CHAPTER 4

FOUNDATION OF THE CONGRESS: THE MYTH

Arora IAS Short Notes

India Struggle for Independence(1857-1947) Notes

Revision Notes or Short Notes

 

Part-1

 

Formation of Indian National Congress (INC):

• Founded in December 1885 by seventy-two political workers.
• O. Hume, a retired English ICS officer, played a significant role.

Myth of the Safety Valve:

• Suggests INC was formed under Lord Dufferin’s direction to provide a peaceful outlet for discontent.
• Widely accepted but lacks historical evidence.

Views on the Safety Valve Theory:

• Liberals: Seen as a means to prevent violent revolution.
• Radicals: Argue it compromised INC’s anti-imperialist stance.
• Extreme Right: Claim INC was anti-national from inception.

Criticism by Lala Lajpat Rai (1916):

• Alleged INC was created to save the British Empire.
• Argued its birth was to protect imperial interests.

Role of R. Palme Dutt (India Today, 1938):

• Propagated the safety valve myth as a left-wing opinion.
• Believed INC was created by the government to counter unrest.

Dual Character of INC:

• Created by the government but evolved into a nationalist body.
• Became a vehicle for mass movements but retained loyalty to imperialism.

M.S. Golwalkar’s Critique (1939):

• Accused INC of promoting secularism and undermining Hindu nationalism.
• Alleged INC was created by the British to suppress national consciousness.

Views of C.F. Andrews and Girija Mukherji (1938):

• Accepted safety valve theory as it prevented bloodshed.
• Considered INC’s creation a success in maintaining peace.

Post-Independence Perspectives:

• Various scholars continued to propagate versions of safety valve theory.
• Despite historical inaccuracies, the myth remains popular.

Conclusion:

• Safety valve theory influenced political perspectives on INC’s role in India’s independence

 

Part-2

The Mystery of the Seven Volumes: A Historical Inquiry

 

Hume and the Safety-Valve Theory

• O. Hume, a British civil servant, believed in the existence of a vast conspiracy among the lower classes to overthrow British rule in India.
• He claimed to have seen seven volumes of secret reports as evidence of this discontent.

The Transformation of the Seven Volumes

• The accounts of the seven volumes varied over time:
  • Lajpat Rai (1921): Mentioned them as the source for Hume’s belief in an impending calamity.
  • Gurmukh Nihal Singh (1933): Claimed they were government reports.
  • Andrews and Mukherji (later): Described them as secret CID reports.
  • Palme Dutt (most influential): Stated they were official secret police reports.

The Flawed Evidence

• Historians overlooked inconsistencies in the story:
  • Hume’s position (Revenue Dept. Secretary) wouldn’t grant access to Home Dept. files (where CID reports resided).
  • The sheer number of reporters (30,000) was implausible for the intelligence department’s capacity at the time.
  • The delay in founding the Congress (7 years after supposedly discovering the plot) didn’t align with the urgency of the situation.

The Truth Behind the Seven Volumes

• Revealed in William Wedderburn’s biography of Hume (1913):
  • The source of the reports was religious leaders (Gurus) with millions of followers (Chelas) across India.
  • These Gurus feared an unrest leading to violence and sought Hume’s help to avert it due to his government connections.
  • The reports were provided by Chelas who acted as spies and informants for the Gurus.

The Esoteric Element

• Wedderburn hinted at the Gurus’ special nature but downplayed it to protect Hume’s reputation.
• Further research suggests the Gurus were believed to possess occult powers:
  • Communication and direction over vast distances.
  • Invisibility and manipulation of thoughts.

Conclusion

• The seven volumes were not official government documents but reports from a network of religious leaders and their followers.
• Historians’ credulity and reliance on secondary sources led to the misconception for decades.

 

Part-3

A.O. Hume and his Belief in Mahatmas

 

Hume’s fascination with the occult

• O. Hume, a British administrator in India, came under the influence of Madame Blavatsky, a proponent of Theosophy, in 1881.
• Blavatsky claimed to be in contact with a secret brotherhood of Mahatmas in Tibet with supernatural abilities.
• Hume believed Blavatsky and sought to gain occult powers himself.

Hume’s “correspondence” with the Mahatmas

• Hume believed he could contact the Mahatmas through Blavatsky and letters.
• He claimed these Mahatmas possessed knowledge of Indian affairs and public opinion.
• He used this supposed connection to influence British policy in India.

Hume’s claims to Lord Ripon (Viceroy 1880-1884)

• Hume informed Lord Ripon of his association with the Mahatmas in 1883.
• He claimed superior knowledge of Indian opinion due to their insights.
• He credited the Mahatmas for influencing past events like the 1857 Sepoy Mutiny.
• Hume believed the Mahatmas could help Ripon’s reform agenda and prevent future rebellions.

Hume’s claims to Lord Dufferin (Viceroy 1884-1888)

• Hume interacted with Lord Dufferin but was more cautious about revealing his advisors’ identities.
• He hinted at their special nature but mostly portrayed them as political figures.
• On one occasion, he claimed his advisors used “occult methods” to obtain a secret letter.

Hume’s frustration and the end of his claims

• Hume’s inability to provide concrete proof of his connection with the Mahatmas frustrated him.
• He felt ostracized by Europeans who viewed him as delusional.
• By 1885, Hume abandoned mentioning the Mahatmas in his political endeavors.

Revelation about the source of the information

• The texts Hume saw (possibly the seven volumes) were not created by official sources.
• They were likely compiled by Blavatsky’s network of followers and not Indian political leaders.

 

Part-4

Safety-Valve Theory of Indian National Congress Debunked

 

W.C. Bannerjee’s Claim (1898):

• Bannerjee claimed Congress was created by Lord Dufferin to understand Indian political opinion.
• This aimed to mimic the role of Her Majesty’s Opposition in British Parliament.

Evidence Against the Claim:

• Hume’s discussions with Indian leaders revolved around a political gathering.
• Prior Indian associations like Bombay Presidency Association were already political.
• Hume himself publicly urged Indians to participate in politics since 1882.
• Hume opposed social reform movements, prioritizing political reforms.
• Dufferin criticized Congress for focusing on narrow political interests, not social reform.
• Dufferin’s private papers (released in 1950s) contradict Bannerjee’s claim.

Hume’s Proposal and Dufferin’s Response:

• Hume proposed a political convention like O’Connell’s pre-Catholic emancipation movement.
• Dufferin initially disagreed with Hume’s focus on social reform.
• Dufferin later turned against the Congress, seeking ways to dismantle it.

British Officials’ Views on Congress:

• Neither liberal nor conservative British officials supported the Congress.
• Dufferin even considered ways to destroy the Congress in 1888.
• Other British officials viewed the Congress with apprehension.

Conclusion:

• The safety-valve theory lacks evidence and contradicts historical records.
• The theory likely originated from unsubstantiated claims.

 

• Flipkart Buy Link : (COD Available) : https://tinyurl.com/2cj58fbp