In this interview with Charles Allen, Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay explains why World War Two helped trigger the Quit India movement of 1942.

What was the Quit India movement?

In September 1939 the Viceroy Lord Linlithgow announced that British India was at war with Germany, a momentous decision taken without having consulted with any of India’s leaders. The Indian National Congress offered conditional support for the war effort in exchange for independence, but Britain did not agree to their terms. In August 1942 Congress launched the Quit India movement and announced that massive civil disobedience would continue until independence was granted. Britain responded by arresting over 60,000 Congress members.  

Chattopadhyay explains that even though she opposed fascism, India should have had the freedom to choose to go to war on its own terms.

Who was Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay?

Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay was an Indian social reformer, freedom fighter and activist, well known for her dedication to the Indian independence movement and advocacy for Indian women. She was a member of the Indian National Congress, and was actively involved in Gandhi’s Salt Satyagraha in 1930 despite women being officially excluded from the movement. She was also president of the All-India Women’s Conference, the founding leader of the Indian Co-operative Union and a published author. Chattopadhyay was also an advocate of Indian art and culture: she established the Indian National Theatre and promoted a revival of traditional Indian handicrafts.

CHARLES ALLEN:

Tell me about the 1942 Quit India Movement and the circumstances in which it took place.

KAMALADEVI CHATTOPADHYAY:

I think the war accentuated it. There were so many new regulations that came in. There was so much of suppression of civil liberties. Any kind of activity became very difficult. Point two, that India was considered as a participant in a war, making those who were on the opposite side enemies. This is something Gandhi objected to very much. He said, well, whatever they may be, whatever their causes may be, India has got no quarrel with Japan, and we have not had a fight with them, and he did not see any reason why Japan should invade India except for the fact that we are involved with the British. And then he said why don’t you just leave us, and if we are invaded then it is for us to defend ourselves. We should be in a position to decide who is our enemy and why are they invading us. Now you are involving us in a war that is not of our making. And if we were not a British colony, Japan probably would not invade us or any country for that matter. I mean, we were not involved in any fight. And if it was a question of having to fight against some evil forces, then it’s for India to decide, and then India will go all out to oppose something like fascism, whatever it is. But it was for India to take that decision, that decision could only be taken if we were left free to make the decision.

CHARLES ALLEN:

So would you say that in India, the war was regarded as not being an Indian war, was this an attitude?

KAMALADEVI CHATTOPADHYAY:

Very much so, yes.

CHARLES ALLEN:

Yet despite that there was a great deal of very loyal support in terms of the armed forces but beyond that actually supporting the war effort was actually very well supported in India?

KAMALADEVI CHATTOPADHYAY:

It was. There was also this anti-fascist feeling. It’s not that - there was no question of an amoral or non-ethical approach to the war. There was a great deal of feeling both against Japan - and there was a boycott of Japanese goods, largely because of their invasion of China, and the kind of dictatorship there was not liked. But the point was that it’s for us to decide. Supposing they don’t invade us and we don’t go out to fight, or if we do want to go out to fight then it’s for us to decide. And what are the questions on which, what are the issues on which we have to do the fighting? Here we have - all our men folk are being taken away, recruited, resources are being diverted to a war that is not of our making in which we have no voice.