Skip to main content

Quit India stir: What archives say on Hindutva leaders 'colluding' with British rulers

By Shamsul Islam* 

On the eve of 80th anniversary of the glorious Quit India Movement 1942 [QIM], we must evaluate the anti-national role of the Hindutva flag-bearers (who shamelessly claim to be the original nationalists) in India's anti-colonial freedom struggle. QIM also known as ‘August Kranti' (August Revolution) was a nation-wide Civil Disobedience Movement for which a call was given on August 7, 1942 by the Bombay session of the All-India Congress Committee.
It was to begin on August 9 as per Gandhi's call to ‘Do or Die’ in his Quit India speech delivered in Mumbai at the Gowalia Tank Maidan (renamed as August Kranti Maidan) on August 8. Since then August 9 is celebrated as August Kranti Divas.
The British swiftly responded with mass detentions on August 8th itself. The contemporary official documents confirm that over 100,000 arrests were made which included the total top leadership of Congress including Gandhi, mass fines were levied and demonstrators were subjected to public flogging.
Hundreds of civilians were killed by police and army of the British rulers and their henchmen, the native rulers. Many national leaders went underground and continued their struggle by broadcasting messages over clandestine radio stations, distributing pamphlets and establishing parallel governments.
Innumerable patriotic Indians were shot dead for the crime that they were holding the Tricolour publicly. Even before that a terrible massacre took place in Mysore, where the armed forces of Mysore Raja who was very close to the Hindu Mahasabha and RSS shot dead 22 Congress activists for saluting the Tricolour.
It is to be noted that after declaring Congress an anti-national and unlawful organization, the British masters allowed only Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim League to function.
Most of us know that the then Communist Party of India opposed the QIM thus betraying a great phase of mass upsurge in the history of the freedom struggle. But it is well documented that despite CPI’s call for keeping aloof from QIM large number of Communist activists participated in it.
However, what role the then Hindutva camp – consisting of the Hindu Mahasabha [HM] and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh [RSS] – played in the QIM is under wraps for reasons unknown. The Hindutva camp not only opposed QIM but also provided multi-faceted and multi-dimensional support to the British rulers in suppressing this historic mass upsurge. In this connection, shocking documents are available.

Savarkar-led Hindu Mahasabha joined hands with British

While addressing the 24th session of the Hindu Mahasabha at Cawnpore (now Kanpur) in 1942, Savarkar outlined the strategy of the Hindu Mahasabha of co-operating with the British rulers in the following words:
“The Hindu Mahasabha holds that the leading principle of all practical politics is the policy of Responsive Co-operation. And in virtue of it, it believes that all those Hindu Sangathanists [members of HM] who are working as councillors, ministers, legislators and conducting any municipal or any public bodies with a view to utilize those centres of government power to safeguard and even promote the legitimate interests of the Hindus without, of course, encroaching on the legitimate interests of others are rendering a highly patriotic service to our nation.
“Knowing the limitations under which they work, the Mahasabha only expects them to do whatever good they can under the circumstances and if they do not fail to do that much it would thank them for having acquitted themselves well. The limitations are bound to get themselves limited step by step till they get altogether eliminated.
“The policy of responsive co-operation which covers the whole gamut of patriotic activities from unconditional co-operation right up to active and even armed resistance, will also keep adapting itself to the exigencies of the time, resources at our disposal and dictates of our national interest.”
(Cited in “VD Savarkar Samagra Savarkar, Wangmaya: Hindu Rashtra Darshan”, vol 6, Maharashtra Prantik Hindu Sabha, Poona, 1963, p 474)
This ‘Responsive Cooperation’ with the British masters was not only a theoretical commitment. It soon got concretized in the ganging up of Hindu Mahasabha with the Muslim League. Hindu Mahasabha led by Savarkar ran coalition governments with Muslim League in 1942. Savarkar defended this nexus in his presidential speech in the same session of Hindu Mahasabha at Kanpur, in the following words:
“In practical politics also the Mahasabha knows that we must advance through reasonable compromises. Witness the fact that only recently in Sind, the Sind-Hindu-Sabha on invitation had taken the responsibility of joining hands with the League itself in running coalition Government. The case of Bengal is well known.

“Wild Leaguers whom even the Congress with all its submissiveness could not placate grew quite reasonably compromising and socialable as soon as they came in contact with the HM and the Coalition Government, under the premiership of Mr. Fazlul Huq and the able lead of our esteemed Mahasabha leader Dr. Syama Prasad Mookerji, functioned successfully for a year or so to the benefit of both the communities.”
("Samagra Savarkar Wangmaya", vol 6, p 479-480)
Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League beside Bengal and Sind ran coalition government in NWFP also during this period.

