Freedom to Partition (1939 – 1947)

World War II and Indian Nationalism

Introduction

- - During the Second World War (1939–1945), India was a part of the British Empire, and they officially declared war on Nazi Germany in 1939
    - Viceroy Linlithgow declared that India was at war with Germany, without consultations with Indian politicians
  - As a result, the British Raj, as a possession of Great Britain, formed part of the Allied Nations and sent over two million volunteer soldiers to fight under British command against the Axis powers.
    - Additionally, several Indian Princely States provided large donations to support the Allied campaign during the War.

Attitude of Indians towards War

- - The attitude of Indians towards WW2 can be categorised as follows:
    1. Since Britain was in trouble, India should seize opportunity to gain freedom. The prime concern of the proponents was to achieve India’s freedom and they were not concerned about the International situation

This was done by:

- - - - Opposing the British efforts to mobilise India’s resources for the war
      - Launching a strong movement against the British
  1. 1. India should not seek advantage of Britain’s problems.
      - Rather, It should cooperate with the British in their war efforts unconditionally
      - Those who supported this view hoped that after the war, the British would adopt a lenient view towards India, in the light of her services, and suitably reward her
      - Political parties such as the Muslim League and the Hindu Mahasabha supported the British war effort
    2. The third kind, considered Fascism as greater threat to mankind and wanted to help Britain in the War
      - But this help was conditional
      - The conditions were India’s Independence in the future and an interim government of Indians for the moment.
    3. There were also certain section whose attitude changed according to the changing war situation. There were also sections who maintained a neutral position

What did the Congress do in such a situation?

- - The Congress did not like the unilateral action of the British of drawing India into the war without consulting the Indians, it decided to support the war effort conditionally.
  - The Indian offer to cooperate in the war effort had two basic conditions:
  1. 1. After the war, a constituent assembly should be convened to determine political structure of a free India.
    2. Immediately, some form of a genuinely responsible government should be established at the Centre.

- - Further, Different opinions were voiced on the question of Indian support to British war efforts, as follows:
    - Though Gandhiji supported the Congress Working Committee Resolution of conditional support, he himself was not for it, and he stated:
      - If the British are fighting for the freedom of all, then their representatives have to state in the clearest possible terms that the freedom of India is necessarily included in the war aim. The content of such freedom can only be decided by Indians and them alone.
    - Subhas Bose and other socialists, had no sympathy for either side in the war
      - In their opinion, the war was being fought by imperialists on both sides; each side wanted to protect its colonial possessions and gain more territories to colonise, so neither side should be supported by the nationalists
    - In fact, they thought it was the ideal time to launch a civil disobedience movement, to thus take advantage of the situation and snatch freedom from Britain
    - Jawaharlal Nehru was not ready to accept the opinion of either Gandhi or of the socialists.
      - He was clear in his mind about the difference between democratic values and fascism
      - He, therefore, advocated no Indian participation till India itself was free.
      - However, at the same time, no advantage was to be taken of Britain’s difficulty by starting an immediate civil disobedience movement.
    - Further, The CWC resolution condemned Fascist aggression. It said that:
      - India could not be party to a war being fought, on the face of it, for democratic freedom, while that freedom was being denied to India
      - If Britain was fighting for democracy and freedom, it should be proved by ending imperialism in its colonies and establishing full democracy in India
      - The government should declare its war aims soon and, also, as to how the principles of democracy were to be applied to India after the war

How did the Government react?

- - The British were not prepared either to make any concessions immediately or make promises about the future – except a vague talk of dominion status.
  - The government
    - refused to define British war aims beyond stating that Britain was resisting aggression;
    - said it would, as part of future arrangement, consult “representatives of several communities, parties and interests in India, and the Indian princes” as to how the Act of 1935 might be modified;
    - said it would immediately set up a “consultative committee” whose advice could be sought whenever required.
  - Consequently, Defence of India Rules were promulgated in order to check defiance of British authority and exploit Indian resources for the War effort.

Was the British Government’s actions justified?

- The reaction of the Government were a part of popular general British policy, i.e “to take advantage of the war to regain the lost ground from the Congress” by provoking the Congress into a confrontation with the government and then using the extraordinary situation to acquire draconian powers.
- Even before the declaration of the War, emergency powers had been acquired for the Centre in respect of provincial subjects by amending the 1935 Act.
  - Defence of India ordinance had been enforced the day the War was declared, thus restricting civil liberties
- In 1940, a top secret Draft Revolutionary Movement Ordinance had been prepared, aimed at launching crippling pre-emptive strikes on the Congress.
- Further, the Government could also win an unusual amount of liberal and leftist sympathy all over the world by painting an aggressive Congress as being pro-Japan and pro-Germany
- It became clear that the British government had no intention of loosening its hold, during or after the war, and was willing to treat the Congress as an enemy.

Resignation of Congress Ministers ,1939

The reason for the Resignation of Congress Ministries in 1939, include:

Propaganda by Communal Parties
- There was a malicious propaganda carried out against the Congress by the Communal parties.
- They accused the Congress of discrimination against the minorities, but such propaganda was carried out due to political and communal overtones, rather than on factual basis.
Opportunists swept advantages to office
- At this time, many opportunists joined the Congress during this period in order to seek advantages of office.
- Congress was aware of such characters, and Gandhi wrote frankly about corruption in the Congress in his paper Harijan.
- Further, in many regions a drive was made to free the Congress from such elements
Issues related to the President ship of the Congress
- During this period, the Congress held two sessions. The Fifty First session was held at Haripura in February, 1938 under the president ship of Subhas Chandra Bose. This session passed a number of resolutions related to international affairs as well as on the internal situation in Indi
- However, it was at the next session (Tripuri) that the Congress faced a major crisis. This time an election was held for the President and Bose defeated Pattabhi Sitaramayya by 1580 to 1377 votes.
  - This was regarded as a victory of the Left Wing
  - Even Gandhiji regarded this defeat as his own defeat.
- Further, there were problem in the formation of the working committee and ultimately Bose resigned from the President ship.

Inclusion of India to World War 2
- Viceroy Linlithgow declared India at war with Britain in 1939
- The Congress objected strongly to the declaration of war without prior consultation with Indians
- The Congress Working Committee suggested that it would cooperate if there a central Indian national government were formed, and a commitment were made to India’s independence after the war
- However, the government did not come up with any satisfactory response
- As a result, the Congress Ministries resigned office in November, 1939 on the ground that the Viceroy on its own had made India a participant in the imperialist war without consulting the Congress.

Eventually, the Muslim League under Jinnah celebrated this as ‘deliverance day’ whereas the nationalists stood behind the Congress and the subsequent events led to the Individual Satyagraha in 1900 and the Quit India movement in 1942, besides Bose going aboard and leading the Azad Hind Fauj.

Poona Resolution and Conditional Support to Britain ,1941

No Related Posts found

August Offer, 1940

Background

In late 1939, World War II broke out. Germany had invaded Poland leading to Britain declaring war Germany. Without consulting Indians, Britain dragged India into the war irking India political groups.
The Indian National Congress, the leading political force at the time, was expectedly not pleased; it condemned the unilateral decision, refused India’s cooperation in the war, and directed its party’s elected legislators to resign from provincial governments.
The British knew that for it to acquire long term, stable and sustained cooperation from Indians towards the war effort, major political groups had to come on board. For this, it had to offer these groups something in return.

August Offer, 1940

On 8 August 1940, Viceroy of India Lord Linlithgow made a statement of behalf of British parliament which came to be known as the ‘August Offer’, which:
- Proposed Dominion status as the objective for India
- Promised that a Constituent Assembly would be set up after the war to determine India’s constitutional future with a caveat: no future system of government would be instituted that did not have the support of minority political and religious groups
- Proposed to expand the Viceroy’s council to include a certain number of Indian political representatives, as a token towards Indian Self-Government

Significance

The Offer was significant as this was the first time that the British acknowledged the demand for Constituent Assembly
- The Congress and other groups had made this a central plank of their political work for years
Further, Dominion status was explicitly offered.
In July 1941, the viceroy’s executive council was enlarged to give the Indians a majority of 8 out of 12 for the first time, but the British remained in charge of defence, finance and home.
Also, a National Defence Council was set up with purely advisory functions

Responses

The Congress rejected the Offer which it felt was another attempt by the British to ‘deny India her natural right of complete national freedom’.
- A decade has passed since Congress had replaced the relatively smaller demand for ‘dominion status’ with the more substantial ‘complete freedom’.
- Nehru said, “Dominion status concept is dead as a door nail.”
The Muslim League termed the Offer as ‘progress’ but was not pleased with that the British did not consult Indian political groups with regards to the proposed expansion of the Viceroy’s council.
The Hindu Mahasabha, that claimed to represent Hindu interests, was reasonably warm to the Offer, and even promptly nominated its members to the Viceroy’s council
- Unlike the Congress, the Mahasabha was fine with the Offer of dominion status but hoped that the British were sincere about it.

