text:
Indian independence movement
(Redirected from Indian Independence movement)
For independence movements of American Indians, see Native American self-determination.
Colonial India
Imperial entities of India
Dutch India
Danish India
Portuguese East India Company
Company rule in India
British rule in Burma
Partition of India
Nonviolent revolution
Nonviolent resistance
Tax resistance
Communist revolution
Revolutionary terror
Commercial Revolution
Indian Revolution
Texas Revolution
Atlantic Revolutions
Revolutions of 1848
Xinhai Revolution
Chinese Revolution
Spanish Revolution
Cultural Revolution
Colour revolutions
The Indian independence movement encompassed activities and ideas aiming to end the East India Company rule (1757–1858) and the British Indian Empire (1858–1947) in the Indian subcontinent. The movement spanned a total of 190 years (1757–1947).
The very first organised militant movements were in Bengal, but they later took movement in the then newly formed Indian National Congress with prominent moderate leaders seeking only their basic right to appear for Indian Civil Service examinations, as well as more rights, economic in nature, for the people of the soil. The early part of the 20th century saw a more radical approach towards political self-rule proposed by leaders such as the Lal, Bal, Pal and Aurobindo Ghosh, V. O. Chidambaram Pillai. The last stages of the self-rule struggle from the 1920s onwards saw Congress adopt Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi's policy of nonviolence and civil resistance, and several other campaigns. Nationalists like Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, Bhagat Singh and Vinayak Damodar Sawarkar preached armed revolution to achieve self-rule. Poets and writers such as Subramaniya Bharathi, Allama Iqbal, Josh Malihabadi, Mohammad Ali Jouhar, Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay and Kazi Nazrul Islam used literature, poetry and speech as a tool for political awareness. Feminists such as Sarojini Naidu and Begum Rokeya promoted the emancipation of Indian women and their participation in national politics. Babasaheb Ambedkar championed the cause of the disadvantaged sections of Indian society within the larger self-rule movement. The period of the Second World War saw the peak of the campaigns by the Quit India Movement led by Congress, and the Indian National Army movement led by Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose.
The Indian self-rule movement was a mass-based movement that encompassed various sections of society. It also underwent a process of constant ideological evolution.[1] Although the basic ideology of the movement was anti-colonial, it was supported by a vision of independent capitalist economic development coupled with a secular, democratic, republican, and civil-libertarian political structure.[2] After the 1930s, the movement took on a strong socialist orientation, owing to the influence of Bhagat Singh's demand of Purn Swaraj (Complete Self-Rule).[1] The work of these various movements led ultimately to the Indian Independence Act 1947, which ended the suzerainty in India and the creation of Pakistan. India remained a Dominion of the Crown until 26 January 1950, when the Constitution of India came into force, establishing the Republic of India; Pakistan was a dominion until 1956, when it adopted its first republican constitution. In 1971, East Pakistan declared independence as the People's Republic of Bangladesh.
1 Background (1757–1883)
1.1 Early British colonialism in India
1.2 Early rebellion
1.3 Vellore sepoy revolt
1.4 The rebellion of 1857
1.5 Rise of organised movements
2 Rise of Indian nationalism (1885–1905)
3 Partition of Bengal, 1905
4 All India Muslim League
5 First World War
5.1 Nationalist response to war
5.2 British reforms
6 Gandhi arrives in India
6.1 First non-co-operation movement
7 Purna Swaraj
8 Elections and the Lahore resolution
9 Revolutionary movement
10 Final process of Indian self-rule movement
10.1 Azad Hind Fauj(Indian National Army)
10.2 Quit India Movement
10.3 Christmas Island Mutiny and Royal Indian Navy Revolt
11 Sovereignty and partition of India
14 Bibliography
Background (1757–1883)
Early British colonialism in India
Main articles: European colonies in India, East India Company, Company rule in India and British Raj
Robert Clive with Mir Jafar after the Battle of Plassey
After the defeat of Tipu Sultan, most of South India was now either under the company's direct rule, or under its indirect political control
European traders first reached Indian shores with the arrival of the Portuguese explorer Vasco da Gama in 1498 at the port of Calicut, in search of the lucrative spice trade. Just over a century later, the Dutch and English established trading outposts on the subcontinent, with the first English trading post set up at Surat in 1617.[3] Over the course of the seventeenth and early nineteenth centuries, the British[4] defeated the Portuguese and Dutch militarily, but remained in conflict with the French, who had by then sought to establish themselves in the subcontinent. The decline of the Mughal empire in the first half of the eighteenth century provided the British with the opportunity to establish a firm foothold in Indian politics.[5] After the Battle of Plassey in 1757, during which the East India Company's Indian army under Robert Clive defeated Siraj-ud-Daula, the Nawab of Bengal, the Company established itself as a major player in Indian affairs, and soon afterwards gained administrative rights over the regions of Bengal, Bihar and Midnapur part of Orissa, following the Battle of Buxar in 1764.[6] After the defeat of Tipu Sultan, most of South India came either under the Company's direct rule, or under its indirect political control as part a princely state in a subsidiary alliance. The Company subsequently gained control of regions ruled by the Maratha Empire, after defeating them in a series of wars. The Punjab was annexed in 1849, after the defeat of the Sikh armies in the First (1845–1846) and Second (1848–49) Anglo-Sikh Wars.
English was made the medium of instruction in India's schools in 1835, and many Indians increasingly disliked British rule. With the British now dominating most of the subcontinent, many[vague] British increasingly disregarded local customs and mistreated Indians.[citation needed]
Early rebellion
Puli Thevan was one of the opponents of the British rule in India. He was in conflict with the Nawab of Arcot who was supported by the British. His prominent exploits were his confrontations with Marudhanayagam, who later rebelled against the British in the late 1750s and early 1760s. Nelkatumseval the present Tirunelveli Dist of Tamil Nadu state of India was the headquarters of Puli Thevan.
Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja was one of the earliest freedom fighters in India. He was the prince regent of the princely state of Kottiyur or Cotiote in North Malabar, near Kannur, India between 1774 and 1805. He fought a guerrilla war with tribal people from Wynad supporting him. He was caught by the British and his fort was razed to the ground.
Rani Velu Nachiyar (1730–1796), was a queen of Indian Sivaganga from 1760 to 1790. She was the first queen to fight against the British in India. Rani Nachiyar was trained in war match weapons usage, martial arts like Valari, Silambam (fighting using stick), horse riding and archery. She was a scholar in many languages and she had proficiency with languages like French, English and Urdu. When her husband, Muthuvaduganathaperiya Udaiyathevar, was killed by British soldiers and the son of the Nawab of Arcot, she was drawn into battle. She formed an army and sought an alliance with Gopala Nayaker and Hyder Ali with the aim of attacking the British, whom she did successfully fight in 1780. When Rani Velu Nachiyar found the place where the British stored their ammunition, she arranged a suicide attack: a faithful follower, Kuyili, doused herself in oil, set herself alight and walked into the storehouse. Rani Velu Nachiyar formed a woman's army named "udaiyaal" in honour of her adopted daughter, Udaiyaal, who died detonating a British arsenal. Rani Nachiyar was one of the few rulers who regained her kingdom, and ruled it for ten more years.[7][8]
Veerapandiya Kattabomman was an eighteenth-century Palayakarrar and chieftain from Panchalankurichi in Tamil Nadu, India who waged a war against the British East India Company. He was captured by the British and hanged in 1799 CE.[9] Kattabomman refused to accept the sovereignty of British East India Company, and fought against them.[10] Dheeran Chinnamalai was a Kongu chieftain and Palayakkarar from Tamil Nadu who fought against the British East India Company.[11] After Kattabomman and Tipu Sultan's deaths, Chinnamalai sought the help of Marathas and Maruthu Pandiyar to attack the British at Coimbatore in 1800. British forces managed to stop the armies of the allies and hence Chinnamalai was forced to attack Coimbatore on his own. His army was defeated and he escaped from the British forces. Chinnamalai engaged in guerrilla warfare and defeated the British in battles at Cauvery in 1801, Odanilai in 1802 and Arachalur in 1804.[12][13]
In September 1804, the King of Khurda, Kalinga was deprived of the traditional rights of Jagannath Temple which was a serious shock to the King and the people of Odisha. Consequently, in October 1804 a group of armed Paiks attacked the British at Pipili. This event alarmed the British force. Jayee Rajguru, the chief of Army of Kalinga requested all the kings of the state to join hands for a common cause against the British.[14] Rajguru was killed on 6 December 1806.[15] After Rajguru's death, Bakshi Jagabandhu commanded an armed rebellion against the British East India Company's rule in Odisha which is known as Paik Rebellion.[16][17][17][18]
Vellore sepoy revolt
The garrison of the Vellore Fort in July 1806 comprised four companies of British infantry from H.M. 69th (South Lincolnshire) Regiment of Foot and three battalions of Madras infantry. Two hours after midnight, on 10 July, the sepoys in the fort shot down the European sentries and killed fourteen of their own officers and 115 men of the 69th Regiment, most of the latter as they slept in their barracks. Among those killed was Colonel St. John Fancourt, the commander of the fort. The rebels seized control by dawn, and raised the flag of the Mysore kingdom over the fort. Tipu's second son Fateh Hyder was declared king. However a British officer escaped and alerted the garrison in Arcot. Nine hours after the outbreak of the mutiny, a relief force comprising the British 19th Light Dragoons, galloper guns and a squadron of Madras cavalry, rode from Arcot to Vellore, covering 16 miles in about two hours. It was led by Sir Rollo Gillespie – one of the most capable and energetic officers in India at that time – who reportedly left Arcot within a quarter of an hour of the alarm being raised. Gillespie dashed ahead of the main force with a single troop of about 20 men.
Arriving at Vellore, Gillespie found the surviving Europeans, about sixty men of the 69th, commanded by NCOs and two assistant surgeons, still holding part of the ramparts but out of ammunition. Unable to gain entry through the defended gate, Gillespie climbed the wall with the aid of a rope and a sergeant's sash which was lowered to him; and to gain time led the 69th in a bayonet-charge along the ramparts. When the rest of the 19th arrived, Gillespie had them blow the gates with their galloper guns, and made a second charge with the 69th to clear a space inside the gate to permit the cavalry to deploy. The 19th and the Madras Cavalry then charged and slaughtered any sepoy who stood in their way. About 100 sepoys who had sought refuge in the palace were brought out, and by Gillespie's order, placed against a wall and shot dead. John Blakiston, the engineer who had blown in the gates, recalled: "Even this appalling sight I could look upon, I may almost say, with composure. It was an act of summary justice, and in every respect a most proper one; yet, at this distance of time, I find it a difficult matter to approve the deed, or to account for the feeling under which I then viewed it. The harsh retribution meted out to the sepoys snuffed out the unrest at a stroke and provided the history of the British in India with one of its true epics; for as Gillespie admitted, with a delay of even five minutes, all would have been lost. In all, nearly 350 of the rebels were killed, and another 350 wounded before the fighting had stopped.
The rebellion of 1857
States during the rebellion
Main article: Indian rebellion of 1857
The Indian rebellion of 1857 was a large-scale rebellion in northern and central India against the British East India Company's rule. It was suppressed and the British government took control of the company. The conditions of service in the company's army and cantonments increasingly came into conflict with the religious beliefs and prejudices of the sepoys.[19] The predominance of members from the upper castes in the army, perceived loss of caste due to overseas travel, and rumours of secret designs of the government to convert them to Christianity led to deep discontentment among the sepoys.[20] The sepoys were also disillusioned by their low salaries and the racial discrimination practised by British officers in matters of promotion and privileges.[20] The indifference of the British towards leading native Indian rulers such as the Mughals and ex-Peshwas and the annexation of Oudh were political factors triggering dissent amongst Indians. The Marquess of Dalhousie's policy of annexation, the doctrine of lapse (or escheat) applied by the British, and the projected removal of the descendants of the Great Mughal from their ancestral palace at Red Fort to the Qutb Minaar (near Delhi) also angered some people.
