Quit India Movement

Key Points

In 1942, the Quit India Movement, also known as the “August Kranti,” displayed several noteworthy aspects that set it apart from previous movements in various regions of India. Some critical elements of this movement included:

1. Popular Appropriation of Nationalist Symbols: A common thread in the 1942 movement was how ordinary people embraced nationalist symbols. This trend had been observed in earlier movements among peasants in northern Allahabad and Awadh, plantation workers in Assam, and during the Gudem-Rampa uprising led by Alluri Sitarama Raju in Andhra in the early 1920s. However, the enthusiasm and active participation of the general public were notably higher in 1942.
2. Widespread Participation: Large population segments actively joined mainstream movements, intensifying their impact. Notably, socialist leaders like Jayaprakash Narayan represented the sentiments of the Prati Sarkar peasantry, who refused to surrender even after Mahatma Gandhi’s appeal in August 1944.
3. Multiple Centers of Political Initiative: The preceding three decades of militant nationalist activity had given rise to different centres of political initiative. This diversity in leadership contributed to the movement’s complexity.
4. Concerns Over Violence: While there were concerns about potential outbreaks of violence, it was generally attributed to the provocative actions of the Government and their brutal repression.
5. Subaltern Movement: The Quit India Movement was distinct from earlier movements because subaltern classes primarily drove it. The absence of major political parties at the forefront allowed marginalized groups to prove their determination.
6. Convergence of Interests: The national movement benefited from the convergence of local and national interests. However, the movement’s potential for social transformation still needed to be completed.
7. Failed to End British Rule: Although the Quit India Movement did not succeed in ending British rule in India, it demonstrated the resilience of diverse Indian communities against imperial authorities and the elitism of the political class.
8. Spirit of Enthusiasm: The movement ignited a spirit of enthusiasm among ordinary people to support indigenous institutions and structures of power, resulting in the establishment of parallel governments. This set it apart from earlier movements like the Non-Cooperation Movement and the Civil Disobedience campaign.
9. Radical and Violent: The Quit India Movement was the most radical and violent among the movements, as it drew significant support from the poor and labouring classes severely affected by wartime inflation and food shortages.
10. Urban vs. Rural Dynamics: While every significant city saw action in 1942, tight British control in urban areas limited the duration of Congress activism. The movement’s focus began shifting towards the 1946 elections by 1945.

The Quit India Movement, despite its ultimate failure in achieving its primary goal, left a lasting impact by highlighting the determination and resilience of the Indian populace in their quest for independence.

Introduction

The Quit India Movement stands as a significant chapter in the struggle for independence from British imperialism, and it emerged as a formidable force just before Partition and Independence. The period between 1942, when the movement was initiated, and the ensuing five years bore witness to extraordinary and tumultuous events in the political narrative of India. This era saw a remarkable surge in popular nationalism, accompanied by widespread suffering and loss of life during devastating famines, most notably the Bengal Famine of 1943.

Furthermore, this time was marked by heightened Japanese aggression in regions like Burma and Malaya, the optimism surrounding potential military rescue through the advance of Subhas Chandra Bose’s ‘Azad Hind Fauj,’ and a growing chasm in communal relations, ultimately leading to the partition of the nation.

In this unit, we will delve into various dimensions of the Quit India Movement, a crusade initiated by Mahatma Gandhi and the Indian National Congress, with the sole objective of securing India’s freedom from colonial rule.

Nature of the Quit India Movement

A Departure from Past Movements

The Quit India Movement of 1942 represented a significant departure from earlier movements led by Mahatma Gandhi and the Indian National Congress. While prior endeavours, such as the Non-Cooperation Movement (1920-22) and the Civil Disobedience Movement (1930-34), advocated peaceful resistance, the 1942 movement adopted a fundamentally different approach. It marked a massive uprising with the aim of compelling the complete withdrawal of the British from India, shifting from traditional Satyagraha to a relentless “fight to the finish.” This characteristic set it apart as the “third great wave” of resistance against British colonial rule.

Embracing a ‘Fight to the Finish’

The defining feature of the Quit India Movement was its unambiguous objective: the total eradication of British rule in India. Unlike earlier movements that primarily encouraged trained satyagraha, the 1942 movement extended an open invitation to anyone who believed in India’s absolute independence. Mahatma Gandhi, guided by his understanding of public sentiment, even acknowledged the potential for riots and violence, emphasizing the seriousness of the challenge to the state machinery.

