Summary & Analysis of Quit India Speech by M.K. Gandhi 

Quit india speech analysis.

The  Quit India Speech  was delivered by  M.K. Gandhi  on  8 August 1942  in  Bombay . It proclaimed the initiation of the  Quit India movement , India’s third and final civil disobedience movement against British imperial rule. In his speech, Gandhi delved into themes such as his role as a national leader, the future of India’s independence, satyagraha, the importance of non-violence, the philosophy of do-or-die, the role of different sections of society such as civil servants, soldiers, princes and others, the importance of the press, and the importance of mass-level non-cooperation and protest. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, popularly known as  Mahatma Gandhi , was a leading figure of the Indian Independence movement beginning in the late 1910s and is credited with providing the freedom struggle a mass and diverse character, hence remembered for making sufficient contributions to the goal of Independence

Quit India Speech   | Summary & Analysis

Quit india speech   |  part i .

Gandhi opens his speech by explaining his  god-given position as a ‘priceless gift’  in the struggle of  ahimsa  (non-violence). He goes on to say that if he does not use this gift of his to address the present crisis he will not be unforgiven by god. He talks about the fight for India’s independence, and how it is a non-violent process not considering violence, military coups, or dictatorships as possibilities; he adds that when the nation is independent, its people will decide how to share power. He believes that while it is up to people to choose who governs them, Congress’s role in the freedom struggle and communal-less history must be highlighted. 

Gandhi called the Indian struggle for independence the  most democratic  of all, placing its ideals  higher than even the French and Russian revolutions , since unlike the others the Indian movement did not employ violence. His definition of democracy includes a non-violent establishment with freedom for all and he exhorts people to leave behind their communal differences and join the freedom struggle. 

He also asks the people to  differentiate between British imperialism and British people , and not extend their hatred to the latter, as hatred for just its people will make other imperialistic regimes (such as Japan’s) acceptable to Indians. He wishes to accentuate the idea that the critique must be of imperialism as a concept. 

He returns to a discussion on India’s independence and argues that its demand is not a product of mere anger but also other considerations such as the current international context. He says that until India is free it can’t show its true colors of ‘sacrifice and valor’ and that India’s current contribution to the ongoing affairs was dismal.  

Quit India Speech   |  PART II  

Gandhi addresses the gathering by acknowledging the power his fellows have put in him and conveying that their  demands have been sent over to the viceroy  and will take a few weeks before the discussion can proceed. In the meantime, he hopes to start some productive activities that everyone suggests. His suggestion is to run the spinning wheel. Besides asking people to follow the fourteen-point constructive program, he asks them to  start behaving as free individuals  no longer under imperial rule.

He moves on to the  princes  and establishes his background in the Princely states. He calls himself their faithful servant and makes a small request respectfully, that is, for them to join him in his envisioning of a free India. He seems to warn them against Nehru’s plan for India, which visualizes completely state-owned properties and would lead to a complete loss of the prince’s privileges. He gives the  princes the option of joining India  and becoming trustees of their property. He appears to be placating them by asking them to continue their authority and ‘innocent pleasure’, but as servants of people and not slaves of the British Empire. He reassures them such a rebellion wouldn’t be unconstitutional and would encourage the masses to follow the princes as their subjects and as Indian citizens. 

He mentions the  soldiers  next and again asks them to not immediately resign if they don’t wish to, but asks them to reiterate their loyalty to the people in front of the government and refuse to use force against their own. He says even such a minuscule contribution will completely change the atmosphere of the movement, no matter how the British government seeks to repress or respond to it. 

Quit India Speech   | | Socio-Historical Context  

The  Quit India Movement  was a significant  civil disobedience movement  launched by the Indian National Congress (INC) during World War II, demanding an end to British colonial rule in India. The larger context of the movement and its activities was  British colonialism , which is the process whereby a territory’s economic and political rights are subjugated by a foreign power to serve the interests of the latter. This process had begun in the 18th century and by the mid-19th century, following the repression of the Revolt of 1857, after which India came to be administered directly under Crown rule. Besides obvious questions of sovereignty and security, there were also concerns regarding the drain of wealth, maladministration, and racist policy-making. 

According to Gandhi, satyagraha was a powerful force that would coerce the imperial rule to give in by appealing to their conscience. He also believed that ensuring that the struggle was non-violent was important to avoid the possibility of counter-violence from the government to brutally repress movements in the name of peace and order. Because of the same, his speeches are heavy with appeals to non-violence and its crucial role in the becoming of a democratic state. 

Additionally, in 1942, the British government sent Sir Stafford Cripps to India with the  ‘Cripps Mission’,  including proposals for constitutional reforms and greater Indian participation in the war effort. However, the Cripps Mission failed to meet Indian aspirations for full independence, leading to disillusionment and frustration among the leaders. It was becoming clearer that another push of mass mobilization was necessary to force the imperial rule to its knees. 

Therefore, a  multitude of considerations  formed the backdrop of Gandhi’s strategy with regard to the Quit India movement and therefore informed the contents of his speech. 

To convey his authority as the leader of the movement and the proclamation of the struggle, Gandhi argues that his role is a God-given responsibility, using  ethos  to institute his charge. 

‘ Let me explain my position clearly. God has vouchsafed to me a priceless gift in the weapon of Ahimsa .’
‘ As a faithful servant, it is my duty to warn the Princes that if they will act while I am still alive, the Princes may come to occupy an honorable place in free India. In Jawaharlal’s scheme of free India, no privileges or the privileged classes have a place…He likes to fly; I do not. I have kept a place for the Princes and the Zamindars in India. ‘

Requesting journalists and editors to continue their support of the national movement, he states,

‘ You have the pen which the Government can’t suppress…For myself, I would not suppress my pen, even if the press was to be attached .’
‘ But in the present struggle, we have to work openly and to receive bullets on our chest, without taking to heels. ’ 
‘ You may say to the Government, “Our hearts are with the Congress. We are not going to leave our posts. We will serve you so long as we receive your salaries. We will obey your just orders, but will refuse to fire on our own people.”… ’

In order to establish the uniqueness and superiority of the civil disobedience movement that he’s proclaiming, Gandhi compares the trajectory of the freedom struggle in India to other movements abroad. He uses  contrast  to show that since India followed a non-violent approach, it is different and more effective than other movements. 

‘ But I would ask them: “Do you want to remain slaves for all time? Why should you, instead of paying homage to a foreign power, not accept the sovereignty of your own people?”… ‘  ‘ …”The people are now awake. How are we to withstand an avalanche before which even the Large empire is crumbling?”… ‘  ‘ …”I would ask the students to say to their professors: “We belong to the Congress. Do you belong to the Congress, or to the Government”… ‘

Rather than seeking a direct answer, Gandhi aims to make people introspect on their actions during a crucial time. 

As a means of political mobilization, Gandhi’s speech included several literary devices which sought to improve its persuasive appeal.

Remarks Concerning the Savages of North America Summary

Snow glass apples, related articles, rules of the game amy tan, the third level | summary and analysis, verses written on her death-bed | summary and analysis, the shrinking shoe | summary and analysis, leave a reply cancel reply, adblock detected.

  • Skip to Main Content
  • ePortfolios Directory

ePortfolio Header Image

Jihoon Kwon

Writing 102

  • Community Activities and Service
  • Literary Analysis

Here is my Rhetorical Anaysis paper on Gandhi's speech "Quit India"  (Include link).

Also paste the text from the Google Doc.

Prof. MaryAnn Duffy

20 February 2014

A Non-Violent Resolution

    On August 8, 1942 Mahatma Gandhi, the preeminent leader of Indian nationalism in British-ruled India, delivered a fascinating speech called “Quit India.” During this period, poverty was a stark reality in India. People slowly began to realize that their poverty was not generated by them, but by the British Empire. At that time, the British Empire had colonized India, causing multiple problems, such as: a lack of education, and a loss of national identity. Thus, out of desperation, the people of India started independence movements, including both violent and non-violent movements, to free themselves from British rule. Gandhi tried to persuade people to participate in non-violent independence movements by delivering a speech in Bombay in front of 60,000 people. Gandhi’s speech was carefully thought up using persuasive methods known as rhetoric. Gandhi became an influential and persuasive leader in driving non-violent independence movements and peace through the use of Aristotle’s rhetoric devices, including: ethos, pathos, logos, and figurative language.

