Quit India Movement

The Quit India Movement (translated into several Indian languages as the Leave India Movement), also known as the August Movement, was a movement launched at the Bombay session of the All-India Congress Committee by Mahatma Gandhi on 8 August 1942, during World War II, demanding an end to British Rule of India.[1]

Procession in Bangalore during the Quit India Movement

The Cripps Mission had failed, and on 8 August 1942, Gandhi made a call to Do or Die in his Quit India speech delivered in Bombay at the Gowalia Tank Maidan. [2] The All-India Congress Committee launched a mass protest demanding what Gandhi called "An Orderly British Withdrawal" from India. Even though it was at war, the British were prepared to act. Almost the entire leadership of the Indian National Congress was imprisoned without trial within hours of Gandhi's speech. Most spent the rest of the war in prison and out of contact with the masses. The British had the support of the Viceroy's Council (which had a majority of Indians), of the All India Muslim League, the princely states, the Indian Imperial Police, the British Indian Army, the Hindu Mahasabha and the Indian Civil Service. Many Indian businessmen profiting from heavy wartime spending did not support the Quit India Movement. Many students paid more attention to Subhas Chandra Bose, who was in exile and supporting the Axis Powers. The only outside support came from the Americans, as President Franklin D. Roosevelt pressured Prime Minister Winston Churchill to give in to some of the Indian demands. The Quit India campaign was effectively crushed.[3] The British refused to grant immediate independence, saying it could happen only after the war had ended.

Sporadic small-scale violence took place around the country and the British arrested tens of thousands of leaders, keeping them imprisoned until 1945. In terms of immediate objectives, Quit India failed because of heavy-handed suppression, weak coordination and the lack of a clear-cut program of action. However, the British government realized that India was ungovernable in the long run due to the cost of World War II, and the question for postwar became how to exit gracefully and peacefully.

In 1992 Reserve Bank of India issued a 1 rupee commemorative coin to mark the Golden Jubilee of the Quit India Movement.[4]

World War II and Indian involvement

In 1939, Indian nationalists were angry that British Governor-General of India, Lord Linlithgow, brought India into the war without consultation with them. The Muslim League supported the war, but Congress was divided.

Public lecture at Basavanagudi, Bengaluru with Charles Freer Andrews

At the outbreak of war, the Congress Party had passed a resolution during the Wardha meeting of the working-committee in September 1939, conditionally supporting the fight against fascism,[5] but were rebuffed when they asked for independence in return.

If the war is to defend the status quo of imperialist possessions and colonies, of vested interest and privilege, then India can have nothing to do with it. If, however, the issue is democracy and world order based on democracy, then India is intensely interested in it... If Great Britain fights for the maintenance and expansion of democracy, then she must necessarily end imperialism in her possessions and establish full democracy in India, and the Indian people have the right to self-determination... A free democratic India will gladly associate herself with other free nations for mutual defense against aggression and for economic co-operation.[6]

Gandhi had not supported this initiative, as he could not reconcile an endorsement for war (he was a committed believer in non-violent resistance, used in the Indian Independence Movement and proposed even against Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Hideki Tojo). However, at the height of the Battle of Britain, Gandhi had stated his support for the fight against racism and of the British war effort, stating he did not seek to raise an independent India from the ashes of Britain. However, opinions remained divided. The long-term British policy of limiting investment in India and using the country as a market and source of revenue had left the Indian Army relatively weak and poorly armed and trained and forced the British to become net contributors to India's budget, while taxes were sharply increased and the general level of prices doubled: although many Indian businesses benefitted from increased war production, in general business "felt rebuffed by the government" and in particular the refusal of the British Raj to give Indians a greater role in organizing and mobilizing the economy for wartime production.[7]

After the onset of the war, only a group led by Subhas Chandra Bose took any decisive action. Bose organized the Indian Legion in Germany, reorganized the Indian National Army with Japanese assistance, and soliciting help from the Axis Powers, conducted a guerrilla war against the British authorities.