The Role of Students and Total Defiance

In a departure from previous movements, students were actively encouraged to assume prominent roles, including leadership positions, in the Quit India Movement, notably when senior Congress leaders were arrested. The movement’s central characteristic was the complete defiance of government authority.

Spontaneity vs. Organization

Debates surrounding the Quit India Movement often revolved around the balance between ‘spontaneity’ and ‘organization,’ as well as the consideration of violence versus non-violence within the broader ‘Congress rebellion.’ The government accused Gandhi and the Congress of conspiring against the state and introduced measures like the Revolutionary Movement Ordinance. Intelligence reports suggested that the Congress and the Congress Socialist Party (CSP) planned acts to disrupt the war machinery.

Historical Perspectives

Official and non-official historiographical narratives frequently clashed over the degree of central direction and organization within the rebellion. Imperialist historians accused the Congress of conspiracy, while nationalist historians emphasized the unity and the significant role of the Congress.

Scholarly Explorations

Scholars have delved into various facets of the Quit India Movement, including the movement’s distinctive character, internal tensions, and grassroots development. These investigations have unveiled the movement’s complexity as it unfolded across the country, shedding light on its nature and significance.

War and Its Influence

The Impact of World War II

The intensity of the Quit India Movement was significantly shaped by the prevailing circumstances of World War II (1939-45). Multiple factors contributed to this heightened intensity, including the immediate war situation in various parts of India, soaring inflation, the government’s determination to quell any resistance that could disrupt war supplies, and the differing opinions among nationalist leaders regarding how to respond to the national and international crisis.

British Imperial Concerns

The impact of World War II on India remained the attention of political leaders in both India and England. The British Raj, driven by military and strategic concerns, refrained from granting political concessions to Indians, prioritizing the defence of the British Empire in the eastern region. This focus on safeguarding the Empire, especially against Japanese expansion, took precedence over political considerations advocating Dominion status for India. Winston Churchill’s unwavering stance on this matter carried the day.

Growing Rigidness Amid Progressing War

As World War II advanced and nationalist sentiments gathered momentum in Asian colonies, the British Raj became increasingly inflexible in its approach. The emphasis shifted to the defence of the British Empire, particularly in the eastern territories. The success of the Japanese army and the occupation of Burma raised fears about the protection of countries like Burma and India against a possible Japanese assault.

Perceived Threats and Demolition Policies

Reports from refugees fleeing areas under Japanese attack painted grim pictures of war, destruction, and abandonment. The British Indian Army’s withdrawal from Burma was seen as passive, and concerns mounted regarding the British Navy’s ability to counter the Japanese in the Indian Ocean. Japan’s air and naval superiority over the Bay of Bengal rendered several ports, including Calcutta, Chittagong, Madras, and Vizag, unusable. This imminent threat to India’s eastern land frontier coincided with advancing German forces in the West.

Fears of Japanese triumph in South and Southeast Asia prompted the British military to devise a defence plan for northeastern India, including a ‘demolition policy’ to obstruct Japanese forces’ access to vital resources. This policy even involved planning the destruction of Calcutta and Chittagong ports and the sinking of rivercraft.

Economic Deterioration and Insecurity

The economic situation in India, particularly in the east, was deteriorating, contributing to unease, especially in rural areas. This situation was exacerbated in regions like East Bengal, where jute prices plummeted while grain prices soared. District officials overlooked signs of distress and permitted the export of rice, further limiting access to food for the local population. The removal of rice due to the denial policy created a shortage of essential goods, fostering insecurity and widespread hoarding of items such as matches, salt, kerosene, mustard oil, sugar, and rice.

Impact of Rumors

Rumours played a substantial role in shaping public perceptions related to the ongoing war, British imperial policies, and the potential outcome of the war. These rumours served as resistance and conveyed subaltern knowledge about the political struggle. They warned people not to rely on the British during times of crisis and spread notions of impending British defeat in areas vulnerable to military actions.

Peasants were encouraged to withhold food from the military, seamen were advised to refuse work, and dockworkers were told not to handle war materials, reflecting the prevalent uncertainty and insecurity during this period. The influence of rumours added to the complexity of the Quit India Movement and the dynamics of resistance against British colonial rule.