On the whole, the Offer was interesting in that most of its promises were amorphous, vague, lacked specific timelines and commitment

As the months went along, it appears that Indian political groups, even those who were initially somewhat supportive of the Offer, felt that the British were evasive and not serious about constitutional and political reforms.
By the end of the year, most political parties rejected the Offer.
Thus, the British objective of garnering India’s cooperation in the war effort through the Offer was a spectacular failure.

The Individual Civil Disobedience

Background

After the British failed to respond to the Indian demands during WW2, there were two opinions in Congress about the launching of civil disobedience.
- Gandhi felt that the atmosphere was not in favour of civil disobedience as there were differences and indiscipline within the Congress
- Those advocating Civil disobedience were attempting to convince Gandhi that once a movement was launched differences would disappear and all would work for its success
The Ramgarh Congress Session of 1940, called upon the people to prepare themselves for participating in a Satyagraha to be launched under Gandhi’s leadership.
But the Socialists, Communists,Kisan Sabhaites and those belonging to the Forward Bloc were not happy with the resolution.
They held an anti-compromise conference at Ramgarh and Subhas Chandra Bose urged the people to resist compromise with imperialism and be ready for action.
Then came in the unsuccessful attempt by the British Government with ‘August Offer of 1940 ‘ to woo the Indians in the War effort
Then, the government was systematically putting under preventive arrest many Congress workers – particularly those with Socialist or Left leanings.
- Also, all local leaders were under observation, while many labour leaders and youngmen were taken into custody.
Convinced that the British would not modify their policy in India (Gandhiji had long meetings with the Viceroy at Shimla in September 1940), Gandhiji decided to start the Individual Satyagraha

The Individual Satyagraha

The very reason for confining the movement to individual participation was that neither Gandhiji nor the Congress wished to hamper the War effort and this could not have been the case in a mass movement.
- As a result, even the aim of the Satyagraha was a limited one i.e. to disprove the British claim of India supporting the War effort whole heartedly.
The aims of launching individual satyagraha were:
- to show that nationalist patience was not due to weakness
- to express people’s feeling that they were not interested in the war and that they made no distinction between Nazism and the double autocracy that ruled India; and
- to give another opportunity to the government to accept Congress’ demands peacefully
The demand of the satyagrahi would be the freedom of speech against the war through an anti-war declaration.
- If the government did not arrest the satyagrahi, he or she would not only repeat it but move into villages and start a march towards Delhi, thus precipitating a movement which came to be known as the ‘Delhi Chalo Movement’.
Thus, on 17th October 1940, Acharya Vinoba Bhave inaugurated the Satyagraha by delivering an anti-war speech at Paunar, a village near Wardha
- However, Gandhiji’s other two nominees, Vallabhai Patel and Nehru were arrested before they could offer Satyagraha
The movement could not achieve much, due to the limited nature of participation and restrictions imposed by Gandhiji
- For example: In Bihar, many men selected to offer Satyagraha were reluctant to relinquish the positions they held in municipal bodies
- They either refused or ”were extremely slow to court arrest”

As a result, Gandhi then called off the Individual Satyagraha movement by December 1941
- Even though, it did not achieve any tangible results, it fuelled the nationalist spirit of the Indian people and showed in no uncertain terms, that India would not settle for anything but Purna Swaraj
Also, by this time the war had taken a new turn
- The British were forcing defeat and Japanese forces had over-run South East Asia
- Later, after the fall of Rangoon to the Japanese, the British decided to send the Cripps Mission to India

Two-Nation Theory

Introduction

The two-nation theory is an ideology of religious nationalism which significantly influenced the Indian subcontinent following its independence from the British Empire.
The plan to partition British India into two states was announced on 3rd June 1947. These two states would be India and Pakistan.
According to this theory, Indian Muslims and Indian Hindusare two separate nations, with their own customs, religion, and traditions; therefore, from social and moral points of view, Muslims should be able to have their own separate homeland outside of Hindu-majority India.
The ideology that religion is the determining factor in defining the nationality of Indian Muslims was undertaken by Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

Critical events from 1909 to 1947 leading to Partition.

The partition of Bengal in 1905 served as the first act of the British towards breaking Hindu Muslim unity.
The later introduction of the Morley Minto reforms in 1909 proved to be a critical juncture in struggle against colonial domination in India.
- The reforms introduced a system under which separate electorates were formed, where in only Muslims could vote for Muslim candidates in constituencies reserved for them.
- By so doing the British wanted to promote the idea that the political, economic and cultural interests of the Muslims and Hindus were separate.
Then, the Montagu Chelmsford reforms or the Government of India Act 1919 in addition to the reserved seats for Muslims.
Later, Hindu-Muslim unity began to bond with the coming of Non-cooperation Movement in 1919, by rallying on the Khilafat issue.
- However, Following the Chauri Chaura incident(1922) where some British policemen were killed due to some action initiated by the participants of the Non-Cooperation movement, the movement itself was called off by Gandhiji.
- So, now the Muslim leaders felt betrayed since their cause of revolting against the removal of the Caliphate was left unfinished due to the calling off of the movement.
- From that time on, the differences between the Hindus and the Muslims only increased over a period of time and eventually became irreconcilable.
In 1930, Muhammad Iqbal became the leader of the Muslim League in 1930 and for the first time articulated a demand for a separate Muslim state.
- He argued that Muslims and Hindus constituted two different nations in themselves and were incompatible.
- At this time, the congress rejected this theory and argued in favour of a united India, based on unity between different religious groups.
Further, the policy of the British to divide and rule got exemplified in the Communal Award of 1932. This policy further strengthened the provisions for separate electorates.
Conclusively, Jinnah in 1940 declared at the Muslim League conference held at Lahore, that “Hindus and the Muslims belong to two different religions, philosophies, social customs and literature. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state”
The Cripps Mission in 1942 suggested that India be granted a Dominion status under the British Empire.
- The Mission did not accept the demand for Pakistan but allowed for a provision whereby provinces could secede from the Indian Union.
- But, the Congress and the Muslim League interpreted this in their own unique ways.
Eventually, on the 16th August 1946 Jinnah declared Direct Action Day and the Muslim League raised the demand for an independent Pakistan.
- There were communal tensions amongst the Hindus and the Muslims in places including Calcutta, Madras, Bombay, Bihar, Punjab
In 1947, Mountbatten agreed with the Muslim League’s demand for an independent Pakistan but he also saw merit in the Congress’s demand for unity.
- He was asked by the British government to explore options of creating a united India or the option of partition
- However, the unity signs did not find place, and as a result India and Pakistan dominions were created in 1947

Analysis of Policies/Actions that led to the theory

The Colonial State’s policies
- The British Colonial state chose to strengthen its power in India by adopting the strategy of dividing social groups and pitting them against each other
- The British said that in order to deal with the problem of Hindu-Muslim discord and in order to avert the threat of Hindu majoritarianism, it was critical to give special representation rights to the minorities.
- As a result, the colonial policies led to communal practices in following ways:
  - Firstly, communities were separated and defined on grounds of religious affiliation. This meant that Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs etc. were treated as separate communities and were given representational rights accordingly.
  - Further these communities were believed to be completely different and hostile to each other. Thus, it was argued that only the representatives of each community could represent the interests of that community.
  - Thirdly, the British readily accepted the communal spokespersons as the sole representatives of their communities. Towards the end of the British rule, Jinnah was seen as the sole spokesperson of the Muslims in Colonial India, inspite of the fact that other Muslim leaders were present within the Muslim League and in the Congress who were opposed to the idea of Partition.
- Thus, it is evident that Communalism could not have flourished the way it did, without the support of the British Colonial state.
- Thus, the policy of Divide and Rule lead to communalism and further, extreme communalism led to Partition.

