User talk:Nithin098120
Social Media
[edit]So, What Is Social Media? Rather than define the term using a bunch of boring jargon that would probably only complicate things further, perhaps the best way to get a clearer understanding of it is to break it down into simpler terms. To start, let's look at each word individually.
The "Social" part: refers to interacting with other people by sharing information with them and receiving information from them.
The "Media" part: refers to an instrument of communication, like the internet (while TV, radio, and newspapers are examples of more traditional forms of media).
Okay, so from these two separate terms, we can pull a basic definition together: Social media are web-based communication tools that enable people to interact with each other by both sharing and consuming information.
Yes, it's a broad definition–but keep in mind that social media is a very broad term. This is likely as specific as we can get without zeroing in too much on a more specific subcategory of social media.
Common Social Media Features The following list of common features are dead giveaways of a social media site.
If you're questioning whether a particular site could be classified as social or not, try looking for at least one of these features.
User accounts: If a site allows visitors to create their own accounts that they can log into, then that's a good sign there's going to be social interaction. You can't really share information or interact with others online without doing it through a user account.
Profile pages: Since social media is all about communication, a profile page is often necessary to represent an individual. It often includes information about the individual user, like a profile photo, bio, website, feed of recent posts, recommendations, recent activity and more.
Friends, followers, groups, hashtags and so on: Individuals use their accounts to connect with other users. They can also use them to subscribe to certain forms of information.
News feeds: When users connect with other users on social media, they're basically saying, "I want to get information from these people." That information is updated for them in real-time via their news feed.
Recommended: How to Change Your URL on Every Major Social Network
Personalization: Social media sites usually give users the flexibility to configure their user settings, customize their profiles to look a specific way, organize their friends or followers, manage the information they see in their news feeds and even give feedback on what they do or don't want to see.
Notifications: Any site or app that notifies users about specific information is definitely playing the social media game. Users have total control over these notifications and can choose to receive the types of notifications that they want.
Information updating, saving or posting: If a site or an app allows you to post absolutely anything, with or without a user account, then it's social! It could be a simple text-based message, a photo upload, a YouTube video, a link to an article or anything else.
Like buttons and comment sections: Two of the most common ways we interact on social media are via buttons that represent a "like" plus comment sections where we can share our thoughts.
Review, rating or voting systems: Besides liking and commenting, lots of social media sites and apps rely on the collective effort of the community to review, rate and vote on information that they know about or have used. Think of your favorite shopping sites or movie review sites that use this social media feature.
Recommended: The Advantages and Disadvantages of Social Networking
What's the Difference Between Social Media and Social Networking? As mentioned earlier, a lot of people user the terms social media and social networking interchangeably as if they mean the exact same thing. Although the difference is subtle, they're not the same. Social networking is really a subcategory of social media.
The easiest way to understand the difference between social media and social networking is by thinking about the terms "media" and "networking" separately. Media refers to the information you're actually sharing–whether it's a link to an article, a video, an animated GIF, a PDF document, a simple status update or anything else.
Networking, on the other hand, has to do with who your audience is and the relationships you have with them. Your network can include people like friends, relatives, colleagues, anyone from your past, current customers, mentors and even complete strangers.
They certainly overlap, which is why it gets confusing. For example, you can share media with your social network to gather likes and comments–a form of social networking. But you can also just upvote a link on Reddit, which is a social media platform, to help out the community and give your say in the matter without any intention of building relationships with other users.
Still confused? Try to think of social media like fruit. Apples, bananas, oranges, grapes, berries, melons and pineapples are all part of the broader fruit category the same way that social networking, social news, social bookmarking, wikis, blogs and private web messaging are part of the broader social media category.
Recommended: What Is the Social Web and What Does It Mean to Be a Part of It?
Are Traditional Media Also Social Media? Traditional media was mentioned earlier on in this article just to demonstrate broader examples of media, but don't be fooled into thinking that TV, radio, and newspapers are a part of social media. At least not quite yet entirely. The line drawn between the two is slowly thinning as each continues to evolve.
Social media doesn't just give you information but interacts with you while giving you that information. This interaction can be as simple as asking for your comments or letting you vote on an article, or it can be as complex as Flixster recommending movies to you based on the ratings of other people with similar interests.
