Talk:Indian National Congress

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Replace with this File:CM C Joseph Vijay Official Portrait.jpg ~2026-23412-42 (talk) 05:39, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: The file you are seeking to insert has been deleted. Day Creature (talk) 03:54, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done: File has been replaced now. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 00:26, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Changing Number of States and Union Territories Governed from 7 to 4. Swasti Desai (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: The entry is for states and union territories in government, which includes the 3 coalition governments the INC is part of. Danski454 (talk) 00:08, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I propose to split this article and create a new article from it titled Indian National Congress (1885–1969). There are two reasons for it: first WP:SIZESPLIT says we should make sure that an article is "neither too big nor too small". The present article is too big. Another reason is the present party is different from the INC was established during British India. Later the INC and split into INC(O) and INC(R). Later Indira Gandhi formed INC(I) and it was renamed to only INC. I think the pre-1969 party deserves a separate article as it was historically significant. Mehedi Abedin 05:09, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose - This proposal confuses article size with historical continuity and is completely baseless. WP:SIZESPLIT does not mean that a large article must be split at a random date simply because one editor hold a different view. Your claim that the present party is different from the INC was established during British India needs to be backed by reliable sources, not just stated as a reason for changing the article. Political parties go through electoral realignments, and splits without their entire pre-split history automatically becoming a separate entity. The party celebrated its 140th anniversary on 28 December 2025, and I am not sure what made you to conclude that 1969 should be considered as a cutoff point. The party split again in the 1970s, and there were splits even during the pre-independence period. The proposed title “Indian National Congress (1885–1969)” is problematic and false because it assumes that the original INC stopped existing in 1969 which is your own POV. If reliable sources generally view the modern INC as historically linked to the organization founded in 1885, Wikipedia will not create an end date just because somebody believes that the main party stopped existing. If article size is genuinely the issue, the usual and proper solution is to split detailed historical content into other sub articles. This approach handles size without claiming that the INC only existed from 1885 to 1969. If modern INC really came into existence in 1969, then who is founder of party? Why party's official foundation year is 1885? Please provide citations. And lastly, why 1969 specifically? The party had split in 1907 too, with one faction known as the Moderates and the other as the Extremists. And one another split in 1970s.

Also, I believe that you cannot open a move discussion without citing any sources and base it on personal POV. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 12:05, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose - While the article may be long, a size split is not justified solely because of article length. Per WP:SIZESPLIT, splitting should improve readability and navigation, not create an artificial division in a topic that is best understood as a continuous history. The history of the Indian National Congress from its founding in 1885 through the 1969 split is inseparable from the history of the present-day party. The organization retained its identity, name, symbols, and historical continuity despite internal schisms, which are common in the histories of major political parties. The 1969 split resulted in rival factions (INC(O) and INC(R)), but it did not create a completely new organization replacing the old one. The evolution from the pre-1969 Congress to the present party is already adequately covered through the party's history section and dedicated articles on the splits and factions. Creating a separate article for "Indian National Congress (1885–1969)" would duplicate content, fragment the narrative, and risk violating WP:CONTENTFORK by separating material that belongs in a single chronological account. If article size is the concern, a better solution would be to copyedit the history in the main article and expand dedicated subarticles on specific periods or events, rather than splitting the organization itself into pre- and post-1969 articles. Thanks--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 13:34, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. The present Indian National Congress considers itself to be the same entity as the organisation that was founded in 1885 (see here) and reliable sources also agree with that assessment, for examples see Encyclopedia Britannica and this journal article. I do not believe in the claim that the present-day Congress Party is a meaningfully different party from the one established during British rule and unless you have reliable sources backing your claim, I am going to have to oppose. Kaythehistorian (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

In all other instances that I've seen a nation-specific civic nationalism be included in the ideology of a particular organization, it always uses the nation-specific name. Instead of saying "civic nationalism" under the ideology section of the card, I think it would be best to specifically write "Indian nationalism." The article for Indian nationalism specifies that it is a type of civic nationalism, and I think it would be best to direct readers to this page instead of the generic civic nationalism page. Especially considering how important Indian nationalism is to the INC's history. Rudylyon8020 (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

If we're classifying the Congress Party's political history, a common breakdown would be:

• Nehru era: 1947–1964
• Indira Gandhi era: 1966–1977 and 1980–1984
• Rajiv Gandhi era: 1984–1989
• Sonia Gandhi era: 1998–2017 (with an interim return from 2019–2022)
• Mallikarjun Kharge era: 2022–present (as Congress President)

Or should we also include Congress Prime Ministers in this classification? Please advise.-25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 09:49, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Sonia and Rajiv Gandhi belongs to the same generation. They were husband and wife. There are weird time gaps in the time catagory generalization that you proposed unfortunately. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 05:54, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Actually, my understanding was that we should define each era based on the party president and the Prime Minister of that period. Although Sonia Gandhi belonged to the same generation, she assumed the leadership of the party after the 1998 general elections. The contributions and roles of Narasimha Rao and Mallikarjun Kharge also need to be mentioned as a section.-25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 14:00, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

They are thoroughly mentioned within the article sub sections. But in my understanding the era system is based upon the leadership generations of the Gandhi family. Which is quite fitting in my opinion considering their particular influence on the party even when not in power. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 07:19, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I understand that perspective, and I agree that the Gandhi family's influence has been central to the Congress Party. My point, however, is that if we're dividing the party's history into "Post-independence eras," the classification should ideally reflect the party's formal leadership rather than only family generations.

For example, P. V. Narasimha Rao led the party as Congress President and served as Prime Minister, making the 1991–1996 period a distinct phase in the party's history. Similarly, Mallikarjun Kharge has been Congress President since 2022, so that period can reasonably be treated as a separate leadership era. Sonia Gandhi's tenure is also distinct because it began when she formally assumed the party presidency in 1998, regardless of her family relationship to Rajiv Gandhi.

So my suggestion is not to diminish the importance of the Gandhi family, but to use an objective criterion who led the party institutionally during a given period. That approach is more consistent and easier to apply across the party's entire history.-25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 11:21, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Congress had around 20 people as it's president since the independence of India. Do you want to recategorize the article history section according to those divisions? We can do that. I agree. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 05:37, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think sarcasm helps us reach consensus. We can disagree on the content, but I'd prefer we keep the discussion policy based rather than rhetorical.

The issue isn't whether the article should be divided into 20 sections simply because there were 20 Congress Presidents. The question is what criterion the current section is using. I fully acknowledge your point that the Gandhi family has played a central role in the Congress Party since independence. That isn't in dispute. My point is simply the section should reflect all significant phases, not emphasize one family to the exclusion of other notable leadership periods.-25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 10:16, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@25 Cents FC I think this categorisation is entirely appropriate, as these leaders were the ones who led the party. I also believe that Rahul Gandhi should also be included from 2022 onwards, as he is currently the party's leader in Lok Sabha.

Another version with a few additional details included -

• Nehru and Shastri era: 1947–1964
• Indira Gandhi era: 1966–1984
• Rajiv Gandhi and Narasimha Rao era: 1984–1996
• Sonia Gandhi era: 1998–2017 (with an interim return from 2019–2022)
• Mallikarjun Kharge: 2022–present THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 16:25, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  I completely agree, that's exactly what I think too. Please let me know if I'm allowed to make the changes as discussed.-25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 10:47, 3 August 2026 (UTC)