Talk:Indian National Congress/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

ARUNACHAL PRADESH C.M CHANGE SO REMOVE CONGRES LIST THIS TIME PPA CM IN ARUNACHAL PRADESH SO REMOVE LIST CONGRESS CM LIST

ARUNACHAL PRADESH C.M CHANGE SO REMOVE CONGRESS CM LIST THIS TIME PPA PARTY CM IN ARUNACHAL PRADESH SO REMOVE LIST CONGRESS CM LIST — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohit.rajput2016 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article.
And please, STOP SHOUTING IN BLOCK CAPITALS - Arjayay (talk) 08:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Arjayay: Ref for how Kalikho Pul became CM of Arunachal and how he no longer is in INC. The table should be updated I guess as the new editor suggests. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

"SK Ikram" should be S. M. Ikram

Footnote 21: "SK Ikram" should be S. M. Ikram — Preceding unsigned comment added by 786wiki (talk • contribs) 06:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2016

124.125.248.16 (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Blank request — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2016

|loksabha_seats =

45 / 545

(currently 540 members + 1 Speaker) |rajyasabha_seats =

60 / 245

(currently 243 members)

59.95.186.43 (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. VarunFEB2003 (talk) 13:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Puducherry alliance partner

Since, DMK is an alliance partner of the ruling INC in Puducherry. It should be reflected in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.91.230.10 (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Internal Democracy

I hope somebody can clarify what " democratically run" means in the lede sentence "Congress is one of the largest and oldest democratically run parties in the world. Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The references here clearly show that internal elections are not held by the INC

References

It's not a democratically-run party. Its leadership positions are essentially inherited by members of the Nehru-Gandhi family, as the University of Michigan source that you posted points out. Even when a non-family member is the Prime Minister such as Manmohan Singh, control of the government is retained by the party president who is always a member of the aforementioned family. Claiming that this party is democratically-run is about as ridiculous as the claim in the lead that the party asserts "the right to be free from religious rule and teachings". Unfortunately, you are unlikely to find neutral coverage of this party in Indian English language media, the reasons for which are numerous, but probably not appropriate for this talk page. 71.231.102.105 (talk) 03:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The lead

The lead, per Wikipedia policy, is a summary of the body of the article, which gives equal weight to every section of the article and is in keeping with the weight given in the reliable sources to the topics treated.

How then did an article about a historic 131-year-old political party, that led India to independence, and has formed most federal governments in India during its first 70 years of independence, came to have a one-sentence lead paragraph:

"The Indian National Congress (INC, often called Congress) is one of two major political parties in India; the other being the Bharatiya Janata Party?"

And how did it come to be cited to a poorly written article, with no author or by-line, No by-line. "In Numbers: The Rise of BJP and decline of Congress". Times of India.?

I will be reworking the lead in line with the guidelines of Wikipedia. I already have made a number of corrections. I trust that everyone agrees that in a political arena as contentious as India's, the description and history of a major political party needs to be undertaken with assiduity and care. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I have made my first set of edits. I will continue to improve the article in the coming days. I have left an "underconstruction" sign on the page. Please do not unilaterally make any signifiant changes in my edits, unless you have posted here first. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Indian National Congress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140718175452/http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1971/Vol_I_LS71.pdf to http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/statisticalreports/LS_1971/Vol_I_LS71.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140718175926/http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1980/Vol_I_LS_80.pdf to http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/statisticalreports/LS_1980/Vol_I_LS_80.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140718175926/http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1980/Vol_I_LS_80.pdf to http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1980/Vol_I_LS_80.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

External links

InstagramAnilkath (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Indian National Congress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150420063442/http://election-results.ibnlive.in.com/live to http://election-results.ibnlive.in.com/live
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151018225726/http://164.100.47.132/LssNew/Members/partywiselist.aspx to http://164.100.47.132/LssNew/Members/partywiselist.aspx
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.mainbharathun.org/inc.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081129231738/http://www.cfr.org/publication/17474/indiaafghanistan_relations.html to http://www.cfr.org/publication/17474/indiaafghanistan_relations.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Indian National Congress. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924142920/http://www.firstpost.com/lok-sabha-election-2014/data to http://www.firstpost.com/lok-sabha-election-2014/data
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140819083228/http://www.cfr.org/india/conversation-prime-minister-dr-manmohan-singh/p20840 to http://www.cfr.org/india/conversation-prime-minister-dr-manmohan-singh/p20840

