'Re-Exploring the Logic of Gandhian Violence: Gandhi and his Followers in the Quit India Movement, Bengal 1942-45'. I proposed this project as it is important to understand the nuances of mass activism during the anti-colonial movement in the decade of the forties, especially, Gandhian mass movement. It is imperative for historians to not treat Gandhian mass movements under the blanket category of non-violence, but also delve deeper to understand the violence that often characterized his movements, and question as to why did his 'followers' often engaged in violent confrontations with the colonial state while still abrogating to themselves the title of 'Gandhians'.
The issues addressed: 1) understanding the changing nature of Gandhi's attitude towards non-violence 2) How do his followers use his conceptions of violence/non-violence in their own actions during a mass movement. The case study was the Quit India Movement in Bengal, especially Midnapore, which saw the formation of the Tamralipta National Government, 1942-45.
Importance for Society: We are now seeing political developments all over the world, where leaders of States are commanding a massive mass following. Donald Trump in the USA and Narendra Modi in India have both won massive electoral victories based on popular support. This study provides an avenue to understanding how political rhetoric espoused by leaders is received by their 'followers', internalized & translated into political action.
Objectives of the project: 1) Understanding Gandhi’s rationale behind the tacit incitement to violence before the Movement i.e. analyse reasons behind the change in his attitude towards the nature of a mass movement.
2) How did a mass movement with definite violent overtones, conceptualize Gandhi? This particular case study holds the key to understanding the perceived relationship that political actors might hold with the persona of a charismatic leader.
3) How do we link up the triad – Elite Leadership-Mass Action-Violence? How does an elite leader, with the support of a political party and ideology, percolate down to mass ‘perceptions’? This ‘perceptibility’ is then translated into action by the masses, violence being used in both political endeavors and communal riots. Often the general mood of the masses directs mobilization by the leaders, who then pre-determine and control the nature of would-be ‘perceptions’. Hence, it is a two way process.
