Quit India

“It was my life-long aspiration for it that made me offer my fullest cooperation to the Mussalmans in the Khilafat movement. Muslims throughout the country accepted me as their true friend.”

Much of the credibility that Gandhi tries to establish with his Muslim audience is achieved through ethical appeals. He is trying to evoke a feeling from the audience that he is truly a friend to Muslims, which has a different connotation than just a politician striving for his aims.

“I should congratulate the Quaid-i-Azam on his frankness in giving expression to his thoughts and feelings, even if they sound bitter to his hearers. But even so why should the Mussalmans sitting here be reviled, if they do not see eye to eye with him? If millions of Mussalmans are with you can you not afford to ignore the handful of Mussalmans who may appear to you to be misguided?”

Gandhi craftily uses a series of rhetorical questions here to directly combat the argument of Jinnah, who led the All-Muslim League that opposed Gandhi’s movement. In posing these questions one after another, he raises doubts and suspicions in the minds of the Muslims who agree with him. Gandhi hopes that this would result in Jinnah feeling pressure within his own religious group.

“The structure of a world federation can be raised only on a foundation of nonviolence, and violence will have to be totally abjured from world affairs. If this is true, the solution of Hindu-Muslim question, too, cannot be achieved by a resort to violence.”

Using another juxtaposition here, Gandhi achieves two of his main purposes. He underscores the need for nonviolence as contrasted to violence, but he also reminds the audience that there must also be cooperation among Hindus and Muslims. He ties the fate of the relationship between Hindus and Muslims to the fate of India within the world order.

“The Congress does not believe in the domination of any group or any community. It believes in democracy which includes in its orpit Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Parsis, Jews-every [sic] one of the communities inhabiting this vast country.”

This is the most exhaustive list that Gandhi provides of the religions in India at the time. These details help to push his argument beyond Muslims and Hindus; he emphasizes that the total domination of one religion over another, regardless of what type of religion, would be an unjust course of action. This would appeal to current and future audiences in those groups, making them feel included in Gandhi’s cause.

“India is without doubt the homeland of all the Mussalmans inhabiting this country. Every Mussalman should therefore co-operate in the fight for India’s freedom.”

This logical appeal would have been meaningful to those in the audience. Knowing that a faction of Muslims wanted to create a separate Pakistan, Gandhi reasons that Muslims have just as much of a claim on India as others. The use of the term “homeland” highlights that India is more than just a place of residence for Muslims; it is ingrained in them, and they should therefore fight for it.

“If today I sit quiet and inactive, God will take me to task for not using up the treasure He had given me, in the midst of the conflagration that is enveloping the whole world.”

The religious language that Gandhi employs here gives his fight a much broader scope than his individual desires. This language implies that he is a cog in the much larger machination of God’s will, giving a sense of inevitability about their cause. He reminds the audience that the backdrop of World War II provides a sense of urgency and places their struggle in the larger context of fighting for freedom worldwide.

“You used to feed and cloth me, though I could have provided food and clothing for myself by my labour. I hitherto depended on you instead of on God, for food and raiment. But God has now inspired me with an urge for freedom and I am to day a free man, and will no longer depend on you.”

By comparing the British Empire to a parent and India to a child, Gandhi emphasizes the need for freedom as something bigger than his own political ambitions. The metaphor of the overly doting parent taking away autonomy from their capable child moves slightly away from a dichotomy of good and evil and gives a softer image of a country that has grown up and is ready to take control. The reference to God’s inspiration for freedom also frames India’s struggle as the more righteous one.

“Here is a mantra, a short one, that I give you. You may imprint it on your hearts and let every breath of yours give expression to it. 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.”

In this most famous section of Gandhi’s speeches, the lines are full of ultimatums delivered via contrasting outcomes. He lays out their binary options: do or die, freedom or slavery. These contrasts provide a very stark choice for the audience, leaving no room for equivocation or ambivalence. The repetition of “do or die” two more times toward the end of the speech adds emphasis.

“Nothing, however, should be done secretly. This is an open rebellion. In this struggle secrecy is a sin. A free man would not engage in a secret movement.”

When Gandhi gives specific instructions to various groups in India, he makes some distinctions between rebellions in the open and rebellions in secret. The contrast is undergirded by the fact that Gandhi equates secrecy with sin. Thus, he gives a rationale and context for his whole speech in that he wants to be public facing in his righteous revolution.

“I have enjoyed the privilege of friendship as I enjoy it today with Lord Linlithgow. It is a friendship which has outgrown official relationship […] I take the liberty to give out these personal and sacred tit-bits only to give you an earnest of the personal bond will never interfere with the stubborn struggle on which, if it falls to my lot, I may have to launch against Lord Linlithgow, as the representative of the Empire.”

Like he did in several other places in the speeches, Gandhi first lays a foundation of his credibility with a person or group prior to issuing a challenge. He makes an emotional appeal to Lord Linlithgow himself, reminding him of their friendship. In pivoting into a more resolute tone, he tells the audience that he would betray that friendship for the good of India.

“Let me tell you that I do not regard England or for that matter America as free countries. They are free after their own fashion, free to hold in bondage coloured races of the earth. Are England and America fighting for the liberty of these races today? If not, do not ask me to wait until after the war. You shall not limit my concept of freedom.” 

Speaking in English to an audience that would include the British and Americans, Gandhi delivers a scathing assessment of the so-called freedom in those nations. His critical tone not only serves to point out their hypocrisy, but also reiterates the theme that true freedom requires a complete democracy of all people. Gandhi wants to promote India’s ideal freedom with the hope that could inspire the rest of the world.

“It is, however, with all these things as the background that I want Englishmen, Europeans and all the United Nations to examine in their hearts what crime had India committed in demanding Independence.”

Gandhi knows that the British government could jail or kill him for these speeches. However, he also knows that they would act against him under the auspices that he had committed a criminal act. In posing a very poignant rhetorical question about the nature of his crimes, Gandhi is goading the UN and all Europeans to ask themselves about the righteousness of their stance.

“Even if all the United Nations opposed me, even if the whole of India forsakes me, I will say, ‘You are wrong. India will wrench with non-violence her liberty from unwilling hands.’ I will go ahead not for India’s sake alone, but for the sake of the world. Even if my eyes close before there is freedom, non-violence will not end. They will be dealing a mortal blow to China and to Russia if they oppose the freedom of non-violent India which is pleading with bended knees for the fulfillment of debt along overdue.”

These lines highlight the importance of nonviolence in the movement. The phrase “wrench with non-violence” is somewhat paradoxical in nature in that to “wrench” anything out of someone else’s hands would imply a struggle and could certainly lead to violence. However, that word choice coupled with the image of his eyes closing in death helps to emphasize that, although India’s search for freedom will utilize nonviolence, it will certainly not be easy. Additionally, the image of India on bended knee reminds everyone that the movement is meant to convince Britain to quit India, not to force them.