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

From Congress (I) to once again Indian National Congress

In 1978,after being humiliated by her own party leaders,Indira Gandhi broke away from the Congress to form her own faction.For electoral purposes,the two factions were called Congress(I) and Congress(S) after the initials of the faction presidents with I for Indira and S for Swaran Singh.From then on,the Congress(I) became a personal vehicle of Indira and her family.In the 1980 elections, Congress(I) swept to power and the leaders of the other faction started coming back to Congress(I), including senior politicians such as Yashwantrao Chavan.Soon Congress(I) could legitimately call itself Indian National Congress but has remained mostly under the control of the Gandhi family to this day.Since Indira, the "family party" disease has spread to most other parties in India too.How do we convey this turn of events in the article? Any thoughts?Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Requesting someone to update the political map for states ruled by Indian National Congress

The status of the map has changed after December 11, 2018 state election results. I uploaded my own image so feel free to change existing map. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cong-Ruled-States-India-Dec-13-2018.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tech editor007 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

New section of INC on South India

New section of INC on South India. The role of INC in south india will be good topic to discuss and add

please provide feedbackSangitha rani111 (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Sangitha rani111

Family firm

Hi! I recently deleted some statements made on the Indian National Congress page since they were clearly biased. The likening of the Congress to a "family-firm" is clearly a statement meant to antagonize the party. The author in the rest of her book seems to have displayed significant bias against the Congress.

I think the likening of the party to a "family firm" can be stated as an opinion (suggested edit). I also think these mentions are unnecessary since there is a sub-section dealing with dynastic politics in the Congress.

Please respond so that we may arrive at a resolution of this issue.

Thanks RithvikDS (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear Rithvik, Sumantra Bose is a respected academic.The cited source is from his book which was published by the Harvard University press.Let me know whether he has stated anything which is not true.Please always take any objections about content in a specific article to the Talk page of that article rather than the User Talk page.That way the issue has better visibility.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2019

In list of prime ministers please add PV Narasimha Rao who was prime minister from 1991-1996 Tusdey (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. That person is already in the list. RudolfRed (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review

I've currently opened a peer review for Indian National Congress . I think the article meets the GA criteria and I'm thinking about nominating it as a GA candidate. It would be helpful if other editors could comment on the article and/or offer suggestions, etc. Thanks. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Akhil, it is always a good idea to work towards a GA status. But there are two important things to be done:

• Fill in full citations for all references.
• Identify at least a couple of good scholarly sources that cover the post-independence history of Congress, so that we know the article is reflecting reality.

In particular, the paradox of a national movement turning into a family fief. How do we explain that? Jonathansammy asked the question above, which has not yet been addressed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Akhil, one thing I think would need to improve would be some clarity issues. Particularly, in the section "Indira era (1966–1984)" reference is made to "Indira", "Gandhi", & "Mrs. Gandhi". I think that's all the same person, but it is not clear. It is also very confusing which splinter party (or parties?) she is leading and which is led by others. I have not read the whole article, but I think that is one thing to look at for a GA article. Thanks for doing this! Flowernerd (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Jnehru.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Splitting History Session

I believe that history session of the article is too big. Spilting History into 2 before and after independence and moving pre-independence into another page looks good. I found History of the Indian National Congress which talk about history before 1950s. -ANG- (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I am assuming you mean "section." There is. however, little precedence for this on Wikipedia. There is an India page, and a History of India page, but the former doesn't just have the post-1947 history of the Republic of India. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Description

