Talk:Indian National Congress/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Untitled

The founder of Indian national congress is Allan Octavian Hume

Unnecessary stuff

130.18.126.112 (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)The Congress party is recognized as Indian National Congress by the election commission of India and Congress-I is a non existent term which is neither technical nor popular in India anymore. The article seems to be not scholarly and seems to be trying to put congress in bad light. I request the wiki community to help correct this. Congress party being a historical party of India, needs better treatment (even if one disagrees with its views). Allegations made by BJP are also listed as controversies. This is strange as allegations in democracy are common. There is a prolonged list of controversies which is unbalanced by the positives of the party. Its a BJP ploy of trying to differentiate Congress before 1947 and after. This is neither true scholarly nor in a popular sense. No main stream independent historian has ever made case that congress after independence or any time after is a different party. Hence my view is wikipedia should not be allowed to be used as propoganda instrument for BJP and the scholarly aspect has to be protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.18.126.112 (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Error on List of current Congress Chief Ministers

Manohar Parrikar (BJP) is the current CM of Goa. Please update that list immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msutherson (talk • contribs) 17:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC) M.Sutherson (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary

'The Congress party returned to power in the ensuing 1980 elections. In 1984 Indira Gandhi was assassinated by two of her Sikh bodyguards, in revenge for Operation Blue Star. In the following days more than six thousand Sikhs were killed in the 1984 riots, mainly in Delhi, by activists and leaders of the Congress Party. On the other hand three thousand to eight thousand Hindus were slaughtered in the Punjab from 1984 to 1991 by militants seeking a separate homeland.'

'On the other hand'? Unless there is a direct and relevant connection between the Punjab situation and Gandhi's assassination and the subsequent riots targeting Sikhs, this should be removed.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.68.161 (talk) 04:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There are two very strange things in this article--the number 222 and the number 333: "After the murder of Gandhi in 1948 222" "After Nehru's death in 1964,333" Are these supposed to be footnotes? or some mysterious other mistake? Kit1066 (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I, an Indian belonging to no poilitical party, think that INC is no more. The current party should be called Congress-I and not INC. Even election commission of India has frozen the Cow and Calf Symbol. So, please do NOT revert these changes. If you differ please state your reasons on why Election COmmission of India is wrong. I specifically reviewed the editing wars pages and the dispute resolution and I am not going to edit anymore for a week of cool off period. Likewise, others too please ruminate over this before making any edits to make it look as though Congress-I is same as INC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.116.237.124 (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Understanding

Indian National Congress is different from Indira Congress. Many parties came out of Indian National Congress; Indira Congress is one of them.

So, please separate Indira Congress from the article on Indian National Congress.

--Cuziyam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.159.160.57 (talk) 07:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see discussions on this page. MikeLynch (talk) 09:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Changed to top-importance, on the logic that, if the Bharatiya_Janata_Party page is listed as top importance, this page should be as well. -Alataristarion 03:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Can we have more on the party's platform, is it socialist/SD/neo-lib, secular, nationalist?

---

I suppose it is better to move this page to Indian National Congress -Paddu. ...as 'Congress Party' itself may need a diambiguation page.

Since today's Congress (or Congress(I)) was infact formed after separation from the original INC, is it right to put details about that party here. Also, was it ever known as the INC after that? So far as I am aware, they are not called INC at all and INC is certainly not a short-form for Congress(I) (Congress-Indira).

0Does that mean INC - Indira National Congress? INC was defunct when two child parties were formed - Congress(I) and Congress(O). Congress(O) can be considered as the actual INC. Don't forget it wilted away in a later election. It was alive till the time Kamaraj was alive. So, better separate INC from Congress(I)

I support this move. INC is now defunct. Even election commision of India has frozen the coa and claf symbol of INC. In INC leadership changes were not based on by birth unlike in Congress-I. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.84.107 (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I still remember Congress being referred as Congress(I) during 1996 election results. It is a well known fact that Indira created her own party in 1967. So, I would deem it advisable to edit the president list and history of Congress and put them into a separtae Congress article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.242.63.4 (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Volker not so important

Volker report is not such an important event in the life of the Congress party. There are many other probes such as Bofors scandal and many more corruption scandals that should be discussed. Volker is too minor to be dicussed here. Its important for Natwar Singh, not for the Congress party so much.