Think of regular media as a one-way street where you can read a newspaper or listen to a report on television, but you have very limited ability to give your thoughts on the matter. Social media, on the other hand, is a two-way street that gives you the ability to communicate too.
Recommended: Use Timehop to See What You Posted on Social Media One Year Ago
Are Blogs a Part of Social Media? Copyblogger published an interesting article several years ago, making the argument that blogs are indeed social media, despite the fact that people tend to put them in a category all on their own these days. In fact, blogs are one of the oldest forms of social media that dominated the web long before we were friending and following everyone on social networks.
The key features that make blogs part of social media are their user accounts, comment sections, and blog networks. Tumblr, Medium, WordPress, and Blogger are just a few examples of big blog platforms that have very active community blog networks.
Recommended: 8 Popular and Free Blogging Sites
What Are Some of the Known Issues With Social Media? Social media isn't all just fun and games with your friends, celebrities you admire, and brands you follow. There are lots of common problems that most major social media platforms haven't totally solved, despite their effort to do so.
Spam: Social media makes it easy for spammers — both real people and bots — to bombard other people with content. If you have a Twitter account, you've probably experienced a few spambot follows or interactions. Likewise, if you run a WordPress blog, you may have gotten a spam comment or two caught by your spam filter.
Cyberbullying/Cyberstalking: Children and teenagers are especially susceptible to cyberbullying because they take more risks when it comes to posting on social media. And now that we all interact on social media via our mobile devices, most major platforms make it possible to share our locations, opening up the doors for cyberstalkers to target us.
Self-image manipulation: What a user posts about themselves on social media only represents a small portion of their life. While followers may see someone who's happy and living it up via their posts on social media in such a way that makes them feel boring or inadequate by comparison, the truth is that users have the power to completely control what parts they do and don't want to broadcast on social media to manipulate their own self-image.
Information overload: It's not unusual to have over 200 Facebook friends or follow over 1,000 Twitter accounts. With so many accounts to follow and so many people posting new content, it's almost impossible to keep up.
Fake news: Fakes new websites promote links to their own totally false news stories on social media in order to drive traffic to them. Many users have no idea that they're fake in the first place.
Privacy/Security: Many social media platforms still get hacked from time to time despite having good security measures in place. Some also don't offer all the privacy options that users need to keep their information as private as they want them to be.
What Does the Future Hold for Social Media? It's difficult to predict anything exactly, but if one thing can be said about the future of social media, it will probably be more personalized and less noisy. Over-sharing will be less of a problem and filtering out irrelevant information will become a stronger trend.
Snapchat is a social media platform that's really at the forefront of social media evolution. Rather than blasting out updates for all our friends and followers to see, we use Snapchat more like we communicate in real life–with specific people only at specific times.
If anything, social media is probably about to move more toward ephemeral sharing for quicker, more intimate sharing without the stress of having to blast something out to hundreds or thousands of followers that stays up there unless it's manually deleted. Instagram has already made the move toward ephemeral content sharing with its Snapchat-like stories feature, so maybe more platforms will be soon to follow.
Quit India Moment
[edit]The Quit India Movement or the India August Movement, was a movement launched at the Bombay session of the All-India Congress Committee by Mahatma Gandhi on 8 August 1942, during World War II, demanding an end to British Rule of India.
The Quit India Movement or the India August Movement, was a movement launched at the Bombay session of the All-India Congress Committee by Mahatma Gandhi on 8 August 1942, during World War II, demanding an end to British Rule of India.[1] The Cripps Mission had failed, and on 8 August 1942, Gandhi made a call to Do or Die in his Quit India speech delivered in Bombay at the Gowalia Tank Maidan. The All-India Congress Committee launched a mass protest demanding what Gandhi called "An Orderly British Withdrawal" from India. Even though it was wartime, the British were prepared to act. Almost the entire leadership of the INC was imprisoned without trial within hours of Gandhi's speech. Most spent the rest of the war in prison and out of contact with the masses. The British had the support of the Viceroy's Council (which had a majority of Indians), of the All India Muslim League, the princely states, the Indian Imperial Police, the British Indian Army and the Indian Civil Service. Many Indian businessmen profiting from heavy wartime spending did not support Quit India Movement. Many students paid more attention to Subhas Chandra Bose, who was in exile and supporting the Axis Powers. The only outside support came from the Americans, as President Franklin D. Roosevelt pressured Prime Minister Winston Churchill to give in to some of the Indian demands. The Quit India campaign was effectively crushed.[2] The British refused to grant immediate independence, saying it could happen only after the war had ended.