Cripps' Mission

In March 1942, faced with an increasingly dissatisfied sub-continent only reluctantly participating in the war and deterioration in the war situation in Europe and with growing dissatisfaction among Indian troops—especially in Africa—and among the civilian population in the sub-continent, the British government sent a delegation to India under Stafford Cripps, the Leader of the House of Commons, in what came to be known as the Cripps mission. The purpose of the mission was to negotiate with the Indian National Congress a deal to obtain total co-operation during the war, in return for progressive devolution and distribution of power from the crown and the Viceroy to an elected Indian legislature. The talks failed, as they did not address the key demand of a timetable of self-government and of definition of the powers to be relinquished, essentially making an offer of limited dominion-status that was wholly unacceptable to the Indian movement.[8]

Factors contributing to the movement's launch

In 1939, with the outbreak of war between Germany and Britain, India became a party to the war by being a constituent component of the British Empire. Following this declaration, the Congress Working Committee at its meeting on 10 October 1939, passed a resolution condemning the aggressive activities of the Germans. At the same time the resolution also stated that India could not associate herself with war unless it was consulted first. Responding to this declaration, the Viceroy issued a statement on 17 October wherein he claimed that Britain is waging a war driven with the intention of strengthening peace in the world. He also stated that after the war, the government would initiate modifications in the Act of 1935, in accordance with the desires of the Indians.

Gandhi's reaction to this statement was; "the old policy of divide and rule is to continue. Congress has asked for bread and it has got stone." According to the instructions issued by High Command, the Congress ministers were directed to resign immediately. Congress ministers from eight provinces resigned following the instructions. The resignation of the ministers was an occasion of great joy and rejoicing for leader of the Muslim League, Mohammad Ali Jinnah. He called the day of 22 December 1939 ' The Day of Deliverance'. Gandhi urged Jinnah against the celebration of this day, however, it was futile. At the Muslim League Lahore Session held in March 1940, Jinnah declared in his presidential address that the Muslims of the country wanted a separate homeland, Pakistan.

In the meanwhile, crucial political events took place in England. Chamberlain was succeeded by Churchill as prime minister and the Conservatives, who assumed power in England, did not have a sympathetic stance towards the claims made by the Congress. In order to pacify the Indians in the circumstance of worsening war situation, the Conservatives were forced to concede some of the demands made by the Indians. On 8 August, the Viceroy issued a statement that has come to be referred to as the "August Offer". However, Congress rejected the offer followed by the Muslim League.

In the context of widespread dissatisfaction that prevailed over the rejection of the demands made by the Congress, at the meeting of the Congress Working Committee in Wardha, Gandhi revealed his plan to launch individual civil disobedience. Once again, the weapon of satyagraha found popular acceptance as the best means to wage a crusade against the British. It was widely used as a mark of protest against the unwavering stance assumed by the British. Vinoba Bhave, a follower of Gandhi, was selected by him to initiate the movement. Anti-war speeches ricocheted in all corners of the country, with the satyagrahis earnestly appealing to the people of the nation not to support the government in its war endeavors. The consequence of this satyagrahi campaign was the arrest of almost fourteen thousand satyagrahis. On 3 December 1941, the Viceroy ordered the acquittal of all the satyagrahis. In Europe the war situation became more critical with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the Congress realized the necessity for appraising their program. Subsequently, the movement was withdrawn.

The Cripps' Mission and its failure also played an important role in Gandhi's call for The Quit India Movement. In order to end the deadlock on 22 March 1942, the British government sent Sir Stafford Cripps to talk terms with the Indian political parties and secure their support in Britain's war efforts. A draft declaration of the British Government was presented, which included terms like establishment of Dominion, establishment of a Constituent Assembly, and right of the provinces to make separate constitutions. However, these were to be only after the cessation of the Second World War. According to the Congress, this declaration offered India an only promise that was to be fulfilled in the future. Commenting on this Gandhi said, "It is a post-dated cheque on a crashing bank." Other factors that contributed were the threat of Japanese invasion of India and the realization of the national leaders of the incapacity of the British to defend India.

Resolution for immediate independence

The Congress Working Committee meeting at Wardha (14 July 1942) passed a resolution demanding complete independence from the British government. The draft proposed massive civil disobedience if the British did not accede to the demands.

However, it proved to be controversial within the party. A prominent Congress national leader, Chakravarti Rajgopalachari, quit the Congress over this decision, and so did some local and regional level organizers. Jawaharlal Nehru and Maulana Azad were apprehensive and critical of the call, but backed it and stuck with Gandhi's leadership until the end. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Rajendra Prasad and Anugrah Narayan Sinha openly and enthusiastically supported such a disobedience movement, as did many veteran Gandhians and socialists like Asoka Mehta and Jayaprakash Narayan.

