India’s Freedom Struggle and Quit India Movement-I

Table of Contents

India’s freedom struggle and Gandhi

India’s Freedom Struggle is a complex narrative of courage, strategic missteps, and controversial leadership, culminating in the historic Quit India Movement of 1942. This three-part series critically examines the events leading up to this pivotal moment, highlighting the ideological and strategic divisions that influenced the direction and outcomes of the struggle. In this part, Part One, we explore the early 20th-century non-cooperation that, while setting the stage for a national uprising, also exposes the contentious and often unilateral decisions made by leaders like Mahatma Gandhi. Part Two explains what role the Civil Disobedience Movement played in reshaping India’s freedom struggle efforts. These decisions, marked by abrupt terminations and strategic recalibrations, played a significant role in shaping the trajectory of India’s quest for independence.

Gandhi’s reliance on Hindu concepts such as ahimsa (non-violence) and satya (truth) continues to resonate in today’s modern Hindu practices. While Gandhi’s interpretation of Hindu teachings shaped India’s independence movement, these values remain foundational to contemporary issues such as secularism and interfaith relations, particularly in navigating India’s pluralistic society.

Gandhi’s leadership, while controversial, attempted to build an inclusive movement that brought together people of different religious backgrounds. This secular approach has enduring relevance in how modern Hinduism interacts with interfaith relations, emphasizing unity in diversity. The Quit India Movement and earlier non-cooperation campaigns saw the use of fasting and non-violent protests rooted in Hindu spirituality. These methods, which have been adapted in modern-day social and political activism, demonstrate the continuing relevance of Hindu ethical principles in shaping India’s approach to societal challenges.

Background on India’s Freedom Struggle and Quit India Movement

India’s fight for independence is a saga of resilience and determination against colonial exploitation. The Quit India Movement of 1942 stands out as a pinnacle of this struggle, symbolizing the zenith of Indian resistance. However, the roots of this movement stretch back to earlier campaigns that shaped the political landscape of India. These movements, spearheaded by figures like Mahatma Gandhi, cultivated a collective consciousness and a unified call for Swaraj (self-rule). The Quit India Movement, therefore, was not an isolated episode but a culmination of decades of political evolution and resistance against oppressive colonial policies.

Gandhi’s Earlier Crusades and Their Abrupt Ends

Before the Quit India Movement took center stage, Gandhi had already initiated transformative campaigns like the Non-Cooperation and Civil Disobedience Movements. These efforts, marked by widespread civil disobedience and nonviolent resistance, aimed to erode the British Empire’s hold on India. However, both movements were abruptly terminated by Gandhi, leading to widespread confusion and dissent. The most notable example was the cessation of the Non-Cooperation Movement after the Chauri Chaura incident, where violence led Gandhi to withdraw the movement unexpectedly. This decision marked a shift in his strategies, from a gradualist approach to a more radical push for independence.

First Experiment of Non-Violent Movement

As the dark clouds of World War II loomed over the globe, India found its own skies shadowed not just by foreign aggression but by internal strife and calls for independence. The Quit India Movement, which began in August 1942, marked a pivotal moment in India’s freedom struggle. To fully appreciate the significance of this movement, we must first understand the earlier waves of resistance spearheaded by Mahatma Gandhi and the abrupt manner in which he terminated these campaigns.

The Non-Cooperation Movement (1920-1922)

Launched in December 1920, the Non-Cooperation Movement advocated for rejecting British-run institutions, boycotting foreign goods, and promoting indigenous products. While it united diverse sections of Indian society, internal debates within the Indian National Congress revealed strategic divisions. Prominent leaders like Subhas Chandra Bose and Lala Lajpat Rai opposed Gandhi’s emphasis on nonviolence, arguing that it was insufficient to challenge British oppression. Despite this opposition, Gandhi’s influence over public opinion solidified his position as the face of India’s freedom struggle.

Internal Debates and Opposition Within the Congress.

In the politically charged early 20th century, the Indian National Congress served as the primary forum for debates on strategies for achieving independence from British rule. During pivotal Congress sessions held in Calcutta in September 1920 and subsequently in Nagpur, Mahatma Gandhi strongly advocated for his strategy of nonviolent non-cooperation. These sessions were marked by dynamic and intense debates. Figures such as Lala Lajpat Rai and Subhas Chandra Bose, representing more rational viewpoints that may also include the violence, vocally opposed Gandhi’s methods, arguing that nonviolence was an inadequate response to the oppressive British regime.