[[File:QUITIN2.JPG|thumb|Procession view at Bengalore Sporadic small-scale violence took place around the country and the British arrested tens thousands of leaders, keeping them imprisoned until 1945. In terms of immediate objectives Quit India failed because of heavy-handed suppression, weak co-ordination and the lack of a clear-cut programme of action. However, the British government realized that India was ungovernable in the long run due to the cost of World War II, and the question for postwar became how to exit gracefully and peacefully.
In 1992 Reserve Bank of India issued an one Rupee commemorative coin to mark the Golden Jubilee of the Quit India Movement.[3]
Contents [hide] 1 World War II and Indian involvement 1.1 Cripps' Mission 1.2 Factors contributing to the movement's launch 2 Resolution for immediate independence 3 Opposition to the Quit India Movement 3.1 Muslim League 3.2 Hindu Mahasabha 3.3 Communist Party of India 3.4 Princely States 4 No support to the Quit India Movement 4.1 Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh 5 Local violence 6 Suppression of the movement 7 See also 8 References 9 Further reading 10 External links World War II and Indian involvement[edit source]
In 1939, Indian nationalists were angry that British Governor-General of India, Lord Linlithgow, had without consultation with them brought India into the war. The Muslim League supported the war, but Congress was divided.
At the outbreak of war, the Congress Party had passed a resolution during the Wardha meeting of the working-committee in September 1939, conditionally supporting the fight against fascism,[4] but were rebuffed when they asked for independence in return. Gandhi had not supported this initiative, as he could not reconcile an endorsement for war (he was a committed believer in non-violent resistance, used in the Indian Independence Movement and proposed even against Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Hideki Tojo). However, at the height of the Battle of Britain, Gandhi had stated his support for the fight against racism and of the British war effort, stating he did not seek to raise an independent India from the ashes of Britain. However, opinions remained divided.
After the onset of the war, only a group led by Subhas Chandra Bose took any decisive action. Bose organised the Indian Legion in Germany and reorganised the Indian National Army with Japanese assistance, and, soliciting help from the Axis Powers, conducted a guerrilla war against the British authorities.
Cripps' Mission[edit source] Stafford Cripps, on the March 1942, faced with an increasingly dissatisfied sub-continent only reluctantly participating in the war and deterioration in the war situation in Europe and with growing dissatisfaction among Indian troops—especially in Africa—and among the civilian population in the sub-continent, the British government sent a delegation to India under Stafford Cripps, the Leader of the House of Commons, in what came to be known as the Cripps mission. The purpose of the mission was to negotiate with the Indian National Congress a deal to obtain total co-operation during the war, in return for progressive devolution and distribution of power from the crown and the Viceroy to an elected Indian legislature. The talks failed, as they did not address the key demand of a timetable of self-government and of definition of the powers to be relinquished, essentially making an offer of limited dominion-status that was wholly unacceptable to the Indian movement.[5]
Factors contributing to the movement's launch[edit source]
This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) In 1939, with the outbreak of war between Germany and Britain, India was announced to be a party to the war for being a constituent component of the British Empire. Following this declaration, the Congress Working Committee at its meeting on 10 October 1939, passed a resolution condemning the aggressive activities of the Germans. At the same time the resolution also stated that India could not associate herself with war unless it was consulted first. Responding to this declaration, the Viceroy issued a statement on 17 October wherein he claimed that Britain is waging a war driven by the motif to strengthen peace in the world. He also stated that after the war, the government would initiate modifications in the Act of 1935, in accordance to the desires of the Indians.
Gandhi's reaction to this statement was; "the old policy of divide and rule is to continue. The Congress has asked for bread and it has got stone." According to the instructions issued by High Command, the Congress ministers were directed to resign immediately. Congress ministers from eight provinces resigned following the instructions. The resignation of the ministers was an occasion of great joy and rejoicing for leader of the Muslim League, Mohammad Ali Jinnah. He called the day of 22 December 1939 'The Day of Deliverance'. Gandhi urged Jinnah against the celebration of this day, however, it was futile. At the Muslim League Lahore Session held in March 1940, Jinnah declared in his presidential address that the Muslims of the country wanted a separate homeland, Pakistan.
