Skip to main content

Third Round Table conference, Poona Pact

Third Round Table conference, Poona Pact

  India's History : Modern India : Third Round Table Conference, The Communal Award, Poona Pact : 1932

Third Round Table Conference

The third session began on November 17, 1932. It was short and unimportant. The Congress was once again absent, so was the Labor opposition in the British Parliament. Reports of the various committees were scrutinized. The conference ended on December 25, 1932.

The recommendations of the Round Table Conferences were embodied in a White Paper. It was published in March 1933, and debated in parliament directly afterwards, analyzed by the Joint Select Committee and after the final reading and loyal assent, the bill reached the Statute Book on July 24, 1935.

Poona pact

During the first Round Table Conference, when Ambedkar favoured the move of the British Government to provide separate electorate for the oppressed classes, Gandhi strongly opposed it on the plea that the move would disintegrate the Hindu society. He went for an indefinite hunger strike from September 20, 1932 against the decision of the then British Prime Minister J.Ramsay MacDonald granting communal award to the depressed classes in the constitution for governance of British India.

In view of the mass upsurge generated in the country to save the life of Gandhi, Ambedkar was compelled to soften his stand. A compromise between the leaders of caste Hindu and the depressed classes was reached on September 24,1932, popularly known as Poona Pact. The resolution announced in a public meeting on September 25 in Bombay confirmed -" henceforth, amongst Hindus no one shall be regarded as an untouchable by reason of his birth and they will have the same rights in all the social institutions as the other Hindus have". This landmark resolution in the history of the Dalit movement in India subsequently formed the basis for giving due share to Dalits in the political empowerment of Indian people in a democratic Indian polity.

The following is the text of the agreement arrived at between leaders acting on behalf of the Depressed Classes and of the rest of the community, regarding the representation of the Depressed Classes in the legislatures and certain other matters affecting their welfare

  1. There shall be seats reserved for the Depressed Classes out of general electorate seats in the provincial legislatures as follows: - Madras 30; Bombay with Sind 25; Punjab 8; Bihar and Orissa 18; Central Provinces 20; Assam 7; Bengal 30; United Provinces 20. Total 148. These figures are based on the Prime Minister's (British) decision.

  2. Election to these seats shall be by joint electorates subject, however, to the following procedure – All members of the Depressed Classes registered in the general electoral roll of a constituency will form an electoral college which will elect a panel of tour candidates belonging to the Depressed Classes for each of such reserved seats by the method of the single vote and four persons getting the highest number of votes in such primary elections shall be the candidates for election by the general electorate.

  3. The representation of the Depressed Classes in the Central Legislature shall likewise be on the principle of joint electorates and reserved seats by the method of primary election in the manner provided for in clause above for their representation in the provincial legislatures.

Bihar Earthquake

  India's History : Modern India : Civil Disobedience Movement called off, Bihar Earthquake : 1934

Civil Disobedience Movement Called Off

The Second Round Table Conference ended in failure in December 1931. Gandhi came back to India without achieving his goal. Meanwhile the government of India renewed its policy of suppressing Indian political movements. Gandhi was utterly disgusted at the attitude of the government and decided to resume the Civil Disobedience Movement in January 1932. The government, on its part, lost no time in taking retaliatory measures. Prominent Congressmen were arrested. The Congress was declared illegal. In spite of the ruthless repression the Civil Disobedience Movement continued and within a short period nearly 120,000 people courted arrest. But as time passed, the leaders who had always been active were imprisoned. The ruthless action of the Government slowed down the movement. Consequently the movement was suspended for three months in May 1933 and ultimately ended in April 1934.

The Civil Disobedience Movement ended without any result. It could bring neither Swaraj nor complete independence to India. It had practically no significant contribution towards the process of constitution making which culminated in the Government of India Act, 1935. Nevertheless, it was an important step in the Indian struggle for independence. It generated political consciousness among the Indian multitude. But it failed to bring about communal harmony between the Hindus and the Muslims, the two major communities of India. It is significant that the Muslims of India, as a community, kept themselves aloof from the movement. Only a few Muslim leaders became involved in it. Gandhi never succeeded in recovering the position among the Muslims, which he had won during the days of the Khilafat movement.