Syama Prasad Mookerjee, Deputy CM in Bengal Muslim League Ministry took up the responsibility of crushing QIM in Bengal

Following the Hindu Mahasabha directive to co-operate with the British, the present Hindutva icon, Dr Mookerjee, assured the British masters through a letter dated July 26, 1942. Shockingly, it read:
“Let me now refer to the situation that may be created in the province as a result of any widespread movement launched by the Congress. Anybody, who during the war, plans to stir up mass feeling, resulting internal disturbances or insecurity, must be resisted by any Government that may function for the time being” (Mookherjee, Shyama Prasad, “Leaves from a Dairy”, Oxford University Press. p 179.)
The second-in-command of the Hindu Mahasabha, Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee, also the deputy chief minister in the Bengal Muslim League ministry, in a letter to Bengal governor on behalf of Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League made it clear that both these parties looked at the British rulers as saviours of Bengal against Quit India Movement launched by Congress. In this letter, he mentioned item wise the steps to be taken for dealing with the situation. It read:
“The question is how to combat this movement (Quit India) in Bengal? The administration of the province should be carried on in such a manner that in spite of the best efforts of the Congress, this movement will fail to take root in the province. It should be possible for us, especially responsible Ministers, to be able to tell the public that the freedom for which the Congress has started the movement, already belongs to the representatives of the people.
“In some spheres it might be limited during the emergency. Indians have to trust the British, not for the sake for Britain, not for any advantage that the British might gain, but for the maintenance of the defence and freedom of the province itself."
(cited in A Noorani, “The RSS and the BJP: A Division of Labour”, LeftWord Books, p 56–57)

RSS followed Savarkar in opposing QIM

The other flag-bearer of Hindutva, the RSS, was not different in its attitude towards the QIM. It openly sided with its mentor ‘Veer’ Savarkar against this great revolt. The RSS’ attitude towards the QIM becomes clear from the following utterances of its second chief and most prominent ideologue till date, M.S. Golwalkar. While talking about the outcome of the Non-Cooperation Movement and QIM he said:
“Definitely there are bound to be bad results of struggle. The boys became unruly after the 1920-21 movement. It is not an attempt to throw mud at the leaders. But these are inevitable products after the struggle. The matter is that we could not properly control these results. After 1942, people often started thinking that there was no need to think of the law.” (MS Golwalkar, “Shri Guruji Samagra Darshan” [Collected Works of Golwalkar in Hindi], vol IV, Bhartiya Vichar Sadhna, Nagpur, p 41)
Thus, the prophet of Hindutva, Golwalkar, wanted the Indians to respect the draconian and repressive laws of the inhuman British rulers! He admitted that this kind of negative attitude towards the QIM did not go well even with the RSS cadres:
“In 1942 also there was a strong sentiment in the hearts of many. At that time, too the routine work of Sangh continued. Sangh vowed not to do anything directly. However, upheaval (uthal-puthal) in the minds of Sangh volunteers continued. Sangh is an organisation of inactive persons, their talks are useless, not only outsiders but also many of our volunteers did talk like this. They were greatly disgusted too.” (MS Golwalkar, “Shri Guruji Samagra Darshan” [Collected Works of Golwalkar in Hindi], vol. IV, Bhartiya Vichar Sadhna, Nagpur, p 40)
It would be interesting to note what Golwalkar meant by ‘routine work of Sangh’. It surely meant working overtime to widen the divide between Hindus and Muslims thus serving the strategic goal of the British rulers and Muslim League.
In fact, the contemporary reports of the British intelligence agencies on the QIM were straight forward in describing the fact that RSS kept aloof from the QIM. According to one such report, “the Sangh has scrupulously kept itself within the law, and in particular, has refrained from taking part in the disturbances that broke out in August 1942”. (Cited in Andersen, Walter K & Damle, Shridhar D “The Brotherhood in Saffron: the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Hindu Revivalism”, Westview Press, 1987, p 44)
These historical documented facts make it clear that Hindutva gang led by the RSS not only betrayed QIM but also rendered great service to the British masters by aligning with the Muslim League when the foreign rulers were faced with the nation-wide popular revolt by the Indians. 
They in collusion mounted one of the fiercest repressions of the freedom fighters. Shockingly, this gang is ruling India today describing itself as a symbol of Indian nationalism. We need to convey these facts to the Indians so that these traitors are exposed and charged for crimes committed against India.
The RSS/BJP rulers know that betrayal of the QIM by their Hindutva ancestors cannot be covered up. It is crystal clear that RSS including its top leaders like Golwalkar (head of the RSS), Deendayal Upadhyaya, Balraj Madhok, LK Advani and KR Malkani who were RSS whole timers during QIM did not participate in this Movement or any other struggle launched for the freedom of India. RSS-BJP rulers continue raking up communal polarizing issues so that betrayal of the QIM is covered up.
---
Formerly with Delhi University, click here for some of Prof Islam's writings video interviews/debates. Facebook: https://facebook.com/shamsul.islam.332; twitter: @shamsforjustice; blog: http://shamsforpeace.blogspot.com/