The Road to Resistance

Responses to Global Developments

The response of the Indian political mainstream to the global changes wrought by World War II was characterized by a diverse range of stances and internal conflicts. The Congress Working Committee grappled with a crucial decision – to either participate in the war effort or pursue an alternative path. Although the Committee aligned with Britain in opposing Fascism on the international stage, highlighting their shared anti-Fascist stance, internal disputes within the Congress became evident regarding international matters.

Bose’s Challenge to British Rule

Subhas Chandra Bose, re-elected as President of the Congress in 1938, proposed an aggressive approach, urging Britain to either grant India freedom or face direct action and civil disorder. In contrast, Mahatma Gandhi vehemently opposed this stance, leading to Bose’s ousting from office in May 1939. These differences between the two prominent leaders partly account for Gandhi’s initial willingness to negotiate with the British during the early stages of World War II. Furthermore, Jawaharlal Nehru’s position supporting an immediate declaration of independence as a prerequisite for Congress’s backing of the war effort added to the internal divisions.

Demands for Clarity and Cooperation

Ultimately, the Congress Working Committee adopted a resolution in September 1939, demanding Britain clarify its war aims and recognize India’s goal of achieving freedom. Notably, in the initial stages of the war, few political concessions were made to secure Indian cooperation.

Changing International Landscape

Significant shifts occurred in the international political landscape, especially in the summer of 1940. The Axis powers grew increasingly aggressive in Europe and against Britain. India’s role in imperial defence became indispensable due to its resources, workforce, and economic potential. In response, Britain equipped itself with the Revolutionary Movement’s Ordinance to suppress civil resistance and formulated a plan to alleviate Congress by offering political concessions.

The “August Offer” and Gandhi’s Protest

The “August offer” of 1940, presented by Viceroy Linlithgow, fell short of Congress’s expectations. In parallel, Mahatma Gandhi, who had promoted non-violence on the global stage, initiated an “individual satyagraha” in 1940 to protest against the British Indian Government’s war efforts and the restrictions imposed on protesting against it.

Growing Discord and the Failure of Negotiations

By the winter of 1941 and following the breakdown of the Cripps’ Mission in March 1942, Discord within the Congress escalated, primarily due to circumstances related to the war. With the collapse of the Cripps’ negotiations, the British Cabinet, including its Labour members, made no substantial attempts to form a “national government” in India during the war. This period saw authoritarian governance in India, marked by the continuation of autocratic rule by provincial Governors with minimal opposition.

Moreover, the British Cabinet fully supported Viceroy Linlithgow and the Indian government in quelling the Quit India Movement. Their authoritarian approach toward the Congress stemmed from their frustration with the Congress’s endeavours to undermine the British position in India at a critical juncture in the war with Japan. This confluence of factors shaped the Congress’s journey towards the Quit India Movement.

The Political Situation in India in 1942

Congress Leaders’ Shifting Stances

In the lead-up to the Quit India Movement, the political landscape in India was marked by varying and often conflicting stances among Congress leaders. The prevailing circumstances and geographic locations influenced these positions. Following the disappointment of the Cripps mission, Mahatma Gandhi adopted a more militant tone. By May 1942, he had expressed impatience and a readiness to resist foreign rule, even if it meant embracing the risks involved.

The Momentum Builds

By early August 1942, significant preparations were underway to launch the Quit India Movement. Viceroy Linlithgow knew Gandhi’s intentions and aimed to suppress the movement. However, Gandhi was not open to negotiations at this stage. Factors contributing to this shift included:

• Growing unrest.
• The deteriorating wartime situation.
• The British government’s reluctance to involve Congress in wartime governance.

Gandhi’s rhetoric had evolved into a more militant stance, and this shift became evident during the summer of 1942.

The Quit India Resolution

The pivotal moment came during the All India Congress Committee session in Bombay, commencing on August 7, 1942. It was at this gathering that Gandhi delivered a speech emphasizing the uncertainty of the ongoing war and the urgent need for the British to depart from India. On August 8, 1942, the Quit India Resolution, modified by Jawaharlal Nehru, was formally adopted, with a strong emphasis on a “Do or Die” spirit.