Allan Octavian Hume

It says that Hume was an Englishman. Is this the case? I thought he was Scottish. will investigate and change if so (and if I remember to do so). Big Jim Fae Scotland

He was Scottish, from Glasgow.

why two election symbols?

someone who knows the subject should decide and remove one.

--Xorkl000 13:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

the hand can be used with or without a tricolour background.

Picture wanted

Can someone help with a copyright free image of Allan Octavian Hume. Shyamal 04:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"Decline"

Please refrain from re-adding this as it is clearly OR. While there is no question that some of the events mentioned have occurred, to summarise a thirty-year process of political change in terms of the 'decline' of one party is OR and almost certainly POV. Thanks. Hornplease 08:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Lack of sources

I am surprised that there are absolutely no sources cited for this article.--Shahab 19:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Separate Stub for Presidents of the Party

I am proposing a separate page for the list of presidents of the congress party. I believe the list is farely long and its current location inside the article is distracting. Sumanch 20:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Troubling NPOV Violations

I have written a bit on India, and I have come to know something about its politics. Congress used to have primary elections to select district candidates, but this practice lapsed after the rise of Indira Ghandi. The fact is that Congress was historically democratic, internally and externally, but these tendencies declined over the last few decades. The material in the piece is too negative using terms like "most undemocratic party" and "never held elections." This suggests that the author is an opponent of Congress.--Jackkalpakian 15:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that the district level primary election practices lapsed after the rise of Indira Ghandi. And that is the key point. This party created by Mrs. Indira Gandhi has never held party elections. The author of those changes is a Gandhian (follower of M. K. Gandhi) and not a supporter of any political party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.86.199 (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the bit about "most undemocratic party" is way too over the top. I'm gonna remove it. Amit@Talk 15:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Today I have gotten boost from Mr. Rajiv Sreenivasan who has gone even beyond. To quote him

"The correct name for what goes on is 'kleptocracy' -- rule by thieves. Or perhaps it is even a 'kakistocracy' -- rule by the very worst possible people." Please see rediff.com.

Edior Jackkalpakian only claims "Congress was historically democratic". This is in complete agreement with I have written. INC was democratic. But Congress-I has NOT been democratic since its inception in the late 60s (or last few decades).

Even the current Nuclear fiasco is a direct result of the undemocratic attitudes of the Congress-I: they didn't even include their allies in the talks with the US. Contrast that to non-Congress-I goverments like that of NDA: in the late 90s the joint parliamentary commission sent to US over these nuclear matters was in fact headed by I.K. Gujral - an opponent of NDA at that time (Not sure if he has changed his opposition now).

Let us look at what transpired over the last weekend. A felicitiation party was held in New Delhi to congratulate The Dalai Lama on his getting awarded the highest civilian honor in the US. The Congress-I leadership barred their ministers from attending this function. Is that Democratic?

One might be tempted to say : "hey look they do have an alliance with so many parties, isn't that democratic?". They are in alliance only because the alliance is necessary to hold on to power: they didn't win enough seats. They didn't get into alliance to be democratic.

Another might be tempted to say that "hey, their MLAs and MPS were elceted by the people. So it is still some form of democracy". No, all contestants for these elecsions are APPOINTED by the party leadership. So, the pool of MLAs and MPs contnues to be a subset of the original appointees and hence they continue to be appointess of the party. During Mr. Rajiv Gandhi's tenure new rules were passed to suppress any dissidence from these appointed MLAs and MPs by making it a law that at least 1/3 should suport dissidence. This rule wipes out even a remote chance that these appointed MLAs and MPs might change attitudes and become democratic.

Please show some instances in which Congress-I has behaved in a democratic way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.175.34.52 (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

A criticism section must be included.

