Individual Satyagraha 1940–41

The Individual Satyagraha of 1940–41 was a significant phase of India’s freedom movement launched under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi. It represented a form of limited civil disobedience designed to express opposition to British involvement of India in the Second World War without Indian consent, while maintaining a stance of non-violence and moral protest. The movement reflected Gandhi’s strategic and moral approach to balancing national dignity with the realities of wartime politics.

Background

At the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939, the Viceroy, Lord Linlithgow, unilaterally declared India a belligerent on behalf of the British Empire without consulting Indian leaders or legislatures. This decision provoked strong resentment across political circles in India.
The Indian National Congress, then the leading nationalist organisation, demanded a clear statement from the British Government affirming India’s right to self-determination and independence after the war. However, the British refused to make such a commitment. In protest, Congress ministries in various provinces resigned in late 1939.
Although there was growing pressure for a mass movement, Gandhi initially resisted launching one during wartime. He believed that a large-scale campaign might exploit Britain’s vulnerability and thus appear morally opportunistic. Instead, he conceived of the Individual Satyagraha, a movement that would allow Indians to express dissent through non-violent and disciplined means.

Objectives of the Movement

The primary aim of the Individual Satyagraha was to:

• Assert the right to free speech and peaceful opposition.
• Reaffirm India’s moral stance against imperialism and war.
• Avoid mass upheaval, ensuring that the movement remained non-violent and individual-based.
• Demonstrate that Indians were not fighting the British out of hostility but were asserting their freedom of conscience.

Gandhi described it as a “limited, individual, and symbolic protest” designed to awaken both the British conscience and Indian self-respect.

Launch of the Movement

The movement was formally launched on 17 October 1940, with Vinoba Bhave, a close associate of Gandhi and a scholar of moral philosophy, selected as the first Satyagrahi. His act of civil disobedience consisted of delivering a public speech against the British war effort and affirming India’s right to freedom. He was immediately arrested and sentenced to imprisonment.
Following Vinoba Bhave, Jawaharlal Nehru was chosen as the second Satyagrahi, and Brahma Datt, a disciple of Gandhi, became the third. Each volunteer would, in turn, make a public anti-war statement and invite arrest. Gandhi’s idea was that the protest should remain individual rather than collective to prevent mass violence and to maintain strict moral discipline.

Course of the Movement

The movement unfolded in two main phases:

• First Phase (October 1940 – December 1940): The initial stage involved the selection of carefully chosen Satyagrahis who delivered speeches or distributed leaflets expressing opposition to the war and reaffirming the principles of non-violence. Arrests were immediate, and those detained were imprisoned for varying terms.
• Second Phase (January 1941 – December 1941): The campaign gradually expanded as more volunteers came forward. By mid-1941, over 25,000 Satyagrahis had been arrested. Despite its limited nature, the movement spread across various provinces, reflecting widespread nationalist sentiment.

The British authorities responded with selective repression, imprisoning leaders but refraining from the large-scale violence that characterised earlier movements. Gandhi was careful to ensure that the protest remained symbolic, localised, and peaceful.

Nature and Method

Unlike the Civil Disobedience Movement of the 1930s, the Individual Satyagraha was not a mass movement. It was deliberately restricted in scope and membership. The Satyagrahis were expected to:

• Publicly express opposition to participation in the war.
• Avoid violence, property destruction, or public disorder.
• Accept arrest willingly as a form of moral resistance.
• Serve as “messengers of peace” rather than agitators.

This approach reflected Gandhi’s conviction that India’s struggle must remain anchored in truth and non-violence (Satyagraha and Ahimsa), even in times of crisis.

British Reaction

The British Government regarded the Individual Satyagraha as a threat to wartime stability. Thousands were imprisoned, including leading Congress figures. Despite the limited and peaceful nature of the protest, the authorities viewed it as potentially subversive because it challenged the moral legitimacy of British rule during the war.
However, due to the global circumstances of the war and the small-scale, non-violent nature of the protests, the British refrained from employing mass repression or martial law, as had been done during the earlier Civil Disobedience Movement (1930–34).

Significance

The Individual Satyagraha holds considerable importance in the chronology of India’s freedom struggle. Its main achievements and implications include:

• It preserved the moral high ground of the Indian national movement by demonstrating disciplined non-violence during wartime.
• It served as a symbolic assertion of freedom of speech, reaffirming India’s political will even without large-scale mobilisation.
• It provided a testing ground for Congress leadership and activists after the suspension of earlier movements, maintaining organisational unity and morale.
• It kept the issue of Indian independence alive internationally, especially as Britain’s wartime allies began advocating for post-war self-determination.
• It prepared the ideological and organisational foundation for the Quit India Movement (1942), which followed when negotiations with the British finally broke down.

Limitations

Despite its moral and political value, the Individual Satyagraha also had inherent limitations:

• It lacked the mass participation necessary to exert direct political pressure on the British government.
• The restricted scope of the movement meant that its immediate impact was limited to symbolic protest.
• Internal disagreements existed within the Congress about whether the time was ripe for a larger, more forceful campaign.