Was the Quit India Movement a failure?

The Quit India Movement was a great event in the history of Indian freedom struggle. The failure of the Cripps Mission, the impending danger of the Japanese forces of their advance towards India, ill-treatment with the Indians in Burma and the rising prices of the daily needs forced the Congress leadership to launch a movement under Gandhi ji against the British.

On 29th April, 1942 the Congress Working Committee met in Allahabad and passed a resolution, "Not only the interests of India, but also Britain's safety and world peace and freedom demand that Britain must abandon her hold over India. It is on the basis of independence alone that India can deal with Britain or other nations."

The CWC met in Wardha on 14th July, 1942 and put forth the famous Quit India Resolution, which was passed by the Congress Executive on 8th August at its meeting in Bombay. After the resolution as adopted, Gandhi ji clarified, "Everyone of you should from this moment onwards consider yourself a free man or woman and act as if you are free. .... I am not going to be satisfied with anything short of complete freedom." He advised for the Hindu-Muslim unity, no place for fraud in the Satyagraha, to pay the share of the land-lords if they support the peasants but if they side with the government they should be given nothing, no need to leave the jobs but instead declare full loyalty for the Congress, the soldiers to refuse to fire on their countrymen, and the students to boycott their classes only if they were to remain adamant to it.

By the time, when the government was involved completely in the World War, it was a great setback to her. No govt. can at this time tolerate any movement, though it is non-violent, because no movement can remain non-violent for long. Consequently, all the congress leaders were arrested and put behind the bars. It provoked the Indians and the movement spread like the jungle-fire in most parts of the country. On 6th July, 1944 Gandhi ji was released by the Govt. due to his ill-health. On 27th July Gandhi ji met the Viceroy and put forth him his term that if the government declares in favour of India's independence, the congress was ready to call off the movement as well as to support the British government. However, the Viceroy refused to accept any such term. In fact, he was fully cautious of the fact that the zeal among the Indians regarding the movement had waned by that time. Consequently the movement was called off after some time. This may be a reason when Mr. K. Sudarshan, the RSS chief, declared that the movement was a failure and the Congress can't claim for herself for the freedom of the country.

Mr. Sudarshan may be right to some extent here.However, there may be certain reservations in his comment. It is right that the Congress had clarified before the commencement of the movement that "the peril of today necessitates the independence of India and the ending of British domination. No future promise or guarantees can affect the present situation or meet that peril." However, there were certain factors which attributed to the failure of its outcome. Some of it were that there was no co-ordination among the leaders, no support from other political parties, no proper planning and above all, the majority of the Congress leaders were put behind the bars before the movement.

Here we should keep in mind that though the movement failed to attain anything immediately, but it created such zeal and fervour in the country which forced the British rulers to quit the country soon. Woodrow Wiglut, the advisor to the Cabinet Mission, had also stated that if the British failed to decide anything positive there would be another revolt in the nation. It also failed that theory that the British were experienced in solving any sort of situation. Thus we should not believe the movement a total failure.

A strong Govt. is necessary for the country's stability

Today, the major problem for India is its law and order situation. No one is secure in the country so far one's life or property is concerned. Bihar and U.P. are the worst hit in this connection. There are a number of cases of theft, dacoity, rape, murders etc. However, the government puts the responsibility on the police, the police on the country's legal system, the courts give their verdict on the basis of the constitution and the process goes on without any positive result. If there is any major mishappening in the country and there is much uproar over it, the matter is tried to be hushed up by appointing a commission. And rarely has this commission come to any conclusion. Even if it does, many ifs and buts are put over the report, that it is found better to reject it for once and all.

What happened in the case of the Mumbai blasts in 1993, is open to all. The enquiry, and then the courts and after 13 years how many convicts have died, how many are awarded the benefit of doubt, and how many will be punished and how is a question to be considered. Take the case of the Parliament attack. One Mohammad Afzal Guru has been given the death sentence, but many groups and organisations, including the CM of J&K and the human rights organisations, have come to his support, pleading the President of India to show clemency to him and forgive him. There are a number of terrorist outfits in India and a huge number of anti-social elements. However, to give death sentence on one day and to condone it on the other, is just a mockery of our legal system. After all, it is the duty of the government to give securityto all the inhabitants of its land. Such policies of the governments are merely putting the masses at the mercy of the criminals and if saved, they are exploited by the defective legal system.

