Quit India

Nonfiction | Essay / Speech | Adult | Published in 1942

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Download PDF

Summary

Background

Essay Analysis

Key Figures

Themes

Index of Terms

Literary Devices

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Tools

Beta

Discussion Questions

Themes

Nonviolence, Shared Power, and True Freedom

Gandhi fervently argues that nonviolence is only way to achieve real and lasting freedom. This is abundantly clear throughout the “Quit India” speeches. Much of his worldview is born of the religious belief Ahimsa, which calls for no harm of any living thing. Gandhi says, “God has vouchsafed to me a priceless of gift in the weapon of Ahimsa” (1). The ironic phrase “weapon of Ahimsa” emphasizes that nonviolence and truth are his main lines of defense in a diplomatic battle. Gandhi knows that a violent revolution will likely fail against a formidable powerhouse like Great Britain, so he chooses nonviolence.

Though he understands those with power can always dominate and rule the oppressed, he believes that true power is shared. He claims that “the power, when it comes, will belong to the people of India” (1). He also believes that anything forced upon others is inherently unjust: “[E]ven if someone were to succeed in imposing an untruth on others, he would not be able to enjoy for long the fruits of such a coercion” (5). In the same vein, Gandhi understands the temptation for those newly in power to dominate others; he claims that if the Muslims get control from the British, then they might create a “Muslim Raj” (7), or a purely Muslim rule. The choice of the word Raj here is purposeful and has a colonial connotation to it. Gandhi pushes against this through calling for democratized power because “the Congress does not believe in the domination of any group of any community” (7).

Interestingly, he equates this type of egregious power with other nations at that time, arguing, “I do not believe in establishing world peace through violence as the English and American statesmen propose to do” (6). Later, in the English portion of his speech, he pointedly says that he “[did] not regard England or for that matter America as free countries” (15). Though this is partly because of the racist laws in those countries, it is also because Gandhi equates freedom with power that is just. He sees both England and America as countries with violent and oppressive pasts and wants to shape an Indian democracy in a completely different manner. He claims that “India will wrench with nonviolence her liberty from unwilling hands” (16), and that this would result in India playing a key role in ending the greatest violence at that time: fascist regimes in World War II. Ultimately, he ends his speeches arguing that nonviolence begets greater freedom, which in turn begets less violence.

Unity Among Religious Groups in India

The territory under British rule contained a myriad of faiths which Gandhi lists out in his speech as Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Parsis, and Jews. Given the history of the Muslims and Hindus in particular, Gandhi spends much of his speech arguing for unity among these two groups for a greater purpose, or a “common struggle for independence” (2). He reminds the Muslims in the audience that he has been a friend to them for years, and that he “offered [his] fullest cooperation to the Mussalmans” (4). He adds that some of his actions even “shocked the Hindus” (4). At this time, the All India Muslim League was a key barrier to a united Indian front because they held closed door negotiations with the British for their own aspirations. Many Muslims wanted to create a newly recognized Muslim state of Pakistan instead of joining India. To combat this, Gandhi employs a deeply personal and emotional appeal about his own son who converted to Islam. He wonders, “In what separate homeland would you put my son who embraced Islam?” (8), pointing out that splitting the country would result in extremely difficult fissures, even within families.

Gandhi takes this idea a step further than family divisions when he posits that if India is split by religious groups, then it would effectively be killed as an entity. He says, “[T]o demand the vivisection of a living organism is to ask for its very life” (6). He knows that there is a possibility of getting stuck in cycle of violence that would damn the country to “perpetual war between the Hindus and the Mussalmans” (7). However, he also knows that this is a tactic that oppressive regimes like Great Britain use to keep countries subjugated. With that in mind, he argues that “Congress is fighting not on behalf of the Hindus but on behalf of all the whole nation” (8). In Gandhi’s mind, only a united and democratized India would be able to gain freedom. After spending much time speaking directly about Muslims and Hindus, Gandhi pivots to talking about Satyagraha. This term, coined by Gandhi, means holding onto truth through nonviolence; he references it as a place where all religions could unite in their beliefs to be “no longer under the heel of imperialism” (9). He knows they could live together, but that they would die alone.

The Urgency of Freedom No Matter the Cost

The occasion of the speeches lent itself toward urgency as World War II was hurtling into its third year. Britain was in a tenuous spot in their war efforts, and India was feeling pressure as Japan was threatening strikes in the region. Given that backdrop, the acute tone and tenor of Gandhi’s message was not only appropriate, but also likely necessary in the extreme conditions. He posed a series of rhetorical questions such as, “How can I remain silent at the supreme hour?” and “shall I ask the Japanese to tarry awhile?” (9) to prove his point. Many in congress wanted to wait and see, but Gandhi maintained that the “situation now has become intolerable” (9).

All of this led up to the famous “do or die” mantra in which Gandhi asked for a tremendous sacrifice. He equated living with “perpetuation of slavery” (10), implying that to wait for freedom is to live enslaved, making the situation more critical for the audience. He encouraged them to take courage, but also reminded them that “freedom is not for the coward” (10).

Even though the urgent tone implies that the revolution would be imminent, Gandhi knew that it would take a long time for nonviolent diplomacy to win out and for the colonial empire to recede from India. With this in mind, he made a plea for people to own their mental, if not yet physical, freedom, arguing that “the bond of the slave is snapped the moment he considers himself a free being” (9). This courageous mentality allowed Gandhi to speak bluntly in the face of inevitable persecution. He knew that the call to “do or die” would result in severe consequences; he was unflinching about this and even posited that some would literally give their lives for their nation’s freedom. However, the “die” portion of his mantra did not necessarily mean only physical death, as it could also imply the death of Indian ideals. It was this belief system that gave him the ability to say, “Even if all the United Nations opposed me, even if the whole of India forsakes me, I will say, ‘You are wrong’” (16). He knew the call for freedom was critical, timely, and could inspire his people to fight against the British Raj.