Bihar Earthquake

In 1934, Bihar was shaken by an earthquake, which caused immense damage and loss of property. The quake, devastating by itself, was followed by floods and an outbreak of malaria which heightened misery. Dr. Prasad dove right in with relief work, collecting food, clothes and medicine.

Congress gains Majority in Provincial Autonomy

  India's History : Modern India : Inauguration of Provincial Autonomy; Congress ministries formed in a majority of Indian provinces : 1937

The Elections

For five years, the Congress and government were locked in conflict and negotiations until what became the Government of India Act of 1935 could be hammered out. But by then, the rift between the Congress and the Muslim League had become unbridgeable as each pointed the finger at the other acrimoniously. The Muslim League disputed the claim by the Congress to represent all people of India, while the Congress disputed the Muslim League's claim to voice the aspirations of all Muslims.

The Government of India Act of 1935 was practically implemented in 1937. The provincial elections were held in the winter of 1936-37. There were two major political parties in the Sub-continent at that time, the Congress and the Muslim League. Both parties did their best to persuade the masses before these elections and put before them their manifesto. The political manifestos of both parties were almost identical, although there were two major differences. Congress stood for joint electorate and the League for separate electorates; Congress wanted Hindi as official language with Deva Nagri script of writing while the League wanted Urdu with Persian script.

According to the results of the elections, Congress, as the oldest, richest and best-organized political party, emerged as the single largest representative in the Legislative Assembles. Yet it failed to secure even 40 percent of the total number of seats. Out of the 1,771 total seats in the 11 provinces, Congress was only able to win slightly more then 750. Thus the results clearly disapproved Gandhi's claim that Congress party represented 95 percent of the population of India. Its success, moreover, was mainly confined to the Hindu constituencies. Out of the 491 Muslim seats, Congress captured 26. Muslim Leagues' condition was bad as it could only win 106 Muslim seats. The party only managed to win two seats from the Muslim majority province of Punjab.

The Congress majority

The final results of the elections were declared in February 1937. The Indian National Congress had a clear majority in Madras, Uttar Province, Central Province, Bihar and Orrisa. It was also able to form a coalition government in Bombay and Frontier Province Congress was also able to secure political importance in Sindh and Assam, where they joined the ruling coalition. Thus directly or indirectly, Congress was in power in nine out of eleven provinces. The Unionist Party of Sir Fazl-i-Hussain and Praja Krishak Party of Maulvi Fazl-i-Haq were able to form governments in Punjab and Bengal respectively, without the interference of Congress. Muslim League failed to form government in any province. Quaid-i-Azam offered Congress to form a coalition government with the League but the Congress rejected his offer.

The Congress refused to set up its government until the British agreed to their demand that the Governor would not use his powers in legislative affairs. Many discussions took place between the Congress and the British Government and at last the British Government consented, although it was only a verbal commitment and no amendment was made in the Act of 1935. Eventually, after a four-month delay, Congress formed their ministries in July 1937.

The Congress declared Hindi as the national language and Deva Nagri as the official script. The Congress flag was given the status of national flag, slaughtering of cows was prohibited and it was made compulsory for the children to worship the picture of Gandhi at school. Vande-Mataram, from Bankim Chandra Chatterji's novel Ananda Math, was made the national anthem of the country.

To investigate Muslim grievances, the Muslim League formulated the "Pirpur Report" under the chairmanship of Raja Syed Muhammad Mehdi of Pirpur. Other reports concerning Muslim grievances in Congress run provinces were A. K. Fazl-ul-Haq's "Muslim Sufferings Under Congress Rule", and "The Sharif Report".

The allegation that Congress was representing Hindus only was voiced also by eminent British personalities. The Marquees of Lothian in April 1938 termed the Congress rule as a "rising tide of Hindu rule". Sir William Barton writing in the "National Review" in June 1939 also termed the Congress rule as "the rising tide of political Hinduism".

At the outbreak of the World War II, the Viceroy proclaimed India's involvement without prior consultations with the main political parties. When Congress demanded an immediate transfer of power in return for cooperation of the war efforts, the British government refused. As a result Congress resigned from power.

The Congress Resigns

  India's History : Modern India : Political deadlock in India as Congress ministries resign : 1939

The Congress Resigns

The Congress victory in the 1937 election and the consequent formation of popular ministries changed the balance of power within the country vis-a-vis the colonial authorities. The stage seemed to be set for another resurgence of the nationalist movement. Just at this time, the Congress had to undergo a crisis at the top an occurrence that plagued the Congress every few years.