The final spark was provided by the rumoured use of tallow (from cows) and lard (pig fat) in the newly introduced Pattern 1853 Enfield rifle cartridges. Soldiers had to bite the cartridges with their teeth before loading them into their rifles, and the reported presence of cow and pig fat was religiously offensive to both Hindu and Muslim soldiers.[21]
Mangal Pandey, a 29-year-old sepoy, was believed to be responsible for inspiring the Indian sepoys to rise against the British. Pandey revolted against his army regiment for protection of the cow, considered sacred by Hindus. In the first week of May 1857, he killed a higher officer in his regiment at Barrackpore for the introduction of the rule. He was captured and was sentenced to death when the British took back control of the regiment.[citation needed] On 10 May 1857, the sepoys at Meerut broke rank and turned on their commanding officers, killing some of them. They reached Delhi on 11 May, set the company's toll house on fire, and marched into the Red Fort, where they asked the Mughal emperor, Bahadur Shah II, to become their leader and reclaim his throne. The emperor was reluctant at first, but eventually agreed and was proclaimed Shehenshah-e-Hindustan by the rebels.[22] The rebels also murdered much of the European, Eurasian, and Christian population of the city.[23]
Revolts broke out in other parts of Oudh and the North-Western Provinces as well, where civil rebellion followed the mutinies, leading to popular uprisings.[24] The British were initially caught off-guard and were thus slow to react, but eventually responded with force. The lack of effective organisation among the rebels, coupled with the military superiority of the British, brought a rapid end to the rebellion.[25] The British fought the main army of the rebels near Delhi, and after prolonged fighting and a siege, defeated them and retook the city on 20 September 1857.[26] Subsequently, revolts in other centres were also crushed. The last significant battle was fought in Gwalior on 17 June 1858, during which Rani Lakshmibai was killed. Sporadic fighting and guerrilla warfare, led by Tatya Tope, continued until spring 1859, but most of the rebels were eventually subdued.
The Indian Rebellion of 1857 was a major turning point in the history of modern India. While affirming the military and political power of the British,[27] it led to significant change in how India was to be controlled by them. Under the Government of India Act 1858, the Company was deprived of its involvement in ruling India, with its territory being transferred to the direct authority of the British government.[28] At the apex of the new system was a Cabinet minister, the Secretary of State for India, who was to be formally advised by a statutory council;[29] the Governor-General of India (Viceroy) was made responsible to him, while he in turn was responsible to the government. In a royal proclamation made to the people of India, Queen Victoria promised equal opportunity of public service under British law, and also pledged to respect the rights of the native princes.[30] The British stopped the policy of seizing land from the princes, decreed religious tolerance and began to admit Indians into the civil service (albeit mainly as subordinates). However, they also increased the number of British soldiers in relation to native Indian ones, and only allowed British soldiers to handle artillery. Bahadur Shah was exiled to Rangoon, Burma, where he died in 1862.
In 1876, in a controversial move Prime Minister Disraeli acceded to the Queen's request[citation needed] and passed legislation to give Queen Victoria the additional title of Empress of India. Liberals in Britain objected that the title was foreign to British traditions.[31]
Rise of organised movements
Image of the delegates to the first meeting of the Indian National Congress in Bombay, 1885
Main article: Nationalist Movements in India
See also: Indian National Congress
The decades following the Rebellion were a period of growing political awareness, manifestation of Indian public opinion and emergence of Indian leadership at both national and provincial levels. Dadabhai Naoroji formed the East India Association in 1867 and Surendranath Banerjee founded the Indian National Association in 1876. Inspired by a suggestion made by A.O. Hume, a retired British civil servant, seventy-two Indian delegates met in Bombay in 1885 and founded the Indian National Congress. They were mostly members of the upwardly mobile and successful western-educated provincial elites, engaged in professions such as law, teaching and journalism. At its inception, the Congress had no well-defined ideology and commanded few of the resources essential to a political organisation. Instead, it functioned more as a debating society that met annually to express its loyalty to the British Raj and passed numerous resolutions on less controversial issues such as civil rights or opportunities in government (especially in the civil service). These resolutions were submitted to the Viceroy's government and occasionally to the British Parliament, but the Congress's early gains were slight. Despite its claim to represent all India, the Congress voiced the interests of urban elites;[citation needed] the number of participants from other social and economic backgrounds remained negligible.
The influence of socio-religious groups such as Arya Samaj (started by Swami Dayanand Saraswati) and Brahmo Samaj (founded by Raja Ram Mohan Roy and others) became evident in pioneering reforms of Indian society. The work of men like Swami Vivekananda, Ramakrishna Paramhansa, Sri Aurobindo, V. O. Chidambaram Pillai, Subramanya Bharathy, Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, Rabindranath Tagore and Dadabhai Naoroji, as well as women such as the Scots–Irish Sister Nivedita, spread the passion for rejuvenation and freedom. The rediscovery of India's indigenous history by several European and Indian scholars also fed into the rise of nationalism among Indians.
Rise of Indian nationalism (1885–1905)
Bal Gangadhar Tilak.
By 1900, although the Congress had emerged as an all-India political organisation, its achievement was undermined by its singular failure to attract Muslims, who felt that their representation in government service was inadequate. Attacks by Hindu reformers against religious conversion, cow slaughter, and the preservation of Urdu in Arabic script deepened their concerns of minority status and denial of rights if the Congress alone were to represent the people of India. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan launched a movement for Muslim regeneration that culminated in the founding in 1875 of the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College at Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh (renamed Aligarh Muslim University in 1920). Its objective was to educate wealthy students by emphasising the compatibility of Islam with modern western knowledge. The diversity among India's Muslims, however, made it impossible to bring about uniform cultural and intellectual regeneration.
The nationalistic sentiments among Congress members led to the movement to be represented in the bodies of government, to have a say in the legislation and administration of India. Congressmen saw themselves as loyalists, but wanted an active role in governing their own country, albeit as part of the Empire. This trend was personified by Dadabhai Naoroji, who went as far as contesting, successfully, an election to the British House of Commons, becoming its first Indian member.
Bal Gangadhar Tilak was the first Indian nationalist to embrace Swaraj as the destiny of the nation[citation needed]. Tilak deeply opposed the then British education system that ignored and defamed India's culture, history and values. He resented the denial of freedom of expression for nationalists, and the lack of any voice or role for ordinary Indians in the affairs of their nation. For these reasons, he considered Swaraj as the natural and only solution. His popular sentence "Swaraj is my birthright, and I shall have it" became the source of inspiration for Indians.
In 1907, the Congress was split into two factions: The radicals, led by Tilak, advocated civil agitation and direct revolution to overthrow the British Empire and the abandonment of all things British. The moderates, led by leaders like Dadabhai Naoroji and Gopal Krishna Gokhale, on the other hand wanted reform within the framework of British rule. Tilak was backed by rising public leaders like Bipin Chandra Pal and Lala Lajpat Rai, who held the same point of view. Under them, India's three great states – Maharashtra, Bengal and Punjab shaped the demand of the people and India's nationalism. Gokhale criticised Tilak for encouraging acts of violence and disorder. But the Congress of 1906 did not have public membership, and thus Tilak and his supporters were forced to leave the party.
But with Tilak's arrest, all hopes for an Indian offensive were stalled. The Congress lost credibility with the people. A Muslim deputation met with the Viceroy, Minto (1905–10), seeking concessions from the impending constitutional reforms, including special considerations in government service and electorates. The British recognised some of the Muslim League's petitions by increasing the number of elective offices reserved for Muslims in the Indian Councils Act 1909. The Muslim League insisted on its separateness from the Hindu-dominated Congress, as the voice of a "nation within a nation".
Partition of Bengal, 1905
Main article: Partition of Bengal (1905)
In July 1905, Lord Curzon, the Viceroy and Governor-General (1899–1905), ordered the partition of the province of Bengal supposedly
This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed. (November 2016)
for improvements in administrative efficiency in the huge and populous region.[32] It also had justifications due to increasing conflicts between Muslims and dominant Hindu regimes in Bengal[citation needed]. However, the Indians viewed the partition as an attempt by the British to disrupt the growing national movement in Bengal and divide the Hindus and Muslims of the region. The Bengali Hindu intelligentsia exerted considerable influence on local and national politics. The partition outraged Bengalis. Not only had the government failed to consult Indian public opinion, but the action appeared to reflect the British resolve to divide and rule. Widespread agitation ensued in the streets and in the press, and the Congress advocated boycotting British products under the banner of swadeshi, or indigenous industries. A growing movement emerged, focussing on indigenous Indian industries, finance and education, which saw the founding of National Council for Education, birth of Indian financial institutions and banks, as well as an interest in Indian culture and achievements in science and literature. Hindus showed unity by tying Rakhi on each other's wrists and observing Arandhan (not cooking any food). During this time, Bengali Hindu nationalists like Aurobindo, Bhupendranath Dutta, and Bipin Pal began writing virulent newspaper articles challenging legitimacy of British rule in India in publications such as Jugantar and Sandhya, and were charged with sedition. Brahmabhandav Upadhyay, a Hindu newspaper editor who helped Tagore establish his school at Shantiniketan, was imprisoned and the first to die in British custody in the twentieth century struggle for self-rule.
All India Muslim League
The All India Muslim League was founded by the All India Muhammadan Educational Conference at Dhaka (now Bangladesh), in 1906, in the context of the circumstances that were generated over the partition of Bengal in 1905. Being a political party to secure the interests of the Muslim diaspora in British India, the Muslim League played a decisive role behind the creation of Pakistan in the Indian subcontinent. But when Muslim league passed Pakistan resolution based on Two Nation theory of Jinnah, Nationalist leaders like Maulana Azad and others stood against it. The All-India Jamhur Muslim League was formed parallel to Muslim League with Raja of Mahmoodabad (a close associate of Jinnah) as its president and Dr.Maghfoor Ahmad Ajazi its general secretary.[33]
In 1916, Muhammad Ali Jinnah joined the Indian National Congress, which was the largest Indian political organisation. Like most of the Congress at the time, Jinnah did not favour outright self-rule, considering British influences on education, law, culture and industry as beneficial to India. Jinnah became a member of the sixty-member Imperial Legislative Council. The council had no real power or authority, and included a large number of un-elected pro-Raj loyalists and Europeans. Nevertheless, Jinnah was instrumental in the passing of the Child Marriages Restraint Act, the legitimisation of the Muslim waqf (religious endowments) and was appointed to the Sandhurst committee, which helped establish the Indian Military Academy at Dehra Dun.[34] During the First World War, Jinnah joined other Indian moderates in supporting the British war effort.
See also: Hindu-German conspiracy, Ghadar conspiracy, Christmas day plot, Niedermayer-Hentig Mission, Silk Letter Movement and Defence of India Act 1915
This photograph shows an emaciated Indian Army soldier who survived the Siege of Kut
The First World War began with an unprecedented outpouring of support towards Britain from within the mainstream political leadership, contrary to initial British fears of an Indian revolt. India contributed massively to the British war effort by providing men and resources. About 1.3 million Indian soldiers and labourers served in Europe, Africa and the Middle East, while both the Indian government and the princes sent large supplies of food, money and ammunition. However, Bengal and Punjab remained hotbeds of anti colonial activities. Nationalism in Bengal, increasingly closely linked with the unrests in Punjab, was significant enough to nearly paralyse the regional administration, whilst failed conspiracies were made by revolutionaries to trigger nationalist revolt in India.[35][36]