    Gandhi emphasizes the importance of logic and reasoning through a rhetorical device, logos, by contrasting the “British people” and “imperialism”. He tried to detach the word “imperialism” from the British people to abolish the perception that British people were responsible for causing poverty; and he began promoting the concept of peace. He states, “…Our quarrel is not with the British people, we fight their imperialism…” (Gandhi 54). Gandhi strenuously reasoned that the object of disapproval was not the British people, but the expansion of imperialism as the policy pits nation against nation in a competition to be the “superior race”. By planting logic into the minds of his audience, he tried to eliminate his people’s negative stereotype towards the British people. Gandhi discouraged anger and therefore, sought to persuade the people of India to stop blaming the British for pursuing the desire to rule. He explains, “…The people make no distinction between British imperialism and the British people. To them [the people of India], the two are one…” (Gandhi 51). Gandhi reveals that by holding the two entities as one, more problems may arise. He mentions that the irrational hatred can open a path for the Japanese to enter India on the pretext that the Japanese will drive out the British. However, Gandhi reminds his people that they are forgetting the ambitions of the Japanese to become an imperial power and the possibility that they may turn against India. He rationalizes, “…It means that they will exchange one slavery for another…” (Gandhi 53). By allowing the Japanese to have an opportunity to overthrow the British, problems will still remain for the people of India, as they would not be able to defend themselves in either of the situations. He uses the cause and effect method of logos to warn his audience that a violent independence movement would not give them freedom, but instead, may change India’s colonizer from the British Empire to Japan. Gandhi, through logos, was helping his people visualize the negative consequences of pushing forward with the violence.

    To further enhance his efforts towards achieving non-violent independence movements and peace, Gandhi uses ethos, which pertains to establishing one’s character. Gandhi is known as the “Father of the Nation” in India. He was a man with great desires to achieve independence without the use of violence. Gandhi was a very peaceful man and his nonviolent attitude was reflected in his speeches, which he spoke in a calm and friendly manner. The audience could observe and hold credible that Gandhi was a nonaggressive man and that he holds onto his words and morals. In the first portion of his speech, he employs the use of ethos. He states, “…I ask you to consider it from my point of view, because if you approve of it, you will be enjoined to carry out all I say…” (Gandhi 3). In asking for his audience’s considerations instead of forcing his views, Gandhi created an approachable and respectful atmosphere for his speech. His style of speech and the words he chooses to use represent the core principles and personality he preaches and lives by: peacefully, non-violently, and forgiving. The three main points he tries to communicate repeatedly appear in his speeches. Gandhi kept his speech simple and calm in order to appeal to an eclectic group of India’s population, coming from every class and background. In order to persuade Indians of varying social classes to join his non-violent movement, he purposely avoided using speech types that would attract and/or repel people from different backgrounds, as he wanted to respect the opinions of others while spreading his ideas. For instance, Gandhi states, “…If, therefore, there is any among you who has lost faith in Ahimsa or is wearied of it, let him not vote for this resolution…” (Gandhi 14). Gandhi never tries to force people to follow him and his quest for Ahimsa, or non-violence. He purely aims to spread his concept of peace whether people accept or reject it.

    The third and final mode of persuasion that Gandhi made use of to communicate his ideas of non-violence is pathos. Pathos refers to appealing to emotion. His statement, “…A non-violent soldier of freedom will covet nothing for himself, he fights only for the freedom of his country…” (Gandhi 25) evokes emotion in the reader by glorifying the state of being a non-violent soldier. Gandhi’s audience can infer that a “violent soldier” does not fight for the freedom of his country, but fights for himself. Prior to the statement, Gandhi said that violent soldiers have been “…often known to effect a military coup and to set off a dictatorship…” (Gandhi 23). The assumption concerning violent soldiers brings up a negative image to the people of India because of the disapproval they already have for the British and their strong dictatorship over the country. Gandhi indirectly compares the violent soldiers to the dictating British. From the comparison, the audience can infer that being a violent soldier would be no different from being one of the currently despised British whom are imperializing their country. Further motivating his fellow people of India, Gandhi mentions that the proposal to withdraw from British power was presented because of the idea that “…it is not a happy position for a big country like India to merely helping with money and material obtained willy-nilly from her while the United Nations are conducting the war...” (Gandhi 56). His declaration aroused the emotions of current helplessness and possible hope. He expected the people of India to be motivated by his statement because India is such an enormous country. Being more than ten times the size of the British mainland, India should at least be able to gain freedom equal to that of the British Empire. “…I know the British Government will not be able to withhold freedom from us…” (Gandhi 59). Pathos is the most popular rhetorical device that Gandhi employs in his speeches to the audience. Through using pathos to arouse the audience’s emotions, he made the audience suppress their anger toward British people and gave them a reason to fight for India’s independence non-violently.

    In addition to using Aristotle’s modes of persuasion, Gandhi utilized literary devices, such as metaphors, to further support his points. Gandhi uses multiple figures of speech in one line of his speech: “… earth is being scorched by the flames of Himsa and crying for deliverance...” (Gandhi 18). His statement consists of both a metaphor and personification to enhance the emotions that the audience associates with the meaning of the message. The metaphor, “…earth is being scorched by the flames of Himsa…” (Gandhi 18), symbolizes the widespread use of violence that was dominating the country and not resolving any problems. Gandhi insists that the use of violence will lead to the demise of India, as more problems will arise and engulf the country in chaos. The other half of his statement, “earth is… crying for deliverance”, is an example of personification that represents Gandhi’s message of India’s current state of constant violence and the country’s cries for freedom or liberation from the anger and sorrow. Once again, Gandhi associates violence with downfall and grief. He wrote with literary devices of metaphors and personification with a sense of desperation to spark emotions of pity and sympathy in the audience, which he hopes will evolve into motivation to fight for independence through peaceful means. He uses another literary device at the end of his speech to enhance his message. Gandhi exclaims that the British are “…on the brink of an abyss…” (Gandhi 65) as he talks about his foreshadowing of the British entering danger for Britain’s colonization era will soon dwindle down when smaller nations rise up to fight for freedom or to become the next imperial power. The metaphor signifies that the British will soon experience difficulties (possibly a reference to World War II because of other countries’ desires to expand their territories). Therefore, there is no need to act violently as violence causes chaos and the British people have other worries to deal with.

    Gandhi uses Aristotle’s rhetorical devices of logos, ethos, and pathos as well as literary devices (metaphors and personification) to smoothly and effectively convey his ideas of peace and anti-violence to people of India and around the world. His persuasive speech was very successful as Gandhi was able to motivate his people to launch the non-violent “Quit India Movement”. Whether or not the movement was successful in gaining independence is not important. What is important is that Gandhi was able to convince the Indian population, using his influential speech, to peacefully rebel against the British Empire.  

Works Cited

Gandhi, Mahatma. "The 'Quit India' Speeches." Mani Bhavan Gandhi Sangrahalaya. Mani Bhavan Gandhi Sangrahalaya, n.d. Web. 18 Feb. 2014. < http://www.gandhi-manibhavan.org/gandhicomesalive/speech6.htm> .

Guide cover image

27 pages • 54 minutes read

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Essay Analysis

Key Figures

Index of Terms

Literary Devices

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Discussion Questions

Summary and Study Guide

Summary: “quit india”.

The “Quit India” speeches included three addresses Mahatma Gandhi delivered to the All India Congress Committee, as well as thousands of others who congregated to listen in Bombay (now Mumbai), India, on August 8, 1942. At the time of the speeches, India was still under British colonial rule and was growing more disenchanted with what Indian leaders referred to as the British Raj (the Crown rule). These speeches launched the larger Quit India Movement, an attempt to get Great Britain to vacate India of its own volition. Gandhi delivered the three separate “Quit India” speeches with three slightly different areas of focus, but the overall message—that it was time for India to demand its independence—stayed consistent. Gandhi also touted other major themes such as the importance of non-violence in the push for freedom, unity among the multiple religious groups in India, and an urgency for freedom no matter the cost. As a result of the speeches, the British government put Gandhi in jail the next day.

This study guide refers to the translated version that appears on The Press Information Bureau (PIB) section of the Government of India website, and it is cited by page number. Use this link to access the PDF copy.

Part 1: Address to Propose the Resolution

Gandhi’s first speech in Hindi proposes the “Quit India” resolution to the All India Congress. As the leader of the congress since the 1920s, Gandhi knows the members of his audience well and speaks with authority and familiarity. He reminds them that they know and can trust him to quell concerns that he may be moving away from his belief in peace. He claims he “attach[es] the same importance to nonviolence” (1) as he always has, assuring them that he is still rooted in Ahimsa , the Hindu policy of nonviolence and respect for all things.