Subhash Bose had been a unanimous choice as the President of the Congress in 1938. In 1939, he decided to stand again - this time as the spokesperson of militant politics and radical groups. Putting forward his candidature on 21 January 1939, Bose said that he represented the 'new ideas, ideologies, problems and programmes' that had emerged with 'the progressive sharpening of the anti-imperialist struggle in India.' The presidential elections, he said, should be fought among different candidates 'on the basis of definite problems and programmes.'

On 24 January, Sardar Patel, Rajendra Prasad, J.B. Kripalani and four other members of the Congress Working Committee issued a counter statement, declaring that the talk of ideologies, programmes and policies was irrelevant in the elections of a Congress president since these were evolved by the various Congress bodies such as the AICC and the Working Committee, and that the position of the Congress President was like that of a constitutional head who represented and symbolized the unity and solidarity of the nation. With the blessings of Gandhiji, these and other leaders put up Pattabhi Sitaramayya as a candidate for the post. Subhas Bose was elected on 29th January by 1580 votes against 1377. Gandhiji declared that 'Pattabhi's defeat is my defeat'.

The line of propaganda adopted by Bose against Sardar Patel and the majority of the top Congress leadership whom he branded as rightists. He openly accused them of working for a compromise with the Government on the question of federation. The Congress leaders, labeled as compromisers, resented such charges and branded them as a slander. After Subhash's election, they felt that they could not work with a President who had publicly cast aspersions on their nationalist bonafides. Jawaharlal Nehru did not resign along with the other twelve working committee members. He did not like the idea of confronting Bose publicly. But he did not agree with Bose either.

Subhash Bose believed that the Congress was strong enough to launch an immediate struggle and that the masses were ready for such struggle. He was convinced, as he wrote later, 'that the country was internally more ripe for a revolution than ever before and that the coming international crisis would give India an opportunity for achieving her emancipation, which is rare in human history.'

He, therefore, argued in his Presidential address in Tripuri for a programme of immediately giving the British Government a six-months ultimatum to grant the national demand of independence and of launching a mass civil disobedience movement if it failed to do so. Gandhiji's perceptions were very different. The internal strife reached its climax at the Tripuri session of the Congress, held from 8 to 12 March 1939. Bose had completely misjudged the faith of Congressmen. They were not willing to reject Gandhiji's leadership or that of other older leaders who decided to bring this home to Subhash.

Bose could see no other way but to resign from the Presidentship. Nehru tried to mediate but to no avail. Bose could also not get the support of the Congress Socialists and the Communists at Tripuri or after.

At the outbreak of the World War II, the Viceroy proclaimed India's involvement without prior consultations with the main political parties. When Congress demanded an immediate transfer of power in return for cooperation of the war efforts, the British government refused. As a result Congress resigned from power.

1942: Quit India Resolution

  India's History : Modern India : Cripps Mission to India, Congress adopts Quit India Resolution, Congress leaders arrested, Subhash Chandra Bose forms Indian National Army : 1942

Cripps Mission

Cripps Mission was deputed by British parliament in early 1942 to contain the political crisis obtained in India. The mission was headed by Sir Stafford Cripps, a Cabinet Minister. Cripps, a radical member of the Labour Party and the then Leader of the House of Commons, was known as a strong supporter of Indian national movement. Cripps Mission was prompted by two considerations. First, Gandhi's call for the Satyagraha (literally 'insistence on truth', generally rendered 'soul force') movement in October 1940 was designed to embarrass Britain's war efforts by a mass upheaval in India and needed to be ended in the British interest. Secondly, the fall of Singapore (15 February 1942), Rangoon (8 March), and the Andamans (23 March) to the Japanese was threatening the entire fabric of British colonial empire. In the face of these crises, the British felt obliged to make some gestures to win over Indian public support.

The Cripps offer reiterated the intention of the British government to set up an Indian Union within the British Commonwealth as soon as possible after the war, and proposed specific steps towards that end. A constituent assembly would be elected by the provincial legislatures acting as an Electoral College. This body would then negotiate a treaty with the British government. The future right of secession from the Commonwealth was explicitly stated. The Indian states would be free to join, and in any case their treaty arrangements would be revised to meet the new situation.