Allama Mashriqi (head of the Khaksar Tehrik) was called by Jawaharlal Nehru to join the Quit India Movement. Mashriqi was apprehensive of its outcome and did not agree with the Congress Working Committee's resolution. On 28 July 1942, Allama Mashriqi sent the following telegram to Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Mahatma Gandhi, C. Rajagopalachari, Jawaharlal Nehru, Rajendra Prasad and Pattabhi Sitaramayya. He also sent a copy to Bulusu Sambamurti (former Speaker of the Madras Assembly). The telegram was published in the press, and stated:

I am in receipt of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru's letter of 8 July. My honest opinion is that Civil Disobedience Movement is a little pre-mature. The Congress should first concede openheartedly and with handshake to Muslim League the theoretical Pakistan, and thereafter all parties unitedly make demand of Quit India. If the British refuse, start total disobedience.[9]

The resolution said:

The committee, therefore, resolves to sanction for the vindication of India's inalienable right to freedom and independence, the starting of a mass struggle on non-violent lines on the widest possible scale, so that the country might utilise all the non-violent strength it has gathered during the last 22 years of peaceful struggle...they [the people] must remember that non-violence is the basis of the movement.

Opposition to the Quit India Movement
A 2017 stamp sheet dedicated to the 75th anniversary of the Quit India Movement. It features the Martyr's Memorial Patna (bottom-left), Gandhi delivering his "Do or Die" speech on 8 August 1942 (3rd stamp), and a part of it: "The mantra is 'Do or Die'. We shall either free India or die in the attempt; we shall not live to see the perpetuation of our slavery." (1st stamp).

Several political groups active during the Indian Independence Movement were opposed to the Quit India Movement. These included the Muslim League, the Hindu Mahasabha, the Communist party of India and princely states as below:

Hindu Mahasabha

Hindu nationalist parties like the Hindu Mahasabha openly opposed the call for the Quit India Movement and boycotted it officially.[10] Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, the president of the Hindu Mahasabha at that time, even went to the extent of writing a letter titled "Stick to your Posts", in which he instructed Hindu Sabhaites who happened to be "members of municipalities, local bodies, legislatures or those serving in the army... to stick to their posts" across the country, and not to join the Quit India Movement at any cost. But later after requests and persuasions and realizing the importance of the bigger role of Indian independence he chose to join the Indian independence movement.[10]

Following the Hindu Mahasabha's official decision to boycott the Quit India movement,[10]Syama Prasad Mukherjee, leader of the Hindu Mahasabha in Bengal, (which was a part of the ruling coalition in Bengal led by Krishak Praja Party of Fazlul Haq), wrote a letter to the British Government as to how they should respond, if the Congress gave a call to the British rulers to quit India. In this letter, dated 26 July 1942 he wrote:

“Let me now refer to the situation that may be created in the province as a result of any widespread movement launched by the Congress. Anybody, who during the war, plans to stir up mass feeling, resulting internal disturbances or insecurity, must be resisted by any Government that may function for the time being”. In this way he managed to gain insights of the British government and effectively give information of the independence leaders.[11][12]

Mukherjee reiterated that the Fazlul Haq led Bengal Government, along with its alliance partner Hindu Mahasabha, would make every possible effort to defeat the Quit India Movement in the province of Bengal and made a concrete proposal as regards this:

“The question is how to combat this movement (Quit India) in Bengal? The administration of the province should be carried on in such a manner that in spite of the best efforts of the Congress, this movement will fail to take root in the province. It should be possible for us, especially responsible Ministers, to be able to tell the public that the freedom for which the Congress has started the movement, already belongs to the representatives of the people. In some spheres it might be limited during the emergency. Indian have to trust the British, not for the sake for Britain, not for any advantage that the British might gain, but for the maintenance of the defense and freedom of the province itself. You, as Governor, will function as the constitutional head of the province and will be guided entirely on the advice of your Minister.[12]

Even the Indian historian R.C. Majumdar noted this fact and states:

"Shyam Prasad ended the letter with a discussion of the mass movement organised by the Congress. He expressed the apprehension that the movement would create internal disorder and will endanger internal security during the war by exciting popular feeling and he opined that any government in power has to suppress it, but that according to him could not be done only by persecution.... In that letter he mentioned item wise the steps to be taken for dealing with the situation .... "[13]

[14]

Princely States

The movement had less support in the princely states, as the princes were strongly opposed and funded the opposition.[15]

The Indian nationalists had very little international support. They knew that the United States strongly supported Indian independence, in principle, and believed the U.S. was an ally. However, after Churchill threatened to resign if pushed too hard, the U.S. quietly supported him while bombarding Indians with propaganda designed to strengthen public support of the war effort. The poorly run American operation annoyed the Indians.[16]

No support to the Quit India Movement

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) kept aloof from the Congress-led anti-British Indian independence movement since its founding by KB Hedgewar in 1925. In 1942, the RSS, under MS Golwalkar refused to join the Quit India Movement. VD Savarkar even urged “Hindus” to join the British military and ordnance factories in large numbers to support the war effort.