After reestablishing his nonviolent aims, he argues that he does not seek personal power. He says, “The power, when it comes, will belong to the people of India” (1), and he mentions that any religious group could lead a free India. To this end, he argues that India’s revolution could be much more powerful than the French or Russian revolutions because it would be a “democracy established by nonviolence” (2). Before wrapping up this speech and allowing the congress to vote on the resolution, he argues that Indians should not harbor anger toward the British people, even if they do vote to move against the rule of the British government.

Part 2: Address to Unite the Factions After the Resolution Passes

Like any perceptive leader, Gandhi understands that some people will be unhappy with the passing of the resolution. The second speech, which he also delivers in Hindi, largely serves to assuage those who disagree with him or fear worsening stratification of religious groups in India. By far the longest of the three speeches, this section is specific to the subsets of the audience, as it addresses Muslims, Hindus, the Princes of Indian states, journalists, government servants, and even specific individuals.

He opens this speech like the last one: by trying to establish credibility. He outlines how much he recognizes and has fought for Muslims as well as Hindus. (As a note, Gandhi interchanges the term Muslim and “Mussalman,” though the latter is considered an outdated term.) He boasts, “Thousands of Mussalmans have told me that if the Hindu-Muslim question was to be solved satisfactorily that it must done in my lifetime” (3-4). He then compares the cow (the sacred animal of Hinduism) and the “Khilafat,” a group of Muslim leaders (4). He knows that equating these two sacred entities risks stroking the ire of both camps, but he feels it is important to unite them under one India.

Gandhi discusses multiple disagreements with and rebuttals to the leader of the All India Muslim League, Quaid-I-Azam Jinnah . Since the All India Muslim League is more willing to compromise with the British government, they are a direct obstacle in Gandhi’s plan. However, through a series of appeals and rhetorical questions , Gandhi attempts to convince Jinnah and the Muslims that their cause is deeply intertwined with that of the Hindus and the freedom of India. He argues that there must be cooperation between the two groups in order to “unite in the effort to be free from the shackles of this empire” (7).

Gandhi then delivers the most famous part of the speech, declaring, “Do or die. We shall either free India or die in the attempt; we shall not live to see the perpetuation of our slavery” (10). The phrase “do or die” becomes the catchphrase of the Quit India Movement for years to come. Gandhi wraps up the second speech by addressing a series of groups about what their specific role in the movement could and should be. He encourages the press to write freely and to side with congress; he appeals to the princes of the states to side with the movement and to value their people’s freedom over the lavish lifestyle that the British government can afford them; and finally, he gives direction to government servants, soldiers, and students, encouraging them all to side with congress and do what is in their power to push for freedom.

Part 3: Speaking to a Broader Audience in English

The final speech of the evening is delivered strategically in English. In this speech, Gandhi reflects on his friendship with the Viceroy Lord Linlithgow , the British figurehead of India. Similarly, he recalls another deep friendship with the British missionary Charlie Andrews. In speaking of these men, he establishes his respect for British individuals, while still standing firm in his desire to be free of the regime. He notes, ”[A]lthough I may have forfeited the regard of many friends in the West […] I must not suppress the voice of conscience” (14).

He speaks directly to the British Government to argue that India has committed no crime, but perhaps has gone about their fight for independence more righteously than other nations have in the past. He concludes with an appeal to the United Nations, arguing that a free India is a symbol of everything they stand for and could inspire movements for freedom in other countries.

blurred text

Related Titles

By Mahatma Gandhi

Hind Swaraj

Guide cover image

The Story of My Experiments with Truth

Guide cover image

Featured Collections

Asian History

View Collection

Books on Justice & Injustice

Challenging Authority

Colonialism & Postcolonialism

Philosophy, Logic, & Ethics

Politics & Government

World War II

Gandhi-logo

Some men changed their times... One man changed the World for all times!

Comprehensive website on the life and works of, mahatma gandhi.

+91-23872061 +91-9022483828 [email protected]

  • Famous Speeches
  • The Quit India Speech

{Gandhiji addressed the A.I.C.C. at Bombay on 8-8-42 outlining his plan of action, in Hindustani, as follows;}

Before you discuss the resolution, let me place before you one or two things, I want you to understand two things very clearly and to consider them from the same point of view from which I am placing them before you. I ask you to consider it from my point of view, because if you approve of it, you will be enjoined to carry out all I say. It will be a great responsibility. There are people who ask me whether I am the same man that I was in 1920, or whether there has been any change in me. You are right in asking that question.

Let me, however, hasten to assure that I am the same Gandhi as I was in 1920. I have not changed in any fundamental respect. I attach the same importance to nonviolence that I did then. If at all, my emphasis on it has grown stronger. There is no real contradiction between the present resolution and my previous writings and utterances.

Occasions like the present do not occur in everybody's and but rarely in anybody's life. I want you to know and feel that there is nothing but purest Ahimsa in all that I am saying and doing today. The draft resolution of the Working Committee is based on Ahimsa, the contemplated struggle similarly has its roots in Ahimsa. If, therefore, there is any among you who has lost faith in Ahimsa or is wearied of it, let him not vote for this resolution.

Let me explain my position clearly. God has vouchsafed to me a priceless gift in the weapon of Ahimsa. I and my Ahimsa are on our trail today. If in the present crisis, when the earth is being scorched by the flames of Hims2 and crying for deliverance, I failed to make use of the God given talent, God will not forgive me and I shall be judged unwrongly of the great gift. I must act now. I may not hesitate and merely look on, when Russia and China are threatened.

Ours is not a drive for power, but purely a nonviolent fight for India's independence. In a violent struggle, a successful general has been often known to effect a military coup and to set up a dictatorship. But under the Congress scheme of things, essentially nonviolent as it is, there can be no room for dictatorship. A non-violent soldier of freedom will covet nothing for himself, he fights only for the freedom of his country. The Congress is unconcerned as to who will rule, when freedom is attained. The power, when it comes, will belong to the people of India, and it will be for them to decide to whom it placed in the entrusted. May be that the reins will be placed in the hands of the Parsis, for instance-as I would love to see happen-or they may be handed to some others whose names are not heard in the Congress today. It will not be for you then to object saying, "This community is microscopic. That party did not play its due part in the freedom's struggle; why should it have all the power?" Ever since its inception the Congress has kept itself meticulously free of the communal taint. It has thought always in terms of the whole nation and has acted accordingly... I know how imperfect our Ahimsa is and how far away we are still from the ideal, but in Ahimsa there is no final failure or defeat. I have faith, therefore, that if, in spite of our shortcomings, the big thing does happen, it will be because God wanted to help us by crowning with success our silent, unremitting Sadhana1 for the last twenty-two years.

I believe that in the history of the world, there has not been a more genuinely democratic struggle for freedom than ours. I read Carlyle's French Resolution while I was in prison, and Pandit Jawaharlal has told me something about the Russian revolution. But it is my conviction that inasmuch as these struggles were fought with the weapon of violence they failed to realize the democratic ideal. In the democracy which I have envisaged, a democracy established by nonviolence, there will be equal freedom for all. Everybody will be his own master. It is to join a struggle for such democracy that I invite you today. Once you realize this you will forget the differences between the Hindus and Muslims, and think of yourselves as Indians only, engaged in the common struggle for independence.

Then, there is the question of your attitude towards the British. I have noticed that there is hatred towards the British among the people. The people say they are disgusted with their behaviour. The people make no distinction between British imperialism and the British people. To them, the two are one This hatred would even make them welcome the Japanese. It is most dangerous. It means that they will exchange one slavery for another. We must get rid of this feeling. Our quarrel is not with the British people, we fight their imperialism. The proposal for the withdrawal of British power did not come out of anger. It came to enable India to play its due part at the present critical juncture It is not a happy position for a big country like India to be merely helping with money and material obtained willy-nilly from her while the United Nations are conducting the war. We cannot evoke the true spirit of sacrifice and velour, so long as we are not free. I know the British Government will not be able to withhold freedom from us, when we have made enough self-sacrifice. We must, therefore, purge ourselves of hatred. Speaking for myself, I can say that I have never felt any hatred. As a matter of fact, I feel myself to be a greater friend of the British now than ever before. One reason is that they are today in distress. My very friendship, therefore, demands that I should try to save them from their mistakes. As I view the situation, they are on the brink of an abyss. It, therefore, becomes my duty to warn them of their danger even though it may, for the time being, anger them to the point of cutting off the friendly hand that is stretched out to help them. People may laugh, nevertheless that is my claim. At a time when I may have to launch the biggest struggle of my life, I may not harbour hatred against anybody.