The Arrest of Congress Leaders

In the aftermath of the Quit India Movement’s launch, the British Indian Government moved swiftly to apprehend the entire Congress Working Committee leadership, as well as many other prominent leaders, including Gandhi and Nehru. This sweeping arrest of leadership figures led to the movement’s decentralization and spread across various country regions.

Emergence of the Twelve-Point Program

In the initial hours of August 9, 1942, Mahatma Gandhi was arrested, effectively rendering him incommunicado for a period. As a response, some Congress leaders who remained at large devised a Twelve-point program. This comprehensive program encompassed a range of non-violent non-cooperation and civil disobedience methods to address the concerns of different segments of society and promote a spirit of militancy.

Leadership Transition

However, as most Congress leaders were arrested between August 9 and 11, the direction of the Quit India Movement shifted to the hands of lower-ranking political workers, students, and the general population. This transition allowed for a diverse array of direct mass actions.

British Response and Legal Framework

The British authorities sought to portray the Quit India Movement as an attempt to undermine the war efforts of the imperial government. A secret circular issued on July 17, 1942, insinuated that any defiance of British policy constituted hostility against the Allied Powers, particularly Britain.

In response to the movement, the Viceroy signed the controversial Revolutionary Movements Ordinance on August 12, 1942, intending to suppress the Quit India Movement. Although martial law was not declared, the Defence of India Rules (DIR) gave the government sweeping powers to act arbitrarily against individuals and property.

Furthermore, the application of the Special Criminal Courts Ordinance II of 1942, initially intended for cases directly linked to enemy attacks, was extended to lawsuits arising from the disturbances. This approach allowed for swift and summary justice for suspected offenders, limiting their appeal rights.

The Ongoing Nationalist Resurgence

Despite increasing government repression and press censorship, the nationalist upsurge persisted in various parts of India. Regions like Gujarat, Satara in Maharashtra, Ballia in the United Provinces, Medinipur in Bengal, and Bihar witnessed significant movements. Underground literature, including publications like the Bombay Congress Bulletin and Vande Mataram in Gujarati, emerged as a response to press censorship, further fueling the momentum of the Quit India Movement.

REGIONAL ASPECTS OF THE QUIT INDIA MOVEMENT

The Two Phases of the Movement

The Quit India Movement, a pivotal moment in India’s struggle for independence, unfolded in two distinctive phases. The initial phase, characterized by mass mobilization, transpired from August to September. Subsequently, a prolonged quasi-guerrilla insurgency phase followed, marking a shift in the movement’s nature and strategy.

Urban Turmoil

In urban areas, the movement started with strikes from August 9 to 14 in Bombay and from August 10 to 17 in Calcutta. These strikes were not limited to these cities alone, as Kanpur, Lucknow, Nagpur, and Delhi also witnessed their fair share of worker strikes and violent clashes. Particularly notable was the violent confrontation between striking millworkers and the police in Delhi.

Outbursts in Patna

In Patna, the situation escalated to the point where the police lost control of the city for two days after clashes in front of the Secretariat on August 11. As arrests of activists increased, underground publications like the Bombay Provincial Bulletin, Free India, War of India Bulletin, Do or Die News-sheet, Free State of India Gazette, and the Congress Gazette flourished. These publications kept the flame of resistance alive, especially after the official Congress leadership had been imprisoned and their assets and printing presses seized.

Rural Expansion

Following the government’s crackdown in the cities, activists who had evaded arrest, including militant student groups, dispersed from urban centres and began participating in rural insurrections. This expansion into rural areas played a crucial role in the movement’s evolution.

British Government’s Surprise and Intelligence Failure

The rapid spread and intensity of the Quit India Movement caught the British Indian government off guard. Their intelligence machinery had failed to predict the extent of the movement, and during the first two weeks of the uprising, government authority virtually collapsed over vast territories. These included the United Provinces, Bihar, Bengal, Orissa, Central Provinces, Maharashtra, and some parts of the Madras Presidency.

The West Indian Outburst

In contrast to the initial slow start of the movement in Western India in August 1942, it gradually gained momentum and persisted into 1943 and beyond. Districts like East Khandesh, Satara, Broach, and Surat saw the active participation of peasants in guerrilla-style attacks against government facilities, communication lines, and individuals with British sympathies.