The offer dominated Indian politics for the rest of the war. Although the British official circles claimed that the Cripps offer marked a great advance for its frankness and precision, it was plagued throughout, and ultimately torpedoed, by numerous ambiguities and misunderstandings. The Congress was very critical of the clauses regarding nomination of the states' representatives by the rulers and the provincial option Jawaharlal Nehru had desperately sought a settlement largely because of his desire to mobilise Indian support in the anti-fascist war, while most Congress working Committee members and Gandhi himself had been apathetic. This embittered Congress-British relations, and things were then rapidly moving towards a total confrontation in the form of quit india movement. But Cripps blamed the Congress for the failure of the Plan, while the Congress held the British government responsible for it. A chance of establishing a united independent India was thus lost.

Quit India Movement

Quit India Movement, 1942 an important event of the Indian freedom struggle, was the outcome of a compound of anti-white fury. The cripps mission, with its vague proposals of a post-war Dominion Status for India, a constitution making body elected by provincial legislatures and the native states, provincial opt out clause, the immediate participation of Indian leaders in war effort but the retention of the control of Indian defence by the British, satisfied none and threatened to Balkanise the Indian subcontinent.

The retreat of the British from Malay, Burma and Singapore, leaving their dependants to fend for themselves, the indescribable plight of the Indians trekking back home from these places, the racial ill-treatment meted out to Indians by white soldiers stationed here and there in India, the 'scorched earth' policy pursued by the British in Bengal to resist probable Japanese invasion which resulted in the commandeering of all means of communicating, war-time price rise, black-marketeering and profiteering - all these contributed to the creation of an anti-white fury. Above all, there was the attempt of the British bureaucracy right from the outbreak of the war for a wholesale crackdown on the Congress on the pattern of 1932.

The early morning round up of Congress leaders on 9 August 'unleashed an unprecedented and country-wide wave of mass fury'. And the wave engulfed the Bengal cities, particularly the bigger ones. There were three broad phases of the movement. The first was predominantly urban and included hartals, strikes and clashes with the police and army in most major cities. All these were massive and violent but quickly suppressed.

The second phase of the movement started from the middle of August. Militant students fanned out from different centres, destroying communications and leading peasant rebellion in Northern and Western Bihar, Eastern UP, Midnapore in Bengal, and pockets in Maharastra, Karnataka and Orissa. A number of short-lived local 'national governments' were also set up.

The third phase of the movements started from about the end of September and was characterised by terrorist activities, sabotage and guerrilla warfare by educated youths and peasant squads. Parallel national governments functioned at Tamluk in Midnapore, Satara in Maharasfra, and Talcher in Orissa. All the three phases of the movement were crushed by brutal atrocities including the use of machine guns from the air.

A good deal of controversy exists about the nature of the movement-whether it was a 'spontaneous revolution' or an 'organised rebellion'. The famous 'Quit India' resolution passed by the Bombay session of the AICC on 8 August 42 followed up its call for 'mass struggle on non violent lines on the widest possible scale', 'inevitably' under Gandhi, with the significant rider that if the Congress leadership was removed by arrest, every Indian who desires freedom and strives for it must be his own guide...'. The Wardha working committee resolution of 14 July had also introduced an unusual note of social radicalism-'the princes', 'jagirdars', 'zamindars' and propertied and moneyed classes derive their wealth and property from the workers in the fields and factories and elsewhere, to whom eventually power and authority must belong.

At the crucial working committee session of 27 April - 1 May, Gandhi's hard-line was backed by a combination of Right-wingers like Patel, Rajendra Prasad and Kripalni and the socialists like Achyut Patwardhan and Narendra Dev. Jawaharlal was initially hesitant, but ultimately joined the queue and only the Communists opposed the Quit India resolution.

During and after the Quit India upsurge, the British in documents like Tottenhams' Report painted the whole outburst as a 'deliberate fifth columnist conspiracy', intending to strengthen the Axis powers. This interpretation not only ignored the consistent anti-fascist international stance of the Congress throughout the 1930s, but also made a historical travesty of the facts that being arrested in the early morning of 9 August the Congress leaders could hardly lead the outburst and that the Quit India resolution was also remarkably vague about the details of the coming movement. Far from ruling out further negotiations, the whole thing may conceivably have been an exercise in brinkmanship and a bargaining counter which was followed by an explosion only because the British had decided on a policy of wholesale repression. Despite strenuous efforts, the British failed to establish their case that the Congress before 9 August had really planned a violent rebellion.