None of the revolutionary conspiracies had significant impact inside India. The prospect of subversive violence and its effect on the popular war effort drew support amongst Indian population for special measures against anti-colonial activities in the form of Defence of India act 1915, and no major mutinies occurred. However, the war-time conspiracies did lead to profound fears of insurrection among British officials, preparing them to use extreme force to frighten the Indians into submission.[37]
Nationalist response to war
In the aftermath of the First World War, high casualty rates, soaring inflation compounded by heavy taxation, a widespread influenza epidemic and the disruption of trade during the war escalated human suffering in India.
The pre-war nationalist movement revived as moderate and extremist groups within the Congress submerged their differences in order to stand as a unified front. They argued their enormous services to the British Empire during the war demanded a reward, and demonstrated the Indian capacity for self-rule. In 1916, the Congress succeeded in forging the Lucknow Pact, a temporary alliance with the Muslim League over the issues of devolution of political power and the future of Islam in the region.
British reforms
The British themselves adopted a "carrot and stick" approach in recognition of India's support during the war and in response to renewed nationalist demands. In August 1917, Edwin Montagu, the secretary of state for India, made the historic announcement in Parliament that the British policy for India was "increasing association of Indians in every branch of the administration and the gradual development of self-governing institutions with a view to the progressive realisation of responsible government in India as an integral part of the British Empire." The means of achieving the proposed measure were later enshrined in the Government of India Act 1919, which introduced the principle of a dual mode of administration, or diarchy, in which both elected Indian legislators and appointed British officials shared power. The act also expanded the central and provincial legislatures and widened the franchise considerably. Diarchy set in motion certain real changes at the provincial level: a number of non-controversial or "transferred" portfolios, such as agriculture, local government, health, education, and public works, were handed over to Indians, while more sensitive matters such as finance, taxation, and maintaining law and order were retained by the provincial British administrators.[38]
Gandhi arrives in India
See also: Rowlatt Satyagraha and Jallianwala Bagh massacre
Gandhi in 1918, at the time of the Kheda and Champaran satyagrahas
(Sitting L to R)Rajendra Prasad and Anugrah Narayan Sinha during Mahatma Gandhi's 1917 Champaran Satyagraha
Gandhi had been a leader of the Indian nationalist movement in South Africa, and had been a vocal opponent of basic discrimination and abusive labour treatment as well as suppressive police control such as the Rowlatt Acts. During these protests, Gandhi had perfected the concept of satyagraha, which had been inspired by the philosophy of Baba Ram Singh (famous for leading the Kuka Movement in the Punjab in 1872). In January 1914 (well before the First World War began) Gandhi was successful. The legislation against Indians was repealed and all Indian political prisoners were released by General Jan Smuts.[39] Gandhi accomplished this through extensive use of non-violent protest, such as boycotting, protest marching, and fasting by him and his followers.[40]
Gandhi returned to India on 9 January 1915, and initially entered the political fray not with calls for a nation-state, but in support of the unified commerce-oriented territory that the Congress Party had been asking for. Gandhi believed that the industrial development and educational development that the Europeans had brought with them were required to alleviate many of India's problems. Gopal Krishna Gokhale, a veteran Congressman and Indian leader, became Gandhi's mentor. Gandhi's ideas and strategies of non-violent civil disobedience initially appeared impractical to some Indians and Congressmen. In Gandhi's own words, "civil disobedience is civil breach of unmoral statutory enactments." It had to be carried out non-violently by withdrawing co-operation with the corrupt state. Gandhi had great respect for Lokmanya Tilak. His programmes were all inspired by Tilak's "Chatusutri" programme. It was at this point he met the prophet Ryan Chart, where he founded some of his most spiritual messages with his British colleague.[citation needed]
The positive impact of reform was seriously undermined in 1919 by the Rowlatt Act, named after the recommendations made the previous year to the Imperial Legislative Council by the Rowlatt Commission. The commission was set up to look into the war-time conspiracies by the nationalist organisations and recommend measures to deal with the problem in the post-war period. Rowlatt recommended the extension of the war-time powers of the Defence of India act into the post-war period. The war-time act had vested the Viceroy's government with extraordinary powers to quell sedition by silencing the press, detaining political activists without trial, and arresting any individuals suspected of sedition or treason without a warrant. It was increasingly reviled within India due to widespread and indiscriminate use. Many popular leaders, including Annie Beasant and Ali brothers had been detained. Rowlatt act was, therefore, passed in the face of universal opposition among the (non-official) Indian members in the Viceroy's council. The extension of the act drew widespread opposition and criticism. In protest, a nationwide cessation of work (hartal) was called, marking the beginning of widespread, although not nationwide, popular discontent.
The agitation unleashed by the acts led to British attacks on demonstrators, culminating on 13 April 1919, in the Jallianwala Bagh massacre (also known as the Amritsar Massacre) in Amritsar, Punjab. The British military commander, Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer, blocked the main, and only entrance, and ordered his soldiers to fire into an unarmed and unsuspecting crowd of some 15,000 men, women and children. They had assembled peacefully at Jallianwala Bagh, a walled courtyard, but Dyer had wanted to execute the imposed ban on all meetings and proposed to teach all Indians a lesson the harsher way.[41] A total of 1,651 rounds were fired, killing 379 people (as according to an official British commission; Indian officials' estimates ranged as high as 1,499 and wounding 1,137 in the massacre.)[42] Dyer was forced to retire but was hailed as a hero in Britain, demonstrating to Indian nationalists that the Empire was beholden to public opinion in Britain, but not in India.[43] The episode dissolved wartime hopes of home rule and goodwill and opened a rift that could not be bridged short of complete self-rule.[44]
First non-co-operation movement
From 1920 to 1922, Gandhi started the Non-Cooperation Movement. At the Kolkata session of the Congress in September 1920, Gandhi convinced other leaders of the need to start a non-co-operation movement in support of Khilafat as well as for dominion status. The first satyagraha movement urged the use of khadi and Indian material as alternatives to those shipped from Britain. It also urged people to boycott British educational institutions and law courts; resign from government employment; refuse to pay taxes; and forsake British titles and honours. Although this came too late to influence the framing of the new Government of India Act 1919, the movement enjoyed widespread popular support, and the resulting unparalleled magnitude of disorder presented a serious challenge to foreign rule. However, Gandhi called off the movement beacause he was scared after Chauri Chaura incident, which saw the death of twenty-two policemen at the hands of an angry mob.
Membership in the party was opened to anyone prepared to pay a token fee, and a hierarchy of committees was established and made responsible for discipline and control over a hitherto amorphous and diffuse movement. The party was transformed from an elite organisation to one of mass national appeal and participation.
Gandhi was sentenced in 1922 to six years of prison, but was released after serving two. On his release from prison, he set up the Sabarmati Ashram in Ahmedabad, on the banks of river Sabarmati, established the newspaper Young India, and inaugurated a series of reforms aimed at the socially disadvantaged within Hindu society — the rural poor, and the untouchables.[45][46]
This era saw the emergence of new generation of Indians from within the Congress Party, including C. Rajagopalachari, Jawaharlal Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel, Subhas Chandra Bose and others- who would later on come to form the prominent voices of the Indian self-rule movement, whether keeping with Gandhian Values, or, as in the case of Bose's Indian National Army, diverging from it.
The Indian political spectrum was further broadened in the mid-1920s by the emergence of both moderate and militant parties, such as the Swaraj Party, Hindu Mahasabha, Communist Party of India and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. Regional political organisations also continued to represent the interests of non-Brahmins in Madras, Mahars in Maharashtra, and Sikhs in Punjab. However, people like Mahakavi Subramanya Bharathi, Vanchinathan and Neelakanda Brahmachari played a major role from Tamil Nadu in both self-rule struggle and fighting for equality for all castes and communities.
Many women participated in the movement, including Kasturba Gandhi (Gandhi's wife), Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, Muthulaxmi Reddy, Aruna Asaf Ali, and many others.
Purna Swaraj
Following the rejection of the recommendations of the Simon Commission by Indians, an all-party conference was held at Mumbai in May 1928. This was meant to instill a sense of Liberation among people. The conference appointed a drafting committee under Motilal Nehru to draw up a constitution for India. The Kolkata session of the Indian National Congress asked the British government to accord dominion status to India by December 1929, or a countrywide civil disobedience movement would be launched. By 1929, however, in the midst of rising political discontent and increasingly violent regional movements, the call for complete sovereignty and end of British rule began to find increasing grounds within the Public.Congress party was in a hurry to acquire political power from Britishers was demanding dominion status.Bhagat Singh was demanding Purna Swaraj (complete self-rule).Popularity of Bhagat Singh increased among congress activists.Congress leaders feared that many Congress activist would join Bhagat Singh.So to seize credit from Bhagat Singh under the presidency of Jawaharlal at his historic Lahore session in December 1929, the Indian National Congress adopted a Bhagat Singh's idea of complete self-rule and end of British rule. It authorised the Working Committee to launch a civil disobedience movement throughout the country. It was decided that 26 January 1930 should be observed all over India as the Purna Swaraj (complete self-rule) Day. Many Indian political parties and Indian revolutionaries of a wide spectrum united to observe the day with honour and pride.[citation needed]
In March 1931, the Gandhi-Irwin Pact was signed, and the government agreed to set all political prisoners free (Although, some of the great revolutionaries were not set free and the death sentence for Bhagat Singh and his two comrades was not taken back which further intensified the agitation against Congress not only outside it but within the Congress itself). For the next few years, the Congress and the government were locked in conflict and negotiations until what became the Government of India Act 1935 could be hammered out. By then, the rift between the Congress and the Muslim League had become unbridgeable as each pointed the finger at the other acrimoniously. The Muslim League disputed the claim of the Congress to represent all people of India, while the Congress disputed the Muslim League's claim to voice the aspirations of all Muslims.
The Civil Disobedience Movement indicated a new part in the process of the Indian self-rule struggle. As a whole, it became a failure by itself, but it brought the Indian population together, under the Indian National Congress's leadership. The movement made the Indian people strive even more towards self-rule. The movement allowed the Indian community to revive their inner confidence and strength against the British Government. In addition, the movement weakened the authority of the British and aided in the end of the British Empire in India. Overall, the civil disobedience Movement was an essential achievement in the history of Indian self-rule.
Elections and the Lahore resolution
Main article: Indian provincial elections, 1937
Jinnah with Gandhi, 1944.
The Government of India Act 1935, the voluminous and final constitutional effort at governing British India, articulated three major goals: establishing a loose federal structure, achieving provincial autonomy, and safeguarding minority interests through separate electorates. The federal provisions, intended to unite princely states and British India at the centre, were not implemented because of ambiguities in safeguarding the existing privileges of princes. In February 1937, however, provincial autonomy became a reality when elections were held; the Congress emerged as the dominant party with a clear majority in five provinces and held an upper hand in two, while the Muslim League performed poorly.