By no stretch of imagination is the Congress party immune to criticism. A criticism section would balance the article and add value to its encyclopedic content. B Nambiar 11:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. A cricism section should also be added to the BJP article, besides a reference to the Gujarat Violence, as is done for the Anti-Sikh riots in this article. Amit@Talk 10:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, this article does have a "Political accusations" section. Amit@Talk 09:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

'Criticism' chapters are generally a bad idea, they tend to become slushbuckets for general accusations, and the selection criteria is often the private pov of wikipedians. 'Criticism' can be divided into two types: 1) criticism against policy, which is generally superflous, as it is implicitly understood that political parties are subject to constant accusations from competing political parties, 2) issues like the anti-sikh riots should be in the history section on the party. --Soman (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

What the ...

The opening paragraph goes on about how the "party died" and cow and calf symbol were frozen. And on the sidebar it shows the symbol of Congress as the hand, and says the president is Sonia Gandhi. What's really going on here? Amit@Talk 11:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

−== Lead section can be improved ==

The lead section says a lot about an article. The current opening sentence in the lead is puzzling and probably leaves people scratching their heads.

Indian National Congress-I (also known as the Congress Party and abbreviated INC) is a major nationalist party in India & rival nationalist party are BJP,CPI-M etc. Created in 1885 by Allan Octavian Hume, Dadabhai Naoroji and Sir Dinshaw Edulji Wacha, the Indian National Congress became the nation's leader in the Independence Movement, with over 15 million Indians involved in its organizations and over 70 million participants in its struggle against the British Empire. After independence in 1947, it became the nation's dominant political party, only challenged for leadership and food in more recent decades. In the 14th Lok Sabha (2004-2009), 145 Iacd members, the largest contingent amongst all parties, serve in the house. The party is currently the chief member of the ruling United Progressive Alliance coalition.

I propose:

Indian National Congress-I (also known as the Congress Party and abbreviated as INC) is a major political party in India. Created in 1885, by Allan Octavian Hume, Dadabhai Naoroji and Sir Dinshaw Edulji Wacha, the Indian National Congress became the leader in the Indian independence movement, with over 15 million Indians involved in its organizations and over 70 million participants in its struggle against the British Empire. After independence in 1947, it became the nation's dominant political party, only challenged for leadership and food in more recent decades. In the 14th Lok Sabha (2004-2009), 145 IACD members, the largest contingent amongst all parties, serve in the house. The party is the chief member of the United Progressive Alliance coalition, currently in government.

some points:

1. There is no reason why the fact that Congress-I is a nationalistic government cannot be cited. If a party statement or other reliable source about the party cannot be cited here, the word nationalist has to go. In any case, Congress-I is a major political party, nationalist or not.
2. Why should BJP be mentioned in the lead? If it should be mentioned, it should be made clear what relates BJP and Congress-I. Is it the fact that both BJP and Congress-I are nationalist parties? Does any reputable, published source mention the relationship? Unless there is a source, the part has to go as well.
3. There is no excuse for the date of establishment not being cited. There must be hundreds of reliable sources at least mentioning the date, at least in passing.
4. How did Congress-I become a dominant political party only after independence? Did it not call itself a political party before that? Was it not dominant before 1947? This is not a major issue. However, the word "became" can be replaced by a better alternative, if found.
5. What is IACD? Is it Indian_Association_of_Chiropractic_Doctors? If so, we should wikilink it.
6. One wikilink changed from Sir Dinshaw Edulji Wachato Sir Dinshaw Edulji Wacha.

Please feel free to edit any part of this edit. We can improve the lead.

Sincerely,

Kushal 15:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

symbol

I know original Congress used Two-bullock after split Congress (I) got "Cow and calf", Congress (O) got "Charkha being plied by a woman" but don't know when congress (I) got Hand symbol? If we have these symbhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_National_Congress&action=edit#ol details in post independence era that will be great. --Kurumban (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Cow and Calf symbol was for the so-called Congress (R) (R for Ruling), the Indira Gandhi led faction of the party after the 1969 split. The 1971 elections and 1977 elections were contested under this symbol.

