IN 1914, when King George V declared war on Germany on behalf of the British Empire, opposition in India was limited. One and a half million Indians fought, on every military front, on behalf of their imperial rulers.
Twenty five years later the imperial Viceroy, Lord Linlithgow, committed India to war with Germany. This time the reaction was very different. Not even all the rulers of the supposedly autonomous 'Princely States' enthusiastically endorsed Britain's war effort.
In those areas of India under direct British rule (the vast bulk of the country) reaction was much more hostile. Only the Muslim League, which by then was committed to an independent Pakistan, supported the war. Too much had happened in India between the two world wars for Indians to meekly follow British bidding.
The massacre at Amritsar in 1919, the suppression of every challenge to British rule and, for Muslims, British deceit in the Middle East had greatly strengthened nationalist feelings.
This was fuelled by the racist treatment of Indian troops during the First World War and the continuing racism experienced by the overwhelming majority of Indians in the inter-war years. While the former white colonies were allowed to decide for themselves whether or not to go to war in 1939, India had the decision made for her.
The all-white Simon Commission in 1927 inflamed even the most moderate Indian politicians, while the 1935 Government of India Act only gave Indians some say at a local level. It maintained separate seats for religious minorities, a provision opposed by Congress but supported by the Muslim League.
In 1929 the Viceroy, Lord Irwin, had announced that India would be 'given' some form of self-rule - though not just yet! However much these measures reflected British determination to maintain the Empire, they did show that the Raj was coming to an end.
They were concessions wrung out of the British by the mass movement which gave legitimacy to Congress, despite British claims that Congress had little support.
Repression
The limited nature of the concessions and the frequent resort to repression increased nationalist determination. By the outbreak of the Second World War Gandhi's demand for Dominion status had been replaced by the call for complete independence put forward by Jawaharlal Nehru and the Congress left wing. Gandhi himself now supported independence.
The consequences of this shift became clear during the war. In 1942 Stafford Cripps, a leader of the Labour left and a member of the wartime British cabinet, was sent to India to try to negotiate active Indian support for the war. His Draft Declaration was rejected by Congress.
The British government offered only Dominion status and a constituent assembly whose members were to be elected by regional assemblies or nominated by the rulers in the case of the 'princely states'. It also made concessions to the demand being made by the Muslim League for a separate Muslim state, Pakistan.
Moreover, none of the proposals were to be implemented until after the war. Congress rejected the Cripps proposals and launched the 'Quit India' movement in August 1942.
Arrests
On August 9 1942 the main leaders of Congress were arrested. Mass protests took place throughout India, with women and young people playing a particularly important role.
Police stations, post offices, railway stations, courts and other symbols of imperial authority were attacked. National flags were raised on public buildings. Railway lines and bridges were blown up, telegraph and teleonone wires were CuL ments that developed in response to the arrests of the known leaders.
Although the mass protests subsided after two months the underground movement continued, with its activities broadcast over the clandestine Congress Radio. In a number of areas the underground movement developed parallel governments.
In Tamluk in Bengal the parallel government lasted from December 1942 until September 1944, while in Satara in Maharashtra it lasted from August 1942-1945).
These parallel governments organised education and helped with famine relief. They carried out some land redistribution, set up people's courts and organised sabotage activities against the British and their local collaborators. Despite their supposed adherence to Ghandian principles, they set up armed formations.
The 'Quit India' movement was met by savage repression. By the end of 1942 over 60,000 people had been arrested: nearly 45,000 were detained under the Defence of India Rules. Only half of these had been convicted of any offence, in a situation where obtaining a conviction was not difficult.
When Gandhi began a 21-day fast on February 10 1943 the British government ignored all appeals - including from the US government - for his release. Troops were placed on standby to deal with any uprising if he died.
The following year terrible famine hit Bengal, and the British government exacted reIlluminations and fireworks in Bombay greet the British handover. Below (left) Jawahalari Nehru T with Mahatma Gandhi, below (right) Lord Mountbatten with Muslim leader Jinnah Be::
million Bengalis died. cer of the British Indian Army Mohan Singh, who decided to approach the Japanese for help rather than join the retreating British soldiers.