In the meanwhile, crucial political events took place in England. Chamberlain was succeeded by Churchill as the Prime Minister and the Conservatives, who assumed power in England, did not have a sympathetic stance towards the claims made by the Congress. In order to pacify the Indians in the circumstance of worsening war situation, the Conservatives were forced to concede some of the demands made by the Indians. On 8 August, the Viceroy issued a statement that has come to be referred as the "August Offer". However, the Congress rejected the offer followed by the Muslim League.
In the context of widespread dissatisfaction that prevailed over the rejection of the demands made by the Congress, Gandhi at the meeting of the Congress Working Committee in Wardha revealed his plan to launch Individual Civil Disobedience. Once again, the weapon of satyagraha found popular acceptance as the best means to wage a crusade against the British. It was widely used as a mark of protest against the unwavering stance assumed by the British. Vinoba Bhave, a follower of Gandhi, was selected by him to initiate the movement. Anti war speeches ricocheted in all corners of the country, with the satyagrahis earnestly appealing to the people of the nation not to support the Government in its war endeavors. The consequence of this satyagrahi campaign was the arrest of almost fourteen thousand satyagrahis. On 3 December 1941, the Viceroy ordered the acquittal of all the satyagrahis. In Europe the war situation became more critical with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the Congress realised the necessity for appraising their program. Subsequently, the movement was withdrawn.
The Cripps' Mission and its failure also played an important role in Gandhi's call for The Quit India Movement. In order to end the deadlock, the British government on 22 March 1942, sent Sir Stafford Cripps to talk terms with the Indian political parties and secure their support in Britain's war efforts. A Draft Declaration of the British Government was presented, which included terms like establishment of Dominion, establishment of a Constituent Assembly and right of the Provinces to make separate constitutions. These would be, however, granted after the cessation of the Second World War. According to the Congress this Declaration only offered India a promise that was to be fulfilled in the future. Commenting on this Gandhi said; "It is a post dated cheque on a crashing bank." Other factors that contributed were the threat of Japanese invasion of India and realisation of the national leaders of the incapacity of the British to defend India.
Resolution for immediate independence[edit source] The Congress Working Committee meeting at Wardha (14 July 1942) passed a resolution demanding complete independence from the British government. The draft proposed massive civil disobedience if the British did not accede to the demands.
However, it proved to be controversial within the party. A prominent Congress national leader Chakravarti Rajgopalachari quit the Congress over this decision, and so did some local and regional level organisers. Jawaharlal Nehru and Maulana Azad were apprehensive and critical of the call, but backed it and stuck with Gandhi's leadership until the end. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Rajendra Prasad and Anugrah Narayan Sinha openly and enthusiastically supported such a disobedience movement, as did many veteran Gandhians and socialists like Asoka Mehta and Jayaprakash Narayan.
Allama Mashriqi (head of the Khaksar Tehrik) was called by Jawaharlal Nehru to join the Quit India Movement. Mashriqi was apprehensive of its outcome and did not agree with the Congress Working Committee's resolution. On 28 July 1942, Allama Mashriqi sent the following telegram to Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Mahatma Gandhi, C. Rajagopalachari, Jawaharlal Nehru, Rajendra Prasad and Pattabhi Sitaramayya. He also sent a copy to Bulusu Sambamurti (former Speaker of the Madras Assembly). The telegram was published in the press, and it stated:
I am in receipt of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru's letter of 8 July. My honest opinion is that Civil Disobedience Movement is a little pre-mature. The Congress should first concede openheartedly and with handshake to Muslim League the theoretical Pakistan, and thereafter all parties unitedly make demand of Quit India. If the British refuse, start total disobedience.[6]
The resolution said:
The committee, therefore, resolves to sanction for the vindication of India's inalienable right to freedom and independence, the starting of a mass struggle on non-violent lines on the widest possible scale, so that the country might utilise all the non-violent strength it has gathered during the last 22 years of peaceful struggle...they [the people] must remember that non-violence is the basis of the movement.
