Indian Army bailed out British Empire during Great War: Jody East

[Ray]

Indian Army bailed out British Empire during Great War: Jody East

KOLKATA: As Jody East lands in city to research on the role Indian Army played in the First World War, Kounteya Sinha speaks to the Royal Pavilion curator on the purpose of her visit and how her work will throw light on lives of Indian soldiers who fought for British Army in the Great War. Excerpts.

What is the main purpose of your visit to India?

As part of a British Council programme, I'll spend a week in India to explore the role of Indian soldiers during the First World War. Since 2014 is the centenary anniversary of the War, it is an incredible opportunity to work with some of the organizations in India who are leading on the commemorations. A little known part of the Royal Pavilion's history is that it was turned into a military hospital for Indian troops in 1914. Over 4,300 soldiers were treated there in less than two years. We are collaborating with the Centre for Armed Forces Historical Research to try and discover more about the soldiers who were hospitalized in Brighton. It's an opportunity for us to raise awareness about the role Brighton played in India's history of WW1.

What do you intend to find in India?

I honestly don't know. When I first started researching on my visit, I had no idea if anyone in India would be interested in the centenary. I contacted CAFHR through the UK Centenary Partnership. They have an extensive programme planned for the centenary and were very keen to find out more about the military hospitals in Brighton.

I am particularly interested in the personal aspect, finding out more about the life of particular soldiers. How was the life they left behind to fight on behalf of the British? How did their families and communities feel about this? How do people feel nowadays about the First World War? This is probably more than a week's research! But I am starting these conversations and it is the beginning of a relationship with organizations in India who are also interested in this.

How important was the role of Indian soldiers in WW1?

There is a quote that says the Indian soldiers "filled a gap that otherwise wouldn't have been filled". At the start of the War, the British Army numbered about 7,00,000, far less than forces in Germany or France. Only the Indian Army was available to support the British Army. In total, over 13,00,000 Indian soldiers fought on behalf of the British Empire. The army was supported with soldiers, money and resources.

How much of their sacrifice will be displayed during the commemoration in the UK?

We want to remember the lives of those who lived and died and raise awareness on their experiences. It's a time for reflection. The Imperial War Museum, London, is renovating its First World War galleries and I believe they will include the contribution of overseas soldiers in their new displays. In Brighton, numerous events and displays have been planned. For example, for six weeks this summer, there will be an exhibition on Brighton seafront called Dr Blighty. There are lots of fascinating images of the Indian military hospitals in Brighton and displaying it on the seafront means thousands of Brighton residents and visitors will see it.

We are also doing a major exhibition at Brighton Museum, part of the Royal Pavilion Estate, called War Stories, Voices from the First World War. We are focusing on 12 individuals who lived through the war. One of them was an Indian.

Are people in Brighton aware of the connection they have with India? And will our activities help them become more aware?

It is definitely a lesser known part of Brighton's history. People are aware of Brighton's reputation as a healing seaside spot. At the time, newspapers really believed the military hospital in the Royal Pavilion would always be remembered. By 1930, it was already fading into distant memory. The Royal Pavilion was fully restored to its glory and until recently, the First World War did not feature in any of the interpretation for visitors. In 2010, we opened the permanent gallery. Visitors' reaction was incredible. People were fascinated by the idea of a Regency palace being turned into a military hospital for Indian soldiers. As interest in WW1 increases due to the high-profile anniversary, we are being inundated with queries.

We are particularly keen to engage young people in Brighton. As the First World War gets further and further from living memory, it is harder for young people to relate to the experiences and history of WW1, although it was so important in shaping modern life as we know it. That's why the personal stories are so important.

How are you planning your India visit?

I'll meet Jayanta Sengupta at the Victoria Memorial. I am not aware if Victoria authorities currently have any plans to explore India during WW1 but given the collections and its insight into the British Raj, I am going to introduce myself and open up the dialogue. I am then going to Delhi to visit the Centre for Armed Forces Historical Research, United Service Institution. Led by Rana Chhina, they have an extensive programme planned for the WW1 centenary. They are building an archive related to the Indian Army in WW1. I am very interested to see what their research has yielded so far. They are including the role of Brighton in some of their works.

