Karenge Ya Marenge: An Analysis of Gandhi's 1942 "Do or Die" Speech and the Quit India Movement

The Crucible of 1942: Setting the Stage for a Final Confrontation

The "Do or Die" speech delivered by Mahatma Gandhi in August 1942 was not an abrupt call to action but the inexorable culmination of mounting pressures from a global war, severe domestic distress, and a final, decisive diplomatic failure. The historical context of 1942 reveals a perfect storm of converging crises that made a final, mass confrontation with the British Empire all but inevitable.

The Shadow of World War II

The Second World War fundamentally altered the political and economic landscape of British India, exposing the weaknesses of the empire and fueling widespread discontent. In 1939, Viceroy Lord Linlithgow unilaterally declared India to be at war with Germany without consulting a single Indian political leader.1 This act of imperial fiat was met with outrage across the political spectrum and led to the immediate resignation of Indian National Congress ministries in the provinces, creating a deep and lasting political rift.2

The war effort imposed severe economic burdens on the Indian populace. The British administration sharply increased taxes and diverted resources, leading to wartime shortages and a steep rise in the prices of essential goods.4 This economic hardship created widespread popular discontent, leading to a collapse in public confidence in the stability of British rule. This was evidenced by a run on banks, with people withdrawing their savings and beginning to hoard gold and silver.4 This simmering economic anger created fertile ground for a mass political movement.

Simultaneously, the myth of British imperial invincibility was being shattered on the battlefields of Southeast Asia. The rapid advance of Japanese forces and their capture of British colonies like Singapore, Malaya, and Burma sent shockwaves through India.6 This demonstrated British vulnerability and stoked fears that the British presence in India would merely invite a Japanese invasion.6 For Gandhi and the Congress, independence was no longer just a matter of national dignity; it was framed as a strategic necessity for India's own defense against a new aggressor.

This volatile situation was compounded by international pressure, particularly from Britain's key ally, the United States. President Franklin D. Roosevelt pressured Prime Minister Winston Churchill to address Indian demands for self-governance, as Britain's ongoing colonialism stood in stark contradiction to the Allied narrative of fighting a war for freedom and democracy.9 This external pressure was a critical factor that compelled the reluctant British government to dispatch a high-level delegation to India to negotiate a settlement.

The Cripps Mission (March 1942): The Final Diplomatic Failure

In March 1942, the British government sent a mission to India led by Sir Stafford Cripps, a cabinet minister known to be sympathetic to the Indian cause. The mission's proposals offered India Dominion Status after the war, which would include the right to secede from the Commonwealth, and the establishment of a Constituent Assembly to draft a new constitution.11 Crucially, however, the offer included no provisions for an immediate transfer of power and left control over India's defense firmly in British hands for the duration of the war.12

The Indian National Congress swiftly rejected the proposals. The offer of post-war Dominion Status fell far short of their long-standing demand for complete and immediate independence (Purna Swaraj).12 The lack of any real transfer of power was seen as a sign of British insincerity. Gandhi famously dismissed the offer as a "post-dated cheque on a failing bank," a powerful metaphor that signified both the proposal's lack of immediate value and his perception of the British Empire's imminent collapse in the face of Axis victories.14

The All-India Muslim League, led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, also rejected the offer. While the provision allowing provinces to opt out of a future Indian union was a tacit acknowledgment of the demand for Pakistan, the League found the proposals too vague and believed they did not explicitly guarantee the creation of a separate Muslim state.11

The failure of the Cripps Mission was the immediate catalyst for the Quit India Movement.14 It exhausted the last avenue for a negotiated settlement and left the Indian populace feeling frustrated and betrayed.13 This diplomatic collapse did more than just end talks; it fundamentally radicalized the stance of the Congress. It proved that even a supposed "friend" of India like Cripps was ultimately constrained by the imperial structure under Churchill and Viceroy Linlithgow, shattering any remaining belief in British good faith. The failure delegitimized the moderate, negotiation-based approach and empowered the faction within Congress, led by Gandhi, that argued an all-or-nothing mass struggle was the only option left.4 It closed the door on gradualism and opened the door to the ultimatum of "Quit India."

"Do or Die": An Analysis of Gandhi's Ultimatum at Gowalia Tank

On August 8, 1942, at the Gowalia Tank Maidan in Bombay, Mahatma Gandhi delivered a speech that would ignite a nationwide rebellion. His call to "Do or Die" was not an incitement to violence but a profound strategic and philosophical shift, launching a final, non-violent confrontation where every participant was empowered to act as their own guide.