The dilemmas and decisions of the Congress
- The Indian national movement succeeded in forming an alliance between some classes and communities and in acquiring independence from the British, but it failed to create unity which could have prevented Partition.
- So, what happened in 1947 was a result of the collapse of negotiations between the Congress and the Muslim League.
- Essentially the Congress did not vouch for Partition of India. Congress leaders wanted the British to transfer power to a united India.
  - One of the reasons for accepting the demand for Pakistan was that the Congress leaders came to the conclusion that the demand was based on ‘popular will’
  - Also, the Congress leadership agreed to Partition was also because they saw it as a sort of temporary measure
    - It was thought by some that after passions subsided, people would see the futility of Partition and would want to re-unite.
  - Further, the Congress accepted the proposal for Partition in the hope that it would finally help in ending the wide spread communal violence prevalent in Colonial India in 1946-47
    - The Congress could have opted to oppose the demand for Partition through use of force but this was against its democratic ideals.
  - So, When dialogue and negotiations with the Muslim League failed and the Interim government didn’t succeed, the Congress accepted the demand for Pakistan
    - Still, the Congress tried to pressurize the British to transfer power to a united India but didn’t succeed in the endeavour primarily because of its inability to forge a united front with the Muslim League representatives

Eventually, inevitable circumstances led to partition of India into two dominions. However, it all didn’t end here. It was followed by a serious aftermath of communal tensions across the two regions, disturbing peace and stability soon after Independence from British in 1947.

Demand for Pakistan,1942

No Related Posts found

Cripps Mission, 1942

Introduction

The meetings, known as the Cripps Mission, took place in Delhi from March 22 to April 12, 1942, and marked an attempt to rally, through the rival Indian National Congress and Muslim League, Indian support for the defence of the country against Japanese invasion.

Background

The British were alarmed at the successive victories of Japan during the 1940s.
When Burma was turned into a battlefield and the war reached the Indian borders, the British started feeling more concerned about the future of India.
The situation in the country was further complicated as the Congress wanted to take advantage of the situation by accelerating their efforts in their struggle for independence.
Moreover, the differences between the Congress and the Muslim League were widening fast, and visibly there was no chance to bring both parties on a common agenda.
In these circumstances, the British Government sent a mission to India in 1942 under Stafford Cripps, the Lord Privy Seal, to achieve Hindu-Muslim consensus on some constitutional arrangement and to convince the Indians to postpone their struggle till the end of the Second World War.

Proposals of the Cripps Mission

The main proposals of the mission were as follows:
- During the war, the British would retain their hold on India. Once the war finished, India would be granted dominion status with complete external and internal autonomy. It would, however, be associated with the United Kingdom and other Dominions by a common allegiance to the Crown.
- At the end of the war, a Constituent Assembly would be set up with the power to frame the future constitution of India. The members of the assembly were to be elected based on proportional representation by the provincial assemblies. The Princely States would also be given representation in the Constituent Assembly.
- The provinces not agreeing to the new constitution would have the right to keep themselves out of the proposed Union. Such provinces would also be entitled to create their own separate Union. The British government would also invite them to join the commonwealth.
- During the war, an interim government comprising of different parties of India would be constituted. However, defence and external affairs would be the sole responsibility of the viceroy.

Differences from previous proposals

The proposals differed from those offered in the past in many respects:
- The making of the constitution was to be solely in Indian hands now (and not ‘mainly’ in Indian hands—as contained in the August Offer).
- A concrete plan was provided for the constituent assembly.
- Option was available to any province to have a separate constitution—a blueprint for India’s partition.
- Free India could withdraw from the Commonwealth.
- Indians were allowed a large share in the administration in the interim period.

Reaction to Cripps Mission

The Congress objected to:
- the offer of dominion status instead of a provision for complete independence;
- representation of the princely states by nominees and not by elected representatives;
- right to provinces to secede as this went against the principle of national unity; and
- absence of any plan for immediate transfer of power and absence of any real share in defence; the governor-general’s supremacy had been retained, and the demand that the governor-general be only the constitutional head had not been accepted
The Muslim League
- criticised the idea of a single Indian Union;
- did not like the machinery for the creation of a constituent assembly and the procedure to decide on the accession of provinces to the Union; and
- thought that the proposals denied the Muslims the right to self-determination and the creation of Pakistan

Causes of failure

The explanation that the proposals were meant not to supersede the August Offer, but to clothe general provisions with precision cast doubts on the British intentions.
The incapacity of Cripps to go beyond the Draft Declaration and the adoption of a rigid “take it or leave it” attitude added to the deadlock.
Cripps had earlier talked of “cabinet” and “national government” but later he said that he had only meant an expansion of the executive council.
The procedure of accession was not well-defined. The decision on secession was to be taken by a resolution in the legislature by a 60 per cent majority.
- If less than 60 per cent of members supported it, the decision was to be taken by a plebiscite of adult males of that province by a simple majority.
- This scheme weighed against the Hindus in Punjab and Bengal if they wanted accession to the Indian Union.
Also, It was not clear as to who would implement and interpret the treaty effecting the transfer of power
To add to the complications, Churchill (the British prime minister), Amery (the secretary of state), Linlithgow (the viceroy) and Ward (the commander-in-chief) consistently torpedoed Cripps’ efforts.

Thus, Stafford Cripps returned home leaving behind a frustrated and embittered Indian people.

Some analysts see the Mission merely as an appeasement of Chinese and American concerns with British imperialism.
Further, Gandhi seized upon the failure of the Mission and called for voluntary British withdrawal from India, which resulted in the ‘Quit India’ Movement.

Quit India Movement

Background

The Congress had to decide its course of action in the wake of:
- The failure of Cripps Mission
- The arrival of Japanese armies on Indian borders
- The rising prices and shortages in food supplies
- The different opinion within the congress
The Congress Working Committee(CWC) adopted a resolution calling for complete non-violent non-cooperation with any foreign forces invading India
- The resolution was rejected, but it showed the intent of Congress
In May 1942, Gandhi told a gathering of Congressmen at Bombay that he had made up his mind to ask the British to quit India in an orderly fashion
- If they did not agree, he would launch a Civil Disobedience movement.
Nehru was concerned about the choice between fighting imperialist Britain and letting USSR and China down in the struggle against fascist powers.
- Eventually, he decided in favour of launching the movement.
Eventually, the CWC adopted the Quit India Resolution which was to be ratified at the Bombay AICC meeting in August.
- On 8th August 1942, the AICC passed the Quit India Resolution

Introduction

The Quit India Movement has rightly been described as the most massive antiimperialist struggle on the eve of Partition and Independence.
1942, the year that the movement was launched and the next five years witnessed unparalleled and tumultuous events in the political history of India
Sharp increase in popular nationalism, large-scale deprivation and death due to widespread famine conditions particularly the Bengal Famine of 1943, heightened Japanese aggression in Burma and Malaya, hopes of a military deliverance through the onward march of the ‘Azad Hind Fauj’ of Subhas Chandra Bose, and widening of the communal divide leading to the vivisection of the political fabric of the country were some of these developments

The Movement

The Congress gave the call for ousting British but it did not give any concrete line of action to be adopted by the people.
Spread of the Movement
- Before his arrest on 9 August 1942 Gandhi had given the following message to the country:
  - Everyone is free to go the fullest length under Ahimisa to complete deadlock by strikes and other non-violent means. Satyagrahis must go out to die not to live. They must seek and face death. It is only when individuals go out to die that the nation will survive, Karenge Ya/Marenge (do or die).
- The news of his arrest along with other Congress leaders led to unprecedented popular outbursts in different parts of the country.
  - There were, hartals, demonstrations and processions in cities and towns. The Congress leadership gave the call, but it was the people who launched the Movement.
- Further, the Congress Working Committee, the All India Congress Committee and the Provincial Congress Committees were declared unlawful associations under the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908.
  - The assembly of public meetings was prohibited under rule 56 of the Defence of India Rules.
- Since all the recognised leaders-central, provincial or local-had been arrested, the young and more militant cadres-particularly students with socialist leanings took over as leaders at local levels in their areas.
- Later, it was the repressive policy of the government which provoked the people to violence.
- The Gandhian message of non-violent struggle was pushed into the background and people devised their own methods of struggle. These included:
  - attacks on government buildings, police stations and post offices,
  - attacks on railway stations, and sabotaging rail lines,
  - cutting off the telegraph wires, telephones and electric power lines,
  - disrupting road traffic by destroying bridges, and
  - workers going on strike, etc.
- In many areas, the government lost all control and the people established Swaraj.
  - In Maharashtra, a parallel government was established in Satara which continued to function for a long time.
  - In Bengal, Tamluk Jatiya Sarkar functioned for a long time in Midnapore district. This national government had various departments like Law and Order, Health, Education, Agriculture, etc., along with a postal system of its own and arbitration courts.
  - People established Swaraj in Talacher in Orissa.
- The movement had initially been strong in urban areas, but soon it was the populace of rural areas which kept the banner of revolt aloft for a longer time
  - In this essence, the movement got a massive response from people of Bombay, Andhra, UP, Bihar, Gujarat, Orissa, Karnataka, Bengal, etc.
- But the responses in Punjab, Sindh, NWFP, etc, were weak.
- Underground Activity
  - This was another trend in the movement, besides mass action.
  - The participants in these activities were the Socialists, Forward Bloc members, Gandhi ashramites, revolutionary nationalists and local organisations

