Less than a week after the All-India Congress Committee session in Bombay launched the Quit India movement on August 8, 1942, protests spread to Delhi’s colleges and schools. Not only did attendance fall, but, according to British authorities, the students began participating in violent protests against the colonial government.
As reports emerged of students shouting slogans at visiting dignitaries and setting fire to public property, authorities in the government as well as Delhi University (DU) scrambled to take action.
Collection of letters
In confidential correspondence of the Chief Commissioner of Delhi, the DU vice-chancellor, the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) of Delhi and secretaries in the Government of India, obtained from the Delhi Archives, the debate on how to deal with protesting students was laid bare.
The collection of letters of the office of the Chief Commissioner of Delhi (Confidential Branch) from August till December 1942 shows how officers discussed various disciplinary actions against the students, weighing the pros and cons.
‘Suspend grants’
Writing in a note on August 13, the SSP of Delhi said that “the taking of action to prevent students from participating in present disturbances” needed “urgent consideration”.
He recounted a visit to Karol Bagh the day before when he was told by locals that students of Ramjas College had been responsible for arson and sabotage, including the burning of an electric sub-station and uprooting of telephone and telegraph posts.
The SSP recommended that the government grants to the college should be suspended. Referring to reports that Hindu College students had staged “minor demonstrations” at Kashmere Gate, the SSP suggested that the college principal should be given a formal warning.
‘Warn principals’
The Chief Commissioner, A.V. Askwith, then wrote to DU vice-chancellor Sir Maurice Gwyer on August 14, quoting the letter of the SSP, identified as Kilburn.
Referring to the SSP’s suggestions of action against the colleges, the Chief Commissioner wrote: “I am not greatly interested in punitive action against the colleges, merely for the sake of punitive action, but am anxious that everything possible should be done to make the governing bodies and the principals of the colleges realise their responsibility and take effective action to control their students”.
He suggested that students who misbehaved or skipped class on “hartal days” could be threatened with exclusion from university examinations and the possibility of stopping government grants would also “have some effect”.
“The controlling of students is notoriously difficult, but I do feel that the present situation is an occasion where action is needed. The case of Ramjas College is flagrant,” the commissioner wrote.
Almost 75 years later, Ramjas College students were in the news earlier this year when a college event led to violence, eventually sparking off protests and a countrywide debate on nationalism.
Back in 1942, the authorities continued to grapple with how to treat the students involved in the “riots” well after the incidents.
Responding to the Chief Commissioner’s letter, the DU V-C wrote on August 30 that the threat to exclude protesting students from university exams would not work, but lead to “further strikes”.
On the other suggestion of stopping government grants to the colleges, he said it would have some effect, but “unfortunately it would penalise the wrong people”, referring to the teachers.
Saying he would consider the matter further, the V-C ended by writing: “If an effective [emphasis in original text] remedy can be found, I should be the first to rejoice; but (though I admit that it is a lame and impotent conclusion) I have been unable up to the present to find or even think of one.”
Governing bodies warned
The Chief Commissioner then wrote back to the vice-chancellor on September 9 informing him that he had issued warnings to the governing bodies of Hindu College and Ramjas College to “rectify their state of affairs” in a few days or risk losing maintenance grants.
Referring to action against students who skipped class, the commissioner suggested excluding those students from exams who were known to have participated in riots or were being prosecuted.
On September 13, the V-C wrote back saying the university appeared to have “no power” to exclude students from taking exams, though students needed a certain level of attendance and a certificate of good character from college principals to be eligible.
“I do not know whether a college principal would regard a conviction in the criminal courts for any unlawful act as a forfeiture of the right to such a certificate,” the V-C said.
As the officers discussed potential actions, 16 students from Hindu College, five from Indraprastha College, two from Ramjas College and one from Commercial College were convicted for their role in the Quit India movement, as per the Chief Commissioner’s letter to the Education Secretary in GoI, J.D. Tyson, on November 17.
He suggested that college principals should be told that grants would not be paid if any student convicted in the movement was allowed to continue studying.
Tricky issue
The correspondence went back and forth, with the collection of letters ending with one by the Chief Commissioner on December 21, saying that no instructions had been received by the government on debarring students convicted in the movement, as was promised.
What happened to the students, were they allowed to give exams or were they made to leave? Were the government grants to colleges stopped? The letters end on an ambiguous note, with the only conclusion being that taking action against protesting students has always been a tricky issue.