Despite facing significant resistance from these realists, Gandhi’s influence over public opinion became a decisive factor in India’s freedom struggle. His ability to connect with the masses and generate widespread sympathy for his cause often overshadowed the strategic debates within the Congress. This public backing put pressure on his critics within the Congress to acquiesce or at least soften their opposition.

Gandhi’s Strategic Positioning of Non-Violence

During the pivotal Nagpur session, Gandhi maneuvered his way through opposition, positioning nonviolence as a moral imperative. His capacity to sway public sentiment left his critics with limited alternatives, ensuring that nonviolent resistance dominated India’s freedom struggle. However, his top-down leadership style often excluded dissenting voices, leading to internal fractures within the Congress.

The Abrupt End of the Non-Cooperation Movement

The sudden termination of the Non-Cooperation Movement in 1922, after the Chauri Chaura incident, was a turning point in the freedom struggle. This decision, taken unilaterally by Gandhi, disrupted the movement’s momentum, leaving thousands of activists vulnerable to British repression. The decision also exposed deeper divisions within the Congress, as Gandhi’s authoritarian approach alienated many within the movement. This episode set the stage for subsequent phases of the independence struggle, including the Civil Disobedience and Quit India Movements.

Authoritarian Overtones in Gandhi’s Leadership:

By terminating the movement without prior consultation, Gandhi’s approach this time bore a more dictatorial nature, starkly differing from his visibly collaborative and democratic style. While the initiation of the movement was also authoritarian, it seemed as if there was a consensus in the Congress resolution that lead to decision to start. This action showcased a decisive, top-down decision-making process that did not account for the opinions and sentiments of the broader movement, which had heavily invested in the campaign both emotionally and physically.

Reflections on the Movement’s Legacy

The immediate termination of the movement without a phased or planned withdrawal left thousands of activists vulnerable to arrest and repression by the British authorities. It also resulted in a loss of life as the abrupt end led to chaotic situations in various parts of the country, where clashes between the British authorities and the protestors turned violent. The decision not only halted the momentum of the independence movement but also led to a fragmentation within the Congress, as some leaders began questioning Gandhi’s strategies and leadership approach.

The termination of the Non-Cooperation Movement not only reflected a decisive shift in Gandhi’s leadership style but also exposed deeper rifts within the Indian National Congress. His abrupt decision, made without the usual consultative processes, starkly contrasted with the earlier apparent consensus in Congress that had supported the movement’s initiation. This moment is critically assessed by historians and political analysts as a pivotal setback that intensified internal conflicts and contributed to a broader disillusionment within the freedom movement, marking a contentious phase in Gandhi’s stewardship of India’s struggle for independence.

Movement’s Impact and its Abrupt End

Mahatma Gandhi’s unilateral decision to abruptly halt the Non-Cooperation Movement in 1922, particularly after the Chauri Chaura incident, led to widespread confusion and dissent within the ranks of the Congress. Many leaders and participants, taken aback by the sudden cessation, felt the movement was building significant momentum and making impactful strides towards Indian independence. This abrupt halt not only demoralized activists and disrupted the movement’s momentum but also resulted in a temporary disarray within the movement, illustrating the challenges inherent in steering a large-scale national movement.

The decision, perceived as manipulative and somewhat dictatorial, marked a stark contrast from the inclusive discussions that characterized the movement’s inception. Gandhi’s considerable sway over national strategy at this juncture underscored the complexities of his leadership, which critics argue demonstrated an almost dictatorial status. This approach not only caused considerable disillusionment among its participants but also suggested that Gandhi’s tactics might have indirectly perpetuated British rule rather than hastening Swaraj.

Furthermore, the cessation of the Non-Cooperation Movement resulted in significant casualties among its participants, with many killed by the British as a direct consequence of escalated tensions and confrontations. However, the reaction of both Congress and Mahatma Gandhi to the killing of peaceful demonstrators and revolutionaries was perceived as cold and indifferent. This response, or lack thereof, provided further ammunition to Gandhi’s critics who argued that his approach might have inadvertently helped the British to perpetuate their rule in India. This criticism highlighted a deepening rift within the freedom struggle, questioning Gandhi’s strategies and their ultimate impact on India’s quest for independence.