The main personalities taking up underground activity were Rammanohar Lohia, Jayaprakash Narayan, Aruna Asaf Ali, Usha Mehta, Biju Patnaik, Chhotubhai Puranik, Achyut Patwardhan, Sucheta Kripalani and R.P. Goenka
This phase of underground activity was meant to keep up popular morale by continuing to provide a line of command and guidance to distribute arms and ammunition

The British Government’s reaction

The Government had geared all its forces to suppress the popular upsurge.
Arrests, detentions, police firings, burning of Congress offices, etc. were the methods adopted by the Government.
The press was muzzled. The military took over many cities; police and secret service reigned supreme.
Rebellious villages were fined heavily and in many villages, mass flogging was done.

Significance of Quit India Movement

The Quit India Movement failed to end British rule in India. Yet, this was one movement that demonstrated the will and reserve of diverse communities of Indians to withstand both the highhandedness of imperial authorities and the elitism of the Indian Political class.
The Quit India Movement stands apart from the earlier movements in terms of the spirit and enthusiasm that it infused in ordinary people to support indigenous institutions and structures of power.
The parallel governments that such efforts produced indicate the basic difference between the 1942 movement and the earlier movements
Loyalty to government suffered considerable erosion. This also showed how deep nationalism had reached.
The movement established the truth that it was no longer possible to rule India without the wishes of Indians.
The great significance was that the movement placed the demand for independence on the immediate agenda of the national movement. After Quit India, there could be no retreat.
Also, in this struggle, the common people displayed unparalleled heroism and militancy. The repression they faced was the most brutal, and the circumstances under which resistance was offered were most adverse.

On the whole, the Quit India movement collapsed, but not without demonstrating the determination of the masses to do away with British rule. The Congress leadership did not condemn the deviation by the people from the principle of non-violence, but at the same time disowned any responsibility for the violent acts of the people. Eventually, by 1945 the Congress was moving in the direction of focusing its attention and energies on the 1946 elections.

Azad Hind Fauj

Introduction

Azad Hind Fauj or the India National Army (INA) was first established by Mohan Singh in 1942. It was revived by Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose on October 21, 1943, during the Second World War to secure India’s complete independence from British Raj.
- Hence, every year on 21 October, the anniversary of the formation of Azad Hind Government is celebrated across the country.
- On this day, India’s first independent provisional government named Azad Hind Government was announced.

Formation of INA

There were many Indian Revolutionaries working abroad for the country’s cause. Among these was Rashbehari Bose, living as a fugitive from the British since 1915 in Japan
During WW2, he seized the opportunity to mobilise Indians for an armed struggle against the British.
- There were a number of Indian soldiers fighting on behalf of the British
The Japanese after defeating British in South East Asia, persuaded captain Mohan Singh to work in collaboration with the Japanese for India’s freedom.
- In 1942, a conference of Indians was held in Tokyo, and they formed the Indian Independence league
This was followed by conference in Bangkok (June 1942), where Rashbehari Bose was elected president of the league and a decision was taken to raise the Indian National Army
- Captain Mohan Singh was appointed the commander of the INA, which had about 40,000 Indian soldiers
- This conference invited Bose to lead the movement.
Earlier, Bose had escaped from India in 1941 to Berlin. In June, 1943 he came to Tokyo and then Indian joined the INA at Singapore.
- Rashbehari Bose handed over the leadership to Subhas Bose, and an Azad Hind Sarkar was formed.
Later, In November, 1943 the Japanese announced their decision to hand over the administration of Andamans and Nicobar islands to the INA
- Thus, started the heroic struggle of the INA for India’s independence.

Actions of INA

The INA in a few months’ time had three fighting brigades named after Gandhi, Azad and Nehru.
- Soon other brigades were raised, namely the Subhas brigade and the Rani Jhansi brigade (an exclusive women force).
The overseas Indians contributed heavily in terms of money and material for the army.
On October 21, 1943, Subhash Bose formed the Provisional Government for Free India at Singapore with H.C. Chatterjee (Finance portfolio), M.A. Aiyar (Broadcasting), Lakshmi Swaminathan (Women Department), etc.
- This provisional government declared war on Britain and the United States, and was recognised by the Axis powers.
- Recruits were trained and funds collected for the INA.
- The famous slogan—“Give me blood, I will give you freedom” was given in Malaya.
The INA headquarters was shifted to Rangoon (in Burma) in January 1944, and the army recruits were to march from there with the war cry “Chalo Delhi”
On July 6, 1944, Subhas Bose addressed Mahatma Gandhi as ‘Father of Nation’—from the Azad Hind Radio (the first person to call Gandhi, ‘Father of Nation’). He asked for Gandhi’s blessings for “India’s last war of independence”.
Further, The Azad Hind Fauz crossed the Burma border, and stood on Indian soil on March 18, 1944. The INA units subsequently advanced up to Kohima and Imphal
- The tricolour was hosted on Indian soil
- However, the INA failed to capture Imphal due to two reasons:
  - The Japanese failed to supply the necessary material and air cover to the INA
  - The Monsoon prevented their advance
- In the meantime, the British were able to regroup their forces and made counter attacks.
  - The INA fought heroically, but the course of war was changing.
- The steady Japanese retreat thereafter quashed any hopes of the INA liberating the nation. The retreat continued till mid-1945.
- On August 15, 1945 the surrender of Japan in the Second World War took place and with this the INA also
- On August 18, 1945, reportedly, Subhash Bose died mysteriously in an air-crash at Taipei (Taiwan).
- But when the INA POWs were brought back to India after the war to be court-martialled, a powerful movement emerged in their defence.

Impact of INA

The INA had failed to achieve its goal, but it made a significant impact on the freedom struggle:
- It became clear to the British that, they could no longer depend on the loyalty of Indian Soldiers and treat them as mercenaries
- The struggles of the INA demonstrated that those who waged an armed struggle against the British, were not at all affected by communal division. As, there were Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs in the INA who had fought as Indians
- The actions of Rani Jhansi Brigade, an exclusive women force, demonstrated the capabilities of Indian Women waging armed struggle against the British.
- The INA had also demonstrated the enthusiasm and concern of overseas Indians for the freedom of their motherland.

On the whole, in dealing with the role of Subhas Bose during this period, we have to take note of the fact that, what he did was not due to his support to Fascist Germany or expansionist Japan, but for India’s freedom. He was determined to maintain the independent existence of INA from the Japanese. However, the British Government court martialled the INA soldiers, which led to a series of protests and trails later on.

Indian National Army

No Related Posts found

I.N.A. Trials

Introduction

The Indian National Army trials (also known as the INA trials and the Red Fort trials) was the British Indian trial by court-martial of a number of officers of the Indian National Army (INA) between November 1945 and May 1946, on various charges of treason, torture, murder and abetment to murder, during the Second World War.
The accused had, like a large number of other troops and officers of the British Indian Army, joined the Indian National Army and later fought in Burma alongside the Japanese military under the Azad Hind.

Early trials

By 1943 and 1944, courts martial were taking place in India of former personnel of the British Indian Army who were captured fighting in INA ranks or working in support of the INA’s subversive activities.
- These did not receive any publicity or political sympathies till much later.
The charges in these earlier trials were of “Committing a civil offence contrary to the Section 41 of the Indian Army Act, 1911 or the Section 41 of the Burma Army Act” with the offence specified as “Waging War against the King” contrary to the Section 121 of the Indian Penal Code.

Public trials

However, the number of INA troops captured by Commonwealth forces by the end of the Burma Campaign made it necessary to take a selective policy to charge those accused of the worst allegations.
The first of these was the joint trial of Shah Nawaz Khan, Prem Sahgal and Gurbaksh Singh Dhillon.
The decision was made to hold a public trial, as opposed to the earlier trials, and given the political importance and significance of the trials, the decision was made to hold these at the Red Fort.