[Gandhiji's address before the A.I.C.C. at Bombay on 8-8-'42 delivered in Hindustani:] I congratulate you on the resolution that you have just passed. I also congratulate the three comrades on the courage they have shown in pressing their amendments to a division, even though they knew that there was an overwhelming majority in favour of the resolution, and I congratulate the thirteen friends who voted against the resolution. In doing so, they had nothing to be ashamed of. For the last twenty years we have tried to learn not to lose courage even when we are in a hopeless minority and are laughed at. We have learned to hold on to our beliefs in the confidence that we are in the right. It behaves us to cultivate this courage of conviction, for it ennobles man and raises his moral stature.

I was, therefore, glad to see that these friends had imbibed the principle which I have tried to follow for the last fifty years and more.

Having congratulated them on their courage, let me say that what they asked this Committee to accept through their amendments was not the correct representation of the situation. These friends ought to have pondered over the appeal made to them by the Maulana to withdraw their amendments; they should have carefully followed the explanations given by Jawaharlal. Had they done so, it would have been clear to them that the right which they now want the Congress to concede has already been conceded by the Congress.

Time was when every Mussalman claimed the whole of India as his motherland. During the years that the Ali brothers were with me, the assumption underlying all their talks and discussions was that India belonged as much to the Mussalmans as to the Hindus. I can testify to the fact that this was their innermost conviction and nor a mask; I lived with them for years. I spent days and nights in their company. And I make bold to say that their utterances were the honest expression of their beliefs. I know there are some who say that I take things too readily at their face value, that I am gullible. I do not think I am such a simpleton, nor am I so gullible as these friends take me to be. But their criticism does not hurt me. I should prefer to be considered gullible rather deceitful.

What these Communist friends proposed through their amendments is nothing new. It has been repeated from thousands of platforms. Thousands of Mussalmans have told me, that if Hindu-Muslim question was to be solved satisfactorily, it must be done in my lifetime. I should feel flattered at this; but how can I agree to proposal which does not appeal to my reason? Hindu-Muslim unity is not a new thing. Millions of Hindus and Mussalmans have sought after it. I consciously strove for its achievement from my boyhood. While at school, I made it a point to cultivate the friendship of Muslims and Parsi co-students. I believed even at that tender age that the Hindus in India, if they wished to live in peace and amity with the other communities, should assiduously cultivate the virtue of neighbourliness. It did not matter, I felt, if I made no special effort to cultivate the friendship with Hindus, but I must make friends with at least a few Mussalmans. It was as counsel for a Mussalmans merchant that I went to South Africa. I made friends with other Mussalmans there, even with the opponents of my client, and gained a reputation for integrity and good faith. I had among my friends and co-workers Muslims as well as Parsis. I captured their hearts and when I left finally for India, I left them sad and shedding tears of grief at the separation.

In India too I continued my efforts and left no stone unturned to achieve that unity. It was my life-long aspiration for it that made me offer my fullest co-operation to the Mussalmans in the Khilafat movement. Muslims throughout the country accepted me as their true friend.

How then is it that I have now come to be regarded as so evil and detestable? Had I any axe to grind in supporting the Khilafat movement? True, I did in my heart of hearts cherish a hope that it might enable me to save the cow. I am a worshipper of the cow. I believe the cow and myself to be the creation of the same God, and I am prepared to sacrifice my life in order to save the cow. But, whatever my philosophy of life and my ultimate hopes, I joined the movement in no spirit of bargain. I co-operated in the struggle for the Khilafat solely on order to discharge my obligation to my neighbour who, I saw, was in distress. The Ali brothers, had they been alive today, would have testified to the truth of this assertion. And so would many others bear me out in that it was not a bargain on my part for saving the cow. The cow like the Khilafat. Stood on her own merits. As an honest man, a true neighbour and a faithful friend, it was incumbent on me to stand by the Mussalmans in the hour of their trial.

In those days, I shocked the Hindus by dinning time they have now got used to it. Maulana Bari told me, however, that through he would not allow me dine with him, lest some day he should be accused of a sinister motive. And so, whenever I had occasion to stay with him, he called a Brahmana cook and made social arrangements for separate cooking. Firangi ,Mahal, his residence, was an old-styled structure with limited accommodation; yet he cheerfully bore all hardships and carried out his resolve from which I could not dislodge him. It was the spirit of courtesy, dignity and nobility that inspired us in those days. They respected one another's religious feelings, and considered it a privilege to do so. Not a trace of suspicion lurked in anybody's heart. Where has all that dignity, that nobility of spirit, disappeared now? I should ask all Mussalmans, including Quaid-I-Azam Jinnah, to recall those glorious days and to find out what has brought us to the present impasse. Quaid-i-Azam Jinnah himself was at one time a Congressman. If today the Congress has incurred his wrath, it is because the canker of suspicion has entered his heart. May God bless him with long life, but when I am gone, he will realize and admit that I had no designs on Mussalmans and that I had never betrayed their interests. Where is the escape for me, if I injure their cause or betray their interests? My life is entirely at their disposal. They are free to put an end to it, whenever they wish to do so. Assaults have been made on my life in the past, but God has spared me till now, and the assailants have repented for their action. But if someone were to shoot me in the belief that he was getting rid of a rascal, he would kill not the real Gandhi, but the one that appeared to him a rascal.

To those who have been indulging in a campaign of a abuse and vilification I would say, "Islam enjoins you not to revile even an enemy. The Prophet treated even enemies with kindness and tried to win them over by his fairness and generosity. Are you followers of that Islam or of any other? If you are followers of the true Islam, does it behave you to distrust the words of one who makes a public declaration of his faith? You may take it from me that one day you will regret the fact that you distrusted and killed one who was a true and devoted friend of yours." It cuts me to the quick to see that the more I appeal and the more the Maulana importunes, the more intense does the campaign of vilification grow. To me, these abuses are like bullets. They can kill me, even as a bullet can put an end to my life. You may kill me. That will not hurt me. But what of those who indulge in abusing? They bring discredit to Islam. For the fair name of Islam, I appeal to you to resist this unceasing campaign of abuse and vilification.

Maulana Saheb is being made a target for the filthiest abuse. Why? Because he refuses to exert on me the pressure of his friendship. He realizes that it is a misuse of friendship to seek up to compel a friend to accept as truth what he knows is an untruth.

To the Quaid-Azam I would say: Whatever is true and valid in the claim for Pakistan is already in your hands. What is wrong and untenable is in nobody's gift, so that it can be made over to you. Even if someone were to succeed in imposing an untruth on others, he would not be able to enjoy for long the fruits of such a coercion. God dislikes pride and keeps away from it. God would not tolerate a forcible imposition of an untruth.

The Quaid-Azam says that he is compelled to say bitter things but that he cannot help giving expression to his thoughts and his feelings. Similarly I would say : "I consider myself a friend of Mussalmans. Why should I then not give expression to the things nearest to my heart, even at the cost of displeasing them? How can I conceal my innermost thoughts from them? 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? Why should one with the following of several millions be afraid of a majority community, or of the minority being swamped by the majority? How did the Prophet work among the Arabs and the Mussalmans? How did he propagate Islam? Did he say he would propagate Islam only when he commanded a majority? I appeal to you for the sake of Islam to ponder over what I say. There is neither fair play nor justice in saying that the Congress must accept a thing, even if it does not believe in it and even if it goes counter to principles it holds dear.

Rajaji said:"I do not believe in Pakistan. But Mussalmans ask for it, Mr. Jinnah asks for it, and it has become an obsession with them. Why not then say, "yes" to them just now? The same Mr. Jinnah will later on realize the disadvantages of Pakistan and will forgo the demand." I said : "It is not fair to accept as true a thing which I hold to be untrue, and ask others to do say in the belief that the demand will not be pressed when the time comes for settling in finally. If I hold the demand to be just, I should concede it this very day. I should not agree to it merely in order to placate Jinnah Saheb. Many friends have come and asked me to agree to it for the time being to placate Mr. Jinnah, disarm his suspicious and to see how he reacts to it. But I cannot be party to a course of action with a false promise. At any rate, it is not my method."

