Jaswant Singh's Book Review Page 29

Book Reference: Page 29 Line 15-22

My Preamble: I would urge the reader to read the original, to fully appreciate the mental disposition of the Author towards the Indian National congress of 1886 . As I have said earlier, the Copyrights restrictions preclude quoting the original verbatim. I also want to emphasize that, I have either now or in the past any political leanings.

Author’s Views expressed and implied: The author implies that The Congress Session of 1886, even at that time took pains to include more Muslims as delegates to the Second Conference (as there were only two unimportant members for the First Session) to project itself as having a supposedly (author's adjective)national character. Even with all their efforts there were, out of a total of about 430, only about 30 odd Muslim participants who were of no consequence.  Sayyid Ahmed Khan condemned the Movement of Congress as “seditious”.

My Comments: Founded in 1885 with the objective of obtaining a greater share in Government for educated Indians, the Indian National Congress was initially not opposed to British rule. The Congress met once a year during December. Indeed, it was a Scotsman, Allan Octavian Hume, who brought about its first meeting in Bombay, with the approval of Lord Dufferin, the then Viceroy. The other founding members were Dadabhai Naoroji, Dinshaw Wacha, Womesh Chandra Bonnerjee, Surendranath Banerjee, Monomohun Ghose, and William Wedderburn.

The Indian National Congress when it was founded was not fighting to end the British Rule. It was composed of highly educated Indians and foreigners to bring to the Government, proposals for better administration for improvement in the living conditions of the masses. From the composition of the members and their aim it can be seen that it was not  projecting a "supposedly” national  character as vilified by the learned author. That it had only two non-prominent members from the Muslims in attendance at the first session is reasoned by the author himself. The author, in the same page, describes the Muslim elite (prominent Muslims) of that era as those who were well known for their attachment to power and the privileges that go with the office and their uncanny ability to stick with the seats of power. It is therefore natural only  a few non- prominent educated Muslims  could make it to the First and Second Session of the Congress. It is very evident that even as far back as 1887, when the Indian National Congress had no agenda for claiming independence or for even home rule in the Centre, Sayyid Ahmed Khan warned, that the Muslims would invite disaster if they supported Congress( as per the author in the same page) so as to be true to British interests. The question arises as to why should Sayyid Ahmed Khan get alarmed if only a few non prominent Muslims attended the Congress Session in 1886. If Congress was only projecting a supposedly national character even as early as 1886, how come Mr. Jinnah was one of the leading members of the same party for quite a number of years?  (who was eulogized by none other than Gokhale)

Why not appreciate the fact that the Congress of 1880s and later was secular in its composition and outlook and was seeking to enforce better governance for the welfare of all, which included Hindus, Muslims and others. There was nothing supposedly national in its character at that time. It was national in its character. I have no comments as to what it is now as I have no interest in  today’s politics.