Quit India Movement

 After the failure of the Cripps Mission (March 1942), there were differences of opinion among the Congress leaders regarding the future course of action to be adopted. Indian leaders began to feel that the British Government was not in favour of giving complete independence to India. It led to severe feeling against the British Government. The view of Maulana Azad, who at that time was the Congress President, was that negotiations should be resumed with the Great Britain and full co-operation should be extended to the United Nations if the Great Britain made an absolute promise of India’s independence after the war and if the American President or the United Nations gave a guarantee that the promise will be fulfilled. Nehru’s view was that the British Government must make a formal declaration of India’s independence at once. The Provisional Government then formed should negotiate with Great Britain the terms of cooperation. The Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Forces was to be given full support in all decisions relating to military matters and the Japanese must be resisted by the Indians at all costs. Mahatma Gandhi advocated mass action to drive out the British out of India. However, on August 8, 1942, AICC met at Gowalia Tank Maidan (now also known as August Kranti Maidan), Bombay, and Gandhiji put forward his historic proposal before AICC giving the slogan of “Quit India.” It was decided to launch wide spread Civil Disobedience Movement to force the British Government to Quit India giving the slogan “Do or Die.” Addressing the people of India, Gandhi told, “Every one of you should from this moment onward consider yourself a free man or woman and act as if you are free . . . I am not going to be satisfied with anything short of complete freedom. We shall do or die. We shall either free India or die in the attempt” (Ghose). He, besides, also said, “we (sic) have put the Congress at stake. Either it will be victorious or it will be finished” (qtd. in Tomar 189). *Assistant Professor, Dept of English, Govt, Degree Collage, Palampur, H.P. 2 But nevertheless, this Movement “occupies a special place in the history of Indian struggle for freedom for taking the final step towards India's independence under the able leadership of Mahatma Gandhi” (Mapsofindia). The famous “Quit India” resolution was moved by Jawaharlal Nehru and passed by an overwhelming majority. It was declared in that resolution that the “immediate ending of the British rule in India was an urgent necessity, both for the sake of India and for the success of the cause of the United Nations. India had become the crux of the question” (Mahajan 419). But the Government arrested and imprisoned immediately in Bombay itself Gandhiji, Nehru, et al. Processions took place all over India. With the help of the police and the army the Government killed hundreds of people within a few days. Within a short time the Movement assumed the form of a revolt in many places. In a fit of anger the public resorted to destroying the public property. The slogan “Quit India” began resounding in every street of the country. To suppress this Movement the British Government used the police and army on a big scale. In various places firing took place on a large scale. About 10,000 people were killed by bullets. The Government was successful in suppressing the Movement of 1942. Initially this movement met with success but shortly the Government suppressed it. Till 1942 almost all the major political leaders were in jail, so the Indian National Movement slowed down. But Subhash Chandra Bose did the remarkable job of fulfilling this gap by organizing Indian National Army (in 1943) outside. New Labour Government of Attlee in England called Lord Wavell to England for consultation. In September, 1945 he declared in India the desire of the Labour Government to grant self government at the earliest possible. The National Congress had faith in the words of Labour Party. The All India Congress Committee decided immediately to contest the elections of 1945-46. Its election manifests included a re-affirmation of the ‘Quit India Resolution’ of 1942. In the elections the Congress and Muslim League appeared as the champions of the Hindus and the Muslims respectively. The Congress captured some Muslim seats but the League won 445 out of 495 Muslim seats. The Congress formed government in seven provinces; Muslim League in Bengal and Sind and Khudai Khidmatgars in N.W.F. Province. The election was a verdict on divided loyalties of the two major religious communities of India. “Invisible flowers spread greater fragrance. Home is where you move fluently through the dark” (Divakaruni 117). Human relationships, though invisible, weaves lives 3 together permeating fragrance making life meaningful, happy and worth-living. They are an “integral and indispensable part of humanity, however much advanced, sophisticated and mechanized a world it lives in” (Sandhya 205). In the ever changing world with its diversity of races, climates, topographical, geographical, cultural, religious, social, economic and political conditions, human emotions, sensibility and feelings remain more or less the same, varying in only measurable degrees. Whether it is in one’s own motherland or on a foreign soil, the intricacies in relationships among human beings, may it be, between man and woman, husband and wife, mother and daughter, brother and sister, father and son, mother and daughter-in-law, mother and son, a person and his/her immediate environment, friends, neighbours, communities, et al. are incomprehensible sometimes and continue in an untangled way. Moreover, relationships are “like thin threads that bind one human being to other fellow human beings” (Bhandari 174). So, human relationships of these different types form the warp and woof of all literature, and it is their depiction