@Fowler&fowler: The edit has been reverted twice without giving any real reason. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/902921572 It most essentially summarizes only tenures of INC and it's political position as a major political party in India what is very relevant actually more relevant Introduction than citing Congress' history in formative part of article. It's just a mere quick summary being one of major parties, past state which should find it's place in immediate initiation of article. I'd like to know the reason for revert or better the content is restored. The edit was accused to be "promoting" BJP but yet to explain whete it actually does. As it's been assigned with the attribute of good faith, I'd like to say that the factually correctness edit was undisputed as well.Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

The Indian National Congress is a historic party, known around the world for its leading role in the world's decolonization, not just India's. The consensus in the other reliable tertiary sources it to highlight that history before describing its role in current politics. Britannica, for example, begins in article on the Congress with, "Indian National Congress, byname Congress Party, broadly based political party of India. Formed in 1885, the Indian National Congress dominated the Indian movement for independence from Great Britain. It subsequently formed most of India’s governments from the time of independence and often had a strong presence in many state governments." We do mention the current status of the party, but that, in keeping with its overall history, is of secondary importance, and therefore, occupies a later slot in the lead. I do notice that we say "broadly based" as well, which is uncomfortably close paraphrasing. I am accordingly changing it to, "The Indian National Congress is a political party in India with widespread roots ...."

Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Ideology and Founder

Hi @Fowler&fowler: @Tamravidhir:, In the lead section of the article I have rewritten the ideology of congress which it generally advocates. Can you guys check and let me know if it is fine or some changes is required. I have rewritten the ideology in short crisp and easy to understand, but, fail to get good source to back those ideologies. In the infobox bullshit source had been provided for ideologies. I had also mentioned the founder of the party in the lead with source, one clarification is required does the party have one founder or multiple. If yes who are they. Majority of the sources states that the party is founded by Allan Octavian Hume. Your help is required. Thanks--Aakanksha55 (talk) 07:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The founder part is a little abrupt. It needs to be expanded in the appropriate style. Allan Octavian Hume was one of the great men of the era, a pioneering ornithologist, an educator who founded dozens of primary schools in what is now western UP. It was because of his popularity that region of western UP did not take part in the Indian rebellion of 1857. Just adding one brief sentence is probably a disservice to a man of his stature. He needs a separate second paragraph. Thanks for starting it. I will expand it when I have some time. There were other official founders (William Wedderburn, WC Bonnerjee, Dinshaw Wacha, Phirozeshah Mehta) but it was his brainchild. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, now that I'm thinking about it, it needs to be said in the same paragraph that the founding of the Indian National Congress in 1885 was a historic event in India. Many historians consider it to be the beginning of public life in India and the true beginning of India's modern age. It is for this reason that Sumit Sarkar's book is titled as it is: Sarkar, Sumit (1989), Modern India: 1885-1947, Macmillan, ISBN 978-0-333-43805-3 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for adding some good sources. However, you've contracted it too much. Wikipedia frowns upon a sea of blue (i.e. a list of links). Please rewrite it in the same relaxed style, but adding your new sources. Thanks very much. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not that much smart to rewrite like you do, if you could do then it would be really helpful. I will try to gather few more sources.--Aakanksha55 (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Aakanksha55: Hi, sorry for the irregular responses. Owing to sudden surge of busy schedule irl, perhaps going to hibernation mode again on Wikipedia. To mention, the same reason I haven't been active on WP India noticeboard and which I regret, @Fowler&fowler:. Coming to the lead, the first thing which caught my eye in the lead is the number of references. Though some may be necessary, we could, perhaps, reduce the number of references in the lead, given the same information is covered elsewhere in a section with apt citations. We do seem to need an expansion on the ideology of Congress, which again has been quite dynamic (?) over the decades, but its core beliefs would require some expanding. Its seeming resistance to the rise of right wing populism may also need be well discussed in the lead, with reference to its policies promised as per its 2019 manifesto. And as Fowler noted, the mention of its prime role in the nationalist movement and the mention of its founder could, perhaps, be more than a passing reference. Seems some work which would be required, and given my schedule my opportunity to help seems bleak, but I really wish for someone to rewrite it. --Tamravidhir (talk) 10:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Also too many images at Indian_National_Congress#Congress_as_a_mass_movement. --Tamravidhir (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: @Moxy: @Sitush: @Ms Sarah Welch:

