INC and Moderate Nationalism (1885-1905): An Overview
Indian Nationalism and the Rise of the Indian National Congress
When we look back at India in the 19th century, the first thing that strikes us is the deep silence of a vast society under colonial domination. For centuries, India had known its share of foreign rulers, but the British Raj was different. It was not just political control; it was also economic exploitation, cultural arrogance, and a deliberate attempt to convince Indians that they were incapable of ruling themselves. In this suffocating environment, the seeds of Indian nationalism began to sprout—quietly at first, but steadily and irresistibly.
Nationalism, after all, is not born in a single moment. It is a long process of awakening—people slowly begin to see themselves as part of a larger collective, bound by shared problems and united by common aspirations. In India, this awakening came in the second half of the 19th century. It was not the work of a single leader, nor the result of a single event. Rather, it was the cumulative outcome of many forces—some external, some internal; some painful, some inspiring.
The British claim—that Indians had always needed strong rulers from outside—was repeated so often that many began to accept it as truth. Nationalist leaders realized that the greatest challenge was not merely overthrowing British rule, but first reviving Indians’ faith in themselves. That confidence came gradually. The experience of foreign domination reminded Indians of their political subjugation. The administrative and economic unification of the country—through railways, telegraph, postal services, and a centralized bureaucracy—ironically created a common platform where Indians could now feel that they were part of one nation. Western education and thought introduced new ideas of liberty, equality, and democracy, while socio-religious reform movements rekindled self-respect within Indian society, attacking blind traditions and promoting rational, modern outlooks.
At the same time, the press and literature gave voice to a new India. Newspapers in English and vernacular languages connected distant regions, spread awareness, and carried nationalist ideas across provinces. The rediscovery of India’s past by scholars like Max Müller and Indian thinkers alike reminded people that their civilization was not inferior but one of the world’s oldest and richest. On the other side, racial discrimination by the British and the harshness of policies under rulers like Lord Lytton—particularly during the famine and the Ilbert Bill controversy—stirred anger and a sense of injustice. All these factors converged to shape a new identity: Indians as members of a single nation.
But consciousness alone was not enough. To turn thought into action, there had to be organization. And this is where the story of the Indian National Congress begins.
By the 1870s and early 1880s, educated Indians—lawyers, teachers, journalists, reformers—had begun forming political associations in different cities: the Poona Sarvajanik Sabha, the Madras Mahajan Sabha, the Indian Association of Calcutta. These organizations were important, but they remained limited—local in scope, narrow in membership, often confined to one city or region. The realization dawned: if Indians truly wished to influence the British government and awaken the masses, they needed a single, national platform.
That vision took shape in December 1885, when A.O. Hume, a retired British civil servant sympathetic to Indian aspirations, brought together seventy-two delegates from across the country at the Gokuldas Tejpal Sanskrit College in Bombay. Presided over by W.C. Bonnerjee, this gathering marked the birth of the Indian National Congress (INC)—an institution that would soon become the voice of the Indian people.
In its early years, Congress was cautious. Its leaders focused on uniting educated Indians, promoting anti-colonial ideas, and submitting petitions to the government. They did not touch divisive issues like social reform; instead, they concentrated on demands that all Indians shared—freedom of speech, equality before law, reduction of taxes, and greater Indian participation in administration. The Congress thus began modestly, but its significance lay not in the petitions it sent, but in the very fact that, for the first time, Indians had come together on a national platform, speaking in one voice to the rulers.
This is how the journey of Indian nationalism and the Congress began: from a subdued awakening under foreign rule, to the creation of a forum where Indians could think, speak, and eventually fight as one nation.
The Era of Moderate Nationalism (1885–1905)
When the Indian National Congress was founded in 1885, no one could have imagined that this modest gathering of seventy-two delegates in Bombay would one day grow into the principal organization leading India’s freedom struggle. The first twenty years of its history, from 1885 to 1905, came to be known as the Moderate Phase—a period often remembered for its cautious politics, polite petitions, and faith in the goodwill of the British government. Yet, beneath this calm exterior lay the foundations of modern Indian political thought.
To understand the Moderates, we must remember the mood of late 19th-century India. The Revolt of 1857 had been crushed; its memory still evoked fear in the colonial imagination. The British Empire, at its height, projected an image of permanence and invincibility. Against such a power, demanding freedom outright seemed unrealistic to many educated Indians. Instead, they believed that if they reasoned with the British—exposed the injustices of colonial policies, appealed to liberal principles, and requested gradual reforms—change could be achieved without confrontation.
This approach reflected not weakness, but the historical context of the time. The leaders of this phase—Dadabhai Naoroji, Surendranath Banerjea, M.G. Ranade, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, among others—were products of Western education. They had imbibed the ideals of liberty, equality, and democracy from English thought, and they wanted the British to practice in India the very principles they claimed to uphold in Britain. They were the first generation of nationalists to publicly critique colonial rule, not through rebellion, but through reasoned arguments and a steady exposure of economic and political injustices.
The Moderates raised demands that today might sound modest, but at the time were revolutionary in their logic. They spoke of constitutional reforms, urging expansion of legislative councils and greater Indian participation. They demanded economic relief—abolition of the salt tax, reduction of land revenue, curbing extravagant military expenditure, and encouragement of Indian industries. They asked for administrative reorganisation—“Indianisation” of higher services, simultaneous ICS exams in India and Britain, and separation of the judiciary from the executive. Finally, they argued for civil rights—freedom of speech, press, and association—laying down the early framework of political liberties in India.
Equally significant were their methods. The Moderates did not believe in secret conspiracies or violent uprisings. Their politics was described as “politics of prayers and petitions,” but at its heart lay a strategy of constitutional agitation—organizing public meetings, drafting petitions, sending memoranda, and building public opinion within the law. They aimed to awaken the Indian middle class, create unity across provinces, and gradually train the people in political participation.
But perhaps their greatest contribution was the economic critique of British imperialism. Thinkers like Dadabhai Naoroji, R.C. Dutt, and M.G. Ranade exposed how India was being systematically drained of wealth—its industries de-industrialized, its peasants impoverished, its finances subordinated to the interests of British capital. This was the first time Indians articulated, with clarity and evidence, that colonialism was not benevolent governance, but a system of exploitation. The idea of the “drain of wealth” became a rallying cry that inspired generations of nationalists after them.
Of course, the Moderate phase had its limits. Its leaders represented the educated middle class and did not reach the masses of peasants and workers. Their faith in British justice often seemed naïve, and their cautious methods frustrated younger leaders who demanded a more assertive approach. Yet, history cannot dismiss them as irrelevant. By making nationalism a legitimate, respectable, and organized force, the Moderates laid the foundation upon which the later, more radical phases of the movement would build.
Thus, the period from 1885 to 1905 was not merely a chapter of petitions and speeches—it was the formative stage of India’s political awakening. The Moderates taught Indians to think of themselves as one nation, exposed the exploitative nature of colonialism, and nurtured the early institutions of political life. Without their groundwork, the later struggles led by the Extremists, Gandhiji, and others would have lacked the ideological soil in which to grow.