Towards Freedom & Partition (1939-1947)

Model Answer

Introduction

The Indian national movement, which sought independence from British colonial rule, initially faced significant opposition from the early capitalist class in India. This group, largely concerned with protecting their economic privileges, did not initially see the benefits of India’s independence. However, by the 1940s, a noticeable shift occurred as some capitalists began supporting the movement. This change was driven by various economic, political, and social factors.

The Early Opposition of Capitalists to the National Movement

Several reasons explain why the early capitalist class opposed the Indian national movement:

• Fear of Losing Economic Privileges: British capitalists heavily invested in India’s economy, controlling vital sectors like railways, mines, and plantations. The early capitalists feared that India’s independence would lead to nationalization and the loss of these lucrative ventures.
  Example: Jamsetji Tata, founder of the Tata Group, initially supported British rule, believing that colonial governance was essential for India’s economic development.
• Desire for Political Stability: Capitalists saw British rule as a source of political stability that facilitated business growth. They feared that nationalist agitation could destabilize the existing order.
  Example: Purshottamdas Thakurdas, a prominent industrialist, supported the British crackdown on the non-cooperation movement in 1922.
• Support for Western-style Modernization: Many capitalists believed that India’s modernization could only occur under British rule and Western models. They feared that nationalist movements, especially those focused on political independence, would hinder this progress.
• Close Relationship with Colonial Authorities: Early capitalists had strong ties to the colonial government, seeing it as an ally in their business endeavors, which discouraged them from supporting the nationalist movement.

The Changing Stance in the 1940s

By the 1940s, however, the stance of the capitalist class began to change:

• Realization of Economic Opportunities: With the prospects of independence, capitalists began to recognize that the end of colonial rule could open new markets and opportunities for economic growth in an independent India.
  Example: Ardeshir Dalal, a prominent industrialist and Congress supporter, participated in the Quit India Movement in 1942.
• Necessity of Public Support: As the nationalist movement gained mass support, capitalists realized that aligning with it was essential for maintaining legitimacy among the Indian populace. Any opposition would have led to significant public backlash.
• Rising Threat from Socialist Movements: The capitalist class also feared the growing influence of socialist and communist movements, which advocated for systemic economic changes. Supporting the national movement helped them counter these rival forces and secure their own interests.
• Resentment Against British Policies: Indian capitalists were increasingly frustrated with British economic policies, such as the Ottawa Conference of 1932, which favored British industries over Indian enterprise. This resentment pushed many capitalists to reconsider their stance on independence.

Conclusion

The shift in the early capitalist class’s stance from opposition to support for the Indian national movement in the 1940s was primarily driven by economic self-interest and political necessity. While some initially supported British colonialism for its stability and economic opportunities, the evolving political landscape and growing public support for the nationalist cause led them to align with the movement. This change, motivated by both opportunism and a sense of patriotism, played a crucial role in the momentum toward India’s independence.

Model Answer

Hardships Experienced by Refugees During the Partition of India

The partition of India in 1947, rooted in the “two-nation theory,” marked a painful division of communities that had coexisted for generations. Refugees bore the brunt of this traumatic separation, facing numerous hardships during their forced migration.

Forced Migration

Partition resulted in one of the largest migrations in history, with around 8 million people crossing borders. Families abandoned ancestral homes and livelihoods in search of safety in unfamiliar territories. This sudden displacement created an immense logistical and emotional burden.

Communal Violence and Riots

The partition was accompanied by widespread communal riots, particularly in Punjab and Bengal. Cities like Amritsar, Noakhali, and Calcutta witnessed horrific massacres. Estimates suggest that 500,000 to 1 million people lost their lives in partition-related violence Emotional Trauma
The upheaval caused profound emotional distress. Families were often separated during the chaotic migrations, leaving people uncertain about the fate of loved ones. Survivors described partition as not only a geographic division but a “division of hearts.”

Gendered Violence

Women faced targeted atrocities, including abduction, sexual violence, and forced marriages. Many were killed by their families to “preserve family honor,” while others chose suicide over violence.

Identity Crisis

Religious identity became a matter of survival. Many people were forced to hide their faith, convert, or deny their heritage to escape persecution. This led to profound cultural and personal dislocation.

Disease and Contagion

Refugee camps, overcrowded and unsanitary, became breeding grounds for diseases like cholera and tuberculosis. Thousands succumbed to these conditions, exacerbating the refugee crisis.

Despite these challenges, Indian leaders worked to rehabilitate refugees and integrate them into the fabric of the nation. The partition remains a stark reminder of the costs of communal division.

Model Answer

The launch of the Quit India Movement in August 1942 became inevitable despite the challenging circumstances due to several key factors:

1. Failure of the Cripps Mission

The Cripps Mission, sent by the British government to negotiate with Indian leaders, failed to provide a satisfactory solution for Indian self-governance. The offer was seen as an empty gesture, leading to disillusionment among leaders like Gandhi and Nehru, who had initially supported the war effort against fascism but felt betrayed by the lack of genuine concessions.

2. Rising Discontent and Economic Hardship

The Indian populace was experiencing significant hardships due to rising prices and wartime shortages. The government’s heavy-handed actions, such as seizing boats in Bengal and Orissa to prevent Japanese use, further fueled public anger and dissatisfaction with British rule.

3. News of Allied Reverses

Reports of British military setbacks, including the withdrawal of troops from Southeast Asia, created a sense of impending British collapse. This speculation heightened the urgency for a movement that could galvanize public sentiment against colonial rule.

4. Japanese Aggression

As Japanese forces advanced in Southeast Asia, there was widespread fear that they might not face resistance from demoralized Indian masses. Leaders believed that a strong movement was necessary to boost morale and prepare for potential invasions.

5. Erosion of Faith in British Rule

The stability of British rule was increasingly questioned, evidenced by a run on banks and a withdrawal of deposits. This growing skepticism among the populace indicated a readiness for a decisive movement against colonial authority.

6. Impatience Among Leadership

The British evacuation of white residents from Malaya and Burma, while leaving Indian subjects vulnerable, raised alarms among Indian leaders about the potential for similar treatment in India. This sense of betrayal contributed to the urgency for action.

In summary, the combination of failed negotiations, economic distress, military setbacks, and a loss of faith in British authority created a perfect storm that made the Quit India Movement not only necessary but inevitable.