The Quit India Movement, commonly referred to as the August Kranti (Revolution), marked a critical juncture in India's struggle for independence. This mass movement saw widespread participation from the Indian populace, demonstrating remarkable resilience and bravery.
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia, in referencing Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky, noted that while one percent of the population took part in Russia's revolution, an impressive twenty percent of Indians engaged in the August Revolution.
However, this movement often sparks discussion regarding its nature—whether it was fundamentally non-violent or violent. Mahatma Gandhi's address on August 8, 1942, just before the movement commenced, holds significant historical weight. He stated:
"Here is a mantra, a brief one, for you to engrave upon your hearts. Let every breath reflect this: 'Do or Die.' We will either secure India's freedom or perish in the pursuit; we refuse to live under continued oppression. Every true member of Congress must join the struggle, resolute not to witness our nation shackled in bondage. Make this your solemn vow.”
It's evident that Gandhi, far from advocating direct violence, did not even hint at instigation of any kind. His call for non-violent resistance was especially notable at a time when the world was engulfed in the flames of World War II. The All India Congress Committee adopted the Quit India resolution on August 8, 1942, but by the next evening, top Congress leaders had been detained.
Their arrests impeded the formulation and dissemination of a strategic plan for the movement. The relatively younger leadership of the Congress Socialist Party (CSP) became proactive but had to operate clandestinely. Jayprakash Narayan (JP), while in hiding, authored two extensive letters to guide revolutionaries and clarify the movement’s ethos and strategies.
In contrast to the truth, Viceroy Lord Linlithgow claimed that the Congress attempted to violently overthrow British rule during the movement. On March 2, 1946, Lohia wrote a detailed letter from prison to Linlithgow that exposed the brutal, conspiratorial nature of British imperialism during the Quit India Movement.
After a 21-month underground involvement in the movement, Lohia was arrested in Bombay on May 10, 1944. Initially detained in Lahore Fort and later in Agra, he endured severe torture at the hands of the British police in Lahore before being released in June 1946. Despite his father’s death during his incarceration, Lohia chose to forego parole on principle.
In his letter, Lohia rebutted Linlithgow’s accusations, highlighted horrific acts committed by British against unarmed participants
In his letter, Lohia rebutted Linlithgow’s accusations and highlighted the horrific acts committed by British authorities against unarmed participants. He asserted that the British suppression resulted in numerous tragic incidents reminiscent of Jallianwala Bagh, yet the Indian populace persisted in their non-violent quest for autonomy. He remarked:
“Had we orchestrated an armed uprising, and incited our crowds to violence, Linlithgow, I assure you, Gandhi would be negotiating your reprieve with a free nation today.”
Addressing the viceroy regarding the brutality of his regime, Lohia emphasized:
“You reference fascist reprisals; your men have raped and killed the wives of patriots you could not capture. Rest assured, the day will come when you and your associates will confront this reality.” Despite the pervasive despair, Lohia maintained hope that the sacrifices of countless Indians would not be in vain, stating:
“I am not disheartened. It is India’s destiny to endure suffering for the sake of others and guide humanity back from the path of error. The history of the unarmed common man began with the Indian Revolution of August 9.”
He further expressed:
“We are anxious about the future. Regardless of whether you or the Axis prevail, there will be gloom and darkness all around. Yet, there is a flicker of hope. A free India may steer this war towards a democratic conclusion.”
JP’s correspondence directed to “the soldiers of freedom” in December 1942 and September 1943 extensively examined the violence-non-violence dilemma. He vehemently criticized the British government, proclaiming that it lacked the authority to dictate how India should combat for its freedom. He emphasized that the essence of the Quit India Movement was rooted in a commitment to refrain from killing or harming others. He declared:
“Our mandate is to obstruct the British Raj and dismantle it through every means of non-violence. The principle that ‘you can achieve everything through non-violence’ serves as our guiding star. The intellectual foundation of the program endorsed by Congress since August 1942 has undeniably been non-violence, as shaped by its advocates during this period.”
Examining how a non-violent resistance emerged amidst the chaos of World War II invites critical analysis, providing essential insights for those scholars focused on India’s involvement in violence during 1942 (and also during 1857).
---
*Former Fellow, Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla; Former Visiting Professor, Center of Oriental Studies Vilnius University, Lithuania; Former Visiting Professor, Center of Eastern Languages and Cultures, Dept. of Indology Sofia University, Bulgaria
Comments