I’m doing a few talks this summer on the subject of my new book A War of Empires. I do hope you’ve heard of it! One of the questions I’m regularly asked is ‘why did Indians fight?’ In fact, I don’t spend much time talking about the subject in the book: a really good analysis is in Professor Srinath Raghavan’s book on the Indian Army
Even before I read your book I believed that India fought the Japanese because they knew that it would be easier to tell the Brits to leave than the Japanese. And as you note they knew occupation by the Japanese would be catastrophic. We knew the jig was up and so did the Indians, it was just a matter of time, time taken to defeat the Japanese. There’s a terrific line in your book (Pg500 HB) which thinks sums it up. “Thanks, I’ve got it. India’s our now. We’ll take over all tasks soon. What about a beer?” said the Indian Army to the Brits.
I think the capabilities and determination of the Indian Army and Airforce were dismissed by the Japanese, Italians, Germans and for that matter one or two ill-informed senior officers in the U.K. war department. Though it must be said not by Slim and his commanders.
A most interesting article. I had the opportunity to discuss why so many Indians joined the Indian army during the Second World War with several British Officers of the old Indian army as well as Indian World War 2 veterans. With the exception of the regulars, those who joined during the war did so for economic reasons rather than out of loyalty to the Raj or sovereign. I recall all the Indian veterans I interviewed stating they looked foward to India becoming independent.
Exactly. No one fought 'for the Raj'. They fought for themselves, for a general view of India as it might be, but in the main to stop the Japs! Even the Naga veterans said they fought to defeat the 'Japani', even though they weren't paid.
Excellent Robert, as ever. Excellent too in that it gives us a more contextual understanding of the past whilst calmly countering the growing Indian anti-western groundswell of opinion that is being driven by Russian info ops.
Interesting article which challenges a modern myth. It would have been interesting to have some more examples of the thinking of individual Indians when they made the decision to join up.
Even less well known than the contribution of Indian troops in the Burma Campaign ( a significant part of which was fought in India!) is the contribution of Indian troops in the Middle East and Italian campaigns. However there was no direct interest for them in those campaigns as the threat of a Japanese invasion presented. How does that play into the debate?
Tony, sadly, there is very little written material charting Indian veterans voices. I've interviewed 4-50 of them since 2000.
In respect of the troops that went elsewhere (10 Division to Iraq) and North Africa (4 Indian Division) were made up or pre-war regulars, who as professional soldiers had no qualms about fighting the Germans & Italians. Indeed, between in 1939-41 virtually all Indian newspapers and opinion was anti-German. Nationalist opinion was divided, with many angry at the failure of the Viceroy to 'ask' India if it wanted to join the war effort in 1939 (a sensible thing to do IMV, although he wasn't legally obliged to do it) but this didn't stop them wanting the Germans to be defeated.
I have formally interviewed about two dozen Indian WW2 veterans (and informally talked to some others), while researching my own publications on Indians in WW2. Most of them were aware that there was some political hostility to actively participating in the war - like much else in India, there are many voices and many views. But in my sample, *not one* was coerced.
Most of them sought advice from family, teachers, priests, and politicians (including some who were officially pro-Independence). They all came to considered decisions, which none regretted.
Of course my sample isn't entirely representative; it was mostly Air Force rather than Army, and mostly officers. Still, a few data points.
Exactly my experience too. The coercion argument holds some water in terms of economic motives (e.g. poverty) but it doesn't hold water for political pressure. There was considerable familial and tribal pressure of course, but no one was marched into the armed forces under duress. Despite its popularity in the UK and US academy there is zero evidence for the old Marxist trop of subconscious (colonial) coercion. Still, it's trotted out regularly as though its absolute, unquestioned fact.
When even the IWM release a vid onto their awful Youtube channel saying that Indians were 'forced to fight against their will' then you know that the new narratives have gone way overboard so thanks for trying to correct them.
I particularly agree with your points about denying Indian soldiers their agency. The 'naïve victims who were compelled to fight' narrative is patronising in the extreme. They were more than aware of the consequences of world events, and more than capable of reaching their own conclusions about joining up in their own interests.
It seems to me that they have become a pawn in modern political games - which is disrespectful to their memory to say the least.
If you care to watch it at some point then you may need a stiff drink handy before starting it. Somewhere in the comments is a massive rant from a well and truly triggered me. I'm not normally a culture warrior but oh dear!
I noticed is that it's clocked up 125,000 views now which is slightly terrifying. Anyways I'm very much enjoying reading your articles here.
Whilst in Imphal in March this year, it was put to me that the Manipurans were coerced into enlisting. After all the guy insisted, Manipur was not at that time part of India but rather a Princely State. He was also suggesting that both UK & Japan should fund a mission to search out and destroy the many items of ordnance still causing injury. Sadly I didn't at that time know enough to have a come back for him except to say that it was very much Manipur's fight also
Thanks Bob. As you know, no Manipuri was forced to join the Indian Army. However, the Princely State of Manipur had its own small army, outside of the control of the Government and therefore of the Indian Army. It may well have been the case that some Manipuri's were pressured into joining this organisation, but it was never mobilised to fight the Japanese.
In the First World War the Manipuris provided some labour battalions: I haven't checked, but I suspect the same happened in WW2, mainly to keep the arterial routes open
Excellent piece, Robert. Always appreciate your insights.
Even before I read your book I believed that India fought the Japanese because they knew that it would be easier to tell the Brits to leave than the Japanese. And as you note they knew occupation by the Japanese would be catastrophic. We knew the jig was up and so did the Indians, it was just a matter of time, time taken to defeat the Japanese. There’s a terrific line in your book (Pg500 HB) which thinks sums it up. “Thanks, I’ve got it. India’s our now. We’ll take over all tasks soon. What about a beer?” said the Indian Army to the Brits.
The fabulous Jack Masters!
I think the capabilities and determination of the Indian Army and Airforce were dismissed by the Japanese, Italians, Germans and for that matter one or two ill-informed senior officers in the U.K. war department. Though it must be said not by Slim and his commanders.
Likewise, Churchill wrote off the Indian Army as well.
Indeed, though performed well.
A most interesting article. I had the opportunity to discuss why so many Indians joined the Indian army during the Second World War with several British Officers of the old Indian army as well as Indian World War 2 veterans. With the exception of the regulars, those who joined during the war did so for economic reasons rather than out of loyalty to the Raj or sovereign. I recall all the Indian veterans I interviewed stating they looked foward to India becoming independent.
Exactly. No one fought 'for the Raj'. They fought for themselves, for a general view of India as it might be, but in the main to stop the Japs! Even the Naga veterans said they fought to defeat the 'Japani', even though they weren't paid.
Excellent Robert, as ever. Excellent too in that it gives us a more contextual understanding of the past whilst calmly countering the growing Indian anti-western groundswell of opinion that is being driven by Russian info ops.
Interesting article which challenges a modern myth. It would have been interesting to have some more examples of the thinking of individual Indians when they made the decision to join up.
Even less well known than the contribution of Indian troops in the Burma Campaign ( a significant part of which was fought in India!) is the contribution of Indian troops in the Middle East and Italian campaigns. However there was no direct interest for them in those campaigns as the threat of a Japanese invasion presented. How does that play into the debate?
Tony, sadly, there is very little written material charting Indian veterans voices. I've interviewed 4-50 of them since 2000.
In respect of the troops that went elsewhere (10 Division to Iraq) and North Africa (4 Indian Division) were made up or pre-war regulars, who as professional soldiers had no qualms about fighting the Germans & Italians. Indeed, between in 1939-41 virtually all Indian newspapers and opinion was anti-German. Nationalist opinion was divided, with many angry at the failure of the Viceroy to 'ask' India if it wanted to join the war effort in 1939 (a sensible thing to do IMV, although he wasn't legally obliged to do it) but this didn't stop them wanting the Germans to be defeated.
I have formally interviewed about two dozen Indian WW2 veterans (and informally talked to some others), while researching my own publications on Indians in WW2. Most of them were aware that there was some political hostility to actively participating in the war - like much else in India, there are many voices and many views. But in my sample, *not one* was coerced.
Most of them sought advice from family, teachers, priests, and politicians (including some who were officially pro-Independence). They all came to considered decisions, which none regretted.
Of course my sample isn't entirely representative; it was mostly Air Force rather than Army, and mostly officers. Still, a few data points.
Exactly my experience too. The coercion argument holds some water in terms of economic motives (e.g. poverty) but it doesn't hold water for political pressure. There was considerable familial and tribal pressure of course, but no one was marched into the armed forces under duress. Despite its popularity in the UK and US academy there is zero evidence for the old Marxist trop of subconscious (colonial) coercion. Still, it's trotted out regularly as though its absolute, unquestioned fact.
When even the IWM release a vid onto their awful Youtube channel saying that Indians were 'forced to fight against their will' then you know that the new narratives have gone way overboard so thanks for trying to correct them.
I particularly agree with your points about denying Indian soldiers their agency. The 'naïve victims who were compelled to fight' narrative is patronising in the extreme. They were more than aware of the consequences of world events, and more than capable of reaching their own conclusions about joining up in their own interests.
It seems to me that they have become a pawn in modern political games - which is disrespectful to their memory to say the least.
I haven't seen this IWM piece, but it flies in the face of the evidence.
https://youtu.be/w49y3NCXEKU
If you care to watch it at some point then you may need a stiff drink handy before starting it. Somewhere in the comments is a massive rant from a well and truly triggered me. I'm not normally a culture warrior but oh dear!
I noticed is that it's clocked up 125,000 views now which is slightly terrifying. Anyways I'm very much enjoying reading your articles here.
Whilst in Imphal in March this year, it was put to me that the Manipurans were coerced into enlisting. After all the guy insisted, Manipur was not at that time part of India but rather a Princely State. He was also suggesting that both UK & Japan should fund a mission to search out and destroy the many items of ordnance still causing injury. Sadly I didn't at that time know enough to have a come back for him except to say that it was very much Manipur's fight also
Thanks Bob. As you know, no Manipuri was forced to join the Indian Army. However, the Princely State of Manipur had its own small army, outside of the control of the Government and therefore of the Indian Army. It may well have been the case that some Manipuri's were pressured into joining this organisation, but it was never mobilised to fight the Japanese.
Ah - I didn't know that - what he was saying makes more sense now - Thanks
In the First World War the Manipuris provided some labour battalions: I haven't checked, but I suspect the same happened in WW2, mainly to keep the arterial routes open