Today hardly anybody dares to help the police, the reason being that he who shows courage will be prosecuted to an extent if he were a criminal.We study a lot of the legal system in the past. There were then no such courts, no such lawyers, no expensive process, but the justice was provided speedily and justifiably. The Mauryan and the Gupta rulers are remembered today in history for their love for justice. Go through the reign of the Sultans of Delhi as well the Mughal rulers, and one's head is raised in pride of being an Indian. Similar was the case during the British rulers as well. There was hardly any criminal who dared to challenge thestrength of the then rulers. No doubt, there were revolts, but they were crushed immediately, and no one waited for the rebels to have tired and then surrender. The names of Ala-ud-Din Khalji, Balban and Sher Shah Sur were terror for the criminals. The time has come if the government of India wants to actstrongly and effectively, it will have to amend its legal structure. I remember the days of Emergency during 1975 to 1977. The period should be considered the golden phase so far the law and order in the country is concerned. We are being ruled by the rats, and the great philosopher, Voltaire, used to say, "I would prefer to be ruled by one lion rather than by one hundred rats." Hence pray for a strong government and the ethical politics, without which nothing positive is going to be possible.

What is History?

I have been a student of History for the last 36 years now, perhaps when I was in class II. Since then I am deeply impressed by this subject. However, it is a tragedy that in India, at least, which has today a population of one thousand million plus, the subject is totally a discarded one. I remember, when after passing out my Matric exams, I was put on the Board's merit list, I received a huge number of my well wishers, who insisted on me to take medical or non-medical, or at least Commerce for my college studies. When I clarified them that I was not a champion of science or maths, and I may be happy with History and Political Science as my subjects for higher studies, none had objection with Pol. Science, but was infuriated with the name of History.

After all, what is in History? Why are you going to waste your time with a useless subject, just digging the graveyards of the dead? I was astonished at the behaviour for a subject by the majority of masses. Personally I have no grudge for any subject. After all, every subject has its own value. It is only up to the mental level of a person that he is weak in one and brilliant in another. There is a majority who is very fine in Maths or Science, but knows nothing about History.

During my College days, I came across a very fine statement by an English philosopher, Bacon, that History makes a man wise. I kept on thinking that how can a person become wise by studying History. Or if one who doesn't study History is a fool? No, not at all. In fact, History is something which gives us knowledge about our past. I came across a very fine study about History by E.H.Carr- 'What Is History'. It was here that my vision about the subject became more clear. No doubt, History teaches us our past. But here we are dependable on evidences. Not all the past is History. History is not a study of fables. It is a study of the facts, the facts which we explore, and may be named the historical facts. Here Marc Bloch gives a very interesting example. He writes that during the past, a number of people would have died by the bite of dogs or monkeys, but we don't find any reference to them. The reason is that no records of them were kept. However, Peter the Great, the great Czar of Russia died after he was bit by a monkey, is a record in the history. Carr writes that it is essential for a historian to know where from is he going to access his evidence, just as a fisherman knows which lake or river would fetch him fish.

It is true that history is not like science where we would conclude on the basis of experiments. It is not possible to have a view of the battle of Panipat, by calling the souls of Ibrahim Lodhi and Babur alogwith their soldiers. It is only from the record books that we can gain our knowledge. On the other hand if we want to know as to how did the people in those times felt regarding the political or social or economic environment, it is possible to understand from our present circumstances if they persist. For example if we want to know as to how the people during the beginning of the 16th century in India felt when there was anarchy and confusion all around, and corruption was at its height, it is not difficult to understand as the present day is a clear example. We must accept Mr. Carr's views that History is an unending dialogue between the past and the future, that we understand our past staying in the present and reconstruct our future. If we don't study history, we would be committing the same follies which were committed in the past.