Was it really violence that won India's independence? Happening just a year before Independence, the Naval Ratings' Revolts must have been the immediate cause of actual freedom, right? And the history of a 'non-violent' struggle just propaganda by then in power government to win votes, must be? Enough outrage and blurring of History. Let's get to the contextual, comprehensive, and precise facts.
The Issue, with reason
Slightly over a year before the Mountbatten Plan, i.e. the Plan that India's freedom would finally be based on (after decades upon decades of spoon-feeds masquerading as 'reforms'), a somewhat popular violent revolt broke out. Starting on 19th February at HIMS Talwar, Bombay, the movement over a few days spread to Bombay and a few other provinces which saw the participation of 20,000 ratings and limited popular participation due to its violent nature. Beginning as a protest to food quality and pay, the protests eventually spread to include the demand of Gandhi-launched 1942 "Quit India" (they also went to the Congress and Muslim league leaders for support, both refusing it). It was one of the many protests in the nation independent of the INC. However, this one involved the British Troops themselves being quite violent, quite in the fashion of the 1857 'First War of Independence' (called so by a hypocritical coward, in his own words 'loyal servant' of the British, Savarkar). Soon enough, however, Sardar Vallabbhai Patel and M.A. Jinnah would convince the ratings to surrender ensuring their non-prosecution. If they 'succeeded'; best case scenario, the British would simply leave, which as proven below, they were already going to. More likely, another genocidal campaign, a crackdown by the army, the Mahatma, Pandit Nehru, Sardar Patel, and others' struggle to free the ratings too from prisons and death sentences like the INA, and a delay in freedom till the completion of the prosecutions which must have, again, involved mass suppression and suffering of the innocents in classical colonial fashion (as a testament to the revolt being a far cry from enough to actually beat the British, remember that the Maratha regiment had already successfully suppressed large parts of it in Bombay).
Before proceeding, the author would like to clarify that they in no way or manner intend to disrespect the brave Ratings involved in the revolt (hence the term instead of the popular 'mutiny'). This is intended simply to lay out all the relevant facts without being emotionally charged or outraged based on political affiliations or otherwise.
The unlearned point of contention is not the obvious consequences, but the simple hypothesis that it was this uprising that actually secured freedom for India. Firstly, as proven earlier, that was not going to happen. Secondly, if it somehow did, the revolters would have realised how it was in vain because, at the exact same time in the Parliament of Britain, Clement Atlee (the then British PM) was making a statement.
The Cabinet Mission Plan
A brief background: Right before the Cabinet Mission plan, in 1945, came the Wavel plan seeking Indian leadership's cooperation in WWII, unanimously rejected by all of the Indian leadership. That plan mainly only offered a 'Dominion' status (on the Australian or Canadian lines), with the Viceroy still retaining some powers, though the rest of the Constituent Assembly was to be Indian. That was not going to happen now as the demand was exclusively the "Purna Swaraj" (fun fact: In 1927, Pandit Jawarhal Nehru drafted the Poorna Swaraj resolution, opposed by the majority of the leadership, even by the Mahatma with whom Pandit Nehru had a brief fallout where Gandhiji angrily tore a badly worded letter of his. Then came the all-white joke of a 'reformist' Simon commission based on 1919 Montford reforms, disillusioning entire India to Britain and finally the Nehruvian Poorna Swaraj declaration on 26 January 1930).
However, talks of the Wavel plan broke down soon. The 'Dominion status' ship had long sailed (1929-30 to be precise, with the Poorna Swaraj resolution). It returned to Britain in 1945 itself. It is also important to mention that Clement Atlee of the Labour Party had then come into power, which heavily sympathised with the Indian demand for Independence, unlike the Conservative Party under Churchill. WWII had drained Britain not only of her wealth and men but also of her status. The Soviets and the USA, the two new superpowers both started heavily pressuring the Kingdom to give in to Indian demands. From an imperial point of view also, while the British probably could have lived through another Quit India or Non-Cooperation movement, attempting it with men tired of war, leadership sympathetic to Indians, on the bad side of the superpowers, and with the subjects' more fired than ever to "Do or Die" (a Gandhian slogan of QIM), it would have simply been idiotic to try. Hence, in September 1945 itself, the British got to work on the transfer of power ('transfer', not delegation, i.e. all power).
Coincidently on the exact date that the Naval Ratings at HMIS Talwar revolted for the first time (the movement had not spread yet at all), the following statements were made in the British Parliament by Clement Atleee:
"the House will recall that on 19th September 1945, on his return to India after discussions with His Majesty's Government, the Viceroy made a statement of policy... the early realisation of full self-government in India."
"His Majesty's Government have decided, with the approval of His Majesty the King, to send out to India a special Mission of Cabinet Ministers"
"India has already been assured that it is for Indians to devise their new Constitution"
These deliberations resulted in the failed Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946, which conferred full independence for India but failed because of one main reason: the Grouping Clause. Both the INC and Muslim league had accepted it initially, but both had different interpretations of the 'Grouping' which was that the provinces would be divided into three groups/sections for deliberations on the partition and other issues:
Group A: Madras, Central Provinces, UP, Bihar, Bombay and Orissa (Hindu Majority)
Group B: Punjab, Sindh, NWFP and Baluchistan (Muslim Majority)
Group C: Bengal and Assam (Muslim Majority)
Soon, INC 's Pandit Nehru claimed that the Constituent Assembly will be independent of any colonial (and Muslim league demanded) support of Grouping and it will be an absolutely Sovereign body. The INC and the Mahatma continuously fought for a united India and did whatever they possibly could till the callous Jinnah withdrew the Muslim League's acceptance and called for the "Direct Action Day" proclamation and riots (fun fact: Around 1% of total Muslims actually had the right to vote at the time because of income classification, which essentially means that Muslims in the Muslim League sphere of immediate influence and vested interests voted for a division of India and not 'the' Muslims of India. Fun fact two: Jinnah actually even claimed "I alone with my Secretary and my Typeright won Pakistan for the Muslims").
Surely, the Cabinet Mission Plan failed, both Nations got to work on new deliberation (resulting in the Mountbatten plan), and the biggest stain on the Indian soil: the bloodshed of millions of her sons and daughters due to communal riots from both sides and partition. But that is a whole other topic for another time.
Conclusion
Thus, the Cabinet Mission Plan, if not vetoed by the Muslim League, which had been cooking since September of 1945, was anyway on track to ensure full independence for India without a need for a violent uprising, which would have done not much but stain the image of India (which was to emerge as the torchbearer of struggle against the colonial domination of Sates in Africa and Asia soon). The author would like to believe those who subscribe to the pro-violence rhetoric are simply confused due to the proximity of dates and the complicated but truly peaceful nature of the Indian National Movement, and not out of pure gullibility.
Comments