The Congress as no sanction but the moral one for enforcing its decisions. It believes that true democracy can only be the outcome of non-violence. The structure of a world federation can be raised only on a foundation of non-violence, 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. If the Hindus tyrannize over the Mussalmans, with what face will they talk of a world federation? It is for the same reason that I do not believe in the possibility of establishing world peace through violence as the English and American statesmen propose to do. The Congress has agreed to submitting all the differences to an impartial international tribunal and to abide by its decisions. If even this fairest of proposals is unacceptable, the only course that remains open is that of the sword, of violence. How can I persuade myself to agree to an impossibility? To demand the vivisection of a living organism is to ask for its very life. It is a call to war. The Congress cannot be party to such a fratricidal war. Those Hindus who, like Dr. Moonje and Shri Savarkar, believe in the doctrine of the sword may seek to keep the Mussalmans under Hindus domination. I do not represent that section. I represent the Congress. You want to kill the Congress which is the goose that lays golden eggs. If you distrust the Congress, you may rest assured that there is to be perpetual war between the Hindus and the Mussalmans, and the country will be doomed to continue warfare and bloodshed. If such warfare is to be our lot, I shall not live to witness it.

It is for that reason that I say to Jinnah Saheb, "You may take it from me that whatever in your demand for Pakistan accords with considerations of justice and equity is lying in your pocket; whatever in the demand is contrary to justice and equity you can take only by the sword and in no other manner."

There is much in my heart that I would like to pour out before this assembly. One thing which was uppermost in my heart I have already dealt with. You may take it from me that it is with me a matter of life and death. If we Hindus and Mussalmans mean to achieve a heart unity, without the slightest mental reservation on the part of either, we must first unite in the effort to be free from the shackles of this empire. If Pakistan after all is to be a portion of India, what objection can there be for Mussalmans against joining this struggle for India's freedom? The Hindus and Mussalmans must, therefore, unite in the first instance on the issue of fighting for freedom. Jinnah Saheb thinks the war will last long. I do not agree with him. If the war goes on for six months more, how shall we able to save China?

I, therefore, want freedom immediately, this very night, before dawn, if it can be had. Freedom cannot now wait for the realization of communal unity. If that unity is not achieved, sacrifices necessary for it will have to be much greater than would have otherwise sufficed. But the Congress must win freedom or be wiped out in the effort. And forget not that the freedom which the Congress is struggling to achieve will not be for the Congressmen alone but for all the forty cores of the Indian people. Congressmen must for ever remain humble servants of the people.

The Quaid-i-Azam has said that the Muslim League is prepared to take over the rule from the Britishers if they are prepared to hand it over to the Muslim League, for the British took over the empire from the hands of the Muslims. This, however, will be Muslim Raj. The offer made by Maulana Saheb and by me does not imply establishment of Muslim Raj or Muslim domination. 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 one of the communities inhabiting this vast country. If Muslim Raj is invetable, then let it be; but how can we give it the stamp of our assent? How can we agree to the domination of one community over the others?

Millions of Mussalmans in this country come from Hindu stock. How can their homeland be any other than India? My eldest son embraced Islam some years back. What would his homeland be-Porbandar or the Punjab? I ask the Mussalmans: "If India is not your homeland, what other country do you belong to? In what separate homeland would you put my son who embraced Islam?" His mother wrote him a letter after his conversion, asking him if he had on embracing Islam given up drinking which Islam forbids to its follower. To those who gloated over the conversion, she wrote to say: "I do not mind his becoming a Mussalmans, so much as his drinking. Will you, as pious Mussalmans, tolerate his drinking even after his conversion? He has reduced himself to the state of a rake by drinking. If you are going to make a man of him again, his conversion will have been turned to good account. You will, therefore, please see that he as a Mussalman abjures wine and woman. If that change does not come about, his conversion goes in vain and our non-co-operation with him will have to continue."

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. The Congress does not belong to any one class or community; it belongs to the whole nation. It is open to Mussalmans to take possession of the Congress. They can, if they like, swamp the Congress by their numbers, and can steer it along the course which appeals to them. The Congress is fighting not on behalf of the Hindu but on behalf of the whole nation, including the minorities. It would hurt me to hear of a single instance of a Mussalman being killed by a Congressman. In the coming revolution, Congressmen will sacrifice their lives in order to protect the Mussalman against a Hindu's attack and vice versa. It is a part of their creed, and is one of the essentials of non-violence. You will be excepted on occasions like these not to lose your heads. Every Congressman, whether a Hindu or a Mussalman, owes this duty to the organization to which will render a service to Islam. Mutual trust is essential for success in the final nation-wide struggle that is to come.

I have said that much greater sacrifice will have to be made this time in the wake of our struggle because of the opposition from the Muslim League and from Englishmen. You have seen the secret circular issued by Sir Frederick Puckle. It is a suicidal course that he has taken. It contains an open incitement to organizations which crop up like mushrooms to combine to fight the Congress. We have thus to deal with an empire whose ways are crooked. Ours is a straight path which we can tread even with our eyes closed. That is the beauty of Satyagraha.

In Satyagraha, there is no place for fraud or falsehood, or any kind of untruth. Fraud and untruth today are stalking the world. I cannot be a helpless witness to such a situation. I have traveled all over India as perhaps nobody in the present age has. The voiceless millions of the land saw in me their friend and representative, and I identified myself with them to an extent it was possible for a human being to do. I saw trust in their eyes, which I now want to turn to good account in fighting this empire upheld on untruth and violence. However gigantic the preparations that the empire has made, we must get out of its clutches. How can I remain silent at this supreme hour and hide my light under the bushel? Shall I ask the Japanese to tarry awhile? If today I sit quite 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. Had the condition been different, I should have asked you to wait yet awhile. But the situation now has become intolerable, and the Congress has no other course left for it.

Nevertheless, the actual struggle does not commence this moment. You have only placed all your powers in my hands. I will now wait upon the Viceroy and plead with him for the acceptance of the Congress demand. That process is likely to take two or three weeks. What would you do in the meanwhile? What is the programme, for the interval, in which all can participate? As you know, the spinning wheel is the first thing that occurs to me. I made the same answer to the Maulana. He would have none of it, though he understood its import later. The fourteen fold constructive programme is, of course, there for you to carry out. What more should you do? I will tell you. Every one of you should, from this moment onwards, consider yourself a free man or woman, and acts as if you are free and are no longer under the heel of this imperialism.

It is not a make-believe that I am suggesting to you. It is the very essence of freedom. The bond of the slave is snapped the moment he consider himself to be a free being. He will plainly tell the master: "I was your bond slave till this moment, but I am a slave no longer. You may kill me if you like, but if you keep me alive, I wish to tell you that if you release me from the bondage, of your own accord, I will ask for nothing more from you. 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."

You may take it from me that I am not going to strike a bargain with the Viceroy for ministries and the like. I am not going to be satisfied with anything short of complete freedom. May be, he will propose the abolition of salt tax, the drink evil, etc. But I will say, "Nothing less than freedom."

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. Every true Congressman or woman will join the struggle with an inflexible determination not to remain alive to see the country in bondage and slavery. Let that be your pledge. Keep jails out of your consideration. If the Government keep me free, I will not put on the Government the strain of maintaining a large number of prisoners at a time, when it is in trouble. Let every man and woman live every moment of his or her life hereafter in the consciousness that he or she eats or lives for achieving freedom and will die, if need be, to attain that goal. Take a pledge, with God and your own conscience as witness, that you will no longer rest till freedom is achieved and will be prepared to lay down your lives in the attempt to achieve it. He who loses his life will gain it; he who will seek to save it shall lose it. Freedom is not for the coward or the faint-hearted.

A word to the journalists. I congratulate you on the support you have hitherto given to the national demand. I know the restrictions and handicaps under which you have to labour. But I would now ask you to snap the chains that bind you. It should be the proud privilege of the newspapers to lead and set an example in laying down one's life for freedom.

You have the pen which the Government can't suppress. I know you have large properties in the form of printing presses, etc., and you would be afraid lest the Government should attach them. I do not ask you to invite an attachment of the printing-press voluntarily. For myself, I would not suppress my pen, even if the press was to be attached. As you know my press was attached in the past and returned later on. But I do not ask from you that final sacrifice. I suggest a middle way. You should now wind up your standing committee, and you may declare that you will give up the pen only when India has won her freedom. You may tell Sir Frederick Puckle that he can't except from you a command performance, that his press notes are full of untruth, and that you will refuse to publish them. You will openly declare that you are wholeheartedly with the Congress. If you do this, you will have changed the atmosphere before the fight actually begins.