The All-India Congress Committee Session (August 7-8, 1942)

The All-India Congress Committee (AICC) convened at Bombay's Gowalia Tank Maidan, a site since renamed August Kranti Maidan (August Revolution Ground) in honor of the event.17 On the evening of August 8, the historic "Quit India" resolution was moved by Jawaharlal Nehru and seconded by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. It was passed with overwhelming enthusiasm by the assembled delegates.16 The resolution demanded an immediate end to British rule and authorized Gandhi to lead a mass civil disobedience movement, granting him a clear mandate to take all necessary actions to achieve an "Orderly British Withdrawal".9

Deconstructing the "Do or Die" (Karenge Ya Marenge) Mantra

In his concluding speech following the resolution's passage, Gandhi laid out the principles for this final struggle. He presented the nation with a simple yet powerful mantra: "Here is a mantra, a short one, that I give you... The mantra is: 'Do or Die'. We shall either free India or die in the attempt; we shall not live to see the perpetuation of our slavery".16 This was an unambiguous ultimatum, a final call for freedom that left no room for retreat or compromise.20

Gandhi's speech was marked by a tone of unprecedented urgency and unconditionality. "I want freedom immediately," he declared, "this very night, before dawn, if it can be had".16 He made it clear that the time for negotiation was over, stating he was "not going to be satisfied with anything short of complete freedom" and would not bargain with the Viceroy for ministerial posts or other partial concessions.16 This represented a definitive break from all previous campaigns that had sought gradual reforms.

A crucial and strategically vital element of the speech was the call for individual agency. Anticipating the certain arrest of the entire leadership, Gandhi effectively decentralized the movement before it had even begun. He proclaimed, "Let every Indian consider himself to be a free man... every Indian who desires freedom and strives for it must be his own guide".21 Gandhi and the Congress leadership knew from past experience that the primary British counter-strategy was to decapitate any movement by arresting its leaders.9 By explicitly transferring authority and responsibility to every individual, he was attempting to create a leaderless, spontaneous uprising that could survive and function without a central command structure. This preemptive move explains why the movement erupted so powerfully across the country even after the entire leadership was imprisoned within hours of the speech.4

"Do or Die" and the Philosophy of Ahimsa (Non-Violence)

The "Do or Die" slogan has been the subject of considerable historical debate, with some scholars suggesting it marked a departure from Gandhi's commitment to non-violence (Ahimsa).23 However, a closer analysis of the speech and Gandhi's philosophy reveals that the mantra was intended as the ultimate expression of

Satyagraha. It was not a call to "kill or be killed" but a pledge to act decisively for freedom, accepting death at the hands of the oppressor rather than submitting to slavery or retreating from the struggle.

Gandhi himself clarified the non-violent nature of the fight in the same speech: "Ours is not a drive for power, but purely a non-violent fight for India's independence... A non-violent soldier of freedom will covet nothing for himself, he fights only for the freedom of his country".20 The "doing" was to be non-violent civil disobedience; the "dying" was the willing acceptance of the violent consequences inflicted by the state. The slogan's power was psychological. It inverted the power dynamic by shifting the moral calculus of the struggle from a protest against unjust laws to an existential choice between freedom and death. This placed the moral onus for any ensuing violence squarely on the British, forcing them to reveal the coercive foundations of their rule to the world.

The August Revolution: The Nation's Spontaneous Response

The British government's attempt to preempt the Quit India Movement by arresting its leadership backfired spectacularly. Instead of quelling the nascent rebellion, the crackdown triggered a massive, spontaneous, and often violent uprising across the Indian subcontinent, which came to be known as the August Revolution.

The Leaderless Uprising

Within hours of Gandhi's speech, on the morning of August 9, 1942, the British authorities invoked the Defense of India Act to arrest the entire Congress Working Committee and thousands of other leaders across the country.6 This decapitation of the movement's leadership, however, did not stop it. Instead, it fulfilled Gandhi's prophecy of a decentralized struggle, unleashing the pent-up anger of the masses into a leaderless revolt.4

The uprising that followed unfolded in two distinct phases. The first, from August to September 1942, was a largely urban phenomenon characterized by mass protests, strikes, and demonstrations. The second phase saw the movement shift to the countryside, where it transformed into a prolonged campaign of underground resistance, sabotage, and guerrilla-style activities that lasted in some areas until 1944.25