In 1939, the Viceroy Linlithgow declared India's entrance into the Second World War without consulting provincial governments. In protest, the Congress asked all of its elected representatives to resign from the government. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the president of the Muslim League, persuaded participants at the annual Muslim League session at Lahore in 1940 to adopt what later came to be known as the Lahore Resolution, demanding the division of India into two separate sovereign states, one Muslim, the other Hindu; sometimes referred to as Two Nation Theory. Although the idea of Pakistan had been introduced as early as 1930, very few had responded to it. However, the volatile political climate and hostilities between the Hindus and Muslims transformed the idea of Pakistan into a stronger demand.
Revolutionary movement
Main article: Revolutionary movement for Indian independence
See also: Anushilan Samiti, India House, Ghadar Party and Hindustan Socialist Republican Army
Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev Thapar, and Shivaram Rajguru
Apart from a few stray incidents, armed rebellions against the British rulers did not occur before the beginning of the 20th century. The Indian revolutionary underground began gathering momentum through the first decade of the 20th century, with groups arising in Bengal, Maharashtra, Odisha, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab, and the Madras Presidency including what is now called South India. More groups were scattered around India. Particularly notable movements arose in Bengal, especially around the Partition of Bengal in 1905, and in Punjab after 1907.[47] In the former case, it was the educated, intelligent and dedicated youth of the urban middle class Bhadralok community that came to form the "Classic" Indian revolutionary,[47] while the latter had an immense support base in the rural and Military society of the Punjab. In Bengal, the Anushilan Samiti emerged from conglomerations of local youth groups and gyms (Akhra) in Bengal in 1902, forming two prominent and somewhat independent arms in East and West Bengal identified as Dhaka Anushilan Samiti in Dhaka (modern day Bangladesh), and the Jugantar group (centred at Calcutta) respectively. Led by nationalists of the likes of Aurobindo Ghosh and his brother Barindra Ghosh, the Samiti was influenced by philosophies as diverse as Hindu Shakta philosophy propounded by Bengali literaetuer Bankim and Vivekananda, Italian Nationalism, and Pan-Asianism of Kakuzo Okakura. The Samiti was involved in a number of noted incidences of revolutionary terrorism against British interests and administration in India within the decade of its founding, including early attempts to assassinate Raj officials whilst led by Ghosh brothers. In the meantime, in Maharashtra and Punjab arose similarly militant nationalist feelings. The District Magistrate of Nasik, A.M.T. Jackson was shot dead by Anant Kanhere in December 1909, followed by the death of Robert D'Escourt Ashe at the hands of Vanchi Iyer.[48] Indian nationalism made headway through Indian societies as far as Paris and London. In London India House under the patronage of Shyamji Krishna Verma came under increasing scrutiny for championing and justifying violence in the cause of Indian nationalism, which found in Indian students in Britain and from Indian expatriates in Paris Indian Society avid followers. By 1907, through Indian nationalist Madame Bhikaji Rustom Cama's links to Russian revolutionary Nicholas Safranski, Indian groups including Bengal revolutionaries as well as India House under V.D.Savarkar were able to obtain manuals for manufacturing bombs. India House was also a source of arms and seditious literature that was rapidly distributed in India. In addition to The Indian Sociologist, pamphlets like Bande Mataram and Oh Martyrs! by Savarkar extolled revolutionary violence. Direct influences and incitement from India House were noted in several incidents of political violence, including assassinations, in India at the time.[48][49][50] One of the two charges against Savarkar during his trial in Bombay was for abetting the murder of the District Magistrate of Nasik, A.M.T. Jackson, by Anant Kanhere in December 1909. The arms used were directly traced through an Italian courier to India House. Ex-India House residents M.P.T. Acharya and V.V.S. Aiyar were noted in the Rowlatt report to have aided and influenced political assassinations, including the murder of Robert D'Escourt Ashe.[48] The Paris-Safranski link was strongly suggested by French police to be involved in a 1907 attempt in Bengal to derail the train carrying the Lieutenant-Governor Sir Andrew Fraser.[51] The activities of nationalists abroad is believed to have shaken the loyalty of a number of native regiments of the British Indian Army.[52] The assassination of William Hutt Curzon Wyllie in the hands of Madanlal Dhingra was highly publcised and saw increasing surveillance and suppression of Indian nationalism.[53] These were followed by the 1912 attempt on the life of Viceroy of India. Following this, the nucleus of networks formed in India House, the Anushilan Samiti, nationlalists in Punjab, and the nationalism that arose among Indian expatriates and labourers in North America, a different movement began to emerge in the North American Ghadar Party, culminating in the Sedetious conspiracy of World War I led by Rash Behari Bose and Lala Hardayal.
However, the emergence of the Gandhian movement slowly began to absorb the different revolutionary groups. The Bengal Samiti moved away from its philosophy of violence in the 1920s, when a number of its members identified closely with the Congress and Gandhian non-violent movement. Revolutionary nationalist violence saw a resurgence after the collapse of Gandhian Noncooperation movement in 1922. In Bengal, this saw reorganisation of groups linked to the Samiti under the leadership of Surya Sen and Hem Chandra Kanungo. A spate of violence led up to enactment of the Bengal Criminal Law Amendment in the early 1920s, which recalled the powers of incarceration and detention of the Defence of India Act. In north India, remnants of Punjab and Bengalee revolutionary organisations reorganised, notably under Sachindranath Sanyal, founding the Hindustan Republican Association with Chandrashekhar Azad in north India. The HSRA had strong influences from leftist ideologies. Hindustan Socialist Republican Association (HSRA) was formed under the leadership of Chandrasekhar Azad. Kakori train robbery was done largely by the members of HSRA. A number of Congress leaders from Bengal, especially Subhash Chandra Bose, were accused by the British Government of having links with and allowing patronage to the revolutionary organisations during this time. The violence and radical philosophy revived in the 1930s, when revolutionaries of the Samiti and the HSRA were involved in was involved in the Chittagong armoury raid and the Kakori conspiracy and other attempts against the administration in British India and Raj officials. Bhagat Singh and Batukeshwar Dutt threw a bomb inside the Central Legislative Assembly on 8 April 1929 protesting against the passage of the Public Safety Bill and the Trade Disputes Bill while raising slogans of "Inquilab Zindabad", though no one was killed or injured in the bomb incident. Bhagat Singh surrendered after the bombing incident and a trial was conducted. Sukhdev and Rajguru were also arrested by police during search operations after the bombing incident. Following the trial (Central Assembly Bomb Case), Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru were hanged in 1931. Allama Mashriqi founded Khaksar Tehreek in order to direct particularly the Muslims towards the self-rule movement.[54] Some of its members left for the Indian National Congress then led by Subhas Chandra Bose, while others identified more closely with Communism. The Jugantar branch formally dissolved in 1938. On 13 March 1940, Udham Singh shot Michael O'Dwyer(the last political murder out side India), generally held responsible for the Amritsar Massacre, in London. However, the revolutionary movement gradually disseminated into the Gandhian movement. As the political scenario changed in the late 1930s — with the mainstream leaders considering several options offered by the British and with religious politics coming into play — revolutionary activities gradually declined. Many past revolutionaries joined mainstream politics by joining Congress and other parties, especially communist ones, while many of the activists were kept under hold in different jails across the country.
Within a short time of its inception, these organisations became the focus of an extensive police and intelligence operations. Operations against Anushilan Samiti saw founding of the Special branch of Calcutta Police. The intelligence operations against India House saw the founding of the Indian Political Intelligence Office which later grew to be the Intelligence bureau in independent India. Heading the intelligence and missions against Ghadarite movement and India revolutionaries was the MI5(g) section, and at one point invokved the Pinkerton's detective agency. Notable officers who led the police and intelligence operations against Indian revolutionaries, or were involved in it, at various time included John Arnold Wallinger, Sir Robert Nathan, Sir Harold Stuart, Vernon Kell, Sir Charles Stevenson-Moore and Sir Charles Tegart, as well as W. Somerset Maugham. The threat posed by the activities of the Samiti in Bengal during World War I, along with the threat of a Ghadarite uprising in Punjab, saw the passage of Defence of India Act 1915. These measures saw the arrest, internment, transportations and execution of a number of revolutionaries linked to the organisation, and was successful in crushing the East Bengal Branch. In the aftermath of the war, the Rowlatt committee recommended extending the Defence of India Act (as the Rowlatt act) to thwart any possible revival of the Samiti in Bengal and the Ghadarite movement in Punjab. In the 1920s, Alluri Sitarama Raju led the ill-fated "Rampa Rebellion" of 1922–24, during which a band of tribal leaders and other sympathizers fought against the "British Raj". He was referred to as "Manyam Veerudu" ("Hero of the Jungles") by the local people. After the passing of the "1882 Madras Forest Act", its restrictions on the free movement of tribal peoples in the forest prevented them from engaging in their traditional "Podu" agricultural system, which involved shifting cultivation. Raju led a protest movement in the border areas of the East Godavari and Visakhapatnam districts of Madras Presidency in present-day Andhra Pradesh. Inspired by the patriotic zeal of revolutionaries in Bengal, Raju raided police stations in and around Chintapalle, Rampachodavaram, Dammanapalli, Krishna-devi-peta, Rajavommangi, Addateegala, Narsipatnam and Annavaram. Raju and his followers stole guns and ammunition and killed several British army officers, including Scott Coward near Dammanapalli.[55] The British campaign lasted for nearly a year from December 1922. Rama Raju was eventually trapped by the British in the forests of Chintapalli then tied to a tree and shot dead with a rifle in Mampa village.Police officer Mr. N. Gnaneswara Rao responsible for Raju's entrapment was awarded Rao Bahadur.[55]
Government of India through the Ministry of Home Affairs has later notified 38 movements/struggles across Indian territories as the ones that led to the country gaining self-rule and ending the British Raj. The Kallara-Pangode Struggle is one of these 39 agitations.
Final process of Indian self-rule movement
In 1937, provincial elections were held and the Congress came to power in seven of the eleven provinces. This was a strong indicator of the Indian people's support for complete self-rule.
When the Second World War started, Viceroy Linlithgow unilaterally declared India a belligerent on the side of Britain, without consulting the elected Indian representatives. In opposition to Linlithgow's action, the entire Congress leadership resigned from the provincial and local governments. The Moslems and Sikhs, by contrast, strongly supported the war effort and gained enormous stature in London. Defying Congress, millions of Indians supported the war effort, and indeed the British Indian Army became the largest volunteer force, numbering 2,500,000 men during the war.[56]
Especially during the Battle of Britain in 1940, Gandhi resisted calls for massive civil disobedience movements that came from within as well as outside his party, stating he did not seek India's self-rule out of the ashes of a destroyed Britain. In 1942, the Congress launched the Quit India movement. There was some violence but the Raj cracked down and arrested tens of thousands of Congress leaders, including all the main national and provincial figures. They were not released until the end of the war was in sight in 1945.
The self-rule movement saw the rise of three movements: The first of these, the Kakori conspiracy (9 August 1925) was led by Indian youth under the leadership of Pandit Ram Prasad Bismil; second was the Azad Hind movement led by Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose which saw its inception early in the war and joined Germany and Japan to fight Britain; the third one saw its inception in August 1942, was led by Lal Bahadur Shastri[57] and reflected the common man resulting the failure of the Cripps' mission to reach a consensus with the Indian political leadership over the transfer of power after the war.
Azad Hind Fauj(Indian National Army)
Main articles: Indian National Army, Arzi Hukumat-e-Azad Hind, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose and World War II
See also: Legion Freies Indien, Battaglione Azad Hindoustan, Capt. Mohan Singh, Indian Independence League, Death of Subhas Chandra Bose and INA trials