In Ahmedabad By the end of mill WORKeRS 1942 40,000 Indian struck for three prisoners of war and half had joined the months. In Bom- INA, which bav there was a claimed it would general strike for only go into action a week, and in at the reguest of Jamshedpur for the Indian Natwo weeks. In Ah- tional Congress. mednagar and This was also seen Poona strikes as a means of prelasted for several venting a future months. School Japanese occupaand college stu- tion of India. dents joined the strikes and often became couriers for the underground movemiration for the British Empire. under arms. fascist agent. lease of all INA prisoners. venge. The wartime coalition government refused to send aid. Not one Labour member of the government dissented. Five and a half The importance of the 'Quit India' Movement must be seen against the background of the Second World War in Asia. By August 1942 Japanese armies had captured Burma and Singapore, and were on the threshold of India. British confidence was weakened. The defeat of European armies by Asians massively strengthened Indian self-confidence.
In this situation arose one of the least understood (by the British) movements in Indian history, the Indian National Army. The INA was founded in Malaya by a former offiThe INA is usually associated with Subhas Chandra Bose, one of the leaders of the left wing of Congress alongside Nehru. Chandra Bose followed the old nationalist maxim that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Hence he turned to Hitler and Japan for aid - though he was disillusioned by Hitler's professed adMarch 1947.
Submarine
In 1943 Bose was brought to Singapore by German and Japanese submarines. However there were clear differences between the aims of the INA and the Japanese military. The former wanted an independent India, the latter an India under Japanese rule. Hence Japanese attempts to limit the numbers of Indians The success of the INA was certainly related to its links with the Japanese: once the Japanese armies were in retreat, the INA had no role. Nevertheless, despite the massive British propaganda at the time (and since) Chandra Bose was not a stooge of German or Japanese imperialism. He was an Indian nationalist who had considerable success in uniting Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims within backing. the INA. This was duly noted by Congress.
When Bose died in a plane crash in 1945 Nehru, Gandhi and others defended him against British attempts to portray him as a When the British organised trials of former members of the INA, mass demonstrations supported the accused. Congress, the Muslim League, the Sikh League, the Communist Party of India and smaller parties, alongside some of the Indian 'princes' demanded the reIndians died.
Nehru acted as lawyer for some of the accused. Even large numbers of traditional 'loyal' Indians - in Government service or the army - opposed the INA trials.
This was just one aspect of increasing discontent in the Indian armed forces. In February 1946 naval ratings of the HMIS Talwar went on strike in Bombay in protest against racism, inedible food and abusive treatment.
Airforce strikes
Further strikes, involving 20,000 ratings from 78 ships and 20 shore bases, followed. Strikes also took place in the Royal Indian Airforce and the army.
There were also strikes amongst British military personnel, particularly aircrews. Whilst the main demands were for demobilisation and repatriation, many of those taking part expressed disgust with the newly-elected Labour government for continuing Tory colonial policies, and proclaimed support for the Indian independence movement Not all actions, however, were progressive. There was also considerable fighting both between and within different communities -between the supporters of a united India and those who favoured Pakistan.
Faced with massive opposition in India, the Labour government moved rapidly towards British disengagement. Wavell, the then Viceroy was removed and replaced by Mountbatten, who arrived in India in late At midnight on 15 August 1947 the independent states of India and Pakistan, their boundaries determined by a British civil servant Sir Cyril Radcliffe, came into being.
Much ink has been spilt on whether or not British imperialism set out to divide India. Communal divisions were not invented by the British: they were, and still are, a feature of Indian society. Certainly the British had exploited them to divide and rule.
Separate seats
They had consistently defended separate seats for Muslims, and during the war the Muslim League had a privileged relationship with the British. However this was because Congress refused to support the British war effort whilst the Muslim League gave its full The Muslim League leader Jinnah believed, correctly, that by 1947 the British were in a hurry to get out of India. All he had to do was wait and the British would cave in to the demand for Pakistan.
All the evidence suggests that the British wanted to maintain a united India. It was the objective result of past policies, not a conscious decision at the end of the Second World War, that led to the division of Indiain the course of which another half million