The movement was, in reality 'elemental and largely spontaneous'. It was sparked off by a variety of factors and of an expectation that British rule was coming to an end. Bureaucratic high-handedness and provocation worsened the situation. Financial losses incurred in Malay and Burma induced sections of Indian business community to give some covert support to a movement (even if violent) for a short while.

The real picture was that the removal of established leaders left younger and more militant cadres to their own initiative and gave greater scope to pressure from below. Amery's slander that the Congress had planned attacks on communications and sabotage boomeranged with a vengeance, for many believed that this really had been the Working Committee's plan. In any case, in a primary hegemonic struggle as the Indian National Movement was, preparedness for struggle cannot be measured by the volume of immediate organisational activity but by the degree of hegemonic influence that the movement has acquired over the people.

The participation of labour was short-lived and limited but there was certainly considerable covert upper-class and even Indian high official support to secret nationalist activities in 1942. Such support enabled activists to set up a fairly effective illegal apparatus, including even a secret radio station under Usha Mehta for three months in Bombay. Unlike in the Civil Disobedience days, middle class students were very much in the forefront in 1942, whether in urban clashes, as organisers of sabotage, or as motivators of present rebellion. What made the movement so formidable, however, was the massive upsurge of the peasantry in certain areas, particularly in Bihar.

Indeed, that 1942 clearly surpassed all previous Congress led movements in its level of anti-British radicalism possibly reduced internal class tensions and social radiation. The characteristic feature of this movement was that private property was less attacked and even no-revenue was not as comprehensive as in 1930-34.

The paradox why the people turned violent when the Congress insisted on non-violence may be solved in the following manner. In the struggle there were many who refused to use on sanction violent means and confined themselves to the traditional weaponry of the Congress. But many of those, including many staunch Gandhians, who used 'violent means' in 1942 felt that the peculiar circumstances warranted their use. Many maintained that the cutting of telegraph wires and the blowing up of bridges were all right as long as human life was not taken but others admitted that they could not square the violence they used, with their belief in non-violence, although they did resort to it in most trying circumstances and in self-defence.

Gandhi refused to condemn the violence of the people because he saw it as a reaction to the much bigger violence being perpetrated on the state. It is held that Gandhi's major objection to violence was that its use prevented mass participation in a movement. For in 1942, Gandhi had come round to the view that mass participation would not be restricted as a result of isolated violence. Gandhi had come to realise that the kind of non-violence he had wanted his country men to inculcate and practise, could not be achieved and so towards the end of his career he had kept some amount of space for the participants to follow their own line of action. His patience had been dragged to such extremes that he felt that even at the cost of some risks, he should ask his people to resist slavery. Although Gandhi was now in an unusually militant mood, at no stage was he prepared to forsake his faith in non-violence. He would have liked the movement to be non-violent but was prepared to run the risk of unrestricted mass action even if that meant civil war. He thus said, 'Let them entrust India to God or, in modem parlance, to anarchy'.

The Quit India movement was thus not a controlled volunteer movement like Gandhi's previous movements of 1920-22 and 1930-34. It was not conceived as a traditional Satyagraha. It was to be a 'fight to the finish', an 'open rebellion', 'short and swift' which could very well plunge the country into a 'conflagration'. Foreign domination was to be ended whatever the cost.

Scholars have analysed the questions of 'spontaneity' and 'preparedness' in terms of action and reaction. The arrest of the leaders made the people aghast and took them completely unaware. Strikes and demonstrations followed and 'the very size of the crowds made the Government nervous'. Tension bred tension and led to confrontation. The people had no guidance, the leaders were either behind the bars or underground. Passions were ranging high. Individuals and groups interpreted the situation to the best of their understanding and acted, as they thought best. The continuing police repression and 'Ordinance Raj' further inflamed the feelings of the people. There had been no Congress call for civil disobedience. 'Therefore what started as individual acts of angry defiance, soon swelled into a movement, and the movement into a revolt'.