Congress (I) was the name of the faction led by Indira Gandhi after the split in the party in 1978(?) after the Lal Bagh session, and when this party contested and applied for an election symbol, it was allocated the Open Hand (used in the general elections in 1980) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.149.52.49 (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Wrong Info

//GGandhi came back from South Africa in 1915 and with the help of the pro-British group led by Ghokhale he through an extraordinary coup became the President of The Congress without any election and formed an alliance with the Khilafat Movement. In protest a number of leaders went out of Congress. Khilafat movement ended up in a disaster and The Congress was split// Gandhi became congress president on 1924 (look at the president list table). So i think the above statement is wrong or need more explanation. The above statement gives wrong impression. It needs to be corrected. --Kurumban (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

charge for?

I see a section heading Charges for bidding for seats, which is strange in my dialect (General American); to us, a charge for something is the payment required for it. I was about to change it to Charges of bidding, but then I thought, maybe charge for is standard Indian English. Do you also say "Mr X was charged for murder"? (We'd say with.) —Tamfang (talk) 01:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it right to address the present congress as Indian National Congress, whereas it is Congress(I), according to my knowledge?

I have been watching the media and the internet for several years and have a real big doubt. Congress party in India was split into several parties and a faction was named Congress(I), under Indira Gandhi. But the present Congress party members and the media refer to this party as Indian National Congress. Further, they use the tri-color as their party flag(of course, with a small modification). Isn't that misguiding the people of India and the world? The Congress Party, which was formed for the purpose of freedom struggle, is no longer existent. That party had members like Gandhiji, Nehru, Sardar Patel and many other distinguished leaders, who fought for the freedom of the country. Is it right for the Congress(I) to advertise themselves as the followers of those great leaders? In the section, where the party presidents' names are mentioned, names of those freedom fighters and those names like that of Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi co-exist. So, it is in the names of the prime ministers. Does this mean that Congress(I) and Indian National Congress are one and the same? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vprakash68 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The "Allegations of the BJP and right-wing Hindus" is biased and Not NPOV

This paragraph appears to have been at least partially written by BJP and Shiv Sena sympathisers, especially in the rhetoric used which definitely betrays a biased agenda. For example, the start of the second paragraph states "The BJP and many Indian Hindus". How can you say, "many Indian Hindus"? Have you done a survey or questionnaire? I doubt it. In fact, if you look through this section, there are several examples of unsubstantiated criticisms, with sentences starting with "Congress have been accused", without ANY references to articles being included at the end.

Here's some examples: "Congress has been accused of deliberately fragmenting Hindus while consolidating conservative Muslim votes (by opposing the Uniform Civil Code and allowing Muslims a separate personal code, etc.)"

"The opposition Bharatiya Janata Party and also many right-wing Hindus have repeatedly accused the Congress Party and its allies of being pro-Muslim, pro-Islam supporting Sharia Laws and showing unnatural favouritism to the Indian Muslim community and toleration, or even promotion of Islamic conservatism and Obscurantism."

"It has also been accused of being soft on Indian terrorist groups like Indian Mujahideen which resulted in the resignation of then Home Minister Shivraj Patil in 2008."

"Congress has been accused of funding the Indian Muslims' Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca and subsidies for their religious schools (Madrassas) at the cost of the taxpayers' money. On one hand, Government of India provides subsidy to Muslims to perform Hajj; on other hand, Government of India bound them to fly through government airlines and also gets subsidy from Saudi Arabia for services providing to Indian Muslims, whereas Hindus claim they are accorded no similar privilege for their own pilgrimages or religious schools by the Government of India."

Tell me that these paragraphs are really neutral. Moreover, I can't see why being "pro Muslim" is a criticism. I'd like a ruling political party to be pro-Muslim, pro-Hindu, pro-Christian etc, because that demonstrates that the party is socially liberal and able to lead in the 21st Century. Perhaps for the BJP, being pro minority groups is a negative thing, but for most people I'm sure it displays the sort of egalitarian concerns that made the Congress party respected. I'm not opposing any criticism obviously, and ANY political party all over the world will naturally face criticism about some aspect or another, but the criticisms against Congress are, in a lot of cases, completely unsubstantiated. Moreover, compare this article to the article on the BJP, where BJP supporters were getting hot under the collar when the criticisms aimed towards them (for e.g. the Gujarat riots) were actually BASED on reputable sources, and even then they were actively trying to remove those references to their less than positive contribution to that episode. Again, of course we should have TRUE criticism aimed at both Congress and BJP, but it should be reasonable and based on truths, not the perceived injustices that some BJP supporters may feel.