Does any Indian soldier or his family still live in Brighton?

Yes. One of the organizers of Brighton & Hove Black History group believes his grandfather and greatuncle fought in the War. We are going to see if we can find out more about him. There is also someone who comes to the memorial service at the Chattri every year. His grandfather had died in one of the Brighton hospitals.

Should the UK thank India for the latter's role in helping them during WW1?

I believe the British representation in India has plans for recognizing and telling this story. I hope what we are doing in Brighton goes a little way to highlighting and thanking Indian soldiers for helping the British Army.

Indian Army bailed out British Empire during Great War: Jody East - The Times of India

*******************************************

For note for historians of the Indian Army

 

[W.G.Ewald]

The Indian Army on the Western Front

One and a half million volunteer soldiers from the Indian continent served in the Great War, 850,000 overseas. Of these 72,000 (5%) died - 50,000 (3%) were killed in action - of which 7,000 died on the Western Front.

When the war was declared, the native rulers of India gave their strong moral support to the British Government's war aims and generously contributed money to aid the British in fighting the war. Notably, the Nizam of Hyderabad gave 60 lakhs of rupees = £400,000, and the Maharajah of Mysore 50 lakhs = £333,000; a huge amount in those days. They also supported the sending of Indian troops overseas.

The Indian Army contingent - the Indian Corps - that served on the Western Front, consisted of two Divisions of infantry, namely the 3rd (Lahore) Division, and the 7th (Meerut) Division, along with their support troops of pioneers, artillery, and one Brigade of cavalry, the 4th (Secunderbad) Cavalry Brigade.

Although nominally under the authority of the Indian Government, once these troops arrived in an area under British operational control - eg The Western Front - they came under full British military authority.

Whilst all private soldiers (called sepoys from the Persian word for soldier = sipahis) were from the Indian sub-continent, the majority of the officers were British, as were some of the non-commissioned officers (NCOs).

The Indian troops were recruited in India from the so-called martial races, e.g. Sikhs, Pathans, Dogras, Jats, and Rajputs, not forgetting the Gurkhas from Nepal.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

India's contribution to the First World War - CWGC - Forever India

By the time the war ended in November 1918:

1,105,000 Indian personnel had been sent overseas

138,000 to France
657,000 to Mesopotamia (most of which is now contained within modern-day Iraq)
144,000 to Egypt and Palestine
Smaller contingents to Aden, East Africa, Gallipolli and Salonika

India's contribution was not confined to the army. The Royal Indian Marine was armed in 1914, some of its ships serving with the Royal Navy on escort duties and others as coastal minesweepers or river gunboats in the Mesopotamia campaign.

The role of the Indian merchant services in transportation and supply was no less essential than that of their comrades in arms.

Queen Alexandra's Imperial Military Nursing Service had its origins in the Indian Army. In 1914 there were around 300 nurses in the QAIMNS. By the end of the war this had risen to 10,404. The Army nurses served in Flanders, the Mediterranean, the Balkans, the Middle East and on board hospital ships. Of the 200 plus army nurses who died on active service, many were Indians.

India also provided :

over 170,000 animals
3,700,000 tons of supplies and stores

In all, 60,000 troops from Undivided India sacrificed their lives in the First World War

Over 9,200 decorations were earned, including eleven VCs.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

First World War (1914-1918) |

As Britain and France waged war against Germany in Europe and in Africa, Britain called upon help from her Imperial troops. Indian soldiers in the Indian Army arrived in Europe from September 1914. The first of these Indian troops arrived in Marseilles on 26 September 1914. They came from the Lahore and Meerut Divisions and the Secunderbad Cavalry. In October, Indians were fed into some of the fiercest fighting at Ypres. In March 1915, Indian troops provided half the attacking force at the Battle of Neuve Chapelle, which was the costliest in terms of lives.

