Why the British Preferred Congress?

by admin
Posted on January 20, 2025January 20, 2025

British were more comfortable engaging with the Indian National Congress than with leaders like Veer Savarkar, Subhash Chandra Bose or revolutionaries such as Chandrashekhar Azad. This difference stemmed from the Congress’s strategy of adopting constitutional and non-violent methods, which the British saw as less threatening than the armed resistance and radical approaches of Bose and the revolutionaries.

1. Non-Violence and Negotiations

Under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, the Congress adhered to non-violent civil disobedience and negotiation as its primary tools for achieving independence. Movements like the Non-Cooperation Movement, Civil Disobedience Movement, and Quit India Movement were mass-based yet peaceful. Although disruptive, these movements allowed the British to engage with Congress leaders diplomatically, making it easier to control the situation compared to dealing with armed uprisings or revolutionary threats.

2. Congress’s Role in Electoral Politics

The Congress engaged with British reforms like the Government of India Act of 1919 and later the Government of India Act of 1935, which introduced limited self-governance. By participating in elections and working within the colonial framework, Congress legitimized itself as a political body capable of representing Indian aspirations. This structured approach made Congress a preferred negotiating partner for the British compared to revolutionary groups that rejected dialogue altogether.

3. Distrust of Revolutionaries

Revolutionary leaders like Chandrashekhar Azad, Bhagat Singh, and Subhash Chandra Bose adopted methods that directly threatened British authority. Armed resistance, assassinations, and bombings not only disrupted British administration but also undermined their moral claim to rule. The revolutionaries’ radical approaches, including Bose’s alignment with Axis powers, posed a greater risk to the British than Congress’s non-violent strategies. Similarly, Veer Savarkar, with his advocacy for armed resistance and nationalist writings, was seen as a dangerous intellectual and ideological force that fueled revolutionary sentiment.

4. Congress’s Mass Appeal

The Congress, as a broad-based organization, had a much wider reach across Indian society than fragmented revolutionary groups. Leaders like Gandhi and Nehru cultivated a public image of inclusivity and reasonableness, making Congress appear as the legitimate voice of Indian aspirations. The British leveraged this mass appeal to keep revolutionary factions isolated and reduce widespread unrest.

Subhash Chandra Bose , Savarkar , Chandra Shekhar Azad & Revolutionaries : A Greater Challenge

Revolutionary leaders like Subhash Chandra Bose, Azad, and Savarkar posed far greater challenges to British rule compared to Congress:

1. Subhash Chandra Bose’s Indian National Army (INA)

Bose’s military initiatives, including the formation of the INA, directly threatened British control over India. His slogan, “Give me blood, and I will give you freedom,” galvanized Indians to adopt militant methods to overthrow colonial rule. Unlike Congress, which sought independence through constitutional means, Bose’s reliance on Axis powers (Japan and Germany) made him a strategic and military threat to the British Empire.

2. Chandrashekhar Azad and HSRA

Azad, along with Bhagat Singh, founded the Hindustan Socialist Republican Association (HSRA), which engaged in high-profile acts like the Kakori Train Robbery and the assassination of British officials. These acts of defiance inspired widespread admiration but also struck fear into the colonial administration.

3. Savarkar’s Enduring Ideology

Savarkar’s insistence on complete independence (Purna Swaraj) and his emphasis on Hindutva shaped the ideological framework of many revolutionary groups. His vision of a free India as a self-reliant and militarily strong nation contrasted sharply with Congress’s gradualist and non-violent approach.

British Strategy: Divide and Conquer

The British successfully exploited divisions between Congress and revolutionaries to maintain control:

1. Isolating Revolutionaries

The British consistently branded revolutionaries like Azad, Bhagat Singh, and Savarkar as violent extremists, painting them as a threat to public order. This allowed the British to justify harsh crackdowns while projecting Congress as a “reasonable” alternative.

2. Negotiating with Congress

By engaging with Congress leaders, the British created a narrative of cooperation, even as they suppressed revolutionary activities. Agreements like the Gandhi-Irwin Pact (1931) further alienated revolutionaries, as Gandhi agreed to withdraw the Civil Disobedience Movement, leaving revolutionaries without broader support.

3. Suppressing Savarkar and Bose

Savarkar’s imprisonment and Bose’s exile highlighted the British strategy of targeting individuals who posed ideological or military threats. By isolating such leaders, the British sought to weaken the broader revolutionary movement.

Why Congress Was More Acceptable to the British

1. Non-Violent Approach

Congress’s adherence to non-violence made it easier for the British to manage unrest without resorting to widespread violence or military intervention. Leaders like Gandhi emphasized dialogue over confrontation, aligning with British preferences.

2. Elite Background of Leaders

Many Congress leaders, including Nehru and Patel, were Western-educated and came from elite families. Their familiarity with British political traditions and fluency in English made them more relatable and acceptable to the British administration.

3. Pragmatic Compromises

Congress was willing to compromise on key issues, such as accepting Dominion Status before demanding full independence. This pragmatic approach contrasted with the revolutionaries’ uncompromising demand for complete freedom.

Revolutionaries’ Criticism of Congress

Revolutionaries like Azad, Bhagat Singh, and Savarkar often criticized Congress’s methods:

Reluctance to Support Armed Struggle: Congress distanced itself from revolutionary activities, fearing they would alienate British negotiators.
Compromising Nature: Leaders like Gandhi were criticized for being overly conciliatory, as seen during Bhagat Singh’s trial and execution, where many believed Gandhi could have intervened more forcefully.
Focus on Gradual Change: Revolutionaries felt Congress’s reliance on slow reforms ignored the urgency of India’s struggle for independence.

Conclusion

The British preferred Congress because of its non-violent approach, mass appeal, and willingness to engage in negotiations. Revolutionaries like Subhash Chandra Bose, Chandrashekhar Azad, and Veer Savarkar posed a much greater challenge due to their direct methods and uncompromising demands for complete independence. While Congress ultimately succeeded in leading India to freedom, the sacrifices and ideologies of revolutionaries played a vital role in shaping the nation’s spirit of resistance and independence. Both approaches were crucial to the success of India’s freedom struggle.

Comments are closed.