INA Defence committee

The Indian National Congress made the release of the three defendants an important political issue, during the agitation for independence of 1945-46.
The INA Defence Committee was a committee established by the Indian National Congress in 1945 to defend those officers of the Indian National Army, who were to be charged during the INA trials.
Additional responsibilities of the committee also came to be the co-ordination of information on INA troops held captive, as well as arranging for relief for troops after the war.
The committee declared the formation of the Congress’ defence team for the INA and included famous lawyers of the time, including Bhulabhai Desai, Asaf Ali, Sharat Chandra bose, Tej Bahadur Sapru, Kailash Nath Katju.

The outcome of the Trial

The Red Fort trials, resulted in many Indians getting acquainted with a force that had fought for independence.
- It led to sympathy for the INA across the country, and before long, demonstrations began springing up in different parts in solidarity with the captured troops.
The Congress also took notice of the widespread support for the INA soldiers and realised that this could be a way to reignite the enthusiasm and hunger in the country for independence.
The INA defence Committee put up an impeccable defence, arguing that the actions of the INA troops were legal and within the terms of the Indian National Army Act, and thus exempt from the Indian Penal Code and the Indian Army Act.
As compelling as the arguments of the defence were, the three INA members were found guilty of waging a war. They were, however, not given the death sentence but dismissed from service and handed transportation for life, which too was remitted.
The three INA members were then released and welcomed as heroes, with the Congress showing full support in the celebration.

I.N. Rebellion

Background

The release of the three INA members (Shahnawaz Khan, Prem Sahgal and Gurbaksh Dhillon), however, did not result in the rest of the captured INA troops going on trial.
Although the British Indian Army was recommended to cease the trials, as it could lead to mutinies, the force’s then commander-in-chief, Claude Auchinleck, decided to go ahead with the rest of them.
This led to the loyalties of the serving Indian Army men shifting towards the country as the majority turned nationalist. The resistance of Indian armed forces to British pressure kept growing, as well as their loyalties towards the nation.
In January 1946, a massive strike was imposed by officers and pilots of Royal Indian Air Force (RIAF). By February, the ships of Royal Indian Navy (RIN) also joined the mutiny. Civilians in Mumbai joined the strikes as well.
This was a clear sign of mass mutiny to the British government, which resulted in the final dialogue of independence between the British government and India.

INA Rebellion

The high pitch and intensity at which the campaign for the release of INA prisoners was conducted was unprecedented.
Initially, the agitation got wide publicity through extensive press coverage with daily editorials, distribution of pamphlets often containing threats of revenge, graffiti conveying similar messages, holding of public meetings and celebrations of INA Day.
The nerve centres of the agitation were Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, United Provinces towns and Punjab, but the campaign spread to distant places such as Coorg, Baluchistan and Assam.
The forms of participation included:
- Fund contribution
- Participation in meetings
- Closing of shops
- political groups demanding release of prisoners
- student meetings and boycott of classes;
- organising kisan conferences; and
- All India Women’s Conference demanding the release of INA prisoners.
Those who supported the INA cause in varying degrees, apart from the Congress, included the Muslim League, Communist Party, Unionists, Akalis, Justice Party, Ahrars in Rawalpindi, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, Hindu Mahasabha and the Sikh League.
Pro-INA sentiments surfaced in traditional bulwarks of the Raj, as well:
- Government employees collected funds
- The loyalists, i.e. the gentlemen with titles appealed to the government to abandon the trials for good Indo-British relations.
With all the collective effort, the central theme became the questioning of Britain’s right to decide a matter concerning Indians.

Importance of the Rebellion

Fearless action by the masses was an expression of militancy in the popular mind.
Revolt in the armed forces had a great liberating effect on the minds of people.
Clement Attlee, the then British prime minister, cited that that the INA activities of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, had weakened the Indian Army, which was the foundation of the British Empire in India
- Further, the rebellion made the British realise that the Indian armed forces could no longer be relied upon to support the Raj.
Although Britain had made, at the time of the Cripps Mission in 1942, a commitment to grant dominion status to India after the war, this suggests that the INA and the revolts, mutinies, and the public resentment they germinated were an important factor in the complete withdrawal of the Raj from India.

Rajagopalachari Formula, 1945

Background

Rajagopalachari’s formula(or C. R. formula or Rajaji formula) was a proposal formulated by C.Rajagopalachari to solve the political deadlock between the All India Muslim League and the Indian National Congress on the independence of British India.
The League’s position was that theMuslims and Hindus of British India were of two separate nations and henceforth the Muslims had the right to their own nation.
The Congress, which included both Hindu and Muslim members, was opposed to the idea of partitioning India.
To add to the situation, with the advent of theSecond World War the British administration sought to divide the Indian political elite into two factions so as to make sure that the Indian independence movement does not make large progress, taking advantage of the war.
It was at such a juncture, that Rajagopalachari devised a proposal for the Congress to offer the League.

The Rajagopalachari Formula

The main points in the CR Plan were:
- Muslim League to endorse Congress demand for independence.
- League to cooperate with Congress in forming a provisional government at centre.
- After the end of the war, the entire population of Muslim majority areas in the North-West and North-East India to decide by a plebiscite, whether or not to form a separate sovereign state.
- In case of acceptance of partition, agreement to be made jointly for safeguarding defence, commerce, communications, etc.
- The above terms to be operative only if England transferred full powers to India.

Reactions to the formula

The formula was a tacit acceptance of the League’s demand for Pakistan. And Gandhiji supported the formula.
Jinnah wanted the Congress to accept the two-nation theory.
- He wanted only the Muslims of North-West and North-East to vote in the plebiscite and not the entire population. He also opposed the idea of a common centre.
While the Congress was ready to cooperate with the League for the independence of the Indian Union, the League did not care for independence of the Union. It was only interested in a separate nation.
Further, Hindu leaders led by Vir Savarkar condemned the CR plan

Causes of failure of the proposal

Although the formulation supported the principle of Pakistan, it aimed to show that the provinces that Jinnah claimed as Pakistan contained large numbers of non-Muslims.
- Jinnah had claimed provinces then regarded as Muslim majority regions. Thus, If a plebiscite was placed, Jinnah ran a risk of partitioning Punjab and Bengal
Furthermore, the decision of Muslims to secede from India, according to the CR formula, would be taken not just by Muslims alone, but by a plebiscite of the entire population even in the Muslim majority districts.
- This might well have diluted the enthusiasm of the people of these provinces about going partition. Hence Jinnah rejected the initiative.

Desai – Liaqat Plan

Background

While Mohandas Gandhi and the entire Congress Working Committee had been arrested during the Quit India movement, from 1942 to 1945, Desai was one of few Congress leaders free.
While pressing demands for the immediate release of political prisoners, Desai began secretive talks with Liaquat Ali Khan, the second-most important leader of the Muslim League.
It was their intention to negotiate an agreement for a future coalition government, which would enable a united choice for Hindus and Muslims for the independent Government of India; eventually in the direction of ending the deadlock between the two entities.

The Pact

Both of them came up with the draft proposal for the formation of an interim government at the centre, consisting of:
- An equal number of persons nominated by the Congress and the League in the central legislature.
- 20% reserved seats for minorities.
In this Pact, Liaquat gave up the demand for a separate Muslim state in turn for parity of Muslims-to-Hindus in the council of ministers.
- Conceding the League as the representative of Muslims and giving a minority community equal place with the majority Hindus, Desai attempted to construct an ideal Indian alliance that would hasten India’s path for freedom while ending the Quit India struggle.

Thus, it turned out so that, M.K Gandhi’s attempt to resolve the political deadlock by persuading Desai to make an attempt to appease the league leaders, were not formally endorsed either by the Congress or the League.