So, some of the criticism section really needs to be looked at (not removed). If you can provide some evidence of the criticisms, then link to the article please. Otherwise, they should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.48.97 (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Criticism is exactly that, Criticism! Should it be cited with statistical or Empirical proof. Not necessarily as it can definitely be based on perceptions, even if it is of just a very small section of people or society! Its nothing new that a section of Hindus does believe the Congress Party as it is known today does believe in a more benevolent or predisposed view of extremes in Other faiths especially Muslims as Muslims do make a favourable vote Bank for the Congress owing to their aversion to BJP.

has the Congress Party for example ever cited why it is not applying Uniform Civil Code accross the board? it has not! Why have they not is a matter of perception, which frankly they have not cleared for me, so it is not really wrong of me to assume that the Congress Party holds out on Uniform Civil Code because of its fear of alienating Muslims which most often are the Radicals who tend to guide Religious perceptions.

How does one define the Shah bano case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.131.216 (talk) 08:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Oldest political party?

I'm no expert, but if the Congress party was indeed formed in 1885 then it isn't the "oldest democratic political party in the world" by a long shot. Off the top of my head, the US Democratic party and the UK Conservative party are several decades older. As such I'm changing the opening paragraph to read "one of the oldest ...". Hythlodayalmond (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

There's also the Social Democratic Party of Germany, and many others. --Soman (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That Congress party has nothing to do with this party. This is formed later by Indira Gandhi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.119.36 (talk) 05:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

