Monday, December 28, 2009

Indian National Congress 125 years.

28th Dec,2010. Indian National Congress is celebrating its 125th anniversary. Although this party has remarkable impact on India's fight for Independence, one must keep few facts very clearly in mind that
1) Mahatma Gandhi was never member of National Congress.
2) Congress people say that India could gain independence because of them which is nothing but a pathetic cry since in 1947 British Dynasty became so weak that it could not control their colonies and hence they decided to leave India.
3) Congress never tried to stop the division of India into two separate nations, which now has became headache for every ruling government of India.
4) Although claiming to be a national party, it has always been an estate of Nehru and later Gandhi families.
5)This party has always been appeasing to muslim minorities of India instead of helping them to develope, for the cause of vote bank under the name of secularism.
6)Current party chairman is the best example of such hollow and vicious secularism. Hon.Sonia Gandhi is a Catholic and both her children are also Catholics who misguide majorities of Hindus in India saying that they are also Hindu. So the whole Gandhi family is great example of vicious lies.everyone must be aware of this fact.
7)If at all these congress people were really loving India,then we could have become a fabulous place but unfortunately we aren't.

Please don't take this personally but anyone who loves this wonderful India wholeheartedly will agree with me.


  1. I accept all your facts.
    But a country's development is not the sole criteria of any individual party. Collective efforts have to be put in. Non-participation of the opposition parties have always been a headache in India. And this has been the case from the very beginning. Many Hindu-Mahasabha leaders left the constitution assembly and kept aloof. If the system has to be improved, it can be done only from inside and not outside.
    Also if I am not wrong, Congress seems to be the only focussed party in India.
    The debacle of BJP in Maharashtra and at the Centre in the early 2000's is a testimony. While Congress emerged as a cohesive party, BJP dwindled its prospects by sidetracking. They had brought development but lost cause after the Gujarat riots. In five years of their tenure, they could have made the mandir but they kept on dilly-dallying. It seems the mandir policy is as same as the Muslim appeasement policy as correctly pointed out by you. (Anyways appeasement has led to World War II, Imperialism, etc...)
    The rule of CPI(M)in WB and Kerala, RJD in Bihar & SP and BSP in UP has also been divisionalistic. Constructive ways woud have actually propelled them to success given their natural resources and potential.
    What I belive is until and unless all the parties come together on all issues and stop bickering each other, the development can be just a distant dream.

    I read it somewhere regarding USA:
    All Democrats are Republicans & All Republicans are Democrats.

    Let's follow this principle:
    The Meeting of intellectuals (Congress)have to work for all communities (Bahujan Samaj) and the people of India (Bharatiya Janta)...

  2. I more or less agree with what you said. However, the description doesn't seem to be written from neutral point of view.

    For example, what is the point of saying that M.K. Gandhi wasn't part of this party? I never heard any congressman saying that he was.

    Second point of British leaving India is true to some extent but can't be completely true. The whole (violent + non-violent) freedom movement would lose meaning if that were completely true.

    Third, how would India have benefited without partition? I think that would have been a much bigger headache.

    I completely agree with fourth point.

    I also agree with the fifth point and just to complement that comment, let me add that BJP is doing the same thing with Hindus.

    Sixth point seems next to pointless to me. I personally feel that it doesn't matter what is the religion of a particular person when the act is not religious.

    I agree with seventh point. I would however add that this is true for all the parties.