Forms of Protest and Sabotage

The movement saw widespread participation from all sections of society. Students were at the forefront, organizing strikes and demonstrations, particularly in Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. Workers in textile mills and factories went on strike, paralyzing key industries.8 Women leaders played a pivotal role in sustaining the movement after the initial arrests; figures like Aruna Asaf Ali, who hoisted the Indian flag at the Gowalia Tank Maidan on August 9, and Usha Mehta, who ran the underground Congress Radio, became symbols of the resistance.25

In the absence of a central command committed to non-violence, many protests turned violent. Crowds attacked the symbols of British colonial authority with ferocity. Railway lines were torn up, and telegraph wires were cut in approximately 2,500 instances, disrupting communication and transport.4 Hundreds of police stations, post offices, and other government buildings were damaged or burned down.20 The scale of the rebellion was so great that Viceroy Linlithgow described it in a telegram to Churchill as "by far the most serious rebellion since 1857".9 A significant feature of the movement was the erosion of loyalty to the Raj among lower-level government officials, especially in the police and administration, who often secretly aided activists and passed on information.4

The Emergence of Parallel Governments (Prati Sarkar)

In several regions, British authority collapsed entirely, leading to one of the most remarkable features of the Quit India Movement: the establishment of parallel "national governments".4 These were not merely zones of anarchy but functional experiments in self-governance that directly challenged the British claim that Indians were unfit to rule.

• Ballia, Uttar Pradesh: In August 1942, a parallel government was formed under the leadership of Chittu Pande. It succeeded in taking control of the district and releasing the arrested Congress leaders from jail.4

• Tamluk, Bengal: A Jatiya Sarkar (National Government) was established in December 1942 and functioned until September 1944. It undertook cyclone relief work, provided grants to schools, supplied paddy to the poor, and organized its own militia, the Vidyut Vahinis.4

• Satara, Maharashtra: The longest-lasting and most organized parallel government, known as the Prati Sarkar, was established under leaders like Nana Patil and Y.B. Chavan. It set up people's courts (Nyayadan Mandals), organized village libraries, carried out prohibition campaigns, and arranged "Gandhi marriages" without caste-based rituals.25

These parallel governments were microcosms of independence. By performing state functions like administering justice and providing social welfare, they served as a powerful symbolic and practical rebuttal to the colonial narrative, proving that the alternative to British rule was not chaos, but Indian rule.

A Fractured Mandate: The Spectrum of Political Opposition

The Quit India Movement was not a universally supported national endeavor. The political landscape of 1942 was deeply fractured, and the call to "Do or Die" was met with opposition from several significant political groups. The movement, and the subsequent three-year imprisonment of the Congress leadership, critically altered the balance of power among these factions, with profound consequences for the future of India.

The All-India Muslim League

The Muslim League, under the leadership of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, officially opposed the Quit India Movement.9 It feared that an immediate British withdrawal, as demanded by the Congress, would result in a "Hindu Raj" and the oppression of the Muslim minority.28 The League adopted the counter-slogan "Divide and Quit," making it clear that its priority was the creation of a separate Muslim state, Pakistan.29 Jinnah saw the movement as a strategic opportunity. With the entire Congress leadership incarcerated, the League was free to consolidate its political base, cooperate with the British administration, and press its demand for Pakistan without a significant political rival.15 Jinnah actively encouraged Muslims to stay away from the movement and to enlist in the British Indian Army to support the war effort.8

The Hindu Mahasabha and RSS

The Hindu Mahasabha, led by V.D. Savarkar, also officially boycotted and actively opposed the movement.28 Savarkar issued a directive to his followers titled "Stick to your Posts," instructing them to continue their duties in municipalities, legislatures, and the army.30 The Mahasabha pursued a policy of "Responsive Co-operation" with the British, aiming to use the political vacuum left by the Congress to gain administrative experience and safeguard Hindu interests.31 In a remarkable display of this strategy, Hindu Mahasabha leaders like Syama Prasad Mukherjee joined coalition governments with the Muslim League in provinces like Bengal and Sind, and actively worked with the British to combat and defeat the Quit India Movement.30 The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) also remained aloof, continuing its routine organizational work and vowing not to participate "directly" in the disturbances.31

Other Political Entities

Opposition to the movement came from other quarters as well. The Communist Party of India (CPI) opposed the movement because its primary allegiance was to the Allied war effort against fascism, particularly after Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union. They supported the British and viewed the movement as a dangerous disruption to the "People's War".8 The rulers of the

princely states remained loyal to the British Crown and assisted in suppressing the rebellion.9 Prominent Dalit leader

B.R. Ambedkar also opposed the movement, viewing it as a hasty power play by the Congress that would leave minorities like the Dalits without sufficient constitutional safeguards in an independent India ruled by the upper castes.6

This fractured mandate is best understood through a comparative analysis of the various political positions.