REQUEST NOT TO MENTION INC (Indian National Congress) CALL CONGRESS-I

It is Congress I and not Indian National Congress (INC) The Indian National Congress (INC) was a major political party in India. Founded in 1885 was the leader of the Indian Independence Movement, with over 15 million members and over 70 million participants in its struggle against British rule in India by specifically working against caste differences, untouchability, poverty, and religious and ethnic boundaries.it had members from virtually every religion, ethnic group, economic class and linguistic group.when the party was at the forefront of the struggle for independence and was instrumental in the whole of India.The INC Indian National Congress was the only political party to provide harmony to all the sects of the Indian society. In its time as the nation's leader in the freedom struggle, it produced the nation's greatest leaders. Before the Gandhi Era came leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Bipin Chandra Pal, Lala Lajpat Rai, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Mohammed Ali Jinnah (later leader of the Muslim League and instrumental in the creation of Pakistan) Vallabhbhai Patel,Jawaharlal Nehru,Dadabhai Naoroji the first Indian Member of Parliament in the British House of Commons,Rajendra Prasad, Khan Mohammad Abbas Khan, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Chakravarti Rajgopalachari, Jivatram Kripalani and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad,Subhas Chandra Bose.The INC was transformed into a mass movement by Surendranath Banerjea and Sir Henry Cotton during the partition of Bengal in 1905 and the resultant Swadesi Movement.After coming from South Africa in 1915 Gandhi the president of the INC and formed an alliance with the Khilafat Movement.Due to which the first split in INC In protest a number of leaders Chittaranjan Das, Annie Besant, Motilal Nehru, went out of The I N Congress to set up the Swaraj Party.Mahatma Gandhi and Sardar Patel are said to have held the view that the INC was formed only for achieving independence and should have been disbanded in 1947. Indira Gandhi's growing more and more authoritarian split the INC launched a separate party initialy known as Congress (R).Indian National Congress (Organisation) led by Kamaraj was officialy INC.As Indira Gandhi had control over the state machinery, her faction was recognized as the "real" INC by the hand picked commossioner of Election Commission of India.Gradually, Indira Gandhi grew more and more authoritarian After Emergency in 1975 more Congress factions were formed, the one remaining loyal to Indira Gandhi being popularly known as Congress(I) with an 'I' for Indira. The present Congress-I a pro-Business group financed by the business & corporate houses intriguing with political parties have been casting a shadow on administrative decisions with vote bank policies and benifit Congress-I with a malafide intention has deliberately done a heinous crime by marginalising leaders like Bhagat Singh and Ashfaqulla Khan,Netaji S Bose & otherfreedom fighters. They have misused the government machinery for the publicity of the Nehru-Gandhi family."Most of the central and state government programmes and schemes and national and state-level institutions which run on public money have been named after three members of the Nehru-Gandhi family& has reached vulgar proportions, especially after 2004.Installing puppet like President,Governer Election commissioner for the political profit.Instigating communal trouble to unsettle rivals in the party has been used by Congress leaders in the past with success.1992-1994 Maharashtra,1990&2010 Andhra pradesh. Misusing of the CBI (joke-Congress Bureau of Investigation).Which under the Congress-I has become both an instrument of vendetta against political opponents and a protective shield for the shady supporters of the ruling party& conspires with the accused to earn them a clean chit.Congress-I mocks at SC verdict and the judicial system by imposing Emergency,Shah Bano case,Congress-I goons disrupted court proceedings and hurled chairs at magistrates during 1977 when leaders and others hauled up for their crimes during Emergency. Congress-I has added a dark and painful chapter in the politics of vote bank that is threatening to tear apart the secular fabric of the country by the reservation,appeasement politics& the present & past Congress-I led UPA which is blindly pursuing an agenda of dividing the country on religious, caste, regionalism,linguistic basis.If any part of INDIA is backward and under the Naxal terrorism the Congress-I greed for power & ruling the country for more than 4 decades is to be blamed for the petty politics & failure of the political leadership to ensure the uniform growth of all regions & the fair distribution of the share of prosperity to all sections of the society.Diverting the mass when th Congress-I has no meaningful answers for any burning issues it will open the pandora box like Babri masjid, census reservation.and other All the above is the just the tip of the iceberg the list could be endless on Terrorism,failed foreign policy&economy mess J.K,Assam,North east states sepratisim,wait and watch policy at the time of anti-hindi for vote bank in Tamil nadu&Mashrashtra,communal riots,vote bank dilution of the secularism,appeasement,corruption compramising with anti social & national alliments for political benifit and to be in power and others anti national issues —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.226.14 (talk) 10:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty long post by 86.96.226.14 . First of all, I didn't get what he was trying to say, whether of oppressive policies or campaigns by INC, or of the calling of INC as Congress-I. I don't think its proper to call INC as Congress-I, according to WP:COMMONNAME. But, however, I need to ask for a clarification on whether the Indian National Congress instituted during the British Raj is the same organisation that we have today. I'd appreciate it if anyone can clarify this point. MikeLynch (talk) 06:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

In short yes. The point of the organization and the aims have totally changed, but the Congress Party of today is technically the same as the one of Gandhi in the past. The IP makes some sense, but in general the post seems like a giant political rant. Mike, you are correct about the Common name policy.Pectore^talk 14:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 117.199.176.68, 18 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

I am student117.199.176.68 (talk) 05:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 05:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 117.199.176.68, 18 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

priya Tiwari, student117.199.176.68 (talk) 05:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 05:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Theosophists

The article says the INC was founded by members of the Theosophical Society. A few were indeed members, but not all of them. This should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.115.52 (talk) 11:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Integrating the criticism section within the body of the article

The currently existing Criticism and controversies section is too long. If it goes unchecked, it could well become longer than the rest of the article. WP:CRIT says that criticism sections are to be avoided, and should instead be integrated in the article. If other editors agree to this, then I can initiate the process. TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 16:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree (but I am not a major editor :-)). There are also too many short 1-2 sentence sub-subsections in that section that can be collapsed into a larger one. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the 'major' part was unintended :P . TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 17:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

INC vs Congress ( I )