Yeah a lot need to be rewritten in the lead and also in the main body. I am not that much expert in writing an article like this. So I guess we'll have to wait for either Fowler or someone from WP:India editors to make thorough changes. Fowler is busy in rewriting India article which has high traffic article compared to this.--Aakanksha55 (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

You have to be careful writing a history of the Indian National Congress. It is not the same thing as the history of any other political party in India, including BJP. For major part, this is because the first half of the history of the Congress is the history of the Indian independence movement (in the estimation of most historians, that is). And that history has received much more coverage than Congress's second half. As for ideologies, the Congress has had a mixed bag of ideologies over the years. From 1885 to 1947, it included in its ranks a broad spectrum of ideological opinion. But all personal philosophies became subordinated to the goal of independence. Contrast Britannica's lead for the Indian National Congress,

"Indian National Congress, byname Congress Party, broadly based political party of India. Formed in 1885, the Indian National Congress dominated the Indian movement for independence from Great Britain. It subsequently formed most of India’s governments from the time of independence and often had a strong presence in many state governments.

with the BJP, which says,

"Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), English Indian People’s Party, pro-Hindu political party of post-independence India. The party has enjoyed broad support among members of the higher castes and in northern India. It has attempted to attract support from lower castes, particularly through the appointment of several lower-caste members to prominent party positions."

Ideology is everywhere in the latter ("pro-Hindu," "high-caste." It is absent in Congress's lead paragraph. On Wikipedia we have to response to how the sources line up. It they say little about the Congress's ideology and more about the BJP's, then our write-ups have to reflect that trend (due weight). We cannot make them equal out of our personal sense of fairness. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: @Vanamonde93: I'm not inclined to write history of Congress if some WP:India editors willing to write then he/she is free to do so. I know writing a history of congress is very complex moreover getting strong source too is very challenging. As far as ideology is concern I have mentioned the ideology in short in the lead section, I guess ideology of congress is very confusing, I have just mentioned basic and fundamental ideology with sources, if I get strong source in future I will add. One clarification I need from you, members of the Theosophical Society, namely Dadabhai Naoroji, Surendranath Banerjee, M.G. Ranade, Womesh Chandra Bonnerjee, Dinshaw Wacha, Monomohun Ghose and William Wedderburn, headed by A.O. Hume established Congress, they are also considered as official founders apart from Hume. Should I mention all these founders name in the infobox and in the lead section. Or should I keep only Hume in the infobox. Source state these founders name. But I failed get one source where all these founders name mentioned in founding the party, different sources states 2 to 3 founders separately, but, Hume name is mentioned in all sources. So should I mention all these names in the infobox and in the lead or only Hume be kept as it is.--Aakanksha55 (talk) 06:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Guys I have added all the founding members of Congress in the lead section as well as in the Infobox with sources to back. I finally got the source which I was looking for.--Aakanksha55 (talk) 08:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Controversies

Given the Congress party's deep history and longevity in both modern Indian history and politics, a reference to its involvement in various corruption scandals and its influence on several salient political trends in India seems to be curiously missing, especially given the circumstances of its departure from power in 2014, and its failure to be re-elected in 2019.

I propose including a section called "Controversies", which provides some context to readers on the party's influence on the following historical trends in Indian politics, which might provide them with a fact-based understanding of the party's deep and pervasive influence on the character, contours and patterns of Indian politics:

• institutionalized corruption (e.g. Bofors, Adarsh Housing Society scam etc.)
• criminalization of politics (beginning in the 1970s with Indira Gandhi's leadership)
• entrenchment of dynastic politics
• undermining of academic, judicial, legislative and media institutions (e.g. the Radia Tapes)
• contribution to the rise of Hindu and Sikh nationalism (e.g. the Khalistan Movement, the rise of Hindu nationalism following the Shah Bano case and unlocking the gates of the Babri Masjid)
• alleged support for Islamism (e.g. attempting to pin 2008 attacks on Hindu extremism (Wikileaks), support for Zakir Naik in exchange for Muslim votebank support)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.205.68 (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Missing Information