in depth and variety that proves to be the mark of a genius. Human relations have been and can be depicted on a more comprehensive scale in an epic or in a novel. A writer’s greatness is revealed, to a considerable extent, in his treatment of human relations. He does not deal with mere externalities, but shows his capacity for a deeper probing of the human heart. The treatment of human relationships in Indian English fiction has a speciality, a distinctiveness of its own. It brings out a clear-cut distinction between the Indian and Western social systems and values. There is the significance of the joint-family in the delineation of human relations by the Indian English novelist. Explaining this importance, Meenakshi Mukherjee observes: “. . . this familiar Indian institution serves several purposes in Indian-English fiction: it gives opportunity for the study of human group behaviour, it symbolises an expansive pre-industrial way of life, and it represents a deeply entrenched force of orthodoxy against which the individual may find himself helpless” (29). In so far as the treatment of human relations is concerned, the Western novelists lay emphasis on the individual, while the Indian English emphasizes the importance of the family. Western civilization is predominantly individualistic, but, in the social valuesystem of India, renunciation of the individual ego is regarded as the most desirable. 4 The rich diversity of the treatment of human relations in Indian English can be glimpsed, if we make a study in short of the trio of Indian English fiction―Mulk Raj Anand, R. K. Narayan and Raja Rao. Anand has been often described as a novelist who wrote of the people, for the people and as a man of the people. What distinguishes Anand from contemporary writers is his sense of social commitment and involvement. Another distinguishing quality of Anand’s treatment of human relationships is that his characters have been depicted in a proper social background. In his portrayal of characters as also in his depiction of the social milieu there is also an abiding humanism. The family relationships form the focus of R. K. Narayan’s novels. Whatever be the relationship―that of sons and parents, and brother and brother relationship in the Bachelor of Arts (1937); of husband and wife, and father and daughter in The English Teacher (1945); of father and son in The Financial Expert (1952); of grandmother and grandson in Waiting for the Mahatma (1955)―everywhere Narayan’s peculiar touch is evident. Raja Rao’s famous novel, The Serpent and the Rope, deals with a variety of human relationships. If we read it on the level of a narrative, we find that it is the story of the disintegration of an unusual marriage. At still another level its theme may be said the relationship between the East and the West. Similarly, in The Cat and Shakespeare (1965), Rao deals with human relationships, especially, between Shantha, a school teacher, and Govind Nair’s son Sridhan Pai. Both have immoral relationship with each other. Moreover, the treatment of human relationships in the novels of Kamala Markandaya has been characterized by a stark realism. In Nectar in a Sieve, she depicts human relations to a great extent. Ira, Nathan’s daughter, is rejected by her husband because even after five years of marriage, she has remained childless. The novelist, further, in the novel, depicts a conflict between faith and rationality. In Attia Hosain’s novel, Sunlight on a Broken Column, the tragic nature of human relationships has been depicted with a marked poignancy. Leila, the heroine of the novel, rebels against the family traditions and marries Ameer. But their married life proves to be unhappy. 5 Nevertheless, writers like Khushwant Singh, Kamala Markandaya and Nayantara Sahgal have made significant contribution to Indian English novel from the viewpoint of human relationships and political scenario in their respective works-of-fiction. Kamala Purnaiya Taylor (1924-2004), whose nom de plume is ‘Markandaya,’ is unquestionably one of the most outstanding among the women novelists who have enriched Indian fiction in English. In her novels political conflicts such as Independence struggle, Quit India Movement, the East-West conflict, cultural disparity, political rebellion, disorientation of values, have been depicted with complete authenticity. She also presents in her fiction how freedom is suppressed and resentment spreads among people and resistance gets organized on a large scale. The objective of this paper is to study the impact of the Quit India Movement on human relationship in Markandaya’s Some Inner Fury (1955). The novel set “against the backdrop of political unrest of the 40s reverberates the essence of the east west conflicts of that era” (Indianetzone). It is “primarily a political novel dealing with the straining of human relationships in the wake of Quit India Movement” (Nawale). In other words the “central concern of the novel is the clash between passion and patriotism” (Sharma 138). Personal relationships operate on many levels and it studies the impact of the national spirit upon the love relationship of Richard and Mirabai who belong to the different races—the ruler and the ruled. The undeclared war is between the freedom-seeking, colonized Indians and the colonizing British. The racial prejudices do not let the Indians and the British stay together harmoniously, even on individual level. The novel is replete with the cautious love between Mira and Richard. As its title shows, the novel deals with some inner fury--the passion, love, anger--of Mira for Richard as also with the fury of the Indian freedom-fighters up in arms against the colonizers. Mira is “torn between passion and India’s independence . . .” (Ramesh 146). As the gale of the freedom movement lashes the sub-continent, personal relationships between Indians and the English are swept