By 1918, India had sent over 1 million soldiers to fight in the War, not including Imperial Service Troops from the Princely States, Sailors and Indian Labour Corps. 138, 608 Indian soldiers (two infantry divisions, two cavalry divisions and four field artillery brigades) saw action on the Western Front. Here, 7700 Indians died, 16,400 were wounded and 840 went missing or were taken prisoner. Of the twelve Victoria Crosses awarded to Indians after the War, six were for those who had fought on the Western Front. The main memorial to the Indian Army on the Western Front was that designed by Sir Herbert Baker, and opened in 1927 at Neuve Chapelle.

Wounded Indians who had fought in France were sent to Britain to recover. In Brighton, the Royal Pavilion was transformed into a military hospital for Indian soldiers. During their time spent recuperating, Indians were visited by the King and the Royal Family. Tours were also organized for them to visit London and see the sights. The religious needs of the soldiers was taken into account, with nine kitchens erected to cater for the various dietary regulations of Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims and areas were cordoned off for worship. Various other buildings were also converted into nursing homes for these soldiers. Two memorials exist in Brighton to commemorate the Indian soldiers who came through during the War - the Chattri on the South Downs and the Pavilion Gateway (unveiled by Bhupinder Singh in 1921).

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Indian Forces Memorial, Ypres


The GreatWar 1914-1918
Indian Forces Memorial, Ypres
Detail of the three lion heads on the Indian Forces Memorial, Ypres.

This memorial was unveiled in a ceremony in March 2011. It is dedicated to the 130,000 troops of the Indian Forces who served in Flanders during the Great War of 1914-1918. 9,000 members of the Indian Expeditionary Force died as casualties in France and Flanders, not only due to the nature of their injuries in battle but also due to the severe winter weather conditions they were exposed to.

 

[Waffen SS]

What ever it was British-Indian army.

It was Army by the Indians, of the British and for the British. Government employed butcher force full with traitors who were ready to kill their countrymen just for money. A Mercenary army. They were mainstay of British that's why British managed to loot India for 200 years.

That is irrelevant to us.

 

[Ray]

What ever it was British-Indian army.

It was Army by the Indians, of the British and for the British. Government employed butcher force full with traitors who were ready to kill their countrymen just for money. A Mercenary army. They were mainstay of British that's why British managed to loot India for 200 years.

That is irrelevant to us.

I was waiting for this.

Even people like Ashoke Mitra, your fellow Bengalee, claims that the Indian Army in Kashmir is an Occupation Army''!

I wonder if you also subscribe to that view.

If the British looted us, which they did, where were your ancestors to stop that?

My ancestors, as most of the others, could not and that I will admit!

It is time for you to understand the circumstance of those time, before you apply your jingoism to the contemporary times.

If India was not independent, you would also be serving the British like a lackey since you would have no other choice!

Learn to respect valour.

Get real!

Nationalism is to be applauded, but not jingoism and blind hatred.

Next you will say the Rajputs are traitors because they (Jaichand) let Mohammed Ghori defeat another Rajput (Prithiviraj Chauhan).

 

[rvjpheonix]

What ever it was British-Indian army.

It was Army by the Indians, of the British and for the British. Government employed butcher force full with traitors who were ready to kill their countrymen just for money. A Mercenary army. They were mainstay of British that's why British managed to loot India for 200 years.

That is irrelevant to us.

What is important to understand is that back then there was no single entity called India. When the nationalism started affecting the army the britishers shut down all communication of regular folks with outside happenings. No access to newspapers and all.

 

[Waffen SS]

I was waiting for this.

Even people like Ashoke Mitra, your fellow Bengalee, claims that the Indian Army in Kashmir is an Occupation Army''!

I wonder if you also subscribe to that view.

If the British looted us, which they did, where were your ancestors to stop that?

My ancestors, as most of the others, could not and that I will admit!

It is time for you to understand the circumstance of those time, before you apply your jingoism to the contemporary times.

If India was not independent, you would also be serving the British like a lackey since you would have no other choice!

Learn to respect valour.

Get real!

Nationalism is to be applauded, but not jingoism and blind hatred.

Next you will say the Rajputs are traitors because they (Jaichand) let Mohammed Ghori defeat another Rajput (Prithiviraj Chauhan).