Wavell Plan and Simla Conference 1945

Background

Once the tide of the war turned in their favour, the British started realising by the end of 1944 generally that, the Indian situation should not be allowed to remain where it stood after the Quit India Movement.
They realised that it would be impossible to hold India by force for long. A dialogue therefore, had to begin with the imprisoned Congress leaders, if not for anything else, at least for preventing them in future from taking advantage of an explosive post-war situation of economic hardships and unemployment
According to Wavell the energies of the Congress and its fellow-travellers were required to be directed from the path of agitation into “some more profitable channel, i.e. into dealing with the administrative problems of India and into trying to solve the constitutional problems”.
Thus, The viceroy, Lord Wavell was permitted to start negotiations with Indian leaders, with the release of Congress Leaders from jails in June 1945

Wavell Plan

The main proposals of the Wavell Plan were as follows.
- With the exception of the governor-general and the commander-in-chief, all members of the executive council were to be Indians.
- Caste Hindus and Muslims were to have equal representation.
- The reconstructed council was to function as an interim government within the framework of the 1935 Act (i.e. not responsible to the Central Assembly).
- The governor-general was to exercise his veto on the advice of ministers.
- Representatives of different parties were to submit a joint list to the viceroy for nominations to the executive council. If a joint list was not possible, then separate lists were to be submitted.
- Possibilities were to be kept open for negotiations on a new constitution once the war was finally won.
The Reactions:
- The League wanted all Muslim members to be League nominees, because it feared that since the aims of other minorities—depressed classes, Sikhs, Christians, etc.—were the same as those of the Congress, this arrangement would reduce the League to a one-third minority
- While, the Congress objected to the plan as “an attempt to reduce the Congress to the status of a purely caste Hindu party and insisted on its right to include members of all communities among its nominees”
Criticism of the Plan
- The Wavell Plan, in essence, proposed the complete Indianisation of the Executive Council, but instead of asking all the parties to nominate members to the Executive Council from all the communities, seats were reserved for members on the basis of religion and caste, with the caste Hindus and Muslims being represented on it on the basis of parity.
- While the plan proposed immediate changes to the composition of the Executive Council it did not contain any guarantee of Indian independence, nor did it contain any mention of a future constituent assembly or any proposals for the division of power between the various parties of India.

The Simla Conference

The Simla Conference of 1945 was a meeting between the Viceroy of India Lord Wavell and the major political leaders of British India at the Viceregal Lodge in Simla.
Lord Wavell invited a conference of 21 Indian Political leaders at the Summer Capital British India to discuss the provision of Wavell Plan.
Eventually permitted by the home authorities to set the ball of negotiations rolling, the Viceroy, Wavell, ordered on 14 June 1945 the release of all the Congress Working Committee members, and invited them along with others, notably the League leaders, to join in a Conference in Simla (24 June – 14 July 1945) for setting up a new Executive Council at the Centre (As according to Wavell plan).
While attending the conference, the Congress naturally refused to be treated as a “Caste Hindu” body, and, asserting its secular nationalist character staked the right to select the representatives of any community, including Muslims (of whom Abul Kalam Azad and Abdul Ghaffar Khan presented themselves in Simla in the capacities of the leaders and distinguished members respectively, of the Congress delegation), as the Congress nominees to the council.
- The Muslim league objected to the Congress Stand, and claimed an absolute jurisdiction for choosing all the Muslim members of the council.
Further, the league demanded a communal veto by asking for a two-third majority, in the proposed council, instead of a simple one.
In his anxiety for encouraging the League’s posture, and brushing aside the Congress offer to join the council by keeping to open for the League to step in later, the Viceroy Wavell, abruptly decided to abandon the British proposals and dissolve the Simla Conference.
- Thus, his actions not only implied an official recognition of League’s monopoly, but also the power to negate any future negotiation that did not suit its own convenience.
Thus, the Simla Conference failed in its objective and set the trend for the immediate topics that would dominate discourse until Indian independence.

Thus, it turned out so that, the Wavell Plan that was proposed to resolve the political deadlock that existed during that time; it rather due to disagreements among the main stakeholders, got dissolved at the Simla conference.

General Elections in India, 1945

Introduction

General elections were held in British India in December 1945 to elect members of the Central Legislative Assembly and the Council of State.
The hopes for some political advance, dashed by the failure of the Simla Conference, once again revived with the coming to power of the Labour Party in Britain.
- An important initiative taken by the Labour Government was the declaration that elections to the central and provincial assemblies would be held in 1945
Thus, on 19 September 1945, the Viceroy Lord Wavell announced that elections to the central and provincial legislatures would be held in December 1945 to January 1946.
- It was also announced that an executive council would be formed and a constitution making body would be convened after these elections.
Although the Government of India Act 1935 had proposed an all-India federation, it could not take place because the government held that the Princely states were unwilling to join it.
- Hence the elections to the central legislature were held under the terms of the Government of India Act 1919.

The Elections

The main parties in the contest were the Congress and the Muslim League. The elections were particularly important for the League in its quest for Pakistan.
Election Campaign
- The election campaign became a massive exercise in mobilisation of the people. And the following two major issues were taken up:
  - A major issue taken up in the election campaign related to the unprecedented repression witnessed against the 1942 movement.
    - Many, including ordinary people and cadres, had been martyred in the cause.
    - A typical election speech would relate the tale of repression with all details of brutality, move on to condemning the officials who were guilty and end with the promise (or threat) that Congress governments would enquire into these cases and mete out punishment to the guilty officials.
  - The second issue taken up in the election campaign was that of the fate of the members of Subhas Bose’s Indian National Army taken prisoner by the Allies and put on trial for brutalities and war crimes
    - Jawaharlal Nehru hailed them as misguided patriots and called for leniency given that big changes were imminent in India.
    - The Congress followed this up by passing a resolution in support of the cause.
    - In addition to legal help, Congress organised relief funds and arranged employment for the INA men.
    - Congress election meetings were often indistinguishable from INA meetings

Election Results

In the elections to the central assembly in December 1945, out of 102 seats, Congress won 57, League 30, Independents 5, Akalis 2 and Europeans 8.
In the elections to the provincial assemblies, Congress won 923 of 1585 seats, 23 of 38 labour seats but was defeated by the Muslim League in the Muslim seats. ‘
Elections of 1946 were a watershed.
- The results made it clear that the Congress represented the large masses of the country.
- It was equally clear, however, that the Muslim League spoke for most Muslims.
The Congress was to go on to form governments in the provinces of Madras, Bombay, United Provinces, Bihar, Orissa, Central Provinces and Berar and NWFP.
- The League formed ministries in Bengal and Sind.
- In Punjab, after the elections of 1946, some negotiations between Muslim League and Akalis were carried out with a possible coalition in mind. This had been unsuccessful and Akalis joined with Unionists and Congress to form a coalition ministry.

Significance of these Elections

The election coupled with the provincial one in 1946 proved to be a strategic victory for Jinnah and the partitionists.
- Even though Congress won, the League had united the Muslim vote and as such it gained the negotiating power to seek a separate Muslim homeland as it became clear that a united India would prove highly unstable.
The elections witnessed communal voting in contrast to the strong anti-British unity shown in various upsurges due to separate electorates and limited franchise, as for the provinces, less than 10 per cent of the population could vote and for the Central Assembly, less than 1 per cent of the population was eligible.
Also, these were the last general elections in British India; consequent elections were held in 1951 in India and 1970 in Pakistan.

Naval Mutiny, 1946

Introduction

The Royal Indian Navy mutiny or revolt, also called the 1946 Naval Uprising, was an insurrection of Indian naval ratings, soldiers, police personnel and civilians against the British government in India.
The mutiny of the Royal Indian Navy (RIN), which broke out on February 18, 1946 in only five days, delivered a mortal blow to the entire structure of the British Raj.

Background to the Mutiny

The Second World War changed geopolitics
- The war had caused rapid expansion of the RIN
- In 1945, it was 10 times larger than its size in 1939.
As the campaigns carried the soldiers across the seas during WW2, they saw the world, read the newspapers and learnt that the war was for ‘restoring democracy and freedom’.
- So, this made the Indian Soldiers question as to when their country would be free.
Due to the war, recruitments began occurring beyond the confines of the “martial races” composed of demographics who were politically segregated
- Exponential rises in the price of goods, famines and other economic difficulties eventually forced many of them to join the expanding armed forces of the British Raj
- So, over a period, a large number of Indian Section underwent a transformation in mind-set.
Despite Indian soldiers and technicians, being skilled at par with the British, Indians received a lower hand treatment from the British.
- This smouldering resulted in at least 9 minor mutinies between Mar 1942 – April 1945

The RIN revolt

So, at the behest of such a transformed scenario in India, after WW2 came the most serious of all the direct anti-imperialist confrontations of the post was phase – the revolt of the Royal Indian Navy.
Having served abroad, and being familiar with the ways of world outside, the ratings of the RIN were resentful of the racist behaviour of their English superiors.
Besides, at the same time, there were unrest building up in the country, especially over the INA trials.
Eventually, on February 18, 1946, the ratings of ”Talwar” in Bombay harbour, went into hunger strike to protest against bad food and worst racial arrogance.
- Others in 22 ships in the neighbourhood, followed suit on the following day, and it soon spread to the Castle and the Fort Barracks on the shore
Further, they elected a Naval Committee headed by MS Khan, and drew up their demands, highlighting as much the national ones as their own. They demanded:
- Release of INA prisoners
- Freedom of all other political prisoners
- Withdrawal of Indian troops from Indo-China and Java
- Better food
- More civilised treatment
- Equal pay for European and Indian Sailors alike
On 20th February, the ratings in Barracks were surrounded by armed guards, while their Comrades in the ships found British members threatening them with destruction.
- By 22 February, the revolt had spread to all the naval bases in the country, involving 78 ships, 20 shore establishments and 20,000 ratings.
As natural in the electrifying circumstances of 1946, the mutineers evoked unprecedented popular response.
- In Karachi, the Hindu and Muslim students and workers demonstrated in support of the ratings, and engaged the army and police in violent clashes.
- Bombay witnessed emotional expressions of public sympathy-people hailing the ratings, rushing in food for them and shopkeepers insisting on their taking whatever articles they liked.
- The Communists, with the support of the Congress Socialists, gave a call for a general strike on 22 February.
- Defying the Congress and the League directives to the contrary, 300,000 workers came out of the factories and mills and took to the streets on that day.
- On the contrary, Several hundred died in the delirious two days, and thousand suffered injuries

Why the rising could not make much headway?