From the Princes I ask with all respect due to them a very small thing. I am a well-wisher of the Princes. I was born in a State. My grandfather refused to salute with his right hand any Prince other than his own. But he did not say to the Prince, as I fell he ought to have said, that even his own master could not compel him, his minister, to act against his conscience. I have eaten the Prince's salt and I would not be false to it. As a faithful servant, it is my duty to warn the Princes that if they will act while I am still alive, the Princes may come to occupy an honourable place in free India. In Jawaharlal's scheme of free India, no privileges or the privileged classes have a place. Jawaharlal considers all property to be State-owned. He wants planned economy. He wants to reconstruct India according to plan. He likes to fly; I do not. I have kept a place for the Princes and the Zamindars1 in India that I envisage. I would ask the Princes in all humility to enjoy through renunciation. The Princes may renounce ownership over their properties and become their trustees in the true sense of the term. I visualize God in the assemblage of people. The Princes may say to their people : "You are the owners and masters of the State and we are your servants." I would ask the Princes to become servants of the people and render to them an account of their own services. The empire too bestows power on the Princes, but they should prefer to derive power from their own people; and if they want to indulge in some innocent pleasures, they may seek to do so as servants of the people. I do not want the Princes to live as paupers. But I would ask them : "Do you want to remain slaves for all time? Why should you, instead of paying homage to a foreign power, not accept the sovereignty of your own people?" You may write to the Political Department : "The people are now awake. How are we to withstand an avalanche before which even the Large empire are crumbling? We, therefore, shall belong to the people from today onwards. We shall sink or swim with them." Believe me, there is nothing unconstitutional in the course I am suggesting. There are, so far as I know, no treaties enabling the empire to coerce the Princes. The people of the States will also declare that though they are the Princes' subjects, they arepart of the Indian nation and that they will accept the leadership of the Princes, if the latter cast their lot with the people, the latter will meet death bravely and unflinchingly, but will not go back on their word.

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. It is likely that when you gain freedom you will have a C.I.D. of your own, in spite of my advice to the contrary. But in the present struggle, we have to work openly and to receive bullets on our chest, without taking to heels.

I have a word to say to Government servants also. They may not, if they like, resign their posts yet. The late Justice Ranade did not resign his post, but he openly declared that he belonged to the Congress. He said to the Government that though he was a judge, he was a Congressman and would openly attend the sessions of the Congress, but that at the same time he would not let his political views warp his impartiality on the bench. He held Social Reform Conference in the very Pandal1 of the Congress. I would ask all the Government servants to follow in the footsteps of Ranade and to declare their allegiance to the Congress as an answer to the secret circular issued by Sir Frederick Puckle.

This is all that I ask of you just now. I will now write to the Viceroy. You will be able to read the correspondence not just now but when I publish it with the Viceroy's consent. But you are free to aver that you support the demand to be put forth in my letter. A judge came to me and said : "We get secret circulars from high quarters. What are we to do?" I replied, "If I were in your place, I would ignore the circulars. You may openly say to the Government : 'I have received your secret circular. I am, however, with the Congress. Though I serve the Government for my livelihood, I am not going to obey these secret circulars or to employ underhand methods,'"

Soldiers too are covered by the present programme. I do not ask them just now to resign their posts and to leave the army. The soldiers come to me, Jawaharlal and the Maulana and say : "We are wholly with you. We are tired of the Governmental tyranny." To these soldiers I would say : You may say to the Government, "Our hearts are with the Congress. We are not going to leave our posts. We will serve you so long as we receive your salaries. We will obey your just orders, but will refuse to fire on our own people."

To those who lack the courage to do this much I have nothing to say. They will go their own way. But if you can do this much, you may take it from me that the whole atmosphere will be electrified. Let the Government then shower bombs, if they like. But no power on earth will then be able to keep you in bondage any longer.

If the students want to join the struggle only to go back to their studies after a while, I would not invite them to it. For the present, however, till the time that I frame a programme for the struggle, I would ask the students to say to their professors : "We belong to the Congress. Do you belong to the Congress, or to the Government? If you belong to the Congress, you need not vacate your posts. You will remain at your posts but teach us and lead us unto freedom." In all fights for freedom, the world over, the students have made very large contributions.

If in the interval that is left to us before the actual fight begins, you do even the little I have suggested to you, you will have changed the atmosphere and will have prepared the ground for the next step.

There is much I should et like to say. But my heart is heavy. I have already taken up much of your time. I have yet to say a few words in English also. I thank you for the patience and attention with which you have listened to me even at this late hour. It is just what true soldiers would do. For the last twenty-two years, I have controlled my speech and pen and have stored up my energy. He is a true Brahmacharri1 who does not fritter away his energy. He will, therefore, always control his speech. That has been my conscious effort all these years. But today the occasion has come when I had to unburden my heart before you. I have done so, even though it meant putting a strain on your patience; and I do not regret having done it. I have given you my message and through you I have delivered it to the whole of India.

I have taken such an inordinately long time over pouring out, what was agitating my soul, to those whom I had just now the privilege of serving. I have been called their leader or, in the military language, their commander. But I do not look at my position in that light. I have no weapon but love to wield my authority over any one. I do sport a stick which you can break into bits without the slightest exertion. It is simply my staff with the help of which I walk. Such a cripple is not elated, when he has been called upon to bear the greatest burden. You can share that burden only when I appear before you not as your commander but as a humble servant. And he who serves best is the chief among equals.

Therefore, I was bound to share with you such thoughts as were welling up in my breast and tell you, in as summary a manner as I can, what I except you to do as the first step.

Let me tell you at the outset that the real struggle does not commence today. I have yet to go through much ceremonial as I always do. The burden, I confess, would be almost unbearable. I have to continue to reason in those circles with whom I have lost my credit and who have no trust left in me. I know that in the course of the last few weeks I have forfeited my credit with a large number of friends, so much so, that they have begun to doubt not only my wisdom but even my honesty. Now I hold my wisdom is not such a treasure which I cannot afford to lose; but my honesty is a precious treasure to me and I can ill-afford to lose it. I seem however to have lost it for the time being.

Such occasions arise in the life of the man who is a pure seeker after truth and who would seek to serve the humanity and his country to the best of his lights without fear or hypocrisy. For the last fifty years I have known no other way. I have been a humble servant of humanity and have rendered on more than one occasion such services as I could to the Empire, and here let me say without fear of challenge that throughout my career never have I asked for any personal favour. I have enjoyed the privilege of friendship as I enjoy it today with Lord Linlithgow. It is a friendship which has outgrown official relationship. Whether Lord Linlithgow will bear me out, I do not know, but there is a personal bond between him and myself. He once introduced me to his daughter. His son-in law, the A.D.C. was drawn towards me. he fell in love with Mahadev more than with me and Lady Anna and he came to me. She is an obedient and favourite daughter. I take interest in their welfare. 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. I will have to resist the might of that Empire with the might of the dumb millions with no limit but of nonviolence as policy confined to this struggle. It is a terrible job to have to offer resistance to a Viceroy with whom I enjoy such relations. He has more than once trusted my word, often about my people. I would love to repeat that experiment, as it stands to his credit. I mention this with great pride and pleasure. I mention it as an earnest of my desire to be true to the Empire when that Empire forfeited my trust and the Englishman who was its Viceroy came to know it.

Then there is the sacred memory of Charlie Andrews which wells up within me. At this moment the spirit of Andrews hovers about me. For me he sums up the brightest traditions of English culture. I enjoyed closer relations with him than with most Indians. I enjoyed his confidence. There were no secrets between us. We exchanged our hearts every day. Whatever was in his heart, he would blurt out without the slightest hesitation or reservation. It is true he was a friend of Gurudev1 but he looked upon Gurudev with awe. He had that peculiar humility. But with me he became the closest friend. Years ago he came to me with a note of introduction from Gokhale. Pearson and he were the first-rank specimens of Englishmen. I know that his spirit is listening to me.

Then I have got a warm letter of congratulations from the Metropolitan of Calcutta. I hold him to be a man of God. Today he is opposed to me.