We have already discussed it thoroughly, dont want to start that debate again. You to your opinion, me to my opinion.

I would rather be a suicide bomber than serving British if British was still ruling India. My ancestors what did I dont know but certainly they did not side British at least for sure.

German's ancestors in WW2 sided with Nazi regime, does it make present Germans Nazi? Ancestry does not matter, your or my activity matters. Southerners ancestors were in rebel side during US civil war. Does it make all Southerners now are racist just because their ancestors were racist?

I would certainly respect valor, if British issued a single apology. Respecting Valor, Ajmal Kasab was surely brave as he went to suicide mission, should we praise him just because he was brave? Your call.

British-Indian army might be brave, I dont care hence they did not use that valor to protect their fellow countrymen and instead used that valor to kill fellow countrymen.

If you respect valor too much then please praise terrorists firsts, when a small group enters armed struggle with state then it requires lots of valor.

Even people like Ashoke Mitra, your fellow Bengalee, claims that the Indian Army in Kashmir is an Occupation Army''!

You have seen my many comments before, what I am still amazed that you came to this conclusion!!! Read my previous comments and then again judge, do you find any single syndrome that I like Pakis?
@rvjpheonix

British rule was worst in India. If India was not India, then how British got the idea that they needed to make Indian empire? British was foreigners.

Suppose you are right. India was not a single entity. Well. Then how British employed Viceroy of India, instead of Viceroy Of Bengal? As Bengal was first to fall under British rule?

If India was not single entity then British would never make empire of India. If India India was not India, British would make then Empire Of Bengal, Empire Of Maharashtra.

The myth of Indian Maharajas fighting among themselves again and again was just aimed to unit India under their rule. Very few succeeded.

Idea of patriotism is older than the idea of Nationalism(which came from Europe). We may did not have Nationalism, but we have surely an idea that this country is for ours. Not for Foreigners.

 

[The Messiah]

I was waiting for this.

Even people like Ashoke Mitra, your fellow Bengalee, claims that the Indian Army in Kashmir is an Occupation Army''!

I wonder if you also subscribe to that view.

If the British looted us, which they did, where were your ancestors to stop that?

My ancestors, as most of the others, could not and that I will admit!

It is time for you to understand the circumstance of those time, before you apply your jingoism to the contemporary times.

If India was not independent, you would also be serving the British like a lackey since you would have no other choice!

Learn to respect valour.

Get real!

Nationalism is to be applauded, but not jingoism and blind hatred.

Next you will say the Rajputs are traitors because they (Jaichand) let Mohammed Ghori defeat another Rajput (Prithiviraj Chauhan).

What he is saying that he would support Azad hind fauj over british Indian army.

And so would i and so should any Indian.

 

[Simple_Guy]

:: Subhas Chandra Bose ::

The British have long been carrying out a 'divide and rule' policy in India. To further weaken our solidarity the British have engineered the Muslim League demand of Pakistan, which aims at vivisecting India. I can confidently assert that the Hindu-Muslim question is a British creation. This is proved by the fact that though the Indian National Army is mainly composed of Muslim soldiers, there is perfect harmony between them and their Hindu comrades."

"I believe," went on Mr Bose, "that Mr Jinnah is doing great harm to the National cause by advocating Pakistan. He is misleading the simple-minded Muslims by lending charm to Pakistan and playing upon their religious fanaticism. We all know that India will be plunged into a welter of chaos and confusion if the Pakistan scheme comes to fruition. The Muslims fail to realise that the British are the enemies of the Muslims and Islam, and their policy has always been directed against them.

It was the British who brought about the downfall of the Moghals and enslaved India.

Is it true that INA was mainly made of Muslims??

 

[Ray]

What he is saying that he would support Azad hind fauj over british Indian army.

And so would i and so should any Indian.

Quite valid.

Nonetheless, when one studies history, one must dispassionately observe the events and analyse it without getting biased with popular imagery and lore.

