The Making of the Indian Nation 63 Whereas Gail Omvedt's article adequately proves that given the opportunity, in this case the absence of conventional leadership, alternative groups would prove their mettle, David Hardiman remains preoccupied witl\ 'heroes* of history. In fact midway through the article one feels that the historians's main concern is the 'hero* who survived the storm — Vallabhabhai Patel. Many of the lesser known facts regarding the nature of the Quit India movement in the princely states (apart from Baroda), Saurashtra etc. remain unexplained. Quit India is largely seen in terms of clashes, disturbances and so is the absence of these that draw his attention. For instance he says, 'The middle class nationalists of Saurashtra failed to win support from the peasantry .. . Generally, people in the rural areas of Saurashtra knew little about the nationalist movement' (again, he does not tackle the issue further). In a bid to give a clean chit to middle-class nationalists and contrary to his account of communal tension in the region, Hardiman remarks 'The relationship between the working classes of Ahmedabad and Baroda and the middle class nationalists was, on the whole, a happier one' (p. 92). Similarly, while he refers to 'considerable rural protest' and studies the class-caste divisions in Kheda, Mehsana and southern Maharashtra, it turns out that rural protest had fairly limited connotations. Isn't it obvious from his own conclusions regarding the movement in the Surat and Navsari districts that 'the chief exploiters were Parsi-liquor dealers-cum-landlords, who were pro-British, rather than high caste nationalistic peasants, so that in this area there were no contradictions between the demands of the poor peasantry and the nationalist movement? (p. 101) Thus 'protest' is seen in terms of a purely nationalist rhetoric, implying unwittingly an absence of other forces. Gyanendra Pandey in his article The Result of August 1942 in Eastern U.P. and Bihar' tries to present a case for subaltern autonomy (mildly so) when at the very outset he objects to Paul Greenough's use of the phrase 'straying' (i.e. straying from the conventional Gandhian movements) to describe the distinctive character of the 1942 movement. According to him 'straying, implies the togetherness of a flock which has no real mind of its own, and to assume this is to beg the central questions that analysts of modem Indian history and society are still asking.' (p.125). But it is perplexing that the mind of the 'flock' remains unravelled even in the third section of the article where he says he wants to establish the class-caste content of the movement. There are references to the Bhumihar domination in the Sherpur-Mohammadabad region, but it is still the 'crowd' (as the majority of the participants are referred to) which provides sustenance and support. The attempt made in section VI to establish the Bhumihar-Brahman or Rajput-Brahman domination of the 1942 movement with the help of jail lists and other sources does not account for the nature of the crowd of 10,000 (in Mohammadabad). True to the subaltern notion of 'subversion* there are references to the world turning upside down