On the 83rd anniversary of the glorious Quit India Movement (QIM) of 1942, 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. The QIM, also known as the August Kranti (August Revolution), was a nation-wide Civil Disobedience Movement called for on August 8, 1942, by the Bombay session of the All India Congress Committee. It was to begin on August 9, in accordance with Gandhi’s call to “Do or Die” in his Quit India speech delivered at the Gowalia Tank Maidan (renamed August Kranti Maidan) in Mumbai on August 8. Since then, August 9 has been celebrated as August Kranti Divas.
The British swiftly responded with mass detentions on August 8 itself. Contemporary official documents confirm that over 100,000 arrests were made, including the entire top leadership of the Congress, Gandhi among them. Mass fines were levied, and demonstrators were subjected to public flogging. Hundreds of civilians were killed by the police and army of the British rulers and their native collaborators. Many national leaders went underground, continuing their struggle by broadcasting messages over clandestine radio stations, distributing pamphlets, and establishing parallel governments. Innumerable patriotic Indians were shot dead simply for publicly holding the Tricolour. Even before that, a terrible massacre occurred in Mysore, where the armed forces of the Mysore Raja—who was closely associated with the Hindu Mahasabha and RSS—shot dead 22 Congress activists for saluting the Tricolour.
It is notable that, after declaring the Congress an anti-national and unlawful organisation, the British masters allowed only the Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim League to function.
Most of us know that the then Communist Party of India (CPI) opposed the QIM, thereby betraying a great phase of mass upsurge in the freedom struggle. But it is well documented that despite CPI’s call to stay aloof from QIM, a large number of Communist activists participated in it. Moreover, the CPI later admitted it was wrong to have opposed QIM.
However, the role of the then Hindutva camp—consisting of the Hindu Mahasabha (HM) and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)—in QIM has largely remained hidden. 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 movement. Shocking documentary evidence exists in this regard.
‘Veer’ Savarkar-led Hindu Mahasabha Joined Hands With British Rulers To Suppress QIM
While addressing the 24th session of the Hindu Mahasabha at Cawnpore (now Kanpur) in 1942, Savarkar outlined the strategy of cooperating with the British rulers:
“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.”
[V.D. Savarkar, Samagra Savarkar Wangmaya: Hindu Rashtra Darshan, vol. 6, Maharashtra Prantik Hindu Sabha, Poona, 1963, p. 474]
This “Responsive Cooperation” was not merely a theoretical stance—it soon materialised into collaboration with the Muslim League. In 1942, the Hindu Mahasabha, led by ‘Veer’ Savarkar, ran coalition governments with the Muslim League. Savarkar defended this alliance in his presidential speech at the same session:
“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 sociable 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, pp. 479–480]
The Hindu Mahasabha and Muslim League also ran a coalition government in the NWFP during this period.
Following the Hindu Mahasabha directive to cooperate with the British, Dr. Mookerjee assured the colonial rulers in a letter dated July 26, 1942:
“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 [in] internal disturbances or insecurity, must be resisted by any Government that may function for the time being.”
[Mookerjee, Shyama Prasad, Leaves from a Diary, Oxford University Press, p. 179]
Acting on behalf of the Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim League, Mookerjee, then Deputy Chief Minister in the Bengal Muslim League ministry, wrote to the Bengal Governor describing the British as saviours of Bengal against the Congress-led QIM. In this letter, he itemised steps to suppress the movement:
“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 despite 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.”
[A.G. Noorani, The RSS and the BJP: A Division of Labour, LeftWord Books, pp. 56–57]
RSS Followed Savarkar In Opposing QIM
The other major Hindutva organisation, the RSS, was no different. It openly sided with Savarkar against this great revolt. The RSS’s stance becomes clear from the words of its second chief and most prominent ideologue, M.S. Golwalkar. Speaking about 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. This movement, specially, spread widely in Bihar. We witness today that trains are stopped, chains are pulled and travel without tickets is very commonly practised there… All this disorder and bizarre situation are the creation of this struggle.”
[Golwalkar, M.S., Shri Guruji Samagra Darshan, vol. IV, Bhartiya Vichar Sadhna, Nagpur, nd, p. 41]
Golwalkar further admitted that even RSS cadres were unhappy with its stance:
“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.”
[Ibid., p. 40]
The “routine work of Sangh” in 1942 largely meant deepening Hindu–Muslim divides, serving the strategic goals of the British and the Muslim League. British intelligence reports of the time were explicit that the RSS kept aloof from QIM:
“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.”
[Andersen, Walter K. & Damle, Shridhar D., The Brotherhood in Saffron, Westview Press, 1987, p. 44]
These documented historical facts make it clear that the Hindutva camp, led by the RSS, not only betrayed the QIM but also rendered great service to the British masters by aligning with the Muslim League at a time of nationwide revolt. In collusion, they mounted one of the fiercest repressions of the freedom fighters. Shockingly, this gang now rules India while projecting itself as the symbol of Indian nationalism. These facts must be conveyed to the people of India so that these traitors are exposed and held accountable for their crimes against the nation.
The RSS/BJP rulers know that their ideological ancestors’ betrayal of QIM cannot be concealed. It is undeniable that RSS leaders such as Golwalkar, Deendayal Upadhyaya, Balraj Madhok, L.K. Advani, and K.R. Malkani—then RSS whole-timers—did not participate in QIM or any other freedom struggle. Instead, RSS–BJP rulers today continue to rake up communal and polarising issues to obscure this history.
---
Links to Prof Islam’s writings and video interviews/debates:
http://du-in.academia.edu/ShamsulIslam. Facebook: https://facebook.com/shamsul.islam.332. Twitter: @shamsforjustice. Blog: http://shamsforpeace.blogspot.com/
Email: notoinjustice@gmail.com. Links to procure Prof Islam’s books in English, Hindi & Urdu: https://tinyurl.com/shams-books
Comments