Opposition to the Quit India Movement[edit source] Several political groups active during the Indian Independence Movement were opposed to the Quit India Movement. These included the Muslim League, the Hindu Mahasabha, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the Communist Party of India and the princely states as below:
Muslim League[edit source] The Muslim League opposed the Quit India Movement as it was of the view that if the British left India in its current state, Muslims as a minority would be oppressed by the Hindu majority. Muhammad Ali Jinnah's opposition to Gandhi's call led to large numbers of Muslims cooperating with the British, and enlisting in the army.[7] The Muslim League gained large numbers of new members. Congress members heeding Gandhi's call resigned from provincial legislatures, enabling the Muslim League, in alliance with the Hindu Mahasabha, to take control in Sindh, Bengal and Northwest Frontier.[8][9]
Hindu Mahasabha[edit source] Hindu nationalist parties like the Hindu Mahasabha openly opposed the call for the Quit India Movement and boycotted it officially.[10] Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, the president of the Hindu Mahasabha at that time, even went to the extent of writing a letter titled "Stick to your Posts", in which he instructed Hindu Sabhaites who happened to be "members of municipalities, local bodies, legislatures or those serving in the army...to stick to their posts" across the country, and not to join the Quit India Movement at any cost.[10]
Following the Hindu Mahasabha's official decision to boycott the Quit India movement,[10]Syama Prasad Mukherjee, leader of the Hindu Mahasabha in Bengal, (which was a part of the ruling coalition in Bengal led by Krishak Praja Party of Fazlul Haq), wrote a letter to the British Government as to how they should respond, if the Congress gave a call to the British rulers to Quit India. In this letter, dated July 26, 1942 he wrote:
“Let me now refer to the situation that may be created in the province as a result of any widespread movement launched by the Congress. Anybody, who during the war, plans to stir up mass feeling, resulting internal disturbances or insecurity, must be resisted by any Government that may function for the time being” [11][12]
Mookerjee in this letter reiterated that the Fazlul Haq led Bengal Government, along with its alliance partner Hindu Mahasabha would make every possible effort to defeat the Quit India Movement in the province of Bengal and made a concrete proposal as regards this:
“The question is how to combat this movement (Quit India) in Bengal? The administration of the province should be carried on in such a manner that in spite of the best efforts of the Congress, this movement will fail to take root in the province. It should be possible for us, especially responsible Ministers, to be able to tell the public that the freedom for which the Congress has started the movement, already belongs to the representatives of the people. In some spheres it might be limited during the emergency. Indian have to trust the British, not for the sake for Britain, not for any advantage that the British might gain, but for the maintenance of the defense and freedom of the province itself. You, as Governor, will function as the constitutional head of the province and will be guided entirely on the advice of your Minister.[12]
Even the Indian historian R.C. Majumdar noted this fact and states:
"Shyam Prasad ended the letter with a discussion of the mass movement organised by the Congress. He expressed the apprehension that the movement would create internal disorder and will endanger internal security during the war by exciting popular feeling and he opined that any government in power has to suppress it, but that according to him could not be done only by persecution.... In that letter he mentioned item wise the steps to be taken for dealing with the situation .... " [13]
Communist Party of India[edit source] The Communist Party of India was banned at that time by the British government. In order to get the ban lifted, as well as to assist the Soviet Union in its war against Nazi Germany, it supported the British war effort, despite support for Quit India by many industrial workers. In response the British lifted the ban on the party.[14]
Princely States[edit source] The movement had less support in the princely states, as the princes were strongly opposed and funded the opposition.[15]
The Indian nationalists had very little international support. They knew that the United States strongly supported Indian independence, in principle, and believed the U.S. was an ally. However, after Churchill threatened to resign if pushed too hard, the U.S. quietly supported him while bombarding Indians with propaganda designed to strengthen public support of the war effort. The poorly run American operation annoyed both the British and the Indians.[16]
No support to the Quit India Movement[edit source] Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh[edit source] Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) kept aloof from the Congress-led anti-British Indian independence movement since its founding by K.B. Hedgewar in 1925. In 1942, the RSS, under M.S. Golwalkar refused to join in the Quit India Movement. The Bombay government appreciated the RSS position by noting that,
"the Sangh has scrupulously kept itself within the law, and in particular, has refrained from taking part in the disturbances that broke out in August 1942".".[17][18][19][20]
The British Government also asserted that at Sangh meetings organized during the times of anti-British movements started and fought by the Indian National Congress,
