The Gathering Storm: India in World War II

When Britain declared war on Germany on September 3, 1939, it did so on behalf of India without consulting Indian political leaders. This unilateral decision exposed the fundamental contradictions of colonial rule – Britain fighting for freedom abroad while denying self-government to its largest colony. The British government in India responded by tightening control, introducing new laws that restricted provincial autonomy and civil liberties.

Mahatma Gandhi, despite his commitment to nonviolence, initially declared support for Britain in a meeting with Viceroy Lord Linlithgow. The Congress Working Committee followed with a resolution condemning fascism but insisting that “the issue of war and peace for India must be decided by the Indian people.” They demanded clarity on how British war aims for democracy would apply to India. When Linlithgow avoided substantive answers, Congress ministers in nine provinces resigned in protest.

This political vacuum allowed the Muslim League, led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, to strengthen its position. In March 1940, the League passed the Pakistan Resolution calling for separate Muslim states in northwest and eastern India, though without concrete plans for implementation.

War Comes to India’s Doorstep

The strategic situation deteriorated dramatically in 1942 as Japan advanced through Southeast Asia. The fall of Singapore in February shocked the British Empire, and Japanese forces moved rapidly through Burma toward India’s eastern frontier. Defensive measures bordered on panic – in Bengal, over 40,000 boats were scuttled to prevent Japanese use; in Madras, officials dispersed inland and zoo animals were shot.

The Indian National Army (INA), formed from Indian prisoners of war under Subhas Chandra Bose’s leadership, prepared to support a Japanese invasion. Bose’s dramatic escape from India via Afghanistan to Germany and then by submarine to Japanese-held territory became legendary. Though the INA ultimately posed little military threat, its existence demonstrated that not all Indians supported the Allied cause.

The Cripps Mission and Failed Compromise

In March 1942, Stafford Cripps arrived with Britain’s most substantial offer yet: postwar dominion status and immediate Indian participation in government. The proposal allowed provinces to opt out of the future union, a concession to Muslim and princely state concerns. While some Congress leaders like Nehru were inclined to accept, others distrusted British intentions. Gandhi famously dismissed it as “a post-dated cheque on a failing bank.” The mission failed, hardening positions on all sides.

Quit India: Gandhi’s Final Gamble

Frustrated by failed negotiations and convinced of British weakness, Gandhi launched the Quit India Movement on August 8, 1942. His call for “a mass struggle on nonviolent lines” quickly turned violent after British authorities arrested Congress leadership. Without organized direction, protests escalated into sabotage and attacks on Europeans. Linlithgow called it “the most serious rebellion since 1857.”

The British response was brutal – over 100,000 arrests, police firings on crowds, and collective fines on villages. The crackdown left Congress leaders imprisoned for nearly three years while the Muslim League consolidated its position. Most historians view Quit India as a strategic miscalculation that accelerated partition by marginalizing Congress during critical war years.

Famine and Imperial Arrogance

As political tensions mounted, Bengal suffered one of history’s worst famines in 1943-44. War-related disruptions, crop failures, and Churchill’s refusal to divert shipping from Europe contributed to 2-3 million deaths. Churchill’s callous remark that famine mattered little since Indians would “breed like rabbits” epitomized imperial disdain. The tragedy further eroded British moral authority in India.

The Road to Partition

With Germany’s defeat in May 1945, Britain’s Labour government under Clement Attlee moved toward Indian independence. Cabinet missions in 1946 proposed complex power-sharing arrangements, but negotiations collapsed over Muslim League demands for parity with Congress. Jinnah’s call for Direct Action Day on August 16, 1946 triggered the “Great Calcutta Killing,” with several thousand dead in communal violence.

As civil war loomed, new Viceroy Lord Mountbatten arrived in March 1947 with orders to transfer power quickly. Recognizing partition as inevitable, Congress reluctantly accepted a divided India. The hastily drawn Radcliffe Line created two wings of Pakistan separated by a thousand miles of Indian territory – an arrangement even some British officials predicted wouldn’t last (proven correct when East Pakistan became Bangladesh in 1971).

Independence and Bloodshed

At midnight on August 14-15, 1947, Nehru delivered his famous “tryst with destiny” speech as India and Pakistan became independent nations. The celebrations were overshadowed by horrific violence – up to 15 million displaced and 500,000-1 million killed in communal riots. Despite his efforts, Gandhi couldn’t stop the bloodshed. His assassination by a Hindu extremist on January 30, 1948, marked the tragic end of an era.

Legacy and Historical Assessment

The partition of India remains one of the 20th century’s most consequential events. Historians debate whether earlier independence might have preserved unity, or if partition was inevitable given communal divisions. Gandhi’s methods achieved independence but failed to prevent division; his ideals continue to inspire while his political judgments face scrutiny. For all its trauma, the independence movement demonstrated how colonial subjects could dismantle empires through mass mobilization – a model that would resonate globally in the postwar era.

The new nations inherited profound challenges: millions of refugees, disputed territories like Kashmir, and the difficult task of building democratic institutions amid poverty and illiteracy. Yet against all odds, both India and Pakistan endured as independent states, their complex relationship continuing to shape South Asia nearly eight decades later.