The gravity and extent of the Quit India movement by linlithgow's own admission may be compared to those of the Revolt of 1857. It failed because an unarmed people without leaders and proper organisation could not stand for long before the mighty strength of an imperial government in power. Yet, the significance of the great movement lay in the fact that it placed the demand for independence on the immediate agenda of the national movement. After Quit India, there could be no turning back. Any future negotiations with the British government could only be on the manner of transfer of power. Independence was no longer a matter of bargain and this became amply clear after the war.

Indian National Army

Indian National Army was formed under the initiative of leaders like subhas chandra bose, rashbehari bose and others who, being imbued with the spirit of national independence, sided with the Axis Powers during the Second World war (1939-1945). The Indian National Army (INA) is also called 'Azad Hind Fauz'.

In December 1941 the Japanese defeated the British at Malaya and Captain Mohan Singh together with an Indian and a British officer capitulated to them. Indians residing in southeast Asia were much inspired at the victory of Japan at the initial stage of the war. A number of associations were formed aiming at the independence of India. Pritam Singh was a leader of such an organisation. He and Major Fujihara, a Japanese officer, requested Mohan Sing to form an Indian Army comprising the captured Indian soldiers. Mohan Singh hesitated but ultimately agreed. Fujihara handed over about 40,000 Indian soldiers, who had surrendered to him, to Mohan Singh. It was actually the first step towards the formation of the INA.

Singapore fell to the Japanese on 15 February1942. Advancing further north they attacked Burma (Myanmar) and captured Rangoon (Yangoon) on 7 March 1942. The famous revolutionary Rash Behari Bose was residing in Japan during this time. He arranged a meeting of the leading Indians residing in Tokyo on 28 March 1942 and there it was decided that an Association of 'Free Indians' would be formed and a National Indian Army constituted under the command of Indian officers. A conference was held at Bangkok on 15 June with this end in view. The conference continued up to 24 June and 35 proposals were adopted. It was agreed that Subhas Chandra Bose would be invited to Southeast Asia. The Bangkok conference approved the army already formed by Mohan Singh. A five member working committee was formed and Rash Behari Bose was made its president. The formation of the INA was formally declared.

In the mean time Subhas Bose silently left Calcutta on 17 January 1941 and arrived in Germany. In Berlin he formed an India government in exile and extended support to Germany. He began to broadcast his aims and objectives over Radio Berlin and made contact with Japan. This aroused tremendous enthusiasm in India. Indians in Germany gave him the title of 'Netaji' and the slogan of 'Jai-Hind' was initiated here during this time.

Subhas left for Japan in a German submarine and arrived in Tokyo on 13 June 1943. Hideki Tojo, the Japanese Prime Minister (1941-44), accorded him a cordial reception on his arrival. The Prime Minister declared in their parliament that Japan would advance all sorts of help to India in its fight for independence. A huge crowd gathered at Singapore to receive Subhas when he arrived there on 2 July 1943. On 4 July Rash Behari Bose resigned and Subhas became the president of the Indian Independence Movement in East Asia. He formally took the leadership of INA on 25 August and dedicated himself in bringing discipline within its rank and file. On 21 October 1943 Subhas, popularly called Netaji, declared the formation of the Provisional Government of Azad Hind and on the 23rd declared war on Britain and America.

The INA was being organised in such a way so that they could also take part in the invasion of India together with the soldiers of Japan. But Terauchi, the Japanese commander, gave objection to the plan on three grounds. He considered that the Indians (as war-prisoners) were demoralised, they were not painstaking like the Japanese and they were mainly mercenary soldiers. So he opined that the Japanese would take part in the invasion and the INA would stay in Singapore. Subhas could not accede to the proposal. Ultimately, after much discussion, it was decided that only a regiment of the Indian soldiers would take part in the fight with the Japanese as a detached unit. If they could prove themselves equal to the Japanese, more Indians would be permitted to march to the border. A new brigade named Subhas Brigade was formed with select soldiers from the erstwhile Gandhi, Azad and Nehru Brigades.

The INA Headquarters was shifted to Rangoon in January 1944 and sensation was created with the war cry Chalo Delhi (March on Delhi). The Subhas Brigade reached Rangoon towards the beginning of January 1944. In the mean time it was decided that the Indian detachment would not be smaller than a battalion, its commander would be an Indian, the war would continue under Joint plan of Action and Indians would fight as a separate unit on selected spots. It was also decided that battles would occur at the Kaladan valley of Arakan and Kalam and Haka centre of China hills to the east of Lusai hills.