The Bombay government appreciated the RSS position by noting that: "The Sangh has scrupulously kept itself within the law, and in particular, has refrained from taking part in the disturbances that broke out in August 1942.”


The British Government also asserted that at Sangh meetings organised during the times of anti-British movements started and fought by the Indian National Congress, "speakers urged the Sangh members to keep aloof from the Congress movement and these instructions were generally observed".

The RSS head (sarsanghchalak) during that time, MS Golwalkar, later stated that the RSS did not support the Quit India Movement. Such a non-committal attitude during the Indian freedom movement also led to the Sangh being viewed with distrust and anger, both by the general Indian public, as well as certain members of the organisation itself.

In Golwalkar’s own words: “In 1942 also, there was a strong sentiment in the hearts of many. At that time too, the routine work of the Sangh continued. Sangh decided not to do anything directly. ‘Sangh is the organisation of inactive people, their talks have no substance’ was the opinion uttered not only by outsiders but also our own swayamsevaks.”

Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, who is celebrated as a “true patriot” by PM Narendra Modi called for the Mahasabha and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh to boycott the Quit India Movement. Which they actively did

The British Government stated that the RSS was not at all supporting any civil disobedience against them, and as such their other political activities could be overlooked. The Home Department was thereby of the opinion that the RSS did not constitute a menace to law and order in British India. The Bombay government reported that the RSS had not, in any way, infringed upon government orders and had always shown a willingness to comply with the law.

The same Bombay Government report further noted that in December 1940, orders had been issued to the provincial RSS leaders to desist from any activities that the British Government considered objectionable, and the RSS, in turn, had assured the British authorities that "it had no intentions of offending against the orders of the Government".

As a part of the build up to the Quit India Movement on August 8, 1942, all Congress MLAs resigned from their positions in provincial legislatures.

However, they were not joined by their counterparts in the Hindu Mahasabha. The Mahasabha instead chose to boycott the Quit India Movement and collaborated with the British to gain political power at the expense of the Congress.

BS Moonje, the leader of the Hindu Mahasabha, wrote to the Viceroy and assured him of the HM's continued cooperation. He wrote: “Hindustan and Britain are allied together in unshakeable bond of union for long years to come.”

Local violence
Picketing in front of Medical School at Bengaluru

According to John F. Riddick, from 9 August 1942 to 21 September 1942, the Quit India Movement:

attacked 550 post offices, 250 railway stations, damaged many rail lines, destroyed 70 police stations, and burned or damaged 85 other government buildings. There were about 2,500 instances of telegraph wires being cut. The greatest level of violence occurred in Bihar. The Government of India deployed 57 battalions of British troops to restore order.[17]

At the national level the lack of leadership meant the ability to galvanise rebellion was limited. The movement had a local impact in some areas. especially at Satara in Maharashtra, Talcher in Odisha, and Midnapore.[18] In Tamluk and Contai subdivisions of Midnapore, the local populace were successful in establishing parallel governments, which continued to function, until Gandhi personally requested the leaders to disband in 1944.[18] A minor uprising took place in Ballia, now the easternmost district of Uttar Pradesh. People overthrew the district administration, broke open the jail, released the arrested Congress leaders and established their own independent rule. It took weeks before the British could reestablish their writ in the district. Of special importance in Saurashtra (in western Gujarat) was the role of the region's 'baharvatiya' tradition (i.e. going outside the law) which abetted the sabotage activities of the movement there.[19] In rural west Bengal, the Quit India Movement was fueled by peasants' resentment against the new war taxes and the forced rice exports. There was open resistance to the point of rebellion in 1942 until the great famine of 1943 suspended the movement.[20]

Suppression of the movement

One of the important achievements of the movement was keeping the Congress party united through all the trials and tribulations that followed. The British, already alarmed by the advance of the Japanese army to the India-Burma border, responded by imprisoning Gandhi. All the members of the Party's Working Committee (national leadership) were imprisoned as well. Due to the arrest of major leaders, a young and until then relatively unknown Aruna Asaf Ali presided over the AICC session on 9 August and hoisted the flag; later the Congress party was banned. These actions only created sympathy for the cause among the population. Despite lack of direct leadership, large protests and demonstrations were held all over the country. Workers remained absent in large groups and strikes were called. Not all demonstrations were peaceful, at some places bombs exploded, government buildings were set on fire, electricity was cut and transport and communication lines were severed.