The entry of India into the war was strongly opposed by Subhas Chandra Bose, who had been elected President of the Congress in 1938 and 1939, but later resigned due to differences in opinion with Gandhi. After resignation he formed his own wing separated from the mainstream congress leadership known as Forward bloc which was the centre of ex-congressmen with socialist views; however he remained emotionally attached with him for the remainder of his life.[58] Bose then founded the All India Forward Bloc. In 1940, a year after war broke out, the British had put Bose under house arrest in Calcutta. However, he escaped and made his way through Afghanistan to Nazi Germany to seek Hitler and Mussolini's help for raising an army to fight the British. The Free India Legion comprising Erwin Rommel's Indian POWs was formed. However, in light of Germany's changing fortunes, a German land invasion of India became untenable and Hitler advised Bose to go to Japan and arranged for a submarine. Bose was ferried to Japanese Southeast Asia, where he formed the Azad Hind Government, a Provisional Free Indian Government in exile, and reorganised the Indian National Army composed of Indian POWs and volunteering Indian expatriates in South-East Asia, with the help of the Japanese. Its aim was to reach India as a fighting force that would build on public resentment to inspire revolts among Indian soldiers to defeat the British raj.
Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose.
The INA was to see action against the allies, including the British Indian Army, in the forests of Arakan, Burma and in Assam, laying siege on Imphal and Kohima with the Japanese 15th Army. During the war, the Andaman and Nicobar islands were captured by the Japanese and handed over by them to the INA.
The INA failed owing to disrupted logistics, poor supplies from the Japanese, and lack of training.[59] It surrendered unconditionally to the British in Singapore in 1945. Bose, however, attempted to escape to Japanese-held Manchuria in an attempt to escape to the Soviet Union, marking the end of the entire Azad Hind movement.
Quit India Movement
Main article: Quit India Movement
The Quit India Movement (Bharat Chhodo Andolan) or the August Movement was a civil disobedience movement in India launched on 8 August 1942 in response to Gandhi's call for immediate self-rule by Indians and against sending Indians to World War II. He asked all teachers to leave their schools, and other Indians to leave their respective jobs and take part in this movement. Due to Gandhi's political influence, his request was followed by a massive proportion of the population. In addition, the INC led the Quit India Movement to demand the British to leave India and to transfer the political power to INC.
During the movement, Gandhi and his followers continued to use non-violence against British rule. This movement was where Gandhi gave his famous message, "Do or Die!", and this message spread towards the Indian community. In addition, this movement was addressed directly to women as "disciplined soldiers of Indian freedom" and they had to keep the war for independence to go on (against British rule).
At the outbreak of war, the Congress Party had during the Wardha meeting of the working-committee in September 1939, passed a resolution conditionally supporting the fight against fascism,[60] but were rebuffed when they asked for self-rule in return. In March 1942, faced with an increasingly dissatisfied sub-continent only reluctantly participating in the war, and deteriorations in the war situation in Europe and South East Asia, and with growing dissatisfactions among Indian troops- especially in Europe- and among the civilian population in the sub-continent, the British government sent a delegation to India under Stafford Cripps, 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 of progressive devolution and distribution of power from the crown and the Viceroy to elected Indian legislature. However, the talks failed, having failed to address the key demand of a timeframe towards self-government, and of definition of the powers to be relinquished, essentially portraying an offer of limited dominion-status that was wholly unacceptable to the Indian movement.[61] To force the British Raj to meet its demands and to obtain definitive word on total self-rule, the Congress took the decision to launch the Quit India Movement.
The aim of the movement was to force the British Government to the negotiating table by holding the Allied war effort hostage. The call for determined but passive resistance that signified the certitude that Gandhi foresaw for the movement is best described by his call to Do or Die, issued on 8 August at the Gowalia Tank Maidan in Bombay, since renamed August Kranti Maidan (August Revolution Ground). However, almost the entire Congress leadership, and not merely at the national level, was put into confinement less than 24 hours after Gandhi's speech, and the greater number of the Congress khiland were to spend the rest of the war in jail.
On 8 August 1942, the Quit India resolution was passed at the Mumbai session of the All India Congress Committee (AICC). The draft proposed that if the British did not accede to the demands, a massive Civil Disobedience would be launched. However, it was an extremely controversial decision. At Gowalia Tank, Mumbai, Gandhi urged Indians to follow a non-violent civil disobedience. Gandhi told the masses to act as citizens of a sovereign nation and not to follow the orders of the British. The British, already alarmed by the advance of the Japanese army to the India–Burma border, responded the next day by imprisoning Gandhi at the Aga Khan Palace in Pune. The Congress Party's Working Committee, or national leadership was arrested all together and imprisoned at the Ahmednagar Fort. They also banned the party altogether. All the major leaders of the INC were arrested and detained. As the masses were leaderless the protest took a violent turn. Large-scale protests and demonstrations were held all over the country. Workers remained absent en masse and strikes were called. The movement also saw widespread acts of sabotage, Indian under-ground organisation carried out bomb attacks on allied supply convoys, government buildings were set on fire, electricity lines were disconnected and transport and communication lines were severed. The disruptions were under control in a few weeks and had little impact on the war effort. The movement soon became a leaderless act of defiance, with a number of acts that deviated from Gandhi's principle of non-violence. In large parts of the country, the local underground organisations took over the movement. However, by 1943, Quit India had petered out.
All the other major parties rejected the Quit India plan, and most cooperated closely with the British, as did the princely states, the civil service and the police. The Muslim League supported the Raj and grew rapidly in membership, and in influence with the British.
There was opposition to the Quit India Movement from several political quarters who were fighting for Indian self-rule. Hindu nationalist parties like the Hindu Mahasabha openly opposed the call and boycotted the Quit India Movement.[62] 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.[62]
The other Hindu nationalist organisation, and Mahasabha affiliate Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) had a tradition of keeping aloof from the anti-British Indian self-rule movement since its founding by K.B. Hedgewar in 1925. In 1942, the RSS, under M.S. Golwalkar completely abstained from joining in the Quit India Movement as well. The Bombay government(British) appreciated the RSS as such, 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".[63]
The British Government stated that the RSS was not at all supporting any civil disobedience against them, and as such their other political activities(even if objectionable) can be overlooked.[64] Further, 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" .[64]
As such, the British government did not crack down on the RSS and Hindu Mahasabha at all. The RSS head (sarsanghchalak) during that time, M.S. Golwalkar later openly admitted to the fact that the RSS did not participate in the Quit India Movement. However, such an attitude during the Indian independence 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"[65][66]
Overall, the Quit India Movement turned out to be not very successful and only lasted until 1943. It drew away from Gandhi's tactic of non-violence; it eventually became a rebellious act without any real leader.
Christmas Island Mutiny and Royal Indian Navy Revolt
Main articles: Battle of Christmas Island and Royal Indian Navy Revolt
After two Japanese attacks on Christmas Island in late February and early March 1942, relations between the British officers and their Indian troops broke down. On the night of 10 March, the Indian troops assisted by Sikh policemen mutinied, killing five British soldiers and imprisoning the remaining 21 Europeans on the island. Later on 31 March, a Japanese fleet arrived at the island and the Indians surrendered.[67]
The Royal Indian Navy revolt encompasses a total strike and subsequent mutiny by Indian sailors of the Royal Indian revolt on board ship and shore establishments at Bombay (Mumbai) harbour on 18 February 1946. From the initial flashpoint in Bombay, the mutiny spread and found support throughout British India, from Karachi to Calcutta and ultimately came to involve 78 ships, 20 shore establishments and 20,000 sailors.[68]
The agitations, mass strikes, demonstrations and consequently support for the mutineers, therefore continued several days even after the mutiny had been called off. Along with this, the assessment may be made that it described in crystal clear terms to the government that the British Indian Armed forces could no longer be universally relied upon for support in crisis, and even more it was more likely itself to be the source of the sparks that would ignite trouble in a country fast slipping out of the scenario of political settlement.[69]
Sovereignty and partition of India
Main articles: History of the Republic of India, Partition of India and Pakistan movement
On 3 June 1947, Viscount Louis Mountbatten, the last British Governor-General of India, announced the partitioning of British India into India and Pakistan. With the speedy passage through the British Parliament of the Indian Independence Act 1947, at 11:57 on 14 August 1947 Pakistan was declared a separate nation, and at 12:02, just after midnight, on 15 August 1947, India also became a sovereign and democratic nation. Eventually, 15 August became the Independence Day for India, due to the ending of British rule over India. On that 15 August, both Pakistan and India had the right to remain in or remove themselves from the British Commonwealth. In 1949, India decided to remain in the commonwealth.
Violent clashes between Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims followed. Prime Minister Nehru and deputy prime minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel invited Mountbatten to continue as Governor General of India. He was replaced in June 1948 by Chakravarti Rajagopalachari. Patel took on the responsibility of bringing into the Indian Union 565 princely states, steering efforts by his "iron fist in a velvet glove" policies, exemplified by the use of military force to integrate Junagadh and Hyderabad State into India (Operation Polo). On the other hand, Nehru kept the issue of Kashmir in his hands.[70]
The Constituent Assembly completed the work of drafting the constitution on 26 November 1949; on 26 January 1950, the Republic of India was officially proclaimed. The Constituent Assembly elected Dr. Rajendra Prasad as the first President of India, taking over from Governor General Rajgopalachari. Subsequently, the French ceded Chandernagore in 1951, and Pondichéry and its remaining Indian colonies in 1954. India invaded and annexed Goa and Portugal's other Indian enclaves in 1961, and Sikkim voted to join the Indian Union in 1975.
Following self-rule in 1947, India remained in the Commonwealth of Nations, and relations between the UK and India have been friendly. There are many areas in which the two countries seek stronger ties for mutual benefit, and there are also strong cultural and social ties between the two nations. The UK has an ethnic Indian population of over 1.6 million. In 2010, Prime Minister David Cameron described Indian – British relations as a "New Special Relationship".[71]
Indian independence movement portal
Partition of Bengal (1947)
Independence Day (India)
Independence Day (Pakistan)
↑ 1.0 1.1 Chandra 1989, p. 26
↑ Chandra 1989, p. 521
↑ Heehs 1998, p. 9
↑ The English colonial empire, including the territories and trading post in Asia, came under British control following the union of England and Scotland in 1707.
↑ Heehs 1998, pp. 9–10
↑ Heehs 1998, pp. 11–12
↑ "Remembering Queen Velu Nachiyar of Sivagangai, the first queen to fight the british". <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
↑ "Velu Nachiyar, Jhansi Rani of Tamil Nadu". <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
↑ "Legends from South". <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
↑ Yang, Anand A. "Bandits and Kings:Moral Authority and Resistance in Early Colonial India". The Journal of Asian Studies. Retrieved 6 November 2012. <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
↑ K. Guru Rajesh. Sarfarosh: A Naadi Exposition of the Lives of Indian Revolutionaries. Notion Press. <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
↑ "Chinnamalai, a lesser-known freedom fighter of Kongu soil". The Hindu. 2 August 2008. <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
↑ Ram Govardhan (2001). Rough with the Smooth. Leadstart publishing. p. 212. ISBN 9789381115619. <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