The Subhas Brigade was divided into three battalions. The first contingent advanced across both the banks of Kaladan and captured Paletoa and Doletmai. It captured Maudak, a British border out-post at a distance of 64 km from Doletmai a few days after. It was very difficult to get supply of arms and ammunitions and foodstuff, so the Japanese wanted to fall back, but the Indians refused. So only one company was left behind under the command of Surajmal and the rest went back. The Japanese commander also left behind a platoon of his contingents under the disposal of Surajmal.

In the mean time the other two detachments of the Subhas Brigade took the responsibility of Haka-Kalan borderline. At the fall of Imphal at Manipur it was decided that INA would take position at Kohima, so that it could enter Bengal across the Brahmaputra. Gandhi and Azad Brigades also advanced towards Imphal. On the 21 March the Japanese PM declared that the Indian territories freed from the British would be brought under the administration of a provisional independent government formed under Netaji. In spite of various hazards and want of food and war materials the INA advanced up to 241 km inside India.

A few days after the declaration of the Japanese PM the Americans and the British reinforced their power in the Pacific and took steps to invade Japan. At such a critical juncture the Japan forces had to give up the plan of invading India. Consequently the INA also had to retreat and was forced to surrender when the allied powers recaptured Burma.

The Government of India gave strenuous punishment to quite a good number of INA officers like Capt. Shah Nawaz, Capt. Rashid and others. But the government was forced to lift the order when it caused widespread commotion among the member of the public. The cause of India's independence was greatly advanced by the spirit of nationalism aroused by the INA.

Attached: Third Round Table conference, Poona Pact
Message from
Google Docs makes it easy to create, store and share online documents, spreadsheets and presentations.
Google Docs logo


Popular posts from this blog



13.0 Learning Outcome

13.1 Introduction

13.2 Initiatives towards Constitutional Status to Local Governance

13.2.1 Features of 73rd Constitutional Amendment

13.2.2 Features of 74th Constitutional Amendment

13.2.3 Decentralised Planning in Context of 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Act

13.3 Initiatives after Economic Reforms

13.4 Functioning of PRIs in Various States after 73rd Amendment

13.5 Functioning of Local Governance after 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment: Observations

13.6 Conclusion

13.7 Key Concepts

13.8 References and Further Reading

13.9 Activities


After studying this Unit you should be able to:

• Identify the background of revitalisation of local governance;

• Understand the features of 73rd and 74th constitutional amendment;

• Discuss the initiatives after economic reforms; and

• Outlines the functioning of local governance in various states after the amendment.


The revitalization of Pancha…

Q. What is the meaning of the terms like ‘Pardon’, ‘Reprieve’, ‘Respite’, ‘Remission’ and ‘Commutation’ with respect to the power of the President to grant pardon to convicted persons?

Ans. In terms of their scope and effect, these terms have specific connotations. The effect of Pardon is to abolish punishment and to absolve the convict of all charges. If Pardon is granted, it is assured as if the convict has not committed any crime. The convict will not face any disabilities due to the allegations and charges made against him. ‘Remission’ means reducing the punishment without changing the nature of punishment. For example, the imprisonment for 20 years may be reduced to the imprisonment for 10 years. ‘Commutation’ means reducing the punishment by changing the nature of punishment. For example, punishment to death may be changed to life imprisonment. ‘Respite’ means reducing or changing the nature of punishment in view of the specific facts and circumstances of the convict. For example, the punishment to death awarded to a pregnant woman, may be changed to simple life imprisonment. Respite means delay in execution of punishment especially that of death, in order to …



1.0 Learning outcome

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Concept of Democratic Decentralisation

1.3 Evolution of Democratic Decentralisation

1.4 Significance of Democratic Decentralisation

1.5 Democratic Decentralisation in India

1.6 Conclusion

1.7 Key concepts

1.8 References and Further Reading

1.9 Activities


After studying this unit, you should be able to:

• Understand the concept of Democratic Decentralization;

• Know the evolution and significance of Democratic Decentralization; and

• Describe the Democratic Decentralization pattern in India.


The dawn of 21st century is marked by decentralized governance both as a strategy and philosophy of brining about reforms and changes in democracies. These changes led to such virtues of transparency, responsiveness and accountability and ensures good governance. Today decentralization and democracy are the most significant themes in the development discourse. In the present contex…