Political Group

Stated Position / Slogan

Key Actions During Movement

Rationale for Position

Indian National Congress

"Quit India"; "Do or Die"

Launched the movement; leaders arrested immediately.

Failure of Cripps Mission; demand for immediate and complete independence to defend India.

All-India Muslim League

"Divide and Quit"

Officially opposed the movement; encouraged Muslims not to participate; consolidated political power.

Feared Hindu-majority rule in a united, independent India; prioritized the demand for Pakistan.

Hindu Mahasabha

"Stick to your Posts"

Officially boycotted the movement; collaborated with British in provincial governments (e.g., Bengal, Sind).

Sought to protect Hindu interests by gaining political power and experience in the vacuum left by Congress.

Communist Party of India

Supported the Allied war effort

Opposed the movement as it disrupted the "People's War" against fascism.

Aligned with the Soviet Union's position after Germany's invasion of the USSR.

Princely States

Supported the British

Remained loyal to the British Crown and assisted in suppressing the movement.

Relied on British paramountcy for their authority and existence.

B.R. Ambedkar / Dalit Leadership

Opposed the movement

Viewed the movement as premature and a threat to minority rights.

Feared that immediate independence on Congress's terms would lack constitutional safeguards for Dalits.

The imprisonment of the Congress leadership created a political vacuum that was decisively exploited by the Muslim League. This period proved crucial for the consolidation of the Pakistan movement. By cooperating with the British, the League gained political legitimacy and was able to freely spread its message without significant opposition from the pan-Indian nationalist movement. Thus, the Quit India Movement, an action intended to achieve a united, independent India, paradoxically created the ideal conditions for the growth of the separatist movement that would lead to its division five years later.

The Empire's Retaliation: Anatomy of a Repression

The British response to the Quit India Movement was swift, systematic, and brutal. Faced with what it considered the most serious rebellion since 1857, the colonial administration unleashed the full force of the state in a campaign of repression that was not merely a police action but a military operation designed to crush all resistance.

Legal and Administrative Measures

The government's first act was to decapitate the movement. Within hours of Gandhi's speech, the entire top-tier leadership of the Indian National Congress was arrested and imprisoned without trial for the remainder of the war.9 By the end of 1943, over 100,000 people had been arrested in connection with the movement.6 The Congress itself was declared an unlawful association, and its offices across the country were raided and shut down.8 To control the flow of information and prevent the spread of rebellion, the government imposed strict press censorship, suppressing news of protests, arrests, and the movement's progress.6

Use of Overwhelming Force

The British did not rely on the police alone. The government deployed 57 army battalions to suppress the uprising, treating it as a full-scale military threat.27 Police and military firing on unarmed crowds became a common tactic. While official figures cited around 1,000 deaths, popular estimates were significantly higher, with some sources claiming as many as 10,000 people were killed in police and military action.8

In an extreme display of force, the Royal Air Force was used in some areas, particularly in Bihar and Bengal, to machine-gun and bomb crowds from the air.6 To terrorize the population and deter further participation, authorities widely resorted to public floggings and lathi charges.4 Collective fines were imposed on entire villages suspected of harboring activists or participating in acts of sabotage, punishing communities wholesale for the actions of a few.

The sheer scale of this repression reveals not imperial strength, but a deep-seated anxiety. The deployment of dozens of army battalions during a world war, when military resources were stretched thin, demonstrates that the British viewed the movement as an existential threat to both their rule in India and their broader war effort. The brutal methods used also created a glaring contradiction with Britain's stated war aim of fighting for freedom and democracy against fascism. Its actions in India—mass arrests without trial, firing on unarmed civilians, and aerial bombardment of its own subjects—were tactics indistinguishable from those used by the fascist regimes it was fighting. This hypocrisy severely damaged Britain's international reputation and moral authority, making it increasingly difficult to justify holding onto an empire through coercive means while claiming to be a champion of liberty.5

Legacy and Repercussions: The Unintended Consequences of "Do or Die"

The Quit India Movement occupies a complex and paradoxical position in the history of India's freedom struggle. Though suppressed with overwhelming force and failing in its immediate objective, the movement was a long-term strategic victory. It fatally weakened the British will to rule, irrevocably set the agenda for independence, and served as the violent, final crescendo of a decades-long struggle.

