Why the Congress Looks Down on Bharat?
Though the Indian National Congress played a leading role in India’s freedom movement, its intellectual and cultural foundations have long been rooted in the very colonial worldview it ostensibly fought against. This paradox—of resisting British political domination while internalizing Western intellectual and cultural frameworks—continues to influence Congress’s outlook in the post-independence era. A closer look at this legacy reveals how the Congress, though Indian in name and identity, developed a subconscious contempt for India’s indigenous civilizational ethos.
The Origins of a Westernized Intelligentsia
The Indian National Congress was founded in 1885, during the height of British colonial rule. Many of its early leaders were educated in British institutions, trained in English jurisprudence, political theory, and history. Figures like Dadabhai Naoroji, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, and later Motilal and Jawaharlal Nehru, were deeply influenced by British liberalism and Enlightenment thought. While this education provided them with tools to articulate the demand for self-rule, it also subtly indoctrinated them with a view of India that mirrored the colonizer’s perception: as a land of superstition, caste oppression, and backwardness.
This mindset, though perhaps unintentional, created a class of elite Indians who were politically anti-British but culturally Eurocentric. Their understanding of governance, morality, modernity, and development was framed not through the lens of Indian civilization but through the intellectual frameworks of 19th and 20th-century Europe.
Nehru and the Intellectual Inheritance
No figure embodies this colonial hangover more than Jawaharlal Nehru. While admired for his vision of a modern, industrialized India, Nehru’s writings reveal a deep discomfort with India’s civilizational past. He viewed religion with suspicion, dismissed traditional knowledge systems, and sought to impose a European-style secularism that was alien to India’s pluralistic and spiritual character.
In The Discovery of India, Nehru writes admiringly of India’s spiritual achievements but quickly pivots to argue that the future must be forged through modern science and rationality—values he equated with the West. His model of secularism, socialism, and governance was borrowed from post-Enlightenment Europe, not indigenous traditions of pluralism or dharmic ethics.
Under Nehru, India did not rediscover its civilizational confidence after centuries of colonial subjugation. Instead, it was told—often through state institutions—that it must shed its past in order to become “modern.”
The Congress’s Cultural Discomfort
Post-independence Congress governments continued this legacy. Whether it was in the realm of education, art, literature, or historical narrative, Congress-led regimes preferred Marxist and secularist lenses that marginalized the civilizational achievements of ancient and medieval India.
Textbooks minimized the contributions of Hindu dynasties and philosophical systems, while glorifying foreign rulers and socialist ideologies. Sanskrit was sidelined in favor of English and regional languages, and traditional arts and rituals were either neglected or treated as backward. The state-funded academia promoted a version of history that highlighted caste oppression and religious conflict while ignoring spiritual synthesis, intellectual vibrancy, and cultural resilience.
This was not mere oversight—it was the product of a deep-seated discomfort with India’s civilizational roots. Congress elites, having internalized Western ideas of progress and modernity, could not reconcile them with India’s deeply religious, dharmic, and community-driven ethos. Instead of seeking a synthesis, they chose rejection.
The Western Secularism Trap
Congress’s understanding of secularism itself was derivative. In the West, secularism evolved in reaction to centuries of religious wars between the Church and State. In India, however, no such history existed. Indian civilization had always accommodated diverse faiths—Sanatan Dharma, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Islam, Christianity—all coexisted in a complex, yet organic social fabric.
But Congress’s version of secularism was not rooted in Indian pluralism—it was modeled on French-style Laïcité, which mandates a rigid separation of religion from the public sphere. This led to a strange contradiction: the Indian state, under Congress rule, often intervened in Hindu temples and rituals while remaining hands-off with minority institutions. Hindu festivals were portrayed as majoritarian, while minority appeasement was called secular.
This model alienated the majority while claiming to protect minorities. It was neither just nor truly secular—it was a policy born from misunderstanding India’s civilizational DNA.
The Psychological Impact of Colonial Education
One of the key reasons for this civilizational self-alienation was the British education system, which Congress leaders themselves had passed through. Lord Macaulay’s infamous “Minute on Indian Education” had explicitly stated that British rule must create a class of Indians “Indian in blood and color, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect.” That goal was largely realized.
This colonial education produced generations of leaders and bureaucrats who had little connection with the spiritual and philosophical heritage of India. Their worldview was shaped by Shakespeare, Mill, and Marx—not by Kalidasa, Chanakya, or Shankaracharya. As a result, their loyalty to India’s civilization was emotional at best, and dismissive at worst.
The Lingering Effects Today
Even today, the Congress party often appears culturally tone-deaf or ambivalent toward core aspects of Indian civilizational identity. Whether it’s Rahul Gandhi mocking Hindu rituals during election campaigns, or party spokespersons minimizing the importance of Ram Janmabhoomi, there’s a consistent pattern of disconnect.
This alienation has created a political vacuum—one that parties like the BJP have effectively filled by reasserting civilizational pride. The rise of Narendra Modi is not just a political event; it is a cultural correction—a reassertion of Bharatiya identity after decades of imposed Westernization.
Congress, instead of reflecting on its colonial hangover, often dismisses this cultural awakening as “majoritarianism” or “communalism,” revealing once again its inability to understand the soul of India.
Conclusion
The Congress party may have been the torchbearer of India’s freedom struggle, but its intellectual roots remain entangled in colonial frameworks. Its leaders, trained in British institutions and enamored with Western ideals, developed a subtle disdain for India’s civilizational heritage. This colonial hangover continues to haunt the party—alienating it from large sections of the Indian population who seek a return to cultural and spiritual roots.
True liberation is not merely political independence—it is cultural and intellectual decolonization. Until Congress acknowledges this truth, it will remain out of sync with the India that is awakening to its ancient soul.
Comments are closed.