The sentence immediately before citation #177 on this page is missing something. It is discussing Pakistan’s signing of a friendship treaty with the soviets in 1971 as a result of friendly treatment they’d received, and so I assume the missing word should be “Soviet”. However the citation didn’t make that immediately clear, at least not to me. Does anyone have any more information about this? Gusstraub (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done. US support for Pakistan caused India to sign a friendship treaty with Soviet Union. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Don't Delete without proving me wrong

Prashanna01 (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)Foundation

After the War of Independence 1857 the English government had realized that their policy to rule by force was no longer beneficial in India. Thus, they tried to win the support of the Indian people. Several promises were made by the government that the Indians will, from now onward, also be a part of political affairs in their country and that they will no longer be treated as mere slave/masses but as citizens.

During these circumstances an ex English CSP officer named Alan Octavian Hume came up with the idea of forming a political party, of the Indians and for the Indians. For that purpose he met with senior English bureaucrats and with their guidance, along with local Indian contribution a political party was formed in 1885. It was called the All Indian National Congress. Its first president was an Indian and Mr. Hume was its first general secretary. On 28th December 1885 the first session of the Congress was held with 72 members.

I know that in order to hide these facts someone will try to delete this talk/edit it to be politically correct. It is politically beneficial for congress party to hide the fact that it was founded by British empire (through Alan Octavian Hume) with their vested interest. Hence either they will edit words to make it a senseless point.

I personally feel the facts are important to add to the page. I think the revert of my edit is not justified because it will not improve the article and will not conform with WP:lead. You should think twice in similar situations. Nothing will change, More you hide ... more will be highlighted in many online sources. Nothing can be hidden forever.

Please prove that historical facts are not true if you want to delete this talk as per wikipedia policies.Deletion of this talk won't change history. Truth will come out again & again in books, literature & historical munuments. Best regards. Prashanna01 (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Please read some history of India during the British years, such as Christopher Bayly's

• The Local Roots of Indian Politics: Allahabad, 1880–1920 (1975)
• Rulers, Townsmen and Bazaars: North Indian Society in the Age of British Expansion, 1780–1870 (1983)
• Indian Society and the Making of the British Empire (1988)
• Imperial Meridian: The British Empire and the World, 1780–1830 (1989)
• Empire and Information: Intelligence Gathering and Social Communication in India, 1780–1870 (1996)
• Origins of Nationality in South Asia: Patriotism and Ethical Government in the Making of Modern India (1997)

You are off the mark. Hume did not meet with any bureaucrats. He had a record of exceptional civil service in India, so much so that the districts in the general Etawah area which were his brief as an ICS man, did not take part in the Indian rebellion of 1857. Allan Octavian Hume was also a pioneering orthinologist. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

re-organisation of the article

​​​​​​​​​ Hello. Currently, a very big chunk of the article talks about history of the party, even though there is an entire article at History of Indian National Congress. From the lead (and because of the hatnote), I first thought this article is about some predecessor organisation of INC. A lot of content needs to removed/merged in History of Indian National Congress, article needs a re-write, and lead needs to be rewritten as well. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Usernamekiran, I would disagree. Even if another article exists on the section. This article still needs a well summarised content of that separate article. If you believe there is room to trim it down, may be you can propose a draft on the talk page and then we can discuss what is acceptable. DBigXrayᗙ 05:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Add AIPC and transgender congress

edit required in structure & composition : need to add AIPC and transgenders congress — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.98.157.45 (talk) 07:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. Will add once find authentic sources.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 14:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Indira-Gandhi-ili-50-img-2.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Flag of the Indian National Congress.svg
• Hand INC.svg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Hand INC.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Democratic Revolutionary Peoples Party into Indian National Congress