The overwhelming military might of the Raj which was put in action.
The mutineers in the armed forces received no support from national political leaders and were themselves largely leaderless. Mahatma Gandhi condemned the riots and the ratings’ revolt
Vallabhbhai Patel and Jinnah jointly persuaded the ratings to surrender on 23rd February. An undertaking was given by the Congress and the League that they would prevent any victimisation of the ratings. But soon this assurance was forgotten. Thus, ended the Revolt of the RIN.
The Muslim League made criticisms of the mutiny, arguing that unrest amongst the sailors was not best expressed on the streets, however serious their grievances might be.
- According to them, Legitimacy could only, probably, be conferred by a recognised political leadership as the head of any kind of movement.
Similar direct anti-imperialist confrontations though not of the same magnitude and significance as those of the INA and the RIN agitations also continued to take place contemporaneously in different parts of the country. Some of these were:
- The popular outcry against the government decision to cut down the rational supplies to the civilian population was one such example, over which 80,000 demonstrated in Allahabad in mid-February 1946.
- Another was the widespread police strike in April 1946 under the aegis of the leftists in Malabar, Bihar, eastern Bengal (in Dacca in particular), the Andamans and even in Delhi.
In July 1946 the postal employees decided to defy the authorities and actually struck work for a time. Sympathising with their cause, and at the call of the Communists, the people in Calcutta observed a total and peaceful general strike on 29 July 1946.
Thus, Strikes and industrial actions had in fact become in 1946 the order of the day.

Aftermath of RIN revolt

Between 25 and 26 February 1946, the rest of the mutineers surrendered with a guarantee from the Indian National Congress and the All-India Muslim League and none of them would be persecuted
Number of precautionary measures were taken against possibilities of a second rebellious outbreak.
- Firing mechanisms were removed from the warships, small arms kept under lock by British officers and army troops were deployed as guards on board warships and at the shore establishments.
In British circles, the confidence in the loyalty and reliability of Royal Indian Navy was shattered

Impact

Clement Attlee announced the Cabinet Mission to India following the mutiny.
The British authorities in 1948 branded the 1946 Indian Naval Mutiny as a “larger communist conspiracy raging from the Middle East to the Far East against the British crown”.
In 1967 during a seminar discussion marking the 20th anniversary of Independence; it was revealed by the British High Commissioner of the time John Freeman, that the mutiny of 1946 had raised the fear of another large-scale mutiny along the lines of the Indian Rebellion of 1857
- Thus, the mutiny had accordingly been a large contributing factor to the British deciding to leave India.

Cabinet Mission,1946

Introduction

The Cabinet Mission Plan was a statement made by the Cabinet Mission and the Viceroy, Lord Wavell, on May 16, 1946, that contained proposals regarding the constitutional future of India in the wake of Indian political parties and representatives not coming to an agreement.
The members of the Cabinet Mission were: Lord Penthick-Lawrence, Secretary of State for India, Sir Stafford Cripps, President of the Board of Trade, and A.V Alexander, First Lord of Admiralty.

Background

In September 1945, the new elected Labour government in Britain expressed its intention of creating a Constituent Assembly for India, that would frame India’s Constitution; and the Cabinet Mission was sent to India in March 1946 to make this happen.
The Mission had to deal with a major obstacle: the two main political parties – the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League – which had fundamental differences over India’s future.
- The desire for a united India was an outcome of both: the British pride in having politically unified the subcontinent and the doubts of most British authorities as to the feasibility of Pakistan.
The Mission, at the Shimla Conference, attempted to facilitate an agreement between the Muslim League and the Congress. When this failed, the Mission came out with its own proposals known as the Cabinet Mission Plan.
Upon arriving in the subcontinent the mission found both parties, the Indian National Congress and Muslim League, unwilling to reach a settlement.
- The two parties had performed well in the elections, general and provincial, and emerged as the two main parties in the subcontinent.
- The Muslim League had been victorious in approximately 90 percent of the seats for Muslims, which resulted in Jinnah bargaining with the British and Congress
At such a juncture, the British having established the system of separate electorates, they could no longer reverse its consequences in spite of their genuine commitment to Indian unity.

Cabinet Mission plan

The plan recommended the following for the Constitution:
- There should be a Union of India, embracing both British India and the States which should deal with the following subjects: Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Communications; and should have the powers necessary to raise the finances required for the above subjects.
- The Union should have an Executive and a Legislature constituted from British Indian and States’ representatives. Any question raising a major communal issue in the Legislature should require for its decision a majority of the representatives present and voting of each of the two major communities as well as a majority of all members present and voting.
- All subjects other than the Union subjects and all residuary powers should vest in the Provinces.
- The States will retain all subjects and powers other than those ceded to the Union.
- Provinces should be free to form groups with Executives and Legislatures, and each group could determine the Provincial subjects to be taken in common.
- The Constitutions of the Union and of the groups should contain a provision, whereby any Province could by majority vote of its Legislative Assembly could call for a reconsideration of the terms of the Constitution after an initial period of ten years and at ten-yearly intervals thereafter.
- Rejection of the demand for a full-fledged Pakistan,
- Grouping of existing provincial assemblies into three sections
  - Section A – Hindu Majority provinces, Section B & C – Muslim majority provinces
- Princely states were no longer to be under paramountcy of the British government. They would be free to enter into an arrangement with successor governments or the British government.

Reactions

The Plan was initially accepted by the Muslim League and the Congress Party.
However, the Congress Party soon rejected the ‘grouping’ part of the plan’; specifically, as it was concerned about and opposed the grouping of provinces on the basis of religion.
The Muslim League was not open to changing any part of the Plan and so any consensus between the Congress and the Muslim League broke down.
Further attempts by the Cabinet Mission at reconciliation failed.
Nonetheless, the proceedings of the Constituent Assembly began and an interim government, with Jawaharlal Nehru as the Prime minister, was set-up. The Muslim League refused to be part of both; it initiated ‘Direct Action Day’ triggering large-scale violence across the country

Significance

The Plan, also referred to as the ‘State Paper’, had a significant influence over the deliberations of the Constituent Assembly during its initial stages, particularly the debates around Nehru’s Objective Resolution and federalism.
The Assembly acknowledged that it was a creation of the Plan; it wanted to, as far as possible, adhere to the Plan’s proposals as means of maintaining its legal legitimacy and to keep the door open for the Muslim League to join its proceedings. At the same time, the Assembly also asserted that its legitimacy was derived from the people of India and not the Plan.
Further, The Cabinet Mission Plan is critical to scholarly works that engage with various aspects of Indian constitutionalism, law, politics and history, particularly on partition and federalism
- Some scholars, emphasise that the British self-interest behind the setting up of the Cabinet Mission was ‘to secure Britain’s defence interests in India and the Indian Ocean Area’.
- Other scholars have taken to evaluating the Cabinet Mission and its Plan: Granville Austin argues that the Cabinet Mission (‘non-Indians’) should have never attempted to mediate between the Congress and the Muslim league: ‘it was foredoomed to failure’.

On the whole, The Cabinet Mission Plan continues to be relevant to scholars and the general public in understanding and making sense of not only the origins of the Indian Constitution, but also the future of the Indian republic.