Comments

TRENDING

From plagiarism to proxy exams: Galgotias and systemic failure in education

By Sandeep Pandey*   Shock is being expressed at Galgotias University being found presenting a Chinese-made robotic dog and a South Korean-made soccer-playing drone as its own creations at the recently held India AI Impact Summit 2026, a global event in New Delhi. Earlier, a UGC-listed journal had published a paper from the university titled “Corona Virus Killed by Sound Vibrations Produced by Thali or Ghanti: A Potential Hypothesis,” which became the subject of widespread ridicule. Following the robotic dog controversy coming to light, the university has withdrawn the paper. These incidents are symptoms of deeper problems afflicting the Indian education system in general. Galgotias merely bit off more than it could chew.

The 'glass cliff' at Galgotias: How a university’s AI crisis became a gendered blame game

By Mohd. Ziyaullah Khan*  “She was not aware of the technical origins of the product and in her enthusiasm of being on camera, gave factually incorrect information.” These were the words used in the official press release by Galgotias University following the controversy at the AI Impact Summit in Delhi. The statement came across as defensive, petty, and deeply insensitive.

Farewell to Saleem Samad: A life devoted to fearless journalism

By Nava Thakuria*  Heartbreaking news arrived from Dhaka as the vibrant city lost one of its most active and committed citizens with the passing of journalist, author and progressive Bangladeshi national Saleem Samad. A gentleman who always had issues to discuss with anyone, anywhere and at any time, he passed away on 22 February 2026 while undergoing cancer treatment at Dhaka Medical College Hospital. He was 74. 

From ancient wisdom to modern nationhood: The Indian story

By Syed Osman Sher  South of the Himalayas lies a triangular stretch of land, spreading about 2,000 miles in each direction—a world of rare magic. It has fired the imagination of wanderers, settlers, raiders, traders, conquerors, and colonizers. They entered this country bringing with them new ethnicities, cultures, customs, religions, and languages.

Conversion laws and national identity: A Jesuit response response to the Hindutva narrative

By Rajiv Shah  A recent book, " Luminous Footprints: The Christian Impact on India ", authored by two Jesuit scholars, Dr. Lancy Lobo and Dr. Denzil Fernandes , seeks to counter the current dominant narrative on Indian Christians , which equates evangelisation with conversion, and education, health and the social services provided by Christians as meant to lure -- even force -- vulnerable sections into Christianity.

Sergei Vasilyevich Gerasimov, the artist who survived Stalin's cultural purges

By Harsh Thakor*  Sergei Vasilyevich Gerasimov (September 14, 1885 – April 20, 1964) was a Soviet artist, professor, academician, and teacher. His work was posthumously awarded the Lenin Prize, the highest artistic honour of the USSR. His paintings traced the development of socialist realism in the visual arts while retaining qualities drawn from impressionism. Gerasimov reconciled a lyrical approach to nature with the demands of Soviet socialist ideology.

Thali, COVID and academic credibility: All about the 2020 'pseudoscientific' Galgotias paper

By Jag Jivan*    The first page image of the paper "Corona Virus Killed by Sound Vibrations Produced by Thali or Ghanti: A Potential Hypothesis" published in the Journal of Molecular Pharmaceuticals and Regulatory Affairs , Vol. 2, Issue 2 (2020), has gone viral on social media in the wake of the controversy surrounding a Chinese robot presented by the Galgotias University as its original product at the just-concluded AI summit in Delhi . The resurfacing of the 2020 publication, authored by  Dharmendra Kumar , Galgotias University, has reignited debate over academic standards and scientific credibility.

Development at what cost? The budget's blind spot for the environment

By Raj Kumar Sinha*  The historical ills in the relationship between capital and the environment have now manifested in areas commonly referred to as the "environmental crisis." This includes global warming, the destruction of the ozone layer, the devastation of tropical forests, mass mortality of fish, species extinction, loss of biodiversity, poison seeping into the atmosphere and food, desertification, shrinking water supplies, lack of clean water, and radioactive pollution. 

Development vs community: New coal politics and old conflicts in Madhya Pradesh

By Deepmala Patel*  The Singrauli region of Madhya Pradesh, often described as “India’s energy capital,” has for decades been a hub of coal mining and thermal power generation. Today, the Dhirouli coal mine project in this district has triggered widespread protests among local communities. In recent years, the project has generated intense controversy, public opposition, and significant legal and social questions. This is not merely a dispute over one mine; it raises a larger question—who pays the price for energy development? Large corporate beneficiaries or the survival of local communities?