The British swiftly responded with mass detentions. Over 100,000 arrests were made, mass fines were levied and demonstrators were subjected to public flogging. Hundreds of civilians were killed in violence many shot by the police army. Many national leaders went underground and continued their struggle by broadcasting messages over clandestine radio stations, distributing pamphlets and establishing parallel governments. The British sense of crisis was strong enough that a battleship was specifically set aside to take Gandhi and the Congress leaders out of India, possibly to South Africa or Yemen but ultimately did not take that step out of fear of intensifying the revolt.[21]

The Congress leadership was cut off from the rest of the world for over three years. Gandhi's wife Kasturbai Gandhi and his personal secretary Mahadev Desai died in months and Gandhi's health was failing, despite this Gandhi went on a 21-day fast and maintained his resolve to continuous resistance. Although the British released Gandhi on account of his health in 1944, he kept up the resistance, demanding the release of the Congress leadership.

By early 1944, India was mostly peaceful again, while the Congress leadership was still incarcerated. A sense that the movement had failed depressed many nationalists, while Jinnah and the Muslim League, as well as Congress opponents like the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the Hindu Mahasabha sought to gain political mileage, criticizing Gandhi and the Congress Party.

gollark: Why not just use ASCIIDoc, like the nim forum?
gollark: I looked at the cmark-gfm bindings but needed extensibility.
gollark: Minoteaur 7 uses "marked" or something.
gollark: Minoteaur at least nominally does.
gollark: Well, the patchy leaf doesn't do much.

See also

References
  1. "1942 Quit India Movement – Making Britain". www.open.ac.uk. Archived from the original on 23 June 2018. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  2. Ramesh Mishra R.C.Mishra (1 October 2017), Quit India Movement 09 August, 1942, retrieved 1 September 2018
  3. Arthur Herman (2008). Gandhi & Churchill: The Epic Rivalry That Destroyed an Empire and Forged Our Age. Random House Digital. pp. 494–99. ISBN 9780553804638.
  4. "1 Rupee Coin of 1992 – Quit India Movement Golden Jubilee". Archived from the original on 6 April 2017. Retrieved 12 March 2017.
  5. "The Second World War and the Congress". Official Website of the Indian National Congress. Archived from the original on 5 October 2006. Retrieved 28 August 2006. URL accessed on 20 July 2006
  6. D. N. Panigrahi (1984). Quit India and the Struggle for Freedom. New Delhi. pp. 13–14.
  7. Srinath Raghavan (2016) India's War – The Making of Modern South Asia 1939 – 1945, Allen Lane, London. ISBN 978-1-846-14541-4, p. 320
  8. Tarak Barkawi (2006). "Culture and Combat in the Colonies. The Indian Army in the Second World War". Journal of Contemporary History. 41 (2): 325–355. doi:10.1177/0022009406062071. JSTOR 30036389.
  9. Nasim Yousaf (2007) Hidden facts behind British India's freedom: a scholarly look into Allama Mashraqi and Quaid-e-Azam's political conflict. AMZ Publications. p. 137. ISBN 0976033380
  10. Prabhu Bapu (2013). Hindu Mahasabha in Colonial North India, 1915–1930: Constructing Nation and History. Routledge. pp. 103–. ISBN 978-0-415-67165-1.
  11. Syama P. Mookerjee; Śyāmāprasāda Mukhopādhyāẏa (2000). Leaves from a Diary. Oxford University Press. p. 179. ISBN 978-0-19-565097-6.
  12. Noorani 2000, p. 56.
  13. Ramesh Chandra Majumdar (1978). History of Modern Bengal. Oxford University Press. p. 179.
  14. K. Venugopal Reddy (2010). "Working Class in 'Quit India' Movement". Indian Historical Review. 37 (2): 275–289. doi:10.1177/037698361003700205.
  15. Stanley A. Wolpert (1984). Jinnah of Pakistan. Oxford University Press. pp. 209, 210, 215. ISBN 978-0-19-503412-7.
  16. Eric D. Pullin (2010). "'Noise and Flutter': American Propaganda Strategy and Operation in India during World War II". Diplomatic History. 34 (2): 275–298. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7709.2009.00849.x. JSTOR 24915981.
  17. John F. Riddick (2006). The History of British India: A Chronology. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 115. ISBN 978-0-313-32280-8.
  18. Bidyut Chakraborty (1997) Local Politics and Indian Nationalism: Midnapur (1919–1944). Manohar.
  19. Jaykumar R. Shukla (1981). "The Quit India Movement on Saurashtra". Quarterly Review of Historical Studies. 21 (1): 3–8. JSTOR 44142014.
  20. Sunil Sen (1985). "Popular Participation in the Quit India Movement: Midnapur, 1942–44". Indian Historical Review. 12 (1–2): 300–316.
  21. D. Fisher and A. Read (1998). The Proudest Day: India's Long Road to Independence. WW Norton. pp. 229–330. ISBN 9780393045949.