The "Failure" and Suppression

In the short term, the movement was a tactical failure. It was effectively crushed by the British by 1944 and did not achieve its stated goal of forcing an immediate British withdrawal.6 The entire Congress leadership remained imprisoned for nearly three years, and political activity within India was largely stifled until the end of World War II.3

The Long-Term Strategic Victory

Despite this immediate failure, the Quit India Movement's primary success was in demonstrating to the British that India was ungovernable in the long run without the consent of its people.5 The sheer scale of the rebellion and the immense military and administrative resources required to suppress it made the cost of maintaining the empire prohibitively high. For a post-war Britain that was economically drained and politically weakened, the prospect of facing another, perhaps even larger, rebellion was untenable.7 The movement broke the back of the British will to rule.

The "Do or Die" call also unequivocally placed the demand for complete and immediate independence at the top of the political agenda.8 After 1942, there could be no return to negotiations about Dominion Status or partial self-rule. The only question that remained for the post-war era was not

if Britain would leave, but how and when the transfer of power would occur.9 The sacrifices of thousands of activists energized the masses and strengthened anti-British sentiment across the nation, creating an unstoppable momentum toward freedom.25 The Quit India Movement is a classic example of a tactical failure leading to a strategic victory; it lost the battle of 1942 but won the war for India's independence.

The Path to Partition

One of the most significant, albeit unintended, consequences of the movement was the consolidation of the Muslim League and the hardening of the path to Partition. As analyzed previously, the three-year imprisonment of the Congress leadership created a political vacuum that the Muslim League expertly exploited to build its support base and advance the cause of Pakistan with little effective opposition.23 When negotiations for independence resumed after the war, the political landscape had been fundamentally altered. The British now faced not just a strengthened Congress but also a formidable Muslim League that claimed to be the sole representative of India's Muslims, making the division of the country a near-inevitability.

The Quit India Movement should not be viewed in isolation but as the final, decisive stage in a multi-decade tactical sequence of escalating non-violent campaigns. From the boycotts of the Non-Cooperation movement to the targeted civil disobedience of the Salt March, each phase had mobilized and politically educated the Indian masses.37 The Quit India Movement was the culmination of this process—a final, all-in gamble that leveraged the political consciousness built over two decades to pose an existential challenge to the Raj from which there was no turning back. It was the logical and necessary endpoint of the Gandhian strategy of escalating pressure, ultimately convincing the British that their time in India was over.

Works cited

1. Quit India Movement Day and the Story of Indian Freedom Struggle - Vajirao & Reddy IAS, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://www.vajiraoinstitute.com/upsc-ias-current-affairs/quit-india-movement-day.aspx

2. Statewide Dual Credit World History, The Catastrophe of the Modern Era: 1919-Present CE, Chapter 15: Cold War & Decolonization, Asia | OER Commons, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://oercommons.org/courseware/lesson/88082/student/?section=2

3. India's Freedom Struggle and Second World War (1939 - 1945) - UPSC Modern History Notes - Edukemy, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://edukemy.com/blog/indias-freedom-struggle-and-second-world-war-1939-1945-upsc-modern-history-notes/

4. Quit India Movement (August 1942): Reasons, Significance, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://www.nextias.com/blog/quit-india-movement/

5. The Impact of the Quit India Movement on British Colonial Policy - International Journal of Social Science Research (IJSSR), accessed on October 5, 2025, https://www.ijssr.com/wp-content/uploads/journal/published_paper/volume-1/issue-2/IJSSR25222.pdf

6. Quit India Movement | History, Gandhi, Congress Party, & Indian Independence | Britannica, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/event/Quit-India-Movement

7. How did World War II hasten Indian independence? - TutorChase, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://www.tutorchase.com/answers/ib/history/how-did-world-war-ii-hasten-indian-independence

8. Quit India Movement (UPSC Notes) - BYJU'S, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/quit-india-movement/

9. Quit India Movement - Wikipedia, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quit_India_Movement

10. Indian National Movement During World War II - EuroSchool, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://www.euroschoolindia.com/blogs/indian-national-movement-during-world-war-ii/