Is the Congress faction led by Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan singh officially called Congress (I) or Indian National Congress ? If latter, then when did the electoral commission of India approve the "name change" ? Jonathansammy (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathansammy (talk • contribs)

Image of congress Ruled States

Congress ruled states marked in dark green

This image needs to be updated. Kerala and West Bengal are not ruled by the communists. Also Tamil Nadu government has changed. (69.115.82.63 (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC))

Edit request from 123.238.164.200, 10 August 2011 JOIN PARTY

123.238.164.200 (talk) 08:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Jnorton7558 (talk) 08:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Kim123lim, 2 September 2011

Indian National Congress has the most number of Prime Ministers in the Independent India than any other party.

Kim123lim (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Topher385 (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 21 October 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} pro islam and pro muslim are same edit islam or muslim

namran 07:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand what you want to change. Please be more specific and re-request. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  07:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Kamarajar.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kamarajar.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Controversies and criticisms section NPOV and factual dispute

Has anybody even bothered to read the sources given to support some of the sections? firstly the 1947 anti godse riots - it states a article by outlook india but nowhere in the article does it supports the statements made on this page.

then the religious bias section. Anybody who has any idea of Indian history knows that when Janata party came in power it was THE COMMUNIST party of India that they accused of "whitewashing" persecution of hindu people during the medieval period.

thirdly the Congress has never been accused of rewriting history textbooks. the controversy arose when the NDA revised the texts first and those were reversed when the UPA came to power in 2004. the article is written in a manner suggesting that the Congress party delibrately rewrote historically accepted thesises to support their electoral positions. they absolutely did not. in fact it was the bjp who were accused of doing that.

fourthly the uniform civil code. I am sorry but are people even of modern Indian history? Nehru wrote article 44 of the constitution which stated the government must strive to ensure uniform civil code after the communal tensions settled down (The only reason why it wasnt implemented directly). Then in 1973 Indira Gandhi made changes to muslim personal law to bring it more into line with the secular law. in fact it was these amendments that even allowed the shah bano case to arise in the first case. I think a case can be made that Rajiv Gandhi tried to appease the muslim orthodxy( at the same time he was courting hindu orthodox groups which led to the dalits breaking away from the Congress). However, to suggest that the entire party over its history has rejected uniform civil code is downright wrong. lastly after the end of the Congress domination they have never mustered up enough support to make changes. indeed even the bjp has failed to gather support. I fully suggest a rewrite of the section. also these need to be integrated into the main section of the body itself. wiki policy is not to give focus to special made "criticism sections" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliniic (talk • contribs) 23:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely. I remember integrating the criticism into the body of the article for the L.K. Advani article. Will get around to it if I get the time, please try and do it if you get the time! Regards, Lynch7 07:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I am currently doing work on some other articles. feel free to make the changes when you have the time. cheers! Cliniic (talk) 03:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

UPDATION

Pranab mukherjee is the current President of INDIA and not A member of congress party.kindly edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ROCKY2020 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

UPDATION

BELOW PRANAB MUKHERJEE DESIGNATION OF FINANCE MINISTER IS GIVEN.KINDLY CHANGE.CURRENT FINANCE MINISTER IS P.Chidambaram. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ROCKY2020 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC) After Dev Kant Baruah, who served as the Congress President during 1975-77, Kasu Brahmananda Reddy was elected to the post on 03 June, 1977. Thus, Kasu Brahmananda Reddy's name should have been included in the list (in the Table for the period 1977-78) prior to the name of Indira Gandhi.--68.193.2.168 (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC).--68.193.2.168 (talk) 01:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC) During 1962-63, Damodaram Sanjivayya had served as the Congress President. But, instead, erroneously it is mentioned as Neelam Sanjiva Reddy.--68.193.2.168 (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

References

This article has a lot relevant information but virtually none of it is backed up by any source. A lot of the information is historical and the sources for information on cross-linked pages can be used here as well.Sreesarmatvm (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I've begun adding some references using the cross-link method I suggested above, but a lot of work still needs to be done.Sreesarmatvm (talk) 03:09, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 December 2012