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was oppose to merge. Manabimasu (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

---

Oppose. Existence of DRPP has been separate for enough time that it warrants its own article. Moreover, it was not a subsidiary or branch of INC before merger. Devasheesh.dubey (talk) 05:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Very minor political party of one Indian state that eventually merged with the INC. May be possibly better suited in History of the Indian National Congress PoliceSheep99 (talk) 07:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It Should Be On Wikipedia KumarVenati (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Because Every Minor Or Major Political Party Will Give Some Information KumarVenati (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose You cannot hijack the article of a historic political party—known around the world, a prime mover of anti-colonial nationalism in the world—with some nonsense about a little known party in a little state. This requires a speedy close. If you want to mention it in one sentence in the History of INC page, that would be fine, but no theatrics of a page merge etc. would be needed. Please close this speedily before it begins to look like disruption. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose I do not think there is any need to merging Democratic Revolutionary Peoples Party into Indian National Congress. Mentioning it in one sentence in the History section of the article is more than enough. It can also be added in main article viz. History of INC. So close this proposal ASAp.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 15:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, different party, different article. --Soman (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose A reference to the minor party should suffice, if indeed they merged. EternalSelf (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per above -- Ab207 (talk) 05:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Every info cannot be captured. -Vijeth N Bharadwaj 17:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, no real reason to merge, they did get some candidates elected independently.--Hippeus (talk) 11:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose : Notable party with 2 elected legislators in the State. Also N. Biren Singh's first party. Close as soon as possible. Manasbose (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Indian National Congress (R) into Indian National Congress. Whilst one could make a legal argument that the now-defunct INC(O) would have been the authentic heirs to the original INC, effectively the INC of today is the direct heir to Congress(R)/Congress(I). Having a separate Congress(R) article confuses in links. Soman (talk) 11:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

pinging @Manasbose and MohitSingh: Soman (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

 Disagree : Officially INC(R) is different party than INC. Where as INC(I) was declared to be the original INC. No point in merging as it'll create more confusion. -- Manasbose ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:47, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore this article says INC(I) was split from INC(R). -- Manasbose ^{(talk | contribs)} 12:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• You cannot just put a tag on an article without an attempt at a discussion on the talk page first. Doing is another way of detracting from encyclopedicity by giving the impression of unfinishedness to an ordinary reader. We just had another silly one earlier. Such tags should be put only in the last instance, not first. I shall be removing the tag. Let the discussion here continue. For the record, I too  Disagree per Manabose. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

• I have now removed the tag. You may advertise this discussion on WT:INDIA for wider dissemination, but this discussion needs to proceed first before templating the article. Ordinary readers see such templates as a sign of unfinishedness. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2020

Add the term "Bhartiya Rashtriya Congress" Beside the Article title that is Indian National Congress Sonu099 (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per WP:COMMONNAME. -ink&fables «talk» 14:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2021

2402:3A80:196F:4BD5:878:5634:1232:5476 (talk) 09:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Congress party's idology must add social democracy

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Provide Sources

Hi @25 Cents FC: Please provide enough reliable sources for ideology and policy of the party otherwise some other editor will come and remove them. Without reliable sources the information which you added will be removed by other editors. Secondly add Progressivism template in the Ideology and policies section. Third add liberalism and Progressivism in the infobox of the ideology section, but with source. Historically the party has heavily influenced by these two ideology. Thanks--202.78.236.168 (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Sure. Thanks for notifying me mate.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣✅ 14:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Hii @25 Cents FC: you're doing a good job by developing this article. If you needed help you can check Democratic Party (United States) and Republican Party (United States) both these articles are well developed. Just remember whatever new information you added it must be backed with good quality sources. Hii @Fowler&fowler:, if possible guide this user to develop the article. Thanks--202.78.236.168 (talk) 05:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2021

leader: Rahul Gandhi 5.170.24.239 (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done His period as leader is already mentioned in the article, please be specific about where this needs to be changed. ~ mazca ^talk 13:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)