away, leaving nothing concrete and intact. And yet some inner fury is intensely felt but remains inadequately articulated. The title appears “symbolically significant on two levels: first, the emotional inner fury of Mira is completely quenched when her love for Richard results in an ecstatic experience of the ‘sweep and surge of love’ secondly, the wider inner fury of the nation 6 at large is fully vented, culminating in the violent demonstration of national indignation at the alien rule, Govind being its local figure” (Rao 7). From the very beginning of the novel, Mira’s actions show an unconscious liking for Richard which can be taken as the first stage of love and is gradually transformed into deep love. At the railway station, she goes to welcome her brother Kitsamy who returns with his English friend Richard from England. Indian culture treats guest as a god and hence, she gives priority to Richard. It shows that despite the impact of European culture, she is also rooted in Indian culture. She welcomes Richard with the garland that she has brought for her brother. The traditional shyness can be seen on her face when she garlands him. She admits, “And yet the first time we met I was so shy I hardly looked up until someone prodded me and I stumbled forward and garlanded him” (1). Her heart is highly exhilarated and feels for him when she sees him trying to imitate an Indian by wearing a dhoti and a pair of chappals borrowed from a servant. A seed of love starts germinating in her heart. In the second stage, love is no longer an occasional spark originating from Mira’s act of clumsiness and innocence; it turns into a flame. Mira, who had often gone to the clubs with her father, now, goes with Richard and feels quite cheerful and smiling. Her pleasure with life becomes obvious to Richard. They go out together as man and woman with a rich glow of love on Mira’s face. A gift or a message from Richard becomes more meaningful to her. She meets Richard at the Government House unexpectedly and the cold fire gets the gust and flames of love start enkindling in their hearts to the height of maturing true love. His absence makes her as uneasy as a chameleon in summer. They touch and kiss each other but with hesitation and fear. It is a pleasure to be in the company of Richard. She shows the vastness of her heart in loving him. It is, besides, in the roots of Indian culture that when one loves, he loves whole-heartedly and devotedly. The third stage can be called that of the simmering, or even of burning life, in which their love no longer remains an occasional flame. Mira meets Richard during his second visit though Govind disapproves of it. They, now, are in deep love, not yet in the form of visible conflagration. He thinks of marrying her, while Mira, in his absence, cannot put his image away. She, who is provided the Western aroma, even makes up her mind to marry Richard with or without her mother’s approval. She thinks, she is the mistress of her own life and has freedom to 7 take decision concerning her life. Her mother asks her to wait when she reveals her decision of marrying Richard. She never wishes to leave her love unfulfilled. She moves in with her lover-- Richard--and crosses the first threshold towards freedom from traditional and cultural stigmas. She takes a bold step as she goes with her lover on a holding tour. National Movement aggravates the fire of love in their hearts to such an extent as they go off on a honeymoon, part of the way by car, and later by any mode of transport they fancy. They go to the tip of the land at Kanyakumari with nothing more than a single suitcase between them, eating and drinking wherever they could, finding simple shelter along the route, making love and drinking life to the lees. While taking a naked bath in the sea or basking in the sun, Richard becomes “a creature of gold . . .” (152), his body turns to “a pale gold, . . .” (152) and his hair glinting golden against the skin, “the skin as tight and firm as a silken sheath” (152). The warmth of his flawless sculptured body could “. . . make you melt, or set you on fire and burn with an incandescent heat itself” (152). Blissfully oblivious of the world, Mira and Richard act as unmarried husband and wife. They love, talk of love and drink love to the last drop. They get lost in each other’s arms. Richard talks of fever and ache and persuades her on the uninhabited coast for a sexual act. This is the culmination of love: ‘We’re alone,’ he said, holding me still, ‘Quite alone,’ and the skies were empty, the sands were bare, I listened and there was only the sound of the sea.’ ‘You see,’ he said softly, ‘there is nothing and no one. No one but us’ (153). Mira narrates her ecstasy: “Slowly my senses awoke and responded, the buds of feeling swelled and opened one by one. In the trembling silence I heard the blood begin its clamour, felt its frantic irregular beat; then the world fell away, forgotten in this wild abandoned rhythm, lost in the sweep and surge of love” (153-54). Richard coats honey on the face of the moon. Both feel highly cheered, warm and contented. Both of them promise to be together all the time or in other words, they both swear to be together till death: . . . ‘I’ am so happy with you darling. You’re wonderful to be with—not just now, all the time.’ ‘I wish we could be together all the time.’ ‘We shall be, soon.’ 8 ‘But you may have to go away.’ ‘I’ll come back. I’ll always come back to you’ (154). This is the true love that both of them develop for each other. Love, which is a substitute for marriage here, becomes, “. . . a talisman that would somehow keep us together, protecting us against war, the world, everything; . . .” (154). In the fourth phase, violence and disruption are introduced in their love relationship. Though both, Mira and Richard seek happiness in each other’s arms yet the “. . . Quit India Movement overtakes them, and carries them along and finally engulfs them” (Tilak 9). It is evident that when the lovers are blissfully happy and their love at its peak seems secure against all the dangers of the world, political violence or cataclysm threatens its very existence. This type of pure and sublime relationship, it is seen, comes under the impact or influence of political happening of the time, and the “political situation prevalent in the country is what ultimately brings about their estrangement” (Aithal 85). Being a symbol of chaos in nature, violence implies the breach of order in particular and in this novel it is love. In the novel someone throws a stone and the sound of splintering crash comes. Sensing danger, Mira checks Richard from going out of the car. The stone symbolically becomes a potent signal of threat to their mutual love which had transcended the racial differences. The unclaimed truth of which Mira talks is the fact that an Englishman and an Indian girl have no business to be in love and that the East and the West should never meet. These are just like parallel lines which never converge. Contrasted with the Mira’s love on individual level for the Englishman is the hatred of Indians, in general, against the British displayed in the form of filthy abuses and slogans, asking them to quit India. Richard measures smallness of Mira’s love against the enormity of general hatred for the British. In the fifth stage, Mira sacrifices her personal love for the larger love of the nation. Country becomes more important than her love and she sacrifices it for the sake of performing her duty. When Richard, at one point, asks her: “. . . ‘Do you really think people can be singled out like that? One by one, each as an individual? At a time like this? ―After today?’” (169). Mira in spite of her optimism and bravado, realizes that this is ambivalently true: “There is a time in one’s life, they say, when one opens the door and lets the future in: I had the feeling I had done so, but had neither the power nor the courage to recognize the shape of things to come; and therefore I could not speak” (169). Mira’s fears come true when Govind is accused of stabbing 9 Kit to death by Hickey. So, Govind is arrested and put on trial. She is convinced that Govind is innocent since she remembers that she had thrown her arms around Govind as Kit left the hut, and, therefore, it is impossible for him to have thrown the dagger. Hickey maintains that he had seen Govind throwing the dagger. Before the issue could be decided, the court is mobbed by slogan-shouting crowds and Govind is taken away. She also realizes that it is no longer possible for her to keep herself aloof from her own people and maintain her relationship with Richard. She rises above the self and plunges into the great redeeming fire of the national movement. Quite helplessly and inescapably, she forsakes her love reconciling her lot with the crowd. After all, she is convinced: “. . . it was simply the time for parting. . . . We had known love together, whatever happened the sweetness of that knowledge would always remain. We had drunk deeply of the chalice of happiness, which is not given to many even to hold. Now it was time to set it down, and go” (222). She takes really the great decision of leaving her lover for the sake of her country. Country is bigger and higher and more important than love for her. She is not mean and selfish as she thinks of the people and country. She asserts: “. . . I knew I would go, even as I knew Richard must stay. For us there was no other way; the forces that pulled us apart were too strong” (223). She really “represents the rebellious young blood of pre-independent India” (Moktali 130). H. M. Williams rightly calls this love, “a deep and maturing experience for both young people, [which] is shipwrecked on the rocks of Indian nationalism” (85). The influence of the idealistic national movement is so far-reaching and unrelenting that it prompts K. R. Srinivasa Iyengar to deem Some Inner Fury “. . . a tragedy engineered by politics, . . .” (440). In nutshell, Kamala Markandaya’s Some Inner Fury reflects the impact of painful struggle for liberation on human relationship. There is a conflict of loyalties also. It is not merely a tale recounting the East-West confrontation. It is an encounter in the love between Mira and Richard. In this novel the novelist “projects a national image and patriotic consciousness in myriad forms by presenting the peculiar sensibility of the modern educated and progressive Indian woman” (Sharma). It is presented mostly as a love between two individuals who happen to belong incidentally to two but different races. Mira is in love with an Englishman, Richard. No doubt, both Mira and Richard love each other passionately but when the question of India’s swābhimān comes to the fore, Mira gives full support to the revolutionaries and ultimately severe her relationship with Richard. The role of Richard is already less than active. He exists to serve as an example of how national feelings could destroy a warm personal relationship. Only a single 10 major political upheaval can mar the very beauty of human relationships. When they both come to parting their ways--Richard joins the group of Englishmen while Mira, with the same gusto, joins her countrymen. She shows her antagonistic attitude towards the British as masters. At the end, Mira gives up her love because her lover happened to belong to the race against which she chooses to range herself. Her onus for the nation becomes more important, and, for it she sacrifices her love relationship. The East-West problem is at best incidental to the extent that the struggle for Independence is accompanied by certain inter-racial frictions. These incidents manifest the impact of the Quit India Movement on human relationship which operates on many levels in the novel.