"speakers urged the Sangh members to keep aloof from the congress movement and these instructions were generally observed".[21]
The RSS head (sarsanghchalak) during that time, M.S. Golwalkar later stated that the RSS did not support the Quit India Movement. Such a non-committal attitude during the Indian freedom movement also led to the Sangh being viewed with distrust and anger, both by the general Indian public, as well as certain members of the organization itself. In Golwalkar’s own words,
“In 1942 also, there was a strong sentiment in the hearts of many. At that time too, the routine work of the Sangh continued. Sangh decided not to do anything directly. ‘Sangh is the organization of inactive people, their talks have no substance’ was the opinion uttered not only by outsiders but also our own swayamsevaks””[22][23][24]
The British Government stated that the RSS was not at all supporting any civil disobedience against them, and as such their other political activities could be overlooked.[25]The Home Department was thereby of the opinion that the RSS did not constitute a menace to law and order in British India.[26][27]The Bombay government reported that the RSS had not, in any way, infringed upon government orders and had always shown a willingness to comply with the law. The same Bombay Government report further noted that in December 1940, orders had been issued to the provincial RSS leaders to desist from any activities that the British Government considered objectionable, and the RSS, in turn, had assured the British authorities that "it had no intentions of offending against the orders of the Government". [28][29]
Local violence[edit source] According to John F. Riddick, from 9 August 1942 to 21 September 1942, the Quit India movement:
attacked 550 post offices, 250 railway stations, damaged many rail lines, destroyed 70 police stations, and burned or damaged 85 other government buildings. There were about 2,500 instances of telegraph wires being cut. The greatest level of violence occurred in Bihar. The Government of India deployed 57 battalions of British troops to restore order.[30] At the national level the lack of leadership meant the ability to galvanise rebellion was limited. The movement had a local impact in some areas. especially at Satara in Maharashtra, Talcher in Odisha, and Midnapore.[31] In Tamluk and Contai subdivisions of Midnapore, the local populace were successful in establishing parallel governments, which continued to function, until Gandhi personally requested the leaders to disband in 1944.[31] A minor uprising took place in Ballia, now the easternmost district of Uttar Pradesh. People overthrew the district administration, broke open the jail, released the arrested Congress leaders and established their own independent rule. It took weeks before the British could reestablish their writ in the district. Of special importance in Saurashtra (in western Gujarat) was the role of the region's 'baharvatiya' tradition (i.e. going outside the law) which abetted the sabotage activities of the movement there.[32] In rural west Bengal, the Quit India Movement was fueled by peasants' resentment against the new war taxes and the forced rice exports. There was open resistance to the point of rebellion in 1942 until the great famine of 1943 suspended the movement.[33]
Suppression of the movement[edit source]
Picketing in front of Medical School at Bengaluru One of the important achievements of the movement was to keep the Congress party united through all the trials and tribulations that followed. The British, already alarmed by the advance of the Japanese army to the India-Burma border, responded by imprisoning Gandhi. All the members of the Party's Working Committee (national leadership) were imprisoned as well. Due to the arrest of major leaders, a young and till then relatively unknown Aruna Asaf Ali presided over the AICC session on 9 August and hoisted the flag; later the Congress party was banned. These actions only created sympathy for the cause among the population. Despite lack of direct leadership, large protests and demonstrations were held all over the country. Workers remained absent en masse and strikes were called. Not all demonstrations were peaceful, at some places bombs exploded, government buildings were set on fire, electricity was cut and transport and communication lines were severed.[citation needed]
File:Quit India Movement.ogv Video footage of the days during Quit India Movement The British swiftly responded with mass detentions. Over 100,000 arrests were made, mass fines were levied and demonstrators were subjected to public flogging.[34] Hundreds of civilians were killed in violence many shot by the police army. Many national leaders went underground and continued their struggle by broadcasting messages over clandestine radio stations, distributing pamphlets and establishing parallel governments. The British sense of crisis was strong enough that a battleship was specifically set aside to take Gandhi and the Congress leaders out of India, possibly to South Africa or Yemen but ultimately did not take that step out of fear of intensifying the revolt.[35]
The Congress leadership was cut off from the rest of the world for over three years. Gandhi's wife Kasturbai Gandhi and his personal secretary Mahadev Desai died in months and Gandhi's health was failing, despite this Gandhi went on a 21-day fast and maintained his resolve to continuous resistance. Although the British released Gandhi on account of his health in 1944, Gandhi kept up the resistance, demanding the release of the Congress leadership.
