Just wanted to add my two cents on the Quit India movement, and maybe discuss some of the things mentioned above:
The call to 'Quit India' was given in Bombay by Mahatma Gandhi, and was immediately picked up by freedom fighters from across the country. What was interesting about the movement, and marked it out from either the Non Co-operation Movement (henceforth called the NCM) or the Civil Disobedience Movement (CDM) that had preceded was it, was the lack of orchestration. Both the NCM and the CDM were the brainchild of Gandhi and he was largely responsible for much of the masterly tactics and strategy behind them. (In brief- the NCM and the CDM were largely similar movements, exemplifying Gandhi's motto of 'Satyagraha' or Truth Force, which is a better translation than the commonly used 'Passive Resistance'. Anyway, it involved boycotting British institutions, goods, and generally disobeying the law and courting arrest peacefully to make a moral point).
The QIM was unique in that planning was largely absent, the movement had a momentum of its own, and that perhaps accounts for the level of violence witnessed during the movement. Gandhi had brought the NCM to an end over the Chari Chaura
incident in the Gorakhpur district of Uttar Pradesh
where a group of policemen had been burnt to death by an angry mob. Despite pressure from his fellow politicians and leaders, Gandhi argued that post Chari Chaura the Indians had lost their moral ground that must withdraw. It was a controversial decision, debated to this day. Some even accuse Gandhi of protecting property interests, which might have then been the next target of the mobs, as Gandhi had close links with many top business leaders of the day.
Be that as it may, the truth was that the QIM was qualitatively different, and Gandhi did little to stop the violence. Coming at the time that it did, when the British were engaged otherwise, it was a masterful strategy. But it is also interesting to note that the QIM was a much shorter movement than the NCM and CDM, perhaps demonstrating that a violent spontaneous uprising has the potential to burn out quicker than a planned orchestrated one which has a much lower level of violence.
There is really one other point I want to make. It's not related to the QIM, but to the WU above. First, the revolt of 1857 is seen by many as the First War of Indian Independence. I don't think that's entirely true- the revolts were not merely a 'sepoy mutiny' as the British would like us to believe, there was definitely a popular element. But it was largely limited to certain towns of northern India, those revolting had very little idea of what they were going to do next, and independence was the furthest thought on their mind. (Their immediate task upon reaching Delhi was to install Bahadur Shah Zaffar, the deposed Mughal monarch on the throne). Next, I think to argue that after the revolt, the QIM was the next great struggle, is to ignore movements like the Swadeshi movement in Bengal, the NCM and the CDM, but also as a broader historical argument, this neglects sub-altern trends on this period. Much of the fight against British was not fought at a meta-national level, but by smaller communities, and groups, over many decades, winning small victories at a time. To see the QIM as the direct successor of the revolt of 1857, does a dis-service to the contribution of these sub-altern struggles.