Thread by @LakshmiAgain

Dear friends, #Congress (#INC) likes to claim that it "fought" for #India's independence & refers to its political opponents as #fascists. How many of you know that only did #INC *not* EXCLUSIVELY "fight" for #Independence (AND #Gandhi was "happy" to settle for #DominionStatus)+

But also the party known as #INC by #IndiraGandhi was *not* even the same party that was formed in #1885 ? A thread about the #Congress follows: +

In 1883, retired civil servant (AO #Hume), a #Scottish ornithologist. Hume first expressed the idea that "educated" #Indians should fight for greater freedom and representation for themselves in the #British government of #India, claiming it as both the Indians' right and duty +

In 1885, the Indian National Congress was founded by Hume along with some Indians. 1885 was an election year in #Britian. This "Congress" asked the British public to vote politicians who were sympathetic to the concerns of #India in that election. This did not happen+

In Dec 1885, the Congress (previously called the Indian National Union) was formed, with Hume as its founding member and General Secretary. Other members included about 4 Scots and 72 Indians, all of whom were exclusively #Hindus.+

Initially, the British government headed by the Queen (Victoria) and her representative, the #Viceroy in India were welcoming of the #INC, believing that this agency would function like an #Opposition party and act as the voice of the common Indian. +

Over time, however, this opinion changed especially when the rulers realized that the party was doing more than just what a normal Opposition would do - demanding greater freedom for Indians, greater representation in govt, no onerous taxes in #India to support British needs etc+

This party also demanded reforms of government policies that were discriminatory & abusive towards Indians, repealing of the salt tax which was especially an oppressive burden on the poorer sections of society. Most of their demands were outright rejected, leading to frustration+

For 20 years (1885 - 1905), the INC saw itself as loyal subjects of the British #Raj, despite growing anger & disaffection that the government usually ignored their many (often reasonable) demands, most of which involved greater representation for the natives in our own affairs+

It apparently never struck the Congress party to demand Swaraj since their reasonable requests were not given even minimal consideration by the Colonial govt. The first person to speak out against British excesses and denial of representation to Indians was #BalGangadharTilak.+

Tilak opposed to "moderates" (as they called themselves) of the Congress party. He believed that British rule in India was humiliating to Indians & that Britain merely intended to exploit India for economic reasons to serve its own agenda (such as its campaign in #Afghanistan)+

For this reason, unlike Dadabhai #Naoroji and Gopalkrishna #Gokhale who still believed in "dialogue" and "peaceful solution" to the problems caused by the British to India, #Tilak demanded complete #Swaraj as the birthright of all Indians, despite opposition from Naoroji et al+

Supporting Tilak, however, were stalwarts such as Lala Lajpat Rai, Bipin Chandra Pal & VO Chidambaram Pillai. Tilak's demands for poorna Swaraj led to his arrest which caused Hindu Indians to lose faith in the moderates of Congress and their means of dealing with the colonizers+

Since I mention #Hindu Indians, the question naturally would arise as to how #Muslim Indians of the day (1906) viewed the INC. The answer is that they had NO confidence or faith in the INC, forming the All India Muslim League that same year. +

This divided group of individuals - the Hindu moderates and the staunch nationalists and the #MuslimLeague - were brought together and found common ground quite unexpectedly by the breaking out of WW1 in #Europe in 1914. The British forcibly recruited Indians to fight for them+

This forcible recruitment was resented and opposed by even the common Indian (who until then had not really participated or even shown any interest in the activity of the INC or the nationalists or the Muslim League). Tilak and his side made up with Naoroji and his. +

Jinnah, Tilak and Naoroji all together formed the Home Rule Movement in 1916, which put forth the basic condition of Dominion Status for India - nothing about India without Indian input and support, along the lines of the status offered to #Australia and #Canada. +

The newfound unity and assertiveness of the natives alarmed the masters in #London. It was at this crucial point that a newly returned lawyer from South Africa joined the Congress as it's important member in 1915. His name was Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. +

Gandhi had a history of activism in South Africa. Originally, he had gone there to fight a lawsuit on behalf of a Gujarati Muslim merchant, but had stayed on after winning the lawsuit to fight other discriminatory laws passed by the Govt of Natal against non-white people. +

It was during his time in #Natal that Gandhi read the bool #CivilDisobidience by Henry David #Thoreau in which Thoreau outlines how it is the *right* and the duty of every individual to fight against the laws of an unjust government in order to ensure better government for all. +

Thoreau further states that no individual is "duty bound" to abide by laws or rules that stung one's conscience, no matter what the consequences. He was also deeply impressed by #Socrates' #Apologia (his legal defence against accusations of wrongdoing against the State)+

Socrates' lucid defense of himself at his trial for "impiety, blasphemy and moral turpitude" was simple yet profound. He claimed that the just man is a good and wise man, that injustice leads to disharmony & to be virtuous is to be just and wise towards all. +

Gandhi therefore determined that as the British government had so far not voluntarily given Indians a voice or say in our own affairs, that maybe they should be "persuaded" to do so via disobidence of their unjust laws through peaceful & civil means. He termed this "satyagraha"+

In his proposed form of "peaceful civil resistance to unjust British laws & government in India", he had support in Gokhale (who had invited him to join the Congress party). They were two liberals who believed that violence had no role to play in the fight for Independence. +

This is where things get interesting. While Gandhi's belief in civil disobidence was rooted in his strongly theoretical belief that peaceful resistance was the only way to go, he failed to identify / accept that others may not have confidence in the approach & would oppose it+

To be fair Gandhi did see his method win at Champaran when he was arrested for organizing peasants to defy government order to grow indigo on rented land but was set free unwillingly by the Court after public protests against his arrest (which the British feared could turn ugly)+

He was further boosted in his belief in civil disobidence as in the next year (1918), he organized a similar protest against unfair agircultural taxes in #Kheda which was a remarkable success and resulted in the British suspending the taxes for two years, which was unexpected+

Additionally, the govt restored land seized for non-payment of the unfair and onerous taxes back to their owners. Gandhi believed he had finally found a way to bring the Empire to heel. What he did not realize was that winning two battles did not translate to winning the war. +

Not only did Gandhi discourage more extreme methods of fighting the unjust British movement but he dealt the Independence movement a death blow by suspending the non-cooperation movement completely in 1922 after the horrendous Chauri Chaura +

His decision was opposed by the rank & file of even die-hard Congressmen who did not appreciate Gandhi's insistence that Indepdence should only be had via non-violent means. The police at Chauri Chaura had fired at peaceful protesters who had then turned violent upon provocation+

Many members of Congress who had agreed to work non-violent became disaffected by Gandhi's approach. In addition, many considered him a hypocrite for foisting non-violence on suffering Indians when in 1918 he had agreed to actively recruit us to support any wars of the British+

Some openly began to distrust Gandhi at this point claiming he was a hypocrite & could not be trusted. Prime among them were members of underground revolutionary parties in #Bengal & #UP. Most of these men believed that the British would not leave India except under duress+

To cut to the chase, as this is not a thread on Gandhi or India's independence, between 1920s & 40s, various parties fought for #India's independence, among them the revolutionary parties, extremists, modernists etc. In 1928, both Motilal &Jawaharlal released the #Nehru report+

This report reiterated the demand for Dominion Status for India, rather than full independence. This irked the more aggressive folks such as Subha Chandra Bose & Bhagat Singh who independently resolved to increase aggression against the British to throw them out from India.+