11. Cripps Mission 1942, Proposals, Failure, Members, UPSC Notes - Vajiram & Ravi, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-exam/cripps-mission/

12. Cripps Mission 1942, History, Proposals, Failure, Significance - StudyIQ, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://www.studyiq.com/articles/cripps-mission/

13. Second World War and Nationalistic Response - Cripps Mission (March 1942) - Edukemy, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://edukemy.com/free-resources-for-upsc/prelims-notes/second-world-war-and-nationalistic-response/cripps-mission-march-1942/101955

14. The Cripps Mission: Analyzing its Failure - Sleepy Classes, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://sleepyclasses.com/the-cripps-mission/

15. Cripps Mission - Wikipedia, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cripps_Mission

16. Quit India: India's Final Battle for Freedom - Indian National Congress, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://inc.in/congress-sandesh/opinion/quit-india-india-s-final-battle-for-freedom

17. Quit India speech - Wikipedia, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quit_India_speech

18. [Solved] Gandhiji delivered the famous 'Do or Die' speech o - Testbook, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://testbook.com/question-answer/gandhiji-delivered-the-famous-do-or-diersquo--6204f3d83433d1f54d3a9e47

19. [Solved] By whom the 'Quit India' resolution was moved in t - Testbook, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://testbook.com/question-answer/by-whom-the-quit-india-resolution-was--609caceb74f6ea727a4ef24a

20. Do or Die: The Quit India Movement of 1942 - The Nonviolence Project, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://thenonviolenceproject.wisc.edu/2021/08/19/quit-india-movement/

21. 8th August 1942: Mahatma Gandhi Launches the Quit India Movement in Mumbai -, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://www.mapsofindia.com/on-this-day/8th-august-1942-mahatma-gandhi-launches-the-quit-india-movement-in-mumbai

22. Do or die, Gandhi told the British to quit India on 8th August 1942 - YouTube, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TarDEGKpfqo

23. 'Quit India' Movement - MANAS - UCLA, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://southasia.ucla.edu/history-politics/gandhi/quit-india/

24. The "Quit India" Speeches - August 1942, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://wp.stu.ca/worldhistory/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/08/Quit-India-Speeches.pdf

25. Quit India Movement (8 August 1942): History, Causes, Limitations ..., accessed on October 5, 2025, https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/quit-india-movement-day-history-causes-limitations-and-significance-1820001363-1

26. Quit India Movement 1942, Start Date, Purpose, Impact, Limitations, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-exam/quit-india-movement/

27. The 1942 Quit India Movement: The Violent End of British Rule in India - Kurukshetra, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://kurukshetra1.wordpress.com/2014/08/21/quit-india-1942-the-violent-end-of-british-rule-in-india/

28. Which one of the following statements about the Quit India Movement is not correct? - Testbook, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://testbook.com/question-answer/which-one-of-the-following-statements-about-the-qu--5e99915af60d5d51cf417f99

29. What was the slogan adopted by Muslim league during Quit India movement? - Testbook, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://testbook.com/question-answer/what-was-the-slogan-adopted-by-muslim-league-durin--5efe1d35b673cf0d1185941e

30. Hindu Mahasabha - Wikipedia, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_Mahasabha

31. Hindutva, the British, and the Muslim League: A united front against the Quit India Movement, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://www.counterview.net/2025/08/hindutva-british-and-muslim-league.html

32. During the Quit India Movement, RSS was in Bed with Muslim League - Janata Weekly, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://janataweekly.org/during-the-quit-india-movement-rss-was-in-bed-with-muslim-league/

33. Remembering Those Who Opposed the Quit India Movement – And Who Didn't - Janata Weekly, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://janataweekly.org/remembering-those-who-opposed-the-quit-india-movement-and-who-didnt/

34. The Quit India Movement and the British Response: A Historic, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://www.sriramsias.com/upsc-daily-current-affairs/quit-india-movement-and-the-british-response/

35. An examination on the Quit India Movement and its role in Global History, accessed on October 5, 2025, http://ijesrr.org/publication/63/3.Baby%20Kumari%20Paper.pdf

36. www.tutorchase.com, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://www.tutorchase.com/answers/ib/history/how-did-world-war-ii-hasten-indian-independence#:~:text=In%20conclusion%2C%20World%20War%20II,shifting%20international%20attitudes%20towards%20colonialism.

37. The Indian Independence Struggle (1930-1931) | ICNC, accessed on October 5, 2025, https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/indian-independence-struggle-1930-1931/