With all this background, I want to declare to the world, although I may have forfeited the regard of many friends in the West and I must bow my head low; but even for their friendship or love I must not suppress the voice of conscience - promoting of my inner basic nature today. There is something within me impelling me to cry out my agony. I have known humanity. I have studied something of psychology. Such a man knows exactly what it is. I do not mind how you describe it. That voice within tells me, "You have to stand against the whole world although you may have to stand alone. You have to stare in the face the whole world although the world may look at you with bloodshot eyes. Do not fear. Trust the little voice residing within your heart." It says : "Forsake friends, wife and all; but testify to that for which you have lived and for which you have to die. I want to live my full span of life. And for me I put my span of life at 120 years. By that time India will be free, the world will be free.

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. The English and American teachers, their history, their magnificent poetry have not said that you shall not broaden the interpretation of freedom. And according to my interpretation of that freedom I am constrained to say they are strangers to that freedom which their teachers and poets have described. If they will know the real freedom they should come to India. They have to come not with pride or arrogances but in the spite of real earnest seekers of truth. It is a fundamental truth which India has been experimenting with for 22 years.

Unconsciously from its very foundations long ago the Congress has been building on non-violence known as constitutional methods. Dadabhai and Pherozeshah who had held the Congress India in the palm of their hands became rebels. They were lovers of the Congress. They were its masters. But above all they were real servants. They never countenanced murder, secrecy and the like. I confess there are many black sheep amongst us Congressmen. But I trust the whole of India today to launch upon a non-violent struggle. I trust because of my nature to rely upon the innate goodness of human nature which perceives the truth and prevails during the crisis as if by instinct. But even if I am deceived in this I shall not swerve. I shall not flinch. From its very inception the Congress based its policy on peaceful methods, included Swaraj and the subsequent generations added non-violence. When Dadabhai entered the British Parliament, Salisbury dubbed him as a black man; but the English people defeated Salisbury and Dadabhai went to the Parliament by their vote. India was delirious with joy. These things however India has outgrown.

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. I ask, is it right for you to distrust such an organization with all its background, tradition and record of over half a century and misrepresent its endeavours before all the world by every means at your command? Is it right that by hook or by crook, aided by the foreign press, aided by the President of the U.S.A., or even by the Generalissimo of China who has yet to win his laurels, you should present India's struggle in shocking caricature? I have met the Generalissimo. I have known him through Madame Shek who was my interpreter; and though he seemed inscrutable to me, not so Madame Shek; and he allowed me to read his mind through her. There is a chorus of disapproval and righteous protest all over the world against us. They say we are erring, the move is inopportune. I had great regard for British diplomacy which has enabled them to hold the Empire so long. Now it stinks in my nostrils, and others have studied that diplomacy and are putting it into practice. They may succeed in getting, through these methods, world opinion on their side for a time; but India will speak against that world opinion. She will raise her voice against all the organized propaganda. I will speak against it. 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. Does a creditor ever go to debtor like that? And even when, India is met with such angry opposition, she says, "We won't hit below the belt, we have learnt sufficient gentlemanliness. We are pledged to non-violence." I have been the author of non-embarrassment policy of the Congress and yet today you find me talking this strong language. I say it is consistent with our honour. If a man holds me by the neck and wants to drawn me, may I not struggle to free myself directly? There is no inconsistency in our position today.

There are representatives of the foreign press assembled here today. Through them I wish to say to the world that the United Powers who somehow or other say that they have need for India, have the opportunity now to declare India free and prove their bona fides. If they miss it, they will be missing the opportunity of their lifetime, and history will record that they did not discharge their obligations to India in time, and lost the battle. I want the blessings of the whole world so that I may succeed with them. I do not want the United Powers to go beyond their obvious limitations. I do not want them to accept non-violence and disarm today. There is a fundamental difference between fascism and this imperialism which I am fighting. Do the British get from India which they hold in bondage. Think what difference it would make if India was to participate as a free ally. That freedom, if it is to come, must come today. It will have no taste left in it today you who have the power to help cannot exercise it. If you can exercise it, under the glow of freedom what seems impossible, today, will become possible tomorrow. If India feels that freedom, she will command that freedom for China. The road for running to Russia's help will be open. The Englishmen did not die in Malaya or on Burma soil. What shall enable us to retrieve the situation? Where shall I go, and where shall I take the forty crores of India? How is this vast mass of humanity to be aglow in the cause of world deliverance, unless and until it has touched and felt freedom. Today they have no touch of life left. It has been crushed out of them. It lustre is to be put into their eyes, freedom has to come not tomorrow, but today.

I have pledged the Congress and the Congress will do or die.

, pp. 183-205

Subject Material

Quit India by Mahatma Gandhi

Photo: We see a portrait of a young Indian man in a suit. He has a very formal suit with vest and tie. He has a large moustache. He has short, dark hair.

Mahatma Gandhi (1869–1948) was an Indian lawyer who came to lead a non-violent campaign to free India from the British Empire.

He was born Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, and he was first given the honorific 'Mahatma' when he was working in South Africa. Mahatma means great-souled or venerable .

Gandhi trained to be a lawyer in London. He passed his exams at age 22. When he moved back to India, he found it difficult making a living as a lawyer, so he moved to South Africa, where he lived for 21 years. When he returned to India, aged 45, he began to work organising farmers and urban labourers to protest excessive land-tax and discrimination.

In 1921, he became the leader of the political party the Indian National Congress. Gandhi led nationwide campaigns for easing poverty, expanding women's rights, building religious and ethnic friendship, and ending untouchability. However, his main cause was achieving self-rule for India.

Gandhi began to wear a dhoti , a kind of sarong, as a sign of allegiance with the poor in India's countryside.

Gandhi was imprisoned several times, and for many years, for his activism, both in South Africa and in India.

Gandhi's dream was for a free and united India, a country with religious freedom, where Muslims and Hindus would live side by side. This vision was challenged early on by Muslim nationalists, who demanded a separate Muslim country.

In August 1947, Britain granted independence. However, the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two dominions: a Muslim-majority Pakistan and a Hindu-majority India.

Believing that Gandhi had shown too much support for Muslims and Pakistan, a militant Hindu nationalist assassinated Gandhi in Delhi on 30 January 1948.

Gandhi's philosophy of non-violent resistance has inspired movements all over the world.

The Quit India speech was held on 8 August 1942 in Mumbai. In the speech Gandhi calls for passive resistance against the British rule of India. Gandhi believed that non-violence was the best way to ensure freedom for India.

Black and white photo of Mahatma Gandhi. He's wrapped in a white cloth and wearing glasses. He's looking directly into the camera, smiling.

(...) I believe that in the history of the world, there has not been a more genuinely democratic struggle for freedom than ours. I read Carlyle’s French Revolution while I was in prison, and Pandit Jawaharlal has told me something about the Russian revolution. But it is my conviction that inasmuch as these struggles were fought with the weapon of violence they failed to realize the democratic ideal. In the democracy which I have envisaged, a democracy established by non-violence, there will be equal freedom for all. Everybody will be his own master. It is to join a struggle for such democracy that I invite you today. Once you realize this you will forget the differences between the Hindus and Muslims, and think of yourselves as Indians only, engaged in the common struggle for independence. Then, there is the question of your attitude towards the British. I have noticed that there is hatred towards the British among the people. The people say they are disgusted with their behaviour. The people make no distinction between British imperialism and the British people. To them, the two are one. This hatred would even make them welcome the Japanese. It is most dangerous. It means that they will exchange one slavery for another. We must get rid of this feeling. Our quarrel is not with the British people, we fight their imperialism. The proposal for the withdrawal of British power did not come out of anger. It came to enable India to play its due part at the present critical juncture. It is not a happy position for a big country like India to be merely helping with money and material obtained willy-nilly from her while the United Nations are conducting the war. We cannot evoke the true spirit of sacrifice and valour, so long as we are not free. I know the British Government will not be able to withhold freedom from us, when we have made enough self-sacrifice. We must, therefore, purge ourselves of hatred. Speaking for myself, I can say that I have never felt any hatred. As a matter of fact, I feel myself to be a greater friend of the British now than ever before. One reason is that they are today in distress. My very friendship, therefore, demands that I should try to save them from their mistakes. As I view the situation, they are on the brink of an abyss. It, therefore, becomes my duty to warn them of their danger even though it may, for the time being, anger them to the point of cutting off the friendly hand that is stretched out to help them. People may laugh, nevertheless that is my claim. At a time when I may have to launch the biggest struggle of my life, I may not harbor hatred against anybody.

