What is Idea Of India as per Congress?

The Congress Party’s Eurocentric View of India: A Nationhood Debate

The Indian National Congress (INC) played a pivotal role in shaping India’s struggle for independence and laying the foundation for the modern Indian nation-state. However, its conceptualization of India’s nationhood has often been viewed through a Eurocentric lens, particularly in its early years and during the post-independence period. This view contrasts sharply with the idea that India is an ancient civilizational nation with a historical continuity that predates colonialism by thousands of years. The Congress’s view of nationhood was deeply influenced by Western political frameworks and the realities of British colonial rule, and it shaped the party’s approach to governance, state-building, and national identity.

Origins of Eurocentrism in Congress

The Congress’s Eurocentric outlook can be traced to its inception in 1885. Founded by A.O. Hume, a retired British civil servant, and a group of Western-educated Indian elites, the INC was initially intended to provide a platform for dialogue between the British colonial administration and Indian subjects. The early Congress leaders were largely products of the British education system and had imbibed the ideals of European liberalism, democracy, and constitutionalism. As such, they viewed the concept of nationhood and governance through the prism of Western political models.

The early Congress leaders like Dadabhai Naoroji, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, and Surendranath Banerjee believed that India’s progress lay in adopting European methods of governance and political reform. They sought greater Indian representation within the British political system, not a complete break from it. Their demands focused on administrative reforms, civil rights, and economic justice within the colonial framework. In this sense, the Congress’s early vision of India was one that saw the nation as an evolving political entity shaped by its interactions with British colonialism, rather than as an ancient and continuous civilization that simply needed to assert its own identity.

The British Contribution to Nationhood

One of the key tenets of the Congress’s Eurocentric view of India is the belief that the British played a fundamental role in the creation of the modern Indian nation-state. This perspective sees British colonialism as a catalyst that brought together a fragmented subcontinent under a unified administrative, political, and economic framework. The British constructed infrastructure, unified the country through railways and communication networks, and established a centralized legal and bureaucratic system.

While the Congress leaders were critical of British exploitation and oppressive policies, they also believed that colonialism had laid the groundwork for a unified Indian polity. The idea that India as a modern nation was born through British intervention and governance is a distinctly Eurocentric notion, as it overlooks the fact that India had experienced long periods of political unification under empires like the Maurya and Gupta dynasties, and that its civilizational identity had existed for millennia.

This Eurocentric understanding of nationhood was reinforced by the Congress’s acceptance of the British-imposed territorial boundaries of India. The party, particularly under leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru, saw the British map of India as the foundation for the post-colonial nation-state. While this territorial unity was seen as a positive outcome of colonial rule, it ignored the deeper civilizational, cultural, and spiritual unities that had historically defined India.

Nehruvian Vision and Eurocentrism

The Congress’s Eurocentric view of India’s nationhood was most clearly articulated in the post-independence period under Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister. Nehru was deeply influenced by Western political thought, particularly European socialism and liberalism. His vision of India was one of a modern, secular, democratic nation-state, modeled on European principles of governance and industrial development.

Nehru believed that India’s progress lay in embracing modernity, which he equated with Western-style industrialization, science, and rationality. He viewed India’s ancient past with a certain degree of ambivalence, acknowledging its cultural richness but also considering it an impediment to modernization. In his view, India needed to move away from its “feudal” and “backward” traditions and embrace a Western model of economic and social development.

Nehru’s idea of nationhood was thus firmly rooted in a Eurocentric framework. He saw the state as the primary vehicle for nation-building, and his vision of a unified India was one that prioritized political and economic centralization. While Nehru recognized the importance of India’s diversity, his approach to governance was largely top-down, with the state playing a paternalistic role in guiding the nation toward progress.

This Eurocentric model of nationhood led to the marginalization of India’s civilizational identity in the post-independence period. Nehru’s emphasis on secularism often meant downplaying the cultural and spiritual traditions that had long defined Indian society. For Nehru, India was a modern nation born out of colonialism, and its future lay in following the path of Western nations.

The Civilizational Alternative: An Ancient Nation

In contrast to the Congress’s Eurocentric view, there is a strong counter-narrative that India is not merely a product of colonialism but an ancient civilization with a continuous and distinct identity. This view holds that India’s nationhood is rooted in its cultural, spiritual, and historical traditions, which predate colonialism by thousands of years. According to this perspective, India’s unity and identity are not the result of British administrative policies but are embedded in its ancient texts, philosophies, and practices.

The idea of India as an ancient civilizational nation was championed by leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak, who emphasized the spiritual and cultural unity of India. Tilak and others in the nationalist movement rejected the notion that India needed to follow Western models of governance and development. Instead, they argued that India’s strength lay in its own civilizational values, which were capable of providing an alternative to Western modernity.

This civilizational perspective sees India as a nation that has always existed, albeit in different political forms. It recognizes the diversity of India’s regions, languages, and cultures but asserts that these are united by a shared civilizational ethos. This view of nationhood challenges the Eurocentric narrative by emphasizing the deep historical roots of India’s identity, which go beyond the modern concept of a nation-state.

Congress’s Rejection of Civilizational Nationalism

The Congress’s Eurocentric view of India’s nationhood often placed it in opposition to those who advocated for a civilizational understanding of India. Leaders like Mahatma Gandhi sought to reconcile these two perspectives by emphasizing India’s spiritual and cultural values while also engaging with modern political institutions. However, the dominant Congress leadership, particularly under Nehru, continued to prioritize a Western model of nationhood over a civilizational one.

This tension between the Eurocentric and civilizational views of India continues to shape Indian politics. Critics of the Congress have long argued that its vision of India is disconnected from the country’s historical and cultural realities. They contend that the Congress’s focus on Western-style secularism and modernity has led to the erosion of India’s traditional values and institutions.

Conclusion: The Eurocentric Legacy

The Indian National Congress, particularly in its early years and during the Nehruvian era, viewed India’s nationhood largely through a Eurocentric lens. This perspective saw India as a modern nation-state shaped by British colonialism and guided by Western principles of governance, democracy, and development. While this view played a crucial role in shaping India’s political institutions, it often overlooked the deeper civilizational identity that has long defined the subcontinent.

The Congress’s Eurocentric vision of India’s nationhood remains a subject of debate, especially in the context of contemporary discussions about India’s cultural and historical identity. While the Congress helped build the modern Indian state, its vision of nationhood was often at odds with the civilizational narrative that sees India as an ancient and continuous entity. This tension between modernity and tradition, between Eurocentrism and civilizational nationalism, continues to shape the discourse on India’s identity today.