By early 1944, India was mostly peaceful again, while the Congress leadership was still incarcerated. A sense that the movement had failed depressed many nationalists, while Jinnah and the Muslim League, as well as Congress opponents like the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the Hindu Mahasabha sought to gain political mileage, criticizing Gandhi and the Congress Party.
See also[edit source] British Raj Indian Independence Movement Non-Cooperation Movement Indian nationalism Government of Azad Hind Kallara-Pangode Struggle References[edit source] Jump up ^ http://www.open.ac.uk/researchprojects/makingbritain/content/1942-quit-india-movement Jump up ^ Arthur Herman (2008). Gandhi & Churchill: The Epic Rivalry That Destroyed an Empire and Forged Our Age. Random House Digital. pp. 494–99. ISBN 9780553804638. Jump up ^ 1 Rupee Coin of 1992 - Quit India Movement Golden Jubilee, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2bWubXDYWU Jump up ^ Official Website of the Indian National Congress, sub-link to article titled The Second World War and the Congress. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 5 October 2006. Retrieved 28 August 2006. URL accessed on 20-Jul-2006 Jump up ^ Barkawi, Tarak. Culture and Combat in the Colonies. The Indian Army in the Second World War. Journal of Contemporary History. 10000(2). pp. 325–355. Jump up ^ Nasim Yousaf Hidden facts behind British India's freedom : a scholarly look into Allama Mashraqi and Quaid-e-Azam's political conflict, p.137. Jump up ^ Wolpert, Jinnah of Pakistan (1984) pp 209, 215 Jump up ^ Martin Sieff, Shifting superpowers: the new and emerging relationship between the United States, China, and India (2009) p 21 Jump up ^ Syed Nesar Ahmad, Origins of Muslim consciousness in India: a world-system perspective (Greenwood Publishing Group, 1991) pp 213–15 ^ Jump up to: a b c Prabhu Bapu (2013). Hindu Mahasabha in Colonial North India, 1915–1930: Constructing Nation and History. Routledge. pp. 103–. ISBN 978-0-415-67165-1. Jump up ^ Mookherjee, Shyama Prasad. Leaves from a Dairy. Oxford University Press. p. 179. ^ Jump up to: a b Abdul Gafoor Abdul Majeed Noorani (2000), The RSS and the BJP: A Division of Labour, LeftWord Books, pp. 56–, ISBN 978-81-87496-13-7 Jump up ^ Majumdar, Ramesh Chandra (1978). History of Modern Bengal. Oxford University Press. p. 179. Jump up ^ K. Venugopal Reddy, "Working Class in ‘Quit India’ Movement," Indian Historical Review (2010) 37#2 pp275-289 Jump up ^ Stanley Wolpert, Jinnah of Pakistan (1984) p 210 Jump up ^ Eric D. Pullin, "'Noise and Flutter': American Propaganda Strategy and Operation in India during World War II," Diplomatic History, (April 2010) 34#2 pp 275–298 online at Academic Search Premier Jump up ^ Andersen & Damle 1987, p. 44. Jump up ^ Śekhara Bandyopādhyāẏa (1 January 2004). From Plassey to Partition: A History of Modern India. Orient Blackswan. pp. 422–. ISBN 978-81-250-2596-2. Jump up ^ Bipan Chandra, Communalism 2008, p. 141. Jump up ^ Noorani, RSS and the BJP 2000, p. 60. Jump up ^ Bipan Chandra (2008). Communalism in Modern India. Har-Anand. pp. 140–. ISBN 978-81-241-1416-2. Jump up ^ M.S. Golwalkar (1974). Shri Guruji Samagra Darshan, Volume 4. Bharatiya Vichar Sadhana. Jump up ^ Ram Puniyani (21 July 2005). Religion, Power and Violence: Expression of Politics in Contemporary Times. SAGE Publications. pp. 134–. ISBN 978-0-7619-3338-0. Jump up ^ Shamsul Islam (2006). Religious Dimensions of Indian Nationalism: A Study of RSS. Media House. pp. 187–. ISBN 978-81-7495-236-3. Jump up ^ Bipan Chandra, Communalism 2008, p. 140. Jump up ^ Andersen & Damle 1987. Jump up ^ Noorani, RSS and the BJP 2000, p. 46. Jump up ^ Sumit Sarkar (2005). Beyond Nationalist Frames: Relocating Postmodernism, Hindutva, History. Permanent Black. pp. 258–. ISBN 978-81-7824-086-2. Jump up ^ Partha Sarathi Gupta (1997). Towards Freedom 1943–44,Part III. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. pp. 3058–9. ISBN 978-0195638684. Jump up ^ John F. Riddick, The History of British India: A Chronology (2006) p 115 ^ Jump up to: a b Chakraborty, Bidyut Local Politics and Indian Nationalism: Midnapur (1919–1944).. Manohar. 1997. Jump up ^ Jaykumar R. Shukla, "The Quit India Movement on Saurashtra," Quarterly Review of Historical Studies, 1981, 21#1 pp 3–8 Jump up ^ Sunil Sen, "Popular Participation in the Quit India Movement: Midnapur, 1942–44," Indian Historical Review, (Jan 1985) Vol. 12 Issue 1/2, pp 300–316 Jump up ^ D, Fisher D; Read A (1998). The Proudest Day: India's Long Road to Independence. WW Norton. p. 330. Jump up ^ D, Fisher D; Read A (1998). The Proudest Day: India's Long Road to Independence. WW Norton. p. 329. Further reading[edit source] Andersen, Walter K.; Damle, Shridhar D. (1987). The brotherhood in saffron: the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Hindu revivalism. Westview Press. Akbar, M.J. Nehru: The Making of India (Viking, 1988), popular biography Buchanan, Andrew N. "The War Crisis and the Decolonization of India, December 1941–September 1942: A Political and Military Dilemma." Global War Studies 8.2 (2011): 5-31. Chakrabarty, Bidyut. "Political Mobilization in the Localities: The 1942 Quit India Movement in Midnapur," Modern Asian Studies (1992) 26#4 pp. 791–814 in JSTOR Chakrabarty, Bidyut. "Defiance and Confrontation: The 1942 Quit India Movement in Midnapur," Social Scientist (1992) Vol. 20, No. 7/8 in JSTOR Chopra, P. N."'Quit India' Movement of 1942," Journal of Indian History, (1971) Vol. 49 Issue 145/147, pp 1–56 Clymer, Kenton J. Quest for Freedom: The United States and India's Independence (Columbia University Press, 1995) online edition Greenough, Paul R. "Political Mobilization and the Underground Literature of the Quit India Movement, 1942–44," Modern Asian Studies, (1983) 17#3 pp. 353–386 in JSTOR Herman, Arthur (2008). Gandhi & Churchill: The Epic Rivalry That Destroyed an Empire and Forged Our Age. Random House Digital. ISBN 9780553804638. Hutchins, Francis G. India's Revolution: Gandhi and the Quit India Movement (1973) Johnson, Robert. "The Army in India and Responses to Low-Intensity Conflict, 1936-1946." Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research 89.358 (2011): 159. Krishan, Shri. "Crowd vigour and social identity: The Quit India Movement in western India." Indian Economic & Social History Review 33.4 (1996): 459-479. Panigrahi; D. N. India's Partition: The Story of Imperialism in Retreat (Routledge, 2004) online edition Pati, Biswamoy. "The climax of popular protest: The Quit India Movement in Orissa." Indian Economic & Social History Review 29.1 (1992): 1-35. Patil, V. I. Gandhiji, Nehruji and the Quit India Movement (1984) Read, Anthony, and David Fisher; The Proudest Day: India's Long Road to Independence (W. W. Norton, 1999) online edition; detailed scholarly history Venkataramani, M. S.; Shrivastava, B. K. Quit India: The American Response to the 1942 Struggle (1979) Zaidi, A. Moin (1973). The way out to freedom: an inquiry into the Quit India Movement conducted by participants. Orientalia (India). p. 85. Mansergh, Nicholas, and E. W. R. Lumby, eds. India: The Transfer of Power 1942-7. Vol. II. 'Quit India' 30 April-21 September 1942 (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1971), 1044pp Muni, S. D. "The Quit India Movement: A Review Article," International Studies, (Jan 1977,) 16#1 pp 157–168, Pran Nath Chopra; Shri Ram Bakshi (1986). Quit India Movement: British secret documents, Vol. 1. Interprint. p. 17. ISBN 81-85017-32-8.