Works cited

Further reading
  • Akbar, M.J. Nehru: The Making of India (Viking, 1988), popular biography
  • Buchanan, Andrew N. (2011). "The War Crisis and the Decolonization of India, December 1941 – September 1942: A Political and Military Dilemma". Global War Studies. 8 (2): 5–31. doi:10.5893/19498489.08.02.01.
  • Chakrabarty, Bidyut (1992). "Political Mobilization in the Localities: The 1942 Quit India Movement in Midnapur". Modern Asian Studies. 26 (4): 791–814. doi:10.1017/S0026749X00010076. JSTOR 312940.
  • Chakrabarty, Bidyut (1992). "Defiance and Confrontation: The 1942 Quit India Movement in Midnapur". Social Scientist. 20 (7/8): 75–93. doi:10.2307/3517569. JSTOR 3517569.
  • Chopra, P. N. (1971). "'Quit India' Movement of 1942". Journal of Indian History. 49 (145–147): 1–56.
  • Clymer, Kenton J. Quest for Freedom: The United States and India's Independence (Columbia University Press, 1995) online edition
  • Greenough, Paul R. (1983). "Political Mobilization and the Underground Literature of the Quit India Movement, 1942–44". Modern Asian Studies. 17 (3): 353–386. doi:10.1017/S0026749X00007538. JSTOR 312297.
  • Herman, Arthur (2008). Gandhi & Churchill: The Epic Rivalry That Destroyed an Empire and Forged Our Age. Random House Digital. ISBN 9780553804638.
  • Hutchins, Francis G. India's Revolution: Gandhi and the Quit India Movement (1973)
  • Johnson, Robert (2011). "The Army in India and Responses to Low-Intensity Conflict, 1936-1946". Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research. 89 (358): 159–181. JSTOR 44231836.
  • Krishan, Shri. "Crowd vigour and social identity: The Quit India Movement in western India." Indian Economic & Social History Review 33.4 (1996): 459–479.
  • Panigrahi; D. N. India's Partition: The Story of Imperialism in Retreat (Routledge, 2004) online edition
  • Pati, Biswamoy (1992). "The climax of popular protest: The Quit India Movement in Orissa". The Indian Economic & Social History Review. 29: 1–35. doi:10.1177/001946469202900101.
  • Patil, V. I. Gandhiji, Nehruji and the Quit India Movement (1984)
  • Read, Anthony, and David Fisher; The Proudest Day: India's Long Road to Independence (W. W. Norton, 1999) online edition; detailed scholarly history
  • Venkataramani, M. S.; Shrivastava, B. K. Quit India: The American Response to the 1942 Struggle (1979)
  • Zaidi, A. Moin (1973). The way out to freedom: an inquiry into the Quit India Movement conducted by participants. Orientalia (India). p. 85.
  • Muni, S. D. "The Quit India Movement: A Review Article," International Studies, (Jan 1977,) 16#1 pp 157–168,
  • Shourie, Arun (1991). "The Only fatherland": Communists, "Quit India", and the Soviet Union. New Delhi: ASA Publications. ISBN 978-8185304359
  • Mansergh, Nicholas, and E. W. R. Lumby, eds. India: The Transfer of Power 1942-7. Vol. II. 'Quit India' 30 April-21 September 1942 (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1971), 1044pp online
  • Pran Nath Chopra; Shri Ram Bakshi (1986). Quit India Movement: British secret documents, Vol. 1. Interprint. p. 17. ISBN 978-81-85017-32-7.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.