Question

which viceroy of India described the Congress as a seditoius body​

Answer 1

Explanation:

The British had been suspicious of the National Congress

from its inception. But they had not been overtly hostile, in the

first few years of its existence because they believed its activities

would remain academic and confined to a handful of

intellectuals. However, as soon as it became apparent that the

Congress would not remain so narrowly confined, and that it was

becoming a focus of Indian nationalism, the officials turned

openly critical of the Congress, the nationalist leaders and the

Press.

They now began to brand the nationalists as ‘disloyal babus’

‘seditious Brahmins,’ and ‘violent villains.’ The Congress was

described as ‘a factory of sedition’ and Congressmen as

‘disappointed candidates for office and discontented lawyers who

represent no one but themselves.’ In 1888, Dufferin, the Viceroy,

attacked the National Congress in a public speech and ridiculed

it as representing only the elite ‘a microscopic minority.” George

Hamilton, Secretary of State for India, accused the Congress

leaders of possessing ‘seditious and double sided character.’

This hostility did not abate when the Moderates, who then

controlled the Congress, began to distance themselves from the

rising militant nationalist tendencies of certain sections of the

Congress which became apparent when the government

unleashed a repressive policy against the Indian Press in 1897.

Instead the British appeared even more eager to attack and finish

the Congress. Why was this so? First, because however moderate

and loyal in their political perception the Moderates were, they

were still nationalists and propagators of anti-colonialist politics

and ideas. As Curzon, the Viceroy, put it in 1905: ‘Gokhale either

does not see where he is going, or if he does see it, then he is

dishonest or his pretensions. You Cannot awaken and appeal to

the spirit of nationality in India and at the same time, profess

loyal acceptance of British rule.’ Or, as George Hamilton, the

Secretary of State, had complained to Dadabhai Naoroji an 1900:

‘You announce yourself as a sincere supporter of British rule; you