The Second World War and India’s Political Dilemma (1939–1940)
🌍 Background: The War and India’s Dilemma
The Second World War began on 1st September 1939 when Nazi Germany invaded Poland. Immediately, Britain and France, bound by their treaty obligations, declared war on Germany on 3rd September.
Now, here’s the crucial part for India:
Without even a formal consultation, the British Government of India declared India to be a party to the war. Viceroy Lord Linlithgow simply announced that India had voluntarily joined the war to support Britain.
But the reality was starkly different.
The Indian people had no enthusiasm for the war. They saw no moral distinction between Hitler’s Nazism and British imperialism — both represented oppression, dictatorship, and denial of freedom. For Indians still struggling to free themselves, fighting for Britain’s “democracy” looked hollow and hypocritical.
🇮🇳 Congress’s Position: Conditional Cooperation
The Indian National Congress was clear in its moral compass.
It opposed fascism — yes, fascist aggression under Hitler and Mussolini was a grave danger to human freedom. But the Congress also asked a simple, logical question:
“How can a nation enslaved itself fight to protect others’ freedom?”
Therefore, the Congress offered conditional cooperation.
It said to the British:
- Establish a responsible government in India immediately.
- Promise a Constituent Assembly after the war to frame a constitution of free India.
If these conditions were met, India would willingly support Britain’s war effort.
🏛️ The Wardha Debates (10–14 September 1939)
To clarify its official stance, the Congress Working Committee (CWC) met at Wardha.
The meeting saw three major viewpoints, each representing a distinct ideological current within the freedom movement.
1. The Radical View – Subhas Chandra Bose and the Socialists
Leaders like Subhas Bose, Acharya Narendra Dev, and Jayaprakash Narayan called the war “imperialistic.”
Their argument was simple yet sharp:
- Both sides — Britain and Germany — were fighting not for freedom, but to protect their colonial empires.
- Hence, India should use this opportunity to intensify her own struggle for independence.
They proposed two actions:
- Oppose the British attempt to drag Indian resources and men into the war.
- Launch a mass movement to achieve independence.
In short, they believed: Britain’s difficulty is India’s opportunity.
Their focus was purely on India’s liberation, not on the global moral battle between democracy and fascism.
2. The Balanced View – Jawaharlal Nehru
Nehru’s view was more nuanced and philosophical.
He detested fascism — calling it the greatest menace to human freedom. So, in principle, he sympathized with Britain, France, and Poland, who were victims of fascist aggression.
Yet, Nehru’s clarity of thought stood firm:
- Britain and France were still imperialist powers.
- This war, though started by Hitler, was also a result of contradictions within imperialism.
Hence, Nehru’s stand was:
India should neither support the war without freedom, nor exploit Britain’s weakness through violence.
He wanted a principled neutrality — no participation until independence, but no opportunism either.
3. The Moral View – Mahatma Gandhi
Gandhiji took a deeply ethical position.
He was morally opposed to Hitler, whom he saw as the embodiment of violence and hatred. Therefore, initially, Gandhi was sympathetic to Britain’s plight.
He said, India should not take advantage of Britain’s suffering — instead, help her unconditionally in the war.
However, as the debates evolved, Gandhi found Nehru’s reasoning more balanced — and eventually aligned with him, accepting that India’s participation without freedom would be self-defeating.
🧭 The CWC Resolution: India’s Stand
Finally, the Congress Working Committee adopted Nehru’s position.
In its resolution, it clearly stated:
- It condemned the Nazi aggression against Poland — there was no sympathy for Hitler’s fascism.
- But it also declared that India could not fight for democracy abroad while denied it at home.
- If Britain truly fought for freedom, it must first prove it in India — by granting democratic self-rule.
This was a masterstroke — morally firm, politically mature, and internationally respectable.
💥 The Fallout: Congress Resigns
To follow up on this policy, Gandhiji met Viceroy Linlithgow on 13 October 1939.
But the talks failed — Linlithgow refused Congress’s demand for responsible government.
Just a few days later, on 17 October, the Viceroy made a clever political move.
He issued a statement saying that after the war, the British would:
- Set up a consultative committee for occasional advice, and
- Discuss constitutional reforms under the Government of India Act, 1935, with representatives of all communities and princes.
This was a classic divide and rule tactic — meant to weaken the Congress by courting the Muslim League, Princes, and other groups.
The Congress saw through it.
On 23 October 1939, the CWC rejected Linlithgow’s statement, refused to support the war, and directed all Congress ministries in provinces to resign.
Thus, within weeks of the war’s beginning, Congress rule collapsed in the provinces, marking the end of one political phase and the beginning of a new, more confrontational era.