors. Mr. G. A. Natesan’s recent elevation to the Tariff Board adds an example of preferment in some of the unusual lines, even as Sir R. K. Shanmukham’s appointment as Dewan of Cochin furnishes still another deviation from the beaten track of the Judiciary and the Executive. Perhaps the earliest prizeman from the Congress ranks was Mr. C. Jambulingam Mudaliar, an elected member of the Madras Legislative Council in 1893, who was made a City Civil Court Judge. In Bombay, both Tyabji and Chandavarkar who presided over the Congress sessions of Madras (1887) and of Lahore (1900) respectively, and K. T. Telang, became Judges of the Bombay High Court. Mr. N. M. Samarth and B. N. Basu were made members of the Secretary of State’s Council and Sir Chimanlal Setalvad was at a later stage made a Member of the Executive Council of Bombay.

In Calcutta, A. Chaudhuri who took a leading part in the anti-Partition (of Bengal) agitation became a High Court Judge, almost then and there. When Lord Morley wanted to select the Law Member of the Government of India in 1908, the choice, we learn from lady Minto’s biography of Lord Minto, lay between Messrs Ashutosh Mukherjee “as the leading jurist of India, but as a sincerely orthodox man whose claims were carefully canvassed” and S. P. Sinha. It was stated by Lord Minto that Sinha was a “Congressman although a Moderate.” S. P. Sinha spoke at the 12th Congress (Calcutta, 1896), on the deposition without trial of a native chief. And as we all know, the Congressman was pre­ferred. Likewise, when a vacancy arose in the Executive Council of the Governor-General in 1920, Lord Chelmsford’s choice fell on the Maharaja of Burdwan, but Mr. Montagu preferred an elected member of the Imperial Council and mentioned Mr. V. S. Srinivasa Sastri’s name. Chelmsford would not have him, as he thought Sastri had failed him at the psychological moment and the choice fell on Mr. B. N. Sarma – a man that had not failed him at Amritsar, as we shall see later on. In Bengal, other names familiar to Congress circles, which have since been associated with high posts under Government, are those of Messrs. S. R. Das who spoke in 1905 on the question of Indians in Executive Councils, and who became the Law Member of the Government of India, and Sir Provash Chandra Mitter who became an Executive Councillor of Bengal. In U. P. Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru was the stalwart chosen for the Law Membership of the Government of India, and from Bihar Syed Hasan Imam became, after inviting the Congress to Patna for 1912, a High Court Judge; Mr. Sachchidananda Sinha was raised to a place in the Executive Council of Bihar.

But let us add that the governmental recognition did not always take the form of posts. Pherozeshah Mehta was raised to Knight­hood in 1905 by one of the most reactionary Viceroys, Lord Curzon. Gopal Krishna Gokhale would not accept a Knighthood, and would not have accepted even a Membership of the Government of India if it had been offered to him. He preferred to be the plain, unsophi­sticated Servant of India that he really was, and would have been happy not to have been made a C. I. E. Mr. V. S. Srinivasa Sastri was nominated a member of the Legislative Council by Lord Pentland during the Great War. Thereafter he was nominated to the Assembly under the Montford Reforms, and in 1921, was appointed India’s representative at the Imperial Conference along with the Maharaja of Kutch, and shortly after made a Privy Councillor. Then he went to America and lectured on India and the Empire. The Dominions invited him, except South Africa which declined to invite him. The Government of India voted Rs. 60,000 for his expenses. But ample amends were made to him later when he was appointed in 1927 the first Agent-General in South Africa itself, to look after the interests of Indian settlers there. The very stone which was rejected became the corner-stone of the edifice of the Empire.

We have mentioned some instances of preferment of distin­guished Congressmen. Let no one run away with the idea that these men were not fitted by their education, culture and high character to fill the posts to which they were appointed. These illustrations only show that the Government, too, if it wanted, to have able Indians, had to look to Congress ranks for recruiting them, and that their politics were not regarded by the Government with such disfavour as to make them unfit for places of the greatest responsibility and trust.

–From The History of the Indian National Congress (1935)

* Congressmen loved to parade their loyalty in the earlier days. When in 1914 Lord Pentland, Governor of Madras, visited the Congress pandal, not only did the whole House rise and applaud the Governor, but Mr. A. P. Patro who was speaking on the despatch of the Indian Expeditionary Force was stopped abruptly and Surendranath Banerjea was asked to move the Resolution on the loyalty of the Congress to the Throne which he did with his usual exuberance of language.

A similar incident took place when, on the visit of Sir James Meston to the Lucknow Congress in, 1916, the House rose to receive him.