A detailed list of these individuals is provided in Annexure A. The period also saw the death of Bal Gangadhar Tilak, a major figure in the Indian freedom movement, whose absence left Gandhi without a significant internal challenger, further cementing his dominant position.

Analyzing the Reflections of India’s freedom struggle

The Non-Cooperation Movement laid the foundational ethos of civil resistance, yet its abrupt withdrawal by Gandhi set a precedent for future campaigns. This segment has shed light on the ideological and strategic groundwork that defined early resistance efforts, setting the stage for more focused and impactful campaigns. As we transition to the next part of our series, we will examine how this movement evolved into the Civil Disobedience Movement to further the cause of India’s Freedom Struggle and its devastating consequences on the Indian population and the Freedom Struggle itself. The continuity of struggle and strategic recalibrations highlight the repeated failures of the strategies under the dictatorial leadership of Gandhi, bridging past campaigns with the pivotal Quit India Movement.

Disclaimer:

This blog critically examines the actions and legacy of Mahatma Gandhi, focusing on the overall impact of his 33 years of activity in Bharat. While acknowledging his central role in India’s freedom struggle, the analysis reflects on the broader consequences of his decisions. As such, some statements may appear overly critical, but they are intended to provoke thoughtful examination of Gandhi’s leadership in light of the lasting effects on the country.

Feature Image: Click here to view the image.

Annexure: The representative list of those who lost their lives as a part of the movement

Ram Avtar: Originally from Rai Breilley, Uttar Pradesh, Ram Avtar was an active participant in the Non-Cooperation Movement, focusing on rallies against the payment of land taxes. During one such rally in 1921, a violent outbreak occurred, leading to his arrest and subsequent death sentence. He was executed shortly after being sentenced on March 12, 1921.
Salik: Also from Rai Breilley, Uttar Pradesh, Salik joined similar agitations as Ram Avtar, advocating for non-payment of land taxes. He was arrested under similar circumstances and faced the same fate, being hanged shortly after his sentencing on March 12, 1921.
Baja Ganesh Koshti and Group (including Bajya, Bapu Bahya Mali, Haraba, Harish Chandra, Sakharam Dasba Gadiwal, Fakira, Bapunja Maruti Tambe): All these individuals were residents of Nagpur City, Maharashtra. They actively participated in picketing liquor shops during the Non-Cooperation Movement in 1921. They were tragically killed in police firing during a public march on February 27, 1921, which was organized to protest against British misrule.
Abdulla alias Sukaee, Bhagwan, Bidhum: Key figures in the Chauri Chaura incident, these men were part of a group that retaliated against police fire by attacking a police station, leading to the deaths of 23 policemen. They were from Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh, and were later hanged on July 2, 1923, for their involvement in this violent clash.
Lachhoo, Jindoo, Kanha: Active in the Ekki (unity) Movement in Sirohi State, Rajasthan, they protested against oppressive state demands. Their peaceful protests were met with extreme violence by state forces in May 1922, resulting in their deaths during what was later labeled as The Second Bhil Tragedy of the Sirohi State.
Basu Sethi: From Tentulikhunti, Odisha, Basu was involved in a protest against local governance issues during the Non-Cooperation Movement. He was killed during a skirmish with police while attempting to rescue a fellow leader on April 23, 1922.
Pandit Dev Sharan Sharma: A staunch nationalist and devoted member of the Congress from Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh, Pandit Sharma was imprisoned for his role in the movement and died in 1922 following a hunger strike in protest against the conditions in Jorhat Jail.
Bhagat Singh (not the revolutionary): From Garhshankar, Hoshiarpur, Punjab, he was actively involved in the Non-Cooperation Movement and suffered under harsh imprisonment conditions. He died in jail on June 20, 1923, after enduring severe hardships.
Abdul Rahim: A participant from Sylhet, Assam, Abdul Rahim was killed during a police action at a political gathering in February 1922, where the assembly was discussing future courses of action under the movement.

You Can Read More on the Subject on These Blogs:

References

#QuitIndiaMovement #IndianFreedomStruggle #MahatmaGandhi #NonCooperationMovement #CivilDisobedienceMovement