The flip side is someone could say that the Azad Hind Fauj was but only an extension of the Japanese Imperial Army and was not really independent. And that the Japanese were cleverly and successfully using fierce zeal for Independece sentiments of Indians in the zones they captured, and having them recruited for their cause - in short, a set of people whose loyalty indirectly to the Japanese cause would not be suspect.

Further, there was no guarantee that had the Japanese won, India would be independent.

When the Japanese occupied Andaman, it was not an Indian who was placed in command. it was put under the authority of Colonel Bucho, a Japanese.

How is it that when Indian territory was being captured, there was no Azad Hind Faul general or military officer spearheading the same or being nominally a part of the Force?

Therefore, one should not let the heart rule supreme, when the head should rule.

Dispassionate analysis and not clouded by popular sentiment is the answer.

 

[muralidon924]

they also volunteered for world war 2 there is a interesting bbc documentry in you tube search for BBC The forgotten volunteers
i cant post links i dont know why

 

[Ray]

We have already discussed it thoroughly, dont want to start that debate again. You to your opinion, me to my opinion.

I would rather be a suicide bomber than serving British if British was still ruling India. My ancestors what did I dont know but certainly they did not side British at least for sure.

German's ancestors in WW2 sided with Nazi regime, does it make present Germans Nazi? Ancestry does not matter, your or my activity matters. Southerners ancestors were in rebel side during US civil war. Does it make all Southerners now are racist just because their ancestors were racist?

I would certainly respect valor, if British issued a single apology. Respecting Valor, Ajmal Kasab was surely brave as he went to suicide mission, should we praise him just because he was brave? Your call.

British-Indian army might be brave, I dont care hence they did not use that valor to protect their fellow countrymen and instead used that valor to kill fellow countrymen.

If you respect valor too much then please praise terrorists firsts, when a small group enters armed struggle with state then it requires lots of valor.



You have seen my many comments before, what I am still amazed that you came to this conclusion!!! Read my previous comments and then again judge, do you find any single syndrome that I like Pakis?
@rvjpheonix

British rule was worst in India. If India was not India, then how British got the idea that they needed to make Indian empire? British was foreigners.

Suppose you are right. India was not a single entity. Well. Then how British employed Viceroy of India, instead of Viceroy Of Bengal? As Bengal was first to fall under British rule?

If India was not single entity then British would never make empire of India. If India India was not India, British would make then Empire Of Bengal, Empire Of Maharashtra.

The myth of Indian Maharajas fighting among themselves again and again was just aimed to unit India under their rule. Very few succeeded.

Idea of patriotism is older than the idea of Nationalism(which came from Europe). We may did not have Nationalism, but we have surely an idea that this country is for ours. Not for Foreigners.

Nationalism is not jingoism.

Nationalism is a belief, creed or political ideology that involves an individual identifying with, or becoming attached to, one's nation. Nationalism involves national identity, by contrast with the related construct of patriotism, which involves the social conditioning and personal behaviours that support a state's decisions and actions.

Patriotism is generally cultural attachment to one's homeland or devotion to one's country, although interpretations of the term vary with context, geographyand philosophy. It is a related sentiment to nationalism

Jingoism is patriotism in the form of aggressive and pugnacious diatribe, often obfuscating facts with emotional assertions.

If Indians were so nationalistic as you claim, then India would not have been enslaved over centuries and would have ensured their independence. The fact that they could not do, speaks volumes of the hollow war cries that some raise, now that we are independent.

If I may put your analogy in the correct perspective, the Germans cannot all be Nazis not because their ancestors were, or the Southern Americans can't be racists, not because their ancestors were, is because they are rational and analyse the historical past with rationality and not with venom of past wrongs. Therefore, your bile against Indians who did what they did during the British Raj and judging them with the contemporary times is ill advised and misconceived. This you have to understand and not display impotent rage for the ignominies heaped on Indians in the past or of the Indians of those times.

Valour means great courage in the face of danger, especially in battle. To judge what is valorous or not, one has to understand the context of the act and construct. The act cannot be valorous if it is prompted by personal hatred or undertaken for personal profit. That is what differentiates courage in battle or in environments acceptable in law or by society and 'courage' displayed in murder, mayhem, riots and unprovoked terrorism, even if the finality of the act is not dissimilar. That is why Kasab and the terrorists or even the rioters do not fall in the same league as valour in battle.