Work in a group.

What is the main message in the excerpt you have read?

Why do you think Gandhi is still famous all over the world?

Write a short rhetorical analysis of the speech (250-300 words).

Related content

How do you get what you want by just using words? And how are you able to see that people are trying to persuade you into doing something?

Cite or use

Learning content.

Gandhi: Reading and analysis of rhetoric for motivation

Switch to our new english teaching resources.

Slide decks, worksheets, quizzes and lesson planning guidance designed for your classroom.

Play new resources video

Lesson details

Key learning points.

  • In this lesson, we will learn about Mohandas Gandhi, a peaceful protestor who believed all living things should be equal. We will think about how his reputation as a peacemaker is emphasised within his speech and how this may have influenced his audience. We will explore how Gandhi used the leading principles of Ahimsa to deliver his incredible Quit India speech, and how his use of language changed Indian history.

This content is made available by Oak National Academy Limited and its partners and licensed under Oak’s terms & conditions (Collection 1), except where otherwise stated.

Starter quiz

6 questions, 5 questions, lesson appears in, unit english / rhetoric: motivate: churchill & gandhi.

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

  • You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
  • You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
  • You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
  • A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.

IMAGES

  1. Gandhi quit india speech analysis. Analysis of Quit India. 2022-10-28

    rhetorical analysis of gandhi's quit india speech

  2. Mahatma Gandhi “Quit India” Speech Analysis

    rhetorical analysis of gandhi's quit india speech

  3. Gandhi's “Quit India” Speech

    rhetorical analysis of gandhi's quit india speech

  4. Quit India Speech by Ghandi

    rhetorical analysis of gandhi's quit india speech

  5. *Quit India* Speech By Ghandi

    rhetorical analysis of gandhi's quit india speech

  6. Quit India Speech by Mahatma Gandhi. (1942)

    rhetorical analysis of gandhi's quit india speech

COMMENTS

  1. Mahatma Gandhi "Quit India" Speech Analysis

    Mar 25, 2019. My analysis on Mahatma ("Great Soul") Gandhi's "Quit India" speech given in 1942. For this analysis I used SOAPSSTONE. S ubject — O ccasion — A udience — P urpose ...

  2. Summary & Analysis of Quit India Speech by M.K. Gandhi

    Quit India Speech Analysis. The Quit India Speech was delivered by M.K. Gandhi on 8 August 1942 in Bombay. It proclaimed the initiation of the Quit India movement, India's third and final civil disobedience movement against British imperial rule. In his speech, Gandhi delved into themes such as his role as a national leader, the future of ...

  3. Quit India Essay Analysis

    Analysis: "Quit India". As in most speeches, Gandhi's "Quit India" address is highly tailored to his present and future audiences, including the All India Congress in addition to thousands of others gathered there that day. To be as effective as possible, Gandhi layers his speeches with appeals.

  4. Cynara Matos :: Rhetorical and Audience Analysis

    Cynara Matos. Professor Mary-Ann Duffy. Writing 102.99. 22 March 2014. Audience Analysis. Gandhi's speech, "Quit India", given on August 1942 in Bombay was geared towards an Indian population, oppressed by British rule (Manas). Gandhi spoke to all social groups in India in this speech, however he selectively addressed the Muslims and Hindus.

  5. Quit India speech

    Mahatma Gandhi, 1942. The Quit India speech was given by Mahatma Gandhi on the eve of the Quit India Movement, 8 August 1942.His address was issued shortly before midnight, at the Gowalia Tank Maidan park in Bombay (present-day Mumbai), [1] which has since been renamed August Kranti Maidan (August Revolution Ground).. The speech was given in support of the Indian independence movement, which ...

  6. Analysis of Quit India

    Analysis. In this section, we will briefly summarise the main points of our analysis. "Quit India" by Mahatma Gandhi is structured in three parts; the analysis focuses on the first and third parts of the speech. The main topic of the speech is trying to secure India's independence through non-violent means.

  7. Quit India

    A new version of Prime Study Guides is available - If the site doesn't reload automatically, please press F5. This study guide will help you analyze the speech "Quit India" by Mahatma Gandhi, delivered in front of the All India Congress Committee at Bombay (now Mumbai). The speech took place on August 8th, 19 (…)

  8. PDF The Quit India Speeches August 1942

    The "Quit India" Speeches August 1942 The Quit India speeches were given by Ghandi on the eve of the Quit India Movement, a movement of civil disobedience and passive resistance in the fight for Indian Independence. He urged everyone to fully commit to the independence movement in India, taking up the slogan 'Do or die': "we shall free ...

  9. Digication ePortfolio :: Jihoon Kwon :: Rhetorical Analysis

    Jihoon Kwon. Prof. MaryAnn Duffy. WRT102-99. 20 February 2014. A Non-Violent Resolution. On August 8, 1942 Mahatma Gandhi, the preeminent leader of Indian nationalism in British-ruled India, delivered a fascinating speech called "Quit India.". During this period, poverty was a stark reality in India.

  10. Quit India Summary and Study Guide

    The "Quit India" speeches included three addresses Mahatma Gandhi delivered to the All India Congress Committee, as well as thousands of others who congregated to listen in Bombay (now Mumbai), India, on August 8, 1942. At the time of the speeches, India was still under British colonial rule and was growing more disenchanted with what Indian leaders referred to as the British Raj (the ...

  11. The Rhetorical Analysis Of Quit India By Mahatma Gandhi

    Ahimsa, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is the belief of nonviolence toward any living being. On August 8th, 1942 Mahatma Gandhi gave his "Quit India" speech, which called on India to exercise his belief in Ahimsa. The speech was also significant because it established Gandhi's dedication to the concept of non-violence in ...

  12. The Quit India Speeches

    Famous 'Quit India Speech' by Mahatma Gandhi. Some men changed their times... One man changed the World for all times! Comprehensive Website on the life and works of Mahatma Gandhi +91-23872061 +91-9022483828. [email protected]. Menu. Home; About Us ... The 'Quit India' Speech

  13. Rhetorical devices in Quit India

    Allusions and direct references. Allusions are when the speaker makes an indirect reference to another person or event. They are commonly used in this speech. The first allusion encountered in the speech refers to the year 1920, when Gandhi became the leader of the Indian National Congress. " There are people who ask me whether I am the same ...

  14. Quit India by Mahatma Gandhi

    Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) led a non-violent campaign to free India from British rule. Here, you can read an excerpt from his famous speech 'Quit India'. In the speech he explains the importance of non-violence and encourages his followers not to hate the British. Show competence goals.

  15. Gandhi: Reading and analysis of rhetoric for motivation

    Key learning points. In this lesson, we will learn about Mohandas Gandhi, a peaceful protestor who believed all living things should be equal. We will think about how his reputation as a peacemaker is emphasised within his speech and how this may have influenced his audience. We will explore how Gandhi used the leading principles of Ahimsa to ...

  16. Logos, ethos, and pathos in Quit India

    Logos. Logos represents an appeal to reason. In "Quit India", Mahatma Gandhi appeals to the logic of the audience by explaining the policy of the Indian National Congress: "the Congress has been building on non-violence known as constitutional methods"; "From its very inception the Congress based its policy on peaceful methods, included Swaraj and the subsequent generations added non ...

  17. Rhetorical Analysis Of Quit India Speech By Gandhi

    AUDIENCE-Gandhi's speech, "Quit India", given on August 1942 in Bombay was geared towards an Indian population, oppressed by British rule (Manas). Gandhi spoke to all social groups in India in this speech, however he selectively addressed the Muslims and Hindus. In fact, a large portion of Gandhi's audience and followers comprised of ...

  18. Mahatma Gandhi Quit India Speech Summary

    The Quit India speech by Gandhi is featured in the form of extract, passages, or lines from the speech. This speech is well-known famed for the powers of verbal and oral communication, which makes excellent use of the words and language. Gandhi's includes motivational, persuasive, and inspirational ... The Rhetorical Analysis Of Quit India By ...

  19. Analyzing Mahatma Gandhi's 'Quit India' Speech: Rhetoric

    English document from Macquarie University , 9 pages, Rhetorical Essay On Mahatma Gandhi's remarkable "Quit India" speech Name: Sanket Kamble Student ID: 46273794 Word Count: 2677 Professor: Dr. Salut Muhidin Sanket Kamble Student ID: 46273794 The mantra for Mahatma Gandhi's "Quit India movement" 'Do or Die