Jinnah’s Direct-Action Resolution

Introduction

In 1946, Muhammad Ali Jinnah declared 16 August as ‘Direct Action Day’ and called for Muslims all over the country to ‘suspend all businesses’. This was to put pressure on the British government to relent to the Muslim League’s (headed by Jinnah) demand of dividing the country on the basis of religion, thereby allowing the creation of a Muslim-dominated Pakistan.
Direct Action Day perhaps marks the crux of the nationalistic struggle which finally led to India’s partition.
Direct Action Day (16 August 1946), also known as the 1946 Calcutta Killings, was a day of nationwide communal riots.
- It led to large-scale violence between Muslims and Hindus in the city of Calcutta (now known as Kolkata) in the Bengal province of British India.

Background

In 1946, the Indian independence movement against the British Raj had reached a pivotal stage.
- British Prime Minister Clement Attlee sent a three-member Cabinet Mission to India aimed at discussing and finalizing plans for the transfer of power from the British Raj to the Indian leadership.
Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the onetime Congressman and now the leader of the Muslim League, had accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan of 16 June, as had the central presidium of the Congress.
On 10 July, however, Jawaharlal Nehru, the Congress President, held a press conference in Bombay declaring that although the Congress had agreed to participate in the Constituent Assembly, it reserved the right to modify the Cabinet Mission Plan as it saw fit.
- Fearing Hindu domination in the central government, the Muslim League politicians pressed Jinnah to revert to “his earlier unbending stance”.
- Then, Jinnah rejected the British Cabinet Mission plan for transfer of power to an interim government, which would combine both the Muslim League and the Indian National Congress, and decided to boycott the Constituent Assembly.
In July 1946, Jinnah held a press conference at his home in Bombay. He proclaimed that the Muslim league was “preparing to launch a struggle” and that they “have chalked out a plan”
Further later, Jinnah announced 16 August 1946 would be “Direct Action Day”.

Consequent Impacts

Since the 11–14 February 1946 riots in Calcutta, communal tension had been high. Hindu and Muslim newspapers whipped up public sentiment with inflammatory and highly partisan reporting that heightened antagonism between the two communities.
‘Direct Action Day’ marked the beginning of several acts of violence spread over a couple of days in what came to be known as the ‘Week of the Long Knives’.
- While it was ostensibly established none of the politicians had expected the violence to reach as massive a scale as it did, it went ahead to become a brutality-ridden microcosm of the political struggle that had the entire country in its throes later in 1947.
Muslims became more determined in their fight for a separate nation where they would feel safe from communal violence, a decision from which both Jinnah as well as the Congress’ elite politicians would stand to benefit.
As members of one community rounded up members of another and murdered them in cold blood, 6 August 1946 was forever etched in history as the day which saw the surfacing of the most primeval human instinct of violence.

Aftermath

There was criticism of Suhrawardy, Chief Minister in charge of the Home Portfolio in Calcutta, for being partisan and of Sir Frederick John Burrows, the British Governor of Bengal, for not having taken control of the situation.
The Hindu press blamed the Suhrawardy Government and the Muslim League.
According to the authorities, riots were instigated by members of the Muslim League and its affiliate Volunteer Corps, in the city in order to enforce the declaration by the Muslim League that Muslims were to ‘suspend all business’ to support their demand for an independent Pakistan.
Further, members of the Indian National Congress, including Mohandas Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru responded negatively to the riots and expressed shock.

Indian Independence Act 1947

Introduction

This was an act, to make provision for the setting up in India of two independent Dominions, to substitute other provisions for certain provisions of the Government of India Act 1935, which apply outside those Dominions, and to provide for, other matters consequential on or connected with the setting up of the Dominions.
The Act was formulated together by UK Prime Minister Clement Attlee and the Governor-General of India Lord Mountbatten, after the representatives of the Indian National Congress, the Muslim League, and the Sikh community gave their consent to the Act. This act came to be known as the 3 June Plan or Mountbatten Plan.

Indian Independence Act 1947

The Salient Features of the Act were:
- Clause 1 of the Act provided for the creation of two independent Dominions, namely, India and Pakistan from 15th August 1947
- Clause 2 of the Act defined the territories of the two Dominions adjustable after the award of boundary Commission. The territories of Indian Dominion were to consist of all Indian Provinces, except those that comprised Pakistan.
  - The territories of Pakistan were to include the areas covered by the Provinces of East Bengal, West Bengal, West Punjab, Sind, Baluchistan and the N.W.F. P
- Both the Dominions were to have Governor Generals appointed by His Majesty to represent him for the purposes of the Governments of the Dominions, The Act also provided for one common General if both the Dominions so agreed
- The Legislature of each dominion was empowered to frame the laws for the governance of the Dominion. No law made by that Dominion were to be treated as null and void on the ground that it conflicted with any laws of England or any provision of any existing or future Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom (U. K.) nor an order in council shall extend to the New Dominions;
- The Constituent Assembly of each Dominion were to exercise all powers exercised by the Legislature of the Dominion
- The office of the Secretary of State for India and his advisors was abolished and affairs relating to the Dominion of India and Pakistan were to be conducted in future by the Secretary of the Commonwealth Relations Department
- It proclaimed the lapse of British paramountcy over the Indian princely states and treaty relations with tribal areas from August 15, 1947.
  - It granted freedom to the Indian princely states either to join the Dominion of India or Dominion of Pakistan or to remain independent.
- It dropped the title of Emperor of India from the royal titles of the king of England.
- It discontinued the appointment to civil services and reservation of posts by the secretary of state for India. The members of the civil services appointed before August 15, 1947 would continue to enjoy all benefits that they were entitled to till that time.

Thus, with passing of the Independence Act, 1947 India attained independence on August 15, 1947 and at the same time the era of British Imperialism in India came to an end.
Although the Indian Constitution derives its legal authority from the Indian Independence Act, 1947, this Act had conferred power on the Constituent Assembly to frame a Constitution for India.

Repeal of the Act

The Indian Independence Act was subsequently repealed in Article 395 of the Constitution of India and in Article 221 of the Constitution of Pakistan of 1956, both constitutions being intended to bring about greater independence for the new states.
Although under British law, the new constitutions did not have the legal authority to repeal the Act, the repeal was intended to establish them as independent legal systems based only on home-grown legislation
It is to be noted that, the Act has not been repealed in the United Kingdom, where it still has an effect, although some sections of it have been repealed.

Act and the Aftermath

Violence Erupts
- There was much violence, and many Muslims from what would become India fled to Pakistan; and Hindus and Sikhs from what would become Pakistan fled to India.
- Also, many people left behind all their possessions and property to avoid the violence and flee to their new country.
Early withdrawal resulted in more Problems
- The breakneck speed of events under Mountbatten caused anomalies in arranging the details of partition, because
  - There were no transitional institutional structures within which partition problems could be tackled;
  - Mountbatten had hoped to be the common Governor General of India and Pakistan, thus providing the necessary link, but Jinnah wanted the position for himself in Pakistan;
  - There was a delay in announcing the Boundary Commission Award (under Radcliffe); though the award was ready by August 12, 1947 Mountbatten decided to make it public after August 15 so that the British could escape all responsibility of disturbances.
Issues related to States’ integration
- During 1946-47 there was a new upsurge of the State People’s Movement demanding political rights and elective representation in the Constituent Assembly.
- So, the act which gave a choice for the Princely states, to join either of the union, had to be subjugated later.
  - This further demanded military action from Indian dominion, to ensure they acceded to the Indian Union.
Congress accepted partition, because
- Only an immediate transfer of power could forestall the spread of ‘direct action’ and communal violence. The virtual collapse of the Interim Government also made the notion of Pakistan appear unavoidable.
- The partition plan ruled out independence for the princely states which could have been a greater danger to Indian unity as it would have meant Balkanisation of the countr

Freedom to Partition (1939 – 1947)

World War II and Indian Nationalism

Resignation of Congress Ministers ,1939

Poona Resolution and Conditional Support to Britain ,1941

August Offer, 1940

The Individual Civil Disobedience

Two-Nation Theory

Demand for Pakistan,1942

Cripps Mission, 1942

Quit India Movement

Azad Hind Fauj

Indian National Army

I.N.A. Trials

I.N. Rebellion

Rajagopalachari Formula, 1945

Desai – Liaqat Plan

Wavell Plan and Simla Conference 1945

General Elections in India, 1945

Naval Mutiny, 1946

Cabinet Mission,1946

Jinnah’s Direct-Action Resolution

Indian Independence Act 1947

Connect With

Quick Links

Company

Contact Info

Phone Number

Email Address

Location