From Gandhi’s Reservations to Individual Satyagraha (1940–41)

Context — war comes closer; leadership and worry

• By 1941–42 the war changed character. Nazi Germany thrust east (attack on USSR, 22 June 1941). Then Japan struck Pearl Harbor (7 Dec 1941) and overran south-east Asian colonies — Philippines, Indonesia, Malaya, Burma — occupying Rangoon in March 1942.
• This brought the war to India’s doorstep. The possibility of Japanese advance into India alarmed everyone — Congress leaders included. Their immediate concern now was India’s defence and safety.
• Internally, the Congress had recent prisoners released; they were now under pressure to respond to a direct strategic threat.

Nehru as Gandhi’s chosen successor — why it mattered

• At this moment Gandhi publicly named Jawaharlal Nehru as his successor (speech before AICC, 15 Jan 1941). The line you have — that differences of language do not divide hearts and that “when I am gone, he will speak my language” — signals two things:
  1. Gandhi’s personal confidence in Nehru’s leadership.
  2. A recognition that Nehru’s internationalist, modern outlook would steer the Congress in the coming, more complex phase.
• Practically, Nehru now had two roles: national leader-in-waiting and an active statesman — one of the official negotiators in the forthcoming Cripps talks.

Congress’s wartime posture

• The Congress was willing to cooperate in India’s defence, but its cooperation carried political conditions: immediate transfer of the substance of power (i.e., real executive authority to Indians) and a clear promise of independence after the war. This demand for transfer of effective power is the recurring Congress line from Wardha to the Cripps episode.

The Cripps Mission (March 1942) — purpose and the global frame

• Britain needed Indian cooperation in the war — both for manpower and for strategic security against Japan — and therefore sent Sir Stafford Cripps in March 1942 with a Draft Declaration.
• But two handicaps weakened Cripps from the start:
  1. Winston Churchill’s hostility — Churchill was a firm imperialist and limited Cripps’ bargaining mandate.
  2. The precarious war situation — Japan was advancing fast; Britain was desperate but also cautious about conceding too much.

What Cripps offered

Cripps’ Draft Declaration proposed the following broad terms:

1. Post-war dominion status for an Indian Union (i.e., India would be a Dominion after the war, not immediately fully sovereign). The Dominion would have the right to secede from the Commonwealth.
2. Provincial opt-out: Any province could choose to stay outside the Indian Union and negotiate directly with Britain.
3. Princely states that did not wish to join could retain their pre-existing relations with the Crown.
4. Constituent Assembly to be set up after the war; members elected by provincial assemblies, and princely states represented by nominees of the rulers.
5. British control of defence in the interim — actual defence and military operations remained with Britain during the war and until transfer.
6. Minority safeguards were promised; plus two important conditions: provinces could form separate Unions, and the constitution-making body would negotiate a treaty with Britain to effect transfer and protect minorities.

Why the proposals were unacceptable — objections from Indian leaders

Almost all major Indian parties rejected Cripps. The objections were both political and constitutional:

Congress (Nehru & Maulana Azad as negotiators):

• Dominion status ≠ Purna Swaraj: Congress wanted complete independence (Purna Swaraj), not delayed, limited dominion status.
• Right of provinces to secede weakened the notion of a single, indivisible national polity; it undermined the principle of national unity.
• No immediate transfer of power: Britain retained real executive control (especially defence), so Congress saw no real change in the balance of power.
• Princely states’ nominees: Allowing rulers to nominate members to the Constituent Assembly denied popular representation in the princely states and undercut democratic legitimacy.

Gandhi: labeled the scheme a “post-dated cheque on a tottering bank” — in short, promises for the future with no trustworthy guarantee in the present.

Muslim League: dissatisfied because Cripps did not give an explicit guarantee for a separate Muslim state; they instead demanded a clear British declaration in favour of partition (which they read as the fastest route to a secure Muslim polity).

Others (Hindu Mahasabha, liberals, Depressed Classes, Sikhs, Christians, Anglo-Indians): had their respective worries — some opposed the secession clause (fearing fragmentation), others demanded stronger minority safeguards than those vaguely promised.

The politics underneath the proposals

• The Cripps package attempted to be flexible but was also fragmentary. Key British motives: preserve imperial interests (hence dominion and defence control), offer enough to secure cooperation, and keep options open for princes and communal bargaining (hence opt-outs and princely concessions).
• Politically, provisions like provincial opt-out and princely nominations were divide-and-rule devices — they gave incentives to non-Congress groups and weakened the Congress bargaining position.

Consequences — why this episode matters

• The rejection of Cripps by almost all parties was a decisive political moment. It exposed the incompatibility between Britain’s limited, conditional offers and Indian demands for immediate and unconditional transfer.
• Cripps’ failure hardened positions on all sides: Congress concluded that constitutional bargaining in wartime produced hollow promises; Muslim League continued to press for a separate homeland; British trust eroded.
• Politically, this failure was one of the key precursors to the Quit India Movement (August 1942) — a mass, uncompromising call for immediate British withdrawal — because Indians concluded that waiting on post-war promises would mean indefinite delay.

Key takeaways

• Nehru emerges as Gandhi’s chosen political heir and an active negotiator in crises.
• The war arriving on India’s borders intensified urgency but did not make Indians accept conditional, half-measures.
• Cripps’ proposals were too little and too conditional — they preserved British supremacy in crucial areas and created routes for division.
• The refusal of Cripps united many Indians in disillusionment and set the scene for the next phase of mass struggle (Quit India).