↑ Rout, Hemant Kumar (2012). "Villages fight over martyr's death place - The New Indian Express". newindianexpress.com. Retrieved 7 February 2013. historians claim he is actually the first martyr in the country's freedom movement because none was killed by the Britishers before 1806 <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
↑ "Controversy over Jayee Rajguru's place of assassination | Odisha Reporter". odishareporter.in. 2012. Retrieved 7 February 2013. was assassinated by the British government in a brutal manner on December 6, 1806 <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>[dead link]
↑ Mohanty, N.R. (August 2008). "The Oriya Paika Rebellion of 1817" (PDF). Orissa Review: 1–3. Archived from the original (PDF) on 11 November 2013. Retrieved 13 February 2013. <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
↑ 17.0 17.1 Paikaray, Braja (February–March 2008). "Khurda Paik Rebellion - The First Independence War of India" (PDF). Orissa Review: 45–50. Archived from the original (PDF) on 22 April 2014. Retrieved 13 February 2013. <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
↑ "Paik Rebellion". Archived from the original on 12 March 2012. Retrieved 13 February 2013. <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
↑ Chandra 1989, p. 33
↑ 20.0 20.1 Chandra 1989, p. 34
↑ "The Uprising of 1857". Library of Congress. Retrieved 10 November 2009. <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
↑ David, S (202[clarification needed]) The Indian Mutiny, Penguin; p. 122
↑ Chandra 1989, pp. 38–39
↑ Heehs 1998, p. 32
↑ "Official, India". World Digital Library. 1890–1923. Retrieved 30 May 2013. <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
↑ Robert P. O'Kell (2014). Disraeli: The Romance of Politics. U of Toronto Press. pp. 443–44. <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
↑ John R. McLane, "The Decision to Partition Bengal in 1905," Indian Economic and Social History Review, July 1965, 2#3, pp 221–237
↑ Jalal, Ayesha (1994) The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-45850-4
↑ Official website, Government of Pakistan. "The Statesman: Jinnah's differences with the Congress". Archived from the original on 27 January 2006. Retrieved 20 April 2006. <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
↑ Gupta 1997, p. 12
↑ Popplewell 1995, p. 201
↑ Lawrence James, Raj: The Making and Unmaking of British India (2000) pp 439–518
↑ James, Raj: The Making and Unmaking of British India (2000) pp 459–60, 519–20
↑ Denis Judd, Empire: The British Imperial Experience From 1765 To The Present (pp 226-411998)
↑ "The Indian Independence Movement". Retrieved 29 May 2014. <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
↑ Nigel Collett, The Butcher of Amritsar: General Reginald Dyer (2006)
↑ Nick Lloyd, The Amritsar Massacre: The Untold Story of One Fateful Day (2011)
↑ Derek Sayer, "British Reaction to the Amritsar Massacre 1919–1920," Past & Present, May 1991, Issue 131, pp 130–164
↑ Dennis Judd, "The Amritsar Massacre of 1919: Gandhi, the Raj and the Growth of Indian Nationalism, 1915–39," in Judd, Empire: The British Imperial Experience from 1765 to the Present (1996) pp 258- 72
↑ Sankar Ghose, Gandhi (1991) p. 107
↑ Sanjay Paswan and Pramanshi Jaideva, Encyclopaedia of Dalits in India (2003) p. 43
↑ 47.0 47.1 Fraser 1977, p. 257
↑ 48.0 48.1 48.2 Yadav 1992, p. 4
↑ Hopkirk 2001, p. 46
↑ Majumdar 1966, p. 121,147
↑ Lahiri 2000, p. 129
↑ "Dhingra, Madan Lal. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography". Oxford University Press. Retrieved 29 October 2015. <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
↑ Khaksar Tehrik Ki Jiddo Juhad Volume 1. Author Khaksar Sher Zaman
↑ 55.0 55.1 Balakrishna, V.G. "Freedom Movement in Andhra Pradesh". Government of India Press Information Bureau. Retrieved 28 March 2011. <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
↑ Roy, Kaushik (2009). "Military Loyalty in the Colonial Context: A Case Study of the Indian Army during World War II". Journal of Military History. 73 (2): 144–172. <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
↑ Dr.'Krant'M.L. Verma Swadhinta Sangram Ke Krantikari Sahitya Ka Itihas (Vol-2) p.559
↑ Bose, Nirmal. (October–December 1985) "SUBHAS CHANDRA BOSE AND THE INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS". The Indian Journal of Political Science. Vol. 46, No. 4, Special Issue on The Indian National Congress: A Century in Perspective, pp. 438-450 http://www.jstor.org/stable/41855198
↑ "Forgotten armies of the East – Le Monde diplomatique – English edition". Mondediplo.com. 10 May 2005. Retrieved 14 June 2012. <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
↑ "The Congress and The Freedom Movement". Indian National Congress. Archived from the original on 11 August 2007. Retrieved 24 September 2007. <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
↑ Culture and Combat in the Colonies. The Indian Army in the Second World War. Tarak Barkawi. J Contemp History. 41(2), 325–355.pp:332
↑ 62.0 62.1 Prabhu Bapu (2013). Hindu Mahasabha in Colonial North India, 1915–1930: Constructing Nation and History. Routledge. pp. 103–. ISBN 978-0-415-67165-1. <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
↑ Śekhara Bandyopādhyāẏa (1 January 2004). From Plassey to Partition: A History of Modern India. Orient Blackswan. pp. 422–. ISBN 978-81-250-2596-2. <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
↑ 64.0 64.1 Bipan Chandra (2008). Communalism in Modern India. Har-Anand. pp. 140–. ISBN 978-81-241-1416-2. <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
↑ Ram Puniyani (21 July 2005). Religion, Power and Violence: Expression of Politics in Contemporary Times. SAGE Publications. pp. 134–. ISBN 978-0-7619-3338-0. <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
↑ Shamsul Islam (2006). Religious Dimensions of Indian Nationalism: A Study of RSS. Media House. pp. 187–. ISBN 978-81-7495-236-3. <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
↑ "Christmas Island History". Christmas Island Tourism Association. Retrieved 9 December 2014. <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
↑ Notes on India By Robert Bohm.pp213
↑ James L. Raj; Making and unmaking of British India. Abacus. 1997. p571, p598 and; Unpublished, Public Relations Office, London. War Office. 208/819A 25C
↑ Subrata K. Mitra, "Nehru's policy towards Kashmir: Bringing politics back in again" Journal of Commonwealth & Comparative Politics 35.2 (1997): 55-74.
↑ Nelson, Dean (7 July 2010). "Ministers to build a new 'special relationship' with India". The Daily Telegraph. <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
Brown, Judith M. Gandhi's Rise to Power: Indian Politics 1915–1922 (Cambridge South Asian Studies) (1974)
MK Gandhi. My Experiments with Truth Editor's note by Mahadev Desai (Beacon Press) (1993)
Brown, Judith M., 'Gandhi and Civil Resistance in India, 1917–47', in Adam Roberts and Timothy Garton Ash (eds.), Civil Resistance and Power Politics: The Experience of Non-violent Action from Gandhi to the Present. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. ISBN 978-0-19-955201-6.
Jalal, Ayesha. The Sole Spokesman: Jinnah, the Muslim League and the Demand for Pakistan (Cambridge South Asian Studies) (1994)
Majumdar, R.C. History of the Freedom movement in India. ISBN 0-8364-2376-3. <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
Gandhi, Mohandas (1993). An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments With Truth. Boston: Beacon Press. ISBN 0-8070-5909-9. <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
Sofri, Gianni (1995–1999). Gandhi and India: A Century in Focus. Janet Sethre Paxia (translator) (English edition translated from the Italian ed.). Gloucestershire: The Windrush Press. ISBN 1-900624-12-5. <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
Gonsalves, Peter. Khadi: Gandhi's Mega Symbol of Subversion, (Sage Publications), (2012)
Gopal, Sarvepalli. Jawaharlal Nehru – Volume One: 1889 – 1947 – A Biography (1975), standard scholarly biography
Seal, Anil (1968). Emergence of Indian Nationalism: Competition and Collaboration in the Later Nineteenth Century. London: Cambridge U.P. ISBN 0-521-06274-8. <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
Singh, Jaswant. Jinnah: India, Partition, Independence (2010)
Chandra, Bipan; Mukherjee, Mridula; Mukherjee, Aditya; Mahajan, Sucheta; Panikkar, K. N. (1989). India's Struggle for Independence. New Delhi: Penguin Books. p. 600. ISBN 978-0-14-010781-4. <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
Heehs, Peter (1998). India's Freedom Struggle: A Short History. Delhi: Oxford University Press. p. 199. ISBN 978-0-19-562798-5. <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
Sarkar, Sumit (1983). Modern India: 1885–1947. Madras: Macmillan. p. 486. ISBN 0-333-90425-7. <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
Wolpert, Stanley A. Jinnah of Pakistan (2005)
Wolpert, Stanley A. Gandhi's Passion: The Life and Legacy of Mahatma Gandhi (2002)
M.L. Verma Swadhinta Sangram Ke Krantikari Sahitya Ka Itihas (3 Volumes) 2006 New Delhi Praveen Prakashan ISBN 81-7783-122-4.
Sharma Vidyarnav Yug Ke Devta : Bismil Aur Ashfaq 2004 Delhi Praveen Prakashan ISBN 81-7783-078-3.
M.L. Verma Sarfaroshi Ki Tamanna (4 Volumes) 1997 Delhi Praveen Prakashan.
Mahaur Bhagwandas Kakori Shaheed Smriti 1977 Lucknow Kakori Shaheed Ardhshatabdi Samaroh Samiti.
South Asian History And Culture Vol.-2 pp. 16–36, Taylor And Francis group
"2. Milestones in India's Freedom Struggle". Online Educational Resource Collection. 2006. Retrieved 10 May 2015. <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers at line 47: attempt to index field 'wikibase' (a nil value).
"Indian Independence movement". cs.mcgill.ca. Retrieved 19 October 2015. <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
Agatucci, Cora. "Independence of India & Pakistan (20th c.)". Cultures & Literatures of Asia. Retrieved 10 September 2015. <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
Kurtz, Lester (2009). "The Indian Independence Struggle (1930–1931)". Nonviolent Conflict. International Center on Nonviolent Conflict. Retrieved 10 May 2015. <templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
Wikimedia Commons has media related to [[commons:Category:{{#property:P373}}|Indian independence movement]].
Porto Grande de Bengala
Dutch Bengal
Battle of Plassey
Battle of Buxar
Anglo-Mysore Wars
Anglo-Maratha Wars
Polygar Wars
Vellore Mutiny
First Anglo-Sikh War
Second Anglo-Sikh War
Sannyasi Rebellion
Rebellion of 1857
Radcliffe Line
and ideologies
Gandhism
Hindu nationalism
Indian nationalism
Khilafat Movement
Muslim nationalism in South Asia
Satyagraha
Swadeshi movement
Swaraj
Events and
Partition of Bengal
Delhi-Lahore Conspiracy
The Indian Sociologist
Hindu–German Conspiracy
Champaran and Kheda
Rowlatt Committee
Rowlatt Bills
Non-Cooperation Movement
Chauri Chaura incident, 1922
Kakori conspiracy
Qissa Khwani Bazaar massacre
Flag Satyagraha
1928 Protests
Nehru Report
Fourteen Points of Jinnah
Salt March
Dharasana Satyagraha
Chittagong armoury raid
Gandhi–Irwin Pact
Round table conferences
Act of 1935
Aundh Experiment
Indische Legion
Cripps' mission
Bombay Mutiny
Coup d'état of Yanaon
Provisional Government of India
All India Kisan Sabha
All-India Muslim League
Anushilan Samiti
Azad Hind
Berlin Committee
Ghadar Party
Hindustan Socialist Republican Association
Indian Home Rule movement
Indian Independence League
Jugantar
Khaksar Tehrik
Khudai Khidmatgar
Swaraj Party
Gopal Ganesh Agarkar
Ayyankali
Gazulu Lakshminarasu Chetty
Gopal Hari Deshmukh
Gopaldas Ambaidas Desai
Narayana Guru
A. Vaidyanatha Iyer
G. Subramania Iyer
Syed Ahmad Khan
J. B. Kripalani
Vakkom Moulavi
Jyotirao Phule
Pandita Ramabai
Periyar E. V. Ramasamy
Mahadev Govind Ranade
Muthulakshmi Reddi
Ram Mohan Roy
Dayananda Saraswati
Sahajanand Saraswati
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar
Shahaji II
Vitthal Ramji Shinde
Bal Gangadhar Tilak
Ayya Vaikundar
Kandukuri Veeresalingam
Muhammad Mian Mansoor Ansari
Abul Kalam Azad
Chandra Shekhar Azad
Bhikaiji Cama
Ram Prasad Bismil
Rash Behari Bose
Subramania Bharati
Virendranath Chattopadhyaya
V O Chidamabaram
Dheeran Chinnamalai
Chittaranjan Das
Shuja-ud-Daula
Siraj ud-Daulah
Har Dayal
Nana Fadnavis
Gopal Krishna Gokhale
Yashwantrao Holkar
Hemu Kalani
Veerapandiya Kattabomman
Ashfaqulla Khan
Bakht Khan
Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan
Tiruppur Kumaran
Rani Lakshmibai
Begum Hazrat Mahal
Annapurna Maharana
Inayatullah Khan Mashriqi
Syama Prasad Mukherjee
Kanaiyalal Maneklal Munshi
Sarojini Naidu
Dadabhai Naoroji
Oomaithurai
Bipin Chandra Pal
Maruthu Pandiyar
Govind Ballabh Pant
Vallabhbhai Patel
Achyut Patwardhan
Mir Qasim
Lala Lajpat Rai
C. Rajagopalachari
Alluri Sitarama Raju
Dukkipati Nageswara Rao
Sangolli Rayanna
Bidhan Chandra Roy
Nana Sahib
Rahul Sankrityayan
Jatindra Mohan Sengupta
Bahadur Shah II
Mahadaji Shinde
Yogendra Shukla
Babu Kunwar Singh
Basawon Singh
Dhan Singh
Krishna Singh
Subramaniya Siva
Vanchinathan
Veeran Sundaralingam
Purushottam Das Tandon
Puli Thevar
Tatya Tope
Shyamji Krishna Varma
Pritilata Waddedar
British leaders
Cornwallis
Wavell
Simla Conference
Cabinet Mission
Indian Independence Act
Political integration
Liberation of French colonies in India
Liberation of Portuguese India
Retrieved from "https://infogalactic.com/w/index.php?title=Indian_independence_movement&oldid=724690727"
Wikipedia articles needing clarification from November 2012
Use dmy dates from July 2016
Use Indian English from July 2016
All Wikipedia articles written in Indian English
Articles with unsourced statements from June 2009
Articles with weasel words from November 2016
History of social movements
History of Pakistan
History of Bangladesh
All Wikipedia articles needing clarification
Commons category with page title different than on Wikidata