59.94.160.85 (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC) <div style="width

Not done: I see no request to edit this article. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 April 2013

117.205.7.241 (talk) 10:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Blank request. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 April 2013

I would like to add Kamaraj photo in this article please provide permission Rajashivaz (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the image? --regentspark (comment) 22:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --ElHef (Meep?) 19:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Symbol

One editor has removed the Indian National Congress symbol from the article of same name, with an edit summary that there is "no authentic confirmation". Before removing such well known and widely accepted symbol, consensus be reached by other editors and I have reinstated the symbol. The symbol (a hand inside tricolour) is widely accepted in India as the symbol of Indian National Congress and there is remote scope for any dispute regarding the authenticity of the symbol. The symbol is used in more than 100 articles of wikiedia, shown as a symbol of Indian National Congress. If any editor disputes the authenticity of the symbol and using it in 'Indian National Congress' article, then I propose, a thorough discussion should be done before removing the symbol from the article.Rayabhari (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 August 2013

The formation of the Congress has been a source of elaborate debates based on a lot of evidences and criticisms.The article here has mentioned the Safety Valve Theory based upon British records.However there has been a lot of controversy regarding this matter.I am a student of The University of Calcutta and we have a elaborate discussions regarding this topic in every book that we read.One notable book is Modern India 1885-1947 by Dr Sumit Sarkar published by Macmillan.This book and the others refer to research done by eminent professors who have opposed this theory on the basis of solid evidences.In my opinion both views be presented regarding formation of The Congress. Shreshta chatterjee (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

 Not done "This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it." Please provide the exact wording you want to add/change. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 August 2013

As there exist both good and bad in every facet of this world,INC is of no exception.There are leaders who sacrificed their everything for the well being of this great Nation and there are Leader who has emberrased this nation for their selfish ends. owing to their selfish needs leader were involved in wrong doings with nation's wealth. As a results of it INC though, has ruled this nation for more that 5 decades people started loosing faith as their mis handling the Nations wealth has come into light with names like Bofar scam, 2G Scam, Augustewestland Choppers scam , DLF -Scam etc.., 117.239.53.6 (talk) 07:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide the exact wording in the article you want to add/change. Also, see WP:NOTFORUM. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Non Free Logo Discussion

There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Multiple_non-free_logos_for_same_organisation about copyrighted party logos. Note that File:Indian National Congress.svg is copyrighted. Please join the discussion to save the Indian Political Party symbols from being deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.229.165.143 (talk) 07:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Indian National Congress is dead. What we see today is Congress I (Congress Indira) masquerading as Indian National Congress.

In 1969 Ms Indira Gandhi split with Indian National Congress (INC) and formed her own party Congress I (I for Indira - henceforth referred to as Cong-I). The Election commission disallowed them the legacy to use the INC symbol - National flag and Two bullocks with a plough. They then opted for the sysmbol Cow and Calf. Later on the current symbol - a hand with national flag as backdrop was adopted. The traditional Cong. splintered into many groups over the years and they all remain today by and large. Effectively therefore INC is dead and what remains is Congress Indira plus a multitude of splinter groups with differing names. But since INC has a tremendous legacy and Brand equity, the Cong Indira has tried to usurp it over time by saying they are the same as INC. But this is not correct. None of the stalwarts of Cong (pre 1969 era) were ever associated with Congress I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purush Vichaar (talk • contribs) 03:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

History section: PV Narasimha Rao

No matter if Presidents of INC is to be made a separate page or keep that information here. PV Narasimha Rao, perhaps the most successful congress President and Prime minister to lead a minority government to its full term. Now whatever fruits of modernization of Indian economy Indian people are enjoying, they are because of the reforms implemented by this genius. Please include more information about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.18.177.234 (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request, 13 November 2013

117.196.194.176 (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC) This page is displayed when we search "most corrupt party in india".is there any study available or there is any smart work by other parties,please check.

Y I have checked it for you. The statement in the article is (my emphasis): "the Congress was seen as the most corrupt political party ..." and this is what the source (this article from Outlook India) says. --Stfg (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)