Impact on Key Cities

Certain towns like Pune, Ahmednagar, and Ahmedabad experienced significant protests and agitation, with one commentator even dubbing Ahmedabad “the Stalingrad of India.” Moreover, Western India played a lead role in bomb and sabotage activities, with nearly 76 per cent of the recorded bomb explosions in India from August 1942 to January 1944 occurring in the Bombay Presidency.

Gujarat’s Role

Gujarat emerged as a stronghold for the Congress during the Quit India Movement. Key cities such as Ahmedabad, Baroda, and Surat and districts like Kheda and Surat were significant centres of resistance. An influential group within the movement was the Gujarat Vyayam Prachark Mandal, led by Chhotubhai Purani. Though affiliated with the Congress, this group did not wholeheartedly endorse non-violence and aimed to prepare young men for armed resistance.

Diverse Local Responses

In many major cities across India, upon news of Gandhi’s arrest, widespread protests erupted. Workers stopped their labour, merchants closed their shops, students abandoned their schools and colleges, and large crowds filled the streets. These protests often targeted symbols of colonial culture, such as the solar topi.

Varied Participation

While various sections of the population joined the movement, Muslims, constituting a significant part of the population in cities like Ahmedabad and Baroda, were notably absent from the protests. This was reflective of changing political loyalties among specific Muslim communities, particularly since the establishment of branches of the Muslim League in 1937.

Working Class and Middle-Class Unity

Notably, the relationship between the working class and the middle-class nationalists remained cordial. In 1942, Ahmedabad had 75 textile mills with 116,000 workers, where work divisions were often along communal lines. However, these workers did not just protest for higher wages but were politically active in supporting the Quit India Movement.

Influence on the Mill-Owners

The mill owners, fearful that the British might destroy their textile mills if the Japanese advanced into India, sympathized with Congress’s suggestion that the Indian people should negotiate with the Japanese. They also hesitated to support the movement openly, fearing potential sabotage if they kept their mills operational.

Impact in Kheda and Rural Areas

In Kheda district, ten agitators were killed by the police between August 11 and 19. Notably, revenue refusal, a strategy on the nationalist agenda from the outset, became widespread, further intensifying the movement. Collective fines were levied on villages that had offered violent support to the struggle.

Revenue collection only resumed in December 1942 after the movement lost momentum. The draconian measures adopted by the authorities, along with a show of military strength, deterred significant participation in the rural areas. Additionally, many rich peasants had profited from wartime inflation, making them reluctant to support the movement. Lower-caste peasants, such as Baraiyas, Patanvadiys, and Thakardas, generally stayed aloof, believing that the Congress primarily represented Patidars and the urban middle class.

The Rise of Parallel Governments

In some regions, notably Ahmedabad, parallel governments were established. These governments mimicked the existing administrative machinery, with underground leaders in charge of municipal wards. One of the most notable similar governments was the ‘Azad Government,’ which organized protests, levied taxes, collected intelligence through a network of spies, and punished certain notorious policemen. Young Congress socialists primarily led these parallel governments, deriving legitimacy from the broad Hindu middle class in the city. Yet, no similar governments were established in rural areas, leaving the rural underground activists with limited options when facing police repression.

Gujarat’s Case

In Gujarat, the Quit India Movement was not overtly radical in its social character. While a parallel government was successfully established in Ahmedabad, it mainly catered to urban areas. Ahmedabad’s parallel government was led by young Congress socialists and included members from diverse castes and classes. However, the movement had a limited representation of Dalits and women. The Quit India Movement strengthened the Gandhian Congress’s grip on Gujarat, as evidenced by the Congress’s sweeping victory in the 1944 Gujarat local elections.

Regional Dynamics in Bihar and Eastern UP

In Bihar and eastern Uttar Pradesh, the movement commenced in urban centres but soon shifted its focus to rural areas. Villagers, armed and agitated, targeted police posts, local courts, and administrative centres. These actions were accompanied by instances of looting and destruction of property, especially with the backdrop of food shortages and harrowing accounts from refugees returning from Southeast Asia.

In Bihar, the underground movement became exceptionally strong and posed a significant law and order challenge for the British between 1942 and 1944. Several terrorist organizations and dacoit gangs were formed, some with links to the Congress Socialist Party. These groups, including socialist entities referred to as ‘Azad Dastas,’ conducted activities in the name of the Congress

Mains Question

Q. How revolt of 1857 was different from quit India movement of 1942?

M.C.Q.

F.A.Q.

---