REFLECTIONS ON THE CONGRESS

K. CHANDRASEKHARAN

The history of the Indian National Congress has been written by the late Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya in two hefty volumes, and it contains events up to his own times. No doubt further history has yet to be written by similar authentic writers with a vast knowledge and experience of the events of the great institution. In her book How India wrought for her freedom, Dr. Besant, much earlier, had written about some of the salient movements to further the progress of that institution. But to a normal witness to the complete change of direction and plan of the freedom struggle after the Mahatma started his non-co-operation movement the entire outlook and purpose of action became bewilderingly unexpected by most of the earlier leaders of the Congress.

It is needless now for us to be dwelling upon the Gandhiji period of activity as some of the best writers, both in India and outside who had studied with care the events, have produced innumerable volumes of very verified and highly-informative narration of India’s unusually non-violent preparations for gaining the goal under the guidance of the apostle of Satyagraha. But it is only later the Congress, bearing the huge responsibility of an infant democracy, has not been able to retain the same high ideals of faith in purity and self-denial and failed in its main strength of character of individuals in command of the situation. Apart from the fact that Gandhiji himself was for dissolving the Congress institution, especially in view of the coming in of Congress rule of the country, his following showed cloven feet when it came to actual handling of administrative affairs. However much laudable the industrial and technological progress due to the national plans could be counted upon as the outcome of the vision of a Nehruji and carried on by his successors in trying to place the country on the same level of some of the advancing countries of the world, there is the woeful lack of a trust and confidence in the same manner in the leaders who came later. Why is it so is the point to be investigated.

Talking of South India we had in the past true men of earnestness with severe self-restraint and desire to serve the country with no more idea than bringing it forward towards the realisation of Self-Government. Pherozeshah Mehta, Wacha, Gokhale, Tilak and others were as much patriotic of their motherland as the forward marchers under Gandhiji’s lead. Gandhiji himself owned Gokhale as his Guru, not because of Gokhale’s reputation at the time of Gandhiji’s arrival in India from South Africa, but because of the purity of purpose and selflessness which actuated Gokhale in taking his steps of constitutional agitation against a Government which, despite many of its failings, had sought for a clean administration and individual sympathy in its service to a ruled people.

In Gokhale’s footsteps were some of the choice spirits of the age such as V. Krishnaswami Aiyar, C.Y. Chintamani, Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya not to mention some of the other Northern personages who gathered round Gokhale’s personality. When there happened the much-talked of Surat Congress split, V. Krishnaswami Aiyar of Madras, who happened then to be within the fold of the eminent leaders, showed the way for ending the stalemate consequent upon the shattered condition of the Congress presented at Surat. Describing the occasion, later C. Y. Chintamani, in an article in 1912 in the Leader of Allahabad, felt an occasion to mention what Gokhale expressed on the suggestion made by V. Krishnaswami Aiyar for an immediate convention to be called by the leaders to carry on the work of the Congress: “We have all studied Constitutional history; but when a practical solution has to be thought of, you are the genius here to find a way out of the difficulty.” This occurs in the article on ‘Reminiscences of V. Krishnaswami Aiyar’ written just after his passing away in December.

As a matter of fact, men of vision and practical outlook were earnestly helping that institution with their knowledge and experience. A race of well-educated and trained persons in public life then serve the higher interest of the Congress. Gokhale wanted only men of equipment in knowledge of the needs in all fields of activity of the country to join the Servants of India Society (1906) which came into being because of Gokhale’s desire to train such persons who would later hold positions in public life and require abilities of head and heart to rule the country as administrators. The moderates, who separated from the main institution in 1918 and later were known as the Liberals had aims for the younger Congressmen of personal education and preparation for the tasks ahead. Some of their ideals may not commend today to those who believe in direct action for redressing wrongs, but the Liberal outlook has some very necessary points for real service in public life. According to them, “the spirit of behaviour implies freedom from race and creed prejudices and steady devotion to all that seeks justice between man and man, giving to the rulers the loyalty that is due to the law they are bound to administer, but securing at the same time to the people the equality which is their right under the law.” This is not a complete list for emancipation of public spirit today but, none the less, a safe guide for them to follow.

The younger Congressmen, who hardly familiarise themselves with what went before and know who were the pioneers of the Congress struggle for freedom, need to turn their gaze at some of the stalwarts who wrought the framework even for Gandhiji to fill in. The Youngsters in the Congress have a duty to know correctly of their predecessors and understand that. Without them the great movement would not have had its present glory of achievement. For patriotism and economic progress of this vast sub-continent, even so early as the first decade of this century, leaders like Gokhale and Krishnaswami Aiyar strained their efforts to ensure a steady and continued advancement in education, social welfare, etc. To imagine that it is only with the non-co-operation movement the history of the Congress, starts is to ignore totally the real work done within the scope then in the field of agitation for freedom.

Young Congressmen and women today pride themselves in the wonderful sacrifices of the immediate past leaders, forgetting that in their spirit of service or sincerity the earlier leaders were no whit less either in their comprehension of the country’s needs or of the abilities to be acquired for running the administration. Because of a Gandhiji there was achievement of freedom quickly, but how many Gandhis are there to supply, in our midst today, the youth with similar ideals!

Back