text:
Home / Letter from Europe / Polar nights in Spitsbergen
Polar nights in Spitsbergen
— Issue 2011/5 posted by hidden europe on 9 Feb 2011 —
It was unusually warm in Longyearbyen in Spitsbergen this past Sunday. The temperature peaked at minus 7 degrees Celsius. And the jazz helped give Longyearbyen a more temperate ring last weekend as the remote Arctic community, capital of the Svalbard archipelago, celebrated its annual Polar Jazz festival.
It was unusually warm in Longyearbyen in Spitsbergen this past Sunday. The temperature peaked at minus 7 degrees Celsius, much more acceptable than the previous Sunday when the mercury did not rise above a numbing minus 27. And the jazz helped give Longyearbyen a more temperate ring last weekend as the remote Arctic community, capital of the Svalbard archipelago, celebrated its annual Polar Jazz festival. For five sunless mid-winter days, Longyearbyen echoed to the sounds of a musical genre that in its origins owes far more to New Orleans than to Scandinavia.
The multicultural Arctic
Longyearbyen is an odd sort of place. We have written about the town before in hidden europe magazine, commenting in particular on Svalbard's unusual social mix. The islands have an admirably easy-going visa regime, much more relaxed than what you might find in Norway proper which is part of the Schengen area. Svalbard lies beyond Schengen's borders, a result of the 1920 Paris Treaty which recognised Norwegian sovereignty over the islands but gave citizens of many other countries an absolute right to settle in this remote northern wilderness. So two Iranian brothers run what probably is the most northerly takeaway pizza joint on the planet. Five years ago, when the King and Queen of Norway touched down in Longyearbyen, they were entertained at a festival of Thai culture. Not quite as improbable as it sounds, for there are about seventy Thai nationals among the population of Longyearbyen. Thai products are prominently displayed in the Longyearbyen supermarket.
Move west from Longyearbyen along the shores of Isfjord and the next community is Barentsburg, home to over 400 Russians and Ukrainians. Coal is the lure, but the community at Barentsburg has been through a tough time since we reported on it for hidden europe in 2006. An underground fire in the local coal mine in 2008 - not the first - caused considerable damage and mining had to be suspended. Commercial operations only restarted last November. Russia is keen to diversify its interests in the islands. There is talk of a fish processing plant at Barentsburg. And the mining company that effectively owns the town of Barentsburg has also expressed interest in opening a brewery there.
Research in Svalbard
Last week, the Moscow government announced the establishment of a new research station on Svalbard, focusing on geophysics and hydrometeorology. We see that move as a bid by Russia to keep in the forefront of climatic change research in the strategic European Arctic region. Svalbard bristles with research centres. One of the remotest is at Hornsund, a specialist facility in the south of the archipelago that is staffed entirely by Polish scientists. Towards the northern end of Vest-Spitsbergen island is Ny-Alesund, another research-oriented community where China, Italy, Britain, Norway, Japan, Korea, Germany and the Netherlands all have a presence. The Indians are the new kids on the block, having just opened their first-ever Arctic research station in Ny-Alesund in 2008. Ny-Alesund thus possibly trumps even Longyearbyen in claiming to be one of Europe's most multicultural communities.
The annual Polar Jazz festival helps islanders get through the long winter days. But change is coming, for later this month the sun will again peek above the horizon, marking the end of the long polar night. The curiously offbeat communities of Svalbard will experience sunlight and shadows for the first time for over four months.
Nicky Gardner and Susanne Kries
(editors, hidden europe magazine)
source: https://www.hiddeneurope.co.uk/polar-nights-in-spitsbergen
← Arabia and the European Imagination
Gerês (Portugal) →
Thomas Cook: March 1873
By the end of February 1873, Thomas Cook had encircled most of the northern hemisphere. Cook and his party of circumnavigators had sailed from Liverpool in September 1872. The travellers discovered iced water, Pullman cars and Sioux warriors in the ...
Local media from Andalucia to the Arctic
When we are not on the road, the hidden europe team keeps a finger on the pulse of European affairs. Local newspapers from the Arctic to the Aegean are grist to the mill of this endeavour. Few are better than Svalbardposten, arguably the world's ...
Northern townships: Spitsbergen
hidden europe 10
The Arctic archipelago of Spitsbergen (Svalbard) has more than its fair share of polar bears and glaciers. But it is also home to some of Europe's most unusual ...
Arctic art and literature exploration island communities minorities Norway politics Russia Spitsbergen

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


The value of bitcoin continues to hover above $8,000 after last week's dramatic price surge, which saw the world's most valuable cryptocurrency gain more than $1,000 in the space of an hour.
March saw bitcoin's price drop below $10,000, reaching a low of $6,500 before rebounding above $7,000.
Google's announcement that it would ban cryptocurrency advertising from its pages from June on the grounds that it considers it "deceptive content" was also a major blow to the sector.
It is worth $8,915 as of Monday morning, down considerably on the recent high of $11,640 (£8,414) it achieved in early March, according to the Coinbase exchange.
Its value remains less than 1 per cent off its price this time yesterday but is up by around 11 per cent week-on-week. Bitcoin's value is less than one per cent off what it was one month ago. The latest price gains follow a week of steady losses for the world's most valuable cryptocurrency.
Numerous financial experts have advised potential investors to avoid getting involved with bitcoin, and the US Securities and Exchange Commission has told people to "exercise caution" and be wary of scammers.
This article is being regularly updated to reflect bitcoin's latest value.


text:
City: HOBOKEN ON TRACK FOR RESILIENT & RELIABLE ENERGY SYSTEM WITH $175 MILLION PSE&G PROJECT
City of Hoboken announces:
HOBOKEN ON TRACK FOR RESILIENT & RELIABLE ENERGY SYSTEM WITH $175 MILLION PSE&G PROJECT
Tonight the City Council will vote on a $175 Million PSE&G project that will combine the Marshall Street substation with the Madison Street substation and elevate and modernize the substation with the most reliable technology. Both of these substations are over 50 years old and are at risk from flooding. PSE&G has already invested $130 million to upgrade and elevate Hoboken's 16th Street substation, and the Madison Street substation project will complete efforts to bring Hoboken's entire energy system to 21st century resiliency and reliability standards.
"This project will ensure that all Hoboken residents, including our most in need residents in the Housing Authority, have reliable electricity for lights and heat through future severe storm events and other emergencies," said Mayor Dawn Zimmer. "All of our residents and our business community need reliable energy, and this project will make certain that we never again have to endure weeks without lights or heat like we did during Sandy. I have also advocated strongly for an innovative design for the substation, and I want to thank PSE&G for continuing to work with the City to create a design that integrates with our urban landscape and replaces the unattractive substations surrounded by chain link fences and barbed wire. With the Council's support, this vital project will start construction this summer and when completed, will ensure a resilient and reliable energy source for our entire City."
The project would include a land swap through which the City would transfer the lot adjacent to the existing Madison Street Substation to PSE&G in exchange for PSE&G transferring the Marshall Street Substation property to the City. PSE&G would also make a payment of $1.245 million to the City to compensate for the difference in the appraised value of the properties as well as an annual "loss of use" payment of $275,250 until PSE&G has completed the decommissioning and remediation of the Marshall Street Substation property.
View memos to the City Council for additional project information:
www.hobokennj.gov/docs/communitydev/Memo-Zimmer-Council-PSEG-4-13-17.pdf
www.hobokennj.gov/docs/communitydev/PSE&G-Memo-to-Council-2-13-17.pdf
Posted by SmartyJones at Wednesday, April 19, 2017
And then there were three?
Another entry into the Hoboken mayoral sweepstakes is official. Well at least the initial paperwork is official.
Hoboken resident Ronald Bautista an occasional speaker at council meetings and a vocal supporter for bicycle lanes filed his entry as a mayoral candidate earlier this month.
Bautista's entry means there are three official candidates in the race. Mayor Dawn Zimmer and local businesswoman Karen Nason have already announced their intention to run for the top elected office in the Mile Square City.
Some observers viewed Bautista as a natural constituent of the growing Reform Movement in town but others thought his interests went beyond advocacy for bike lanes with higher aspirations in mind.
This should confirm it. Bautista did not return a call left earlier.
Talking Ed Note: Councilman Mike DeFusco made the news yesterday with word of an exceedingly strong fundraising campaign effort in the first quarter in the 90K ballpark. His mayoral candidacy and the official figures filed with NJ ELEC are questions awaiting answers.
City: HOBOKEN ON TRACK FOR RESILIENT & RELIABLE EN...


For use with Model No's APMS01 and APMS03 floor cabinets.
Supplied with appropriate fixings to make integral self supporting unit.
All steel construction with a graphite powder coated finish.
Lift-up door supported on gas struts.
High quality lock with two keys.
Offers fixing for Model No. APMS10 back panel.


text:
Events from the year 1695 in Denmark

Incumbents
 Monarch – Christian V

Events

Undated events
 Motzmanns Plads, now known as Christiansholm or Papirøen, is created in Vopenhagen.

Births
 11 February – Abraham Pelt, industrialist and philanthropist (died 1783)

Full date missing

Deaths
 27 June – Prince Christian of Denmark, prince of Denmark (born 1675)

References

Denmark
Years of the 17th century in Denmark

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Tuesday, September 15 1908 -- Surprisingly, the "Solid Three", though caught red-handed in an obviously unethical sweetheart bond sale, are sticking to their guns. They claim that the sale is official and will not withdraw it. The newspaper and Herriman continue to rage against them.


In episode 12 of Covert Contact I'm talking to William J. Tucker about counterintelligence. It is a complex discipline that is often misunderstood – even by intelligence professionals. But it presents as many opportunities as it does challenges and this conversation hints at that. Like all intelligence disciplines, it is faced with a rapidly changing environment and overwhelming array of threats. Eventually, the sheer number of threats, the scope of it all, will force the private sector and governments into far tighter partnerships as they struggle to protect intellectual capital and traditional intelligence targets.
You can follow William J. Tucker on Twitter @tuckerwj.
All Filler, No Killer: Robert Baer's "The Perfect Kill: 21 Laws for Assassins"