The new fashion of getting an apology being a vehicle that wipes out the historical truth is odious. Can an apology return history and justice? If that is your line of argument that an apology is adequate to wipe out history and correct the faults, then I presume the Chinese should just say 'Sorry' and we will forget 1962 or let them continue to occupy what they have occupied!

Your statement – British-Indian army might be brave, I dont care hence they did not use that valor to protect their fellow countrymen and instead used that valor to kill fellow countrymen is fallacious and indicates that you do not understand governance and the requirements from the instruments of governance.

The various departments of the Govt, works for the Govt, be they the British Raj, of the Govt of Independent India, irrespective of the political persuasion, colour or creed. They cannot fight or work against the Govt in power or pander to any sections of opinion, political party, or movement. Let me illustrate with contemporary examples. The Police in Nandigram or at the Kejriwal's dharna flouting Sec 144 had to acted against those who were obstructing the functioning of the Govt, even if within the hearts of some, they were admirers of the cause of those who the Police was acting against.


Yes, indeed, the British Indian army should have worked for their own countrymen and not the British. But then so should have all Indians in Govt worked for their countrymen and not the British. To go one step further, all Indians should have boycotted all the British people and let them fend for themselves to include cleaning the street and doing their own work instead of being their domestic servants. Could you tell me why Indians did not do so and why you only exhibit your ire to soldiers and their acts?

It is a perverted bias once again to exult that you hate Pakistanis. That is irrational. One has to look at issues and not blame communities and Nations. It is their Govt and not the people which require attention and even ire, when they act against our national interest. Have you met Pakistanis? I have, including those who fought against us. In battle we would ask for no quarters and give none, but when we met after the War, they were most friendly and peaceable. Should we have carried our hate for those who fought us and they carry hate for us? Unlike you, we, as soldiers, who have actually laid our lives in line for our Nations, do not carry grudges, since we were doing our duty and they, theirs. Much unlike people like you who bay for the blood of others from safe distances of your home, we, the soldiers, the paramilitary ie the most maligned of the 'liberal Pollyanna' lot, have seen the verities of existence and hence, are the actual rationalists than you.

Why did the British make the Indian Empire? They did not. They merely made the fragments we call India today merge by force and guile to become a part of the British Empire; and called the fragments they united under one rule, as the Indian Empire.

Why did they?

Initially to pursue their business interest in competition with other colonial business interests and when they found that Indians (though they were not Indians then, but various Rajs and Sultanates i.e. Native States) did not have the ingenuity, will, muscle or the power to thwart the British designs, they simply took over and added each to their kitty. Something like what China has done to Tibet and to India in the Aksai Chin and Ladakh. And guess what? You are here merely at your computer board and not showing the nationalism that you profess to have in oodles and not throwing the Chinese out by the scruff of their neck. What prevents you? Could it be the same handicap that the Indians faced during the British Raj? So, can you explain your hypocrisy? Posterity will judge you the same way that you are judging the acts, commissions and omissions of the Indians under the British Raj. Seek and Ye shall find. Do unto others (here, read Judge) as you expect to be done unto you!

Have you heard of the Doctrine of Lapse? The Indians calmly handed over their States to the British instead of standing up to Wellesley's preposterous sleight of hand. Therefore, Indians of every shade or calling calmly subjugated themselves to the British writ. Therefore, showing great courage now that they are not there, is totally hollow and misplaced and disingenuous. It is we, for the want of a spine, allowed the British to ride rough shod over us and to blame them for bagging a cherry that is ready for the picking is false attempt to recoup the pride that we lost because of our own ineptness – the same way Independent India of great patriots have lost Indian territory to the Chinese and still twiddling their thumbs and flooding with bombast on the cyberspace, doing nothing concrete on the ground!

That should indicate if India was a homogenous whole as it is today.

You display great jingoism and indirectly suggest that you would have taken on the British etc. May I ask you, as to why you not taking on the Scindias, one a Chief Minister and the other a Union Minister, who succumbed to the British and even worked for the British Interest and having them removed from governance of Independent Free Nationalist India?

In other words, your diatribe is all bark and no bite and all booster, no payload.

Viceroy of India and not Viceroy of Bengal?

Regrettably, a post is too small a space to enumerate the history of over 300 years.

However, to encapsulate, and that should suffice, the office was created in 1773, with the title of Governor-General of the Presidency of Fort William. The officer had direct control only over Fort William, but supervised other British East India Company officials in India. Complete authority over all of British India was granted in 1833, and the official became known as the Governor-General of India.

Since much of India was not ruled directly by the British government; outside the provinces of British India, there were hundreds of nominally sovereign princely states or "native states", whose relationship was not with the British government, but directly with the monarch. To reflect the governor-general's role as the representative of the monarch to the feudal rulers of the princely states, from 1858 the term Viceroy and Governor-General of India (known in short as the Viceroy of India) was applied to him.

That should clear the cobwebs to some extent.

 

[Ray]

In early 1929, during the Indonesian National Revival, Sukarno and fellow Indonesian nationalist leader Mohammad Hatta (later Vice President), first foresaw a Pacific War and the opportunity that a Japanese advance on Indonesia might present for the Indonesian independence cause.

Japan occupied Indonesia.

Yet it was the Japanese commander General Hitoshi Imamura, who asked Sukarno and other nationalists to galvanise support from Indonesian populace to aid Japanese war effort, but ruled Indonesia.

All the Japanese did was that on 10 November 1943 Sukarno and Hatta were sent on a seventeen-day tour of Japan, where they were decorated by the Emperor Hirohito and wined and dined in the house of Prime Minister Hideki Tojo in Tokyo.

What makes one feel that the Japanese were not merely using us for their goals as they did with Sukarno and Hatta?

One must be a bit circumspect when analysis history and not let emotions cloud clarity!

 

[Waffen SS]

Nationalism is not jingoism.

Nationalism is a belief, creed or political ideology that involves an individual identifying with, or becoming attached to, one's nation. Nationalism involves national identity, by contrast with the related construct of patriotism, which involves the social conditioning and personal behaviours that support a state's decisions and actions.

Patriotism is generally cultural attachment to one's homeland or devotion to one's country, although interpretations of the term vary with context, geographyand philosophy. It is a related sentiment to nationalism

Jingoism is patriotism in the form of aggressive and pugnacious diatribe, often obfuscating facts with emotional assertions.

If Indians were so nationalistic as you claim, then India would not have been enslaved over centuries and would have ensured their independence. The fact that they could not do, speaks volumes of the hollow war cries that some raise, now that we are independent.

I am not leader of Indians, that I will tell you why or support those Indians who sided with British and Mughal. Indians were not so much nationalistic and even not today they are, that's why supporting British or any invader(what Rajputs did with Mughals) or supporting Indians who served British with respect is happening here.

If I may put your analogy in the correct perspective, the Germans cannot all be Nazis not because their ancestors were, or the Southern Americans can't be racists, not because their ancestors were, is because they are rational and analyse the historical past with rationality and not with venom of past wrongs. Therefore, your bile against Indians who did what they did during the British Raj and judging them with the contemporary times is ill advised and misconceived. This you have to understand and not display impotent rage for the ignominies heaped on Indians in the past or of the Indians of those times.

Valour means great courage in the face of danger, especially in battle. To judge what is valorous or not, one has to understand the context of the act and construct. The act cannot be valorous if it is prompted by personal hatred or undertaken for personal profit. That is what differentiates courage in battle or in environments acceptable in law or by society and 'courage' displayed in murder, mayhem, riots and unprovoked terrorism, even if the finality of the act is not dissimilar. That is why Kasab and the terrorists or even the rioters do not fall in the same league as valour in battle.

Then why do we condemn cast and creed system from present perspective? Even when Nazis were raging then still some Germans opposed them, they were said as traitors by contemporary regime. But today they are respected as heroes. back that day Waffen SS was celebrated as Elite force in Germany, now they are condemned as killing force. Same to Southerners. Germans are not Nazis because from present perspective they dont approve what Nazis did. Many southerners are not racist because from present perspective they dont approve civil war and slavery. Similarly from present perspective I dont approve what British-Indian army did.

I am with those few Indian people who said to be granted independence and were portrayed as "traitors", "terrorists" by contemporary regime but today they are celebrated National Heroes. I am not with those people who were hailed as Hero by contemporary regime but now considered as British pet.

You understand what I am talking? I am with the those people who always preferred right, that's why History has proved Nazis wrong, Southerners wrong, but History proved what minority Germans and Southerners did was right. History proves whether your perspective is wrong or right.

As for Kasab, yes he was brainwashed indeed. But what about the valour shown by terrorists during battle with NSG commandos? where handful terrorists fought against large commando force? Your cause may be wrong or right. You can show valour in battlefield any time.

So if you still stick to valour then you must praise terrorists who fought against us. I am not with valour as scale of my judgement. What I see that is interest of my country and humanity.

You praise British-Indian army for valour but dont praise terrorists for valour that is hypocrisy. I dont judge valour as my basis to judge any one. I praise them on basis of what they did to humanity and countrymen.

The new fashion of getting an apology being a vehicle that wipes out the historical truth is odious. Can an apology return history and justice? If that is your line of argument that an apology is adequate to wipe out history and correct the faults, then I presume the Chinese should just say 'Sorry' and we will forget 1962 or let them continue to occupy what they have occupied!

Apology cant rewrite history. But what is wrong if they seek for apology? Germans cant rewrite history of Holocaust, by issuing apology, still they issued apology and really feel shame about those incidents. After being looted for 200 years cant we expect an apology from them? Still they dont, then why celebrate those Indians who sided with British?

Issuing apology does no rewrite history, but shows humbleness of your character. My question if those people can kill our countrymen in Millions still neglect and deny this(like Holocaust denial) why doing this?

Your statement – British-Indian army might be brave, I dont care hence they did not use that valor to protect their fellow countrymen and instead used that valor to kill fellow countrymen is fallacious and indicates that you do not understand governance and the requirements from the instruments of governance.

The various departments of the Govt, works for the Govt, be they the British Raj, of the Govt of Independent India, irrespective of the political persuasion, colour or creed. They cannot fight or work against the Govt in power or pander to any sections of opinion, political party, or movement. Let me illustrate with contemporary examples. The Police in Nandigram or at the Kejriwal's dharna flouting Sec 144 had to acted against those who were obstructing the functioning of the Govt, even if within the hearts of some, they were admirers of the cause of those who the Police was acting against .

If police despite knowing whom they are helping and whom they are beating still follow order then what is wrong if public hates them? If people with valid cause and despite causing any trouble is beaten by police, than this police action must be condemned. And that's why protestators despite knowing their action not against police throw stones to police simply because police is helping the bad.

Doing bad work and supporting those who do bad work both are condemnable. Was it really necessary to open fire in Jalianwalabagh?

Yes, indeed, the British Indian army should have worked for their own countrymen and not the British. But then so should have all Indians in Govt worked for their countrymen and not the British. To go one step further, all Indians should have boycotted all the British people and let them fend for themselves to include cleaning the street and doing their own work instead of being their domestic servants. Could you tell me why Indians did not do so and why you only exhibit your ire to soldiers and their acts?

We Indians as a General lack nationalism like Japanese or Germans. Why only British Indian army? Even those Babus of Kolkata who were kissed and kicked by British as per their need, all are condemnable. After all we Indians let British to loot us for 200 years that's why British managed to loot us. So in this scale not British Indian army all Indians working with British administration should have left their posts as Gandhiji invited all to do.

And those Indians who supported British against their own countrymen often they were attacked by their fellow countrymen. Just look into what happened to those Mahajans during tribal revolts.

It is a perverted bias once again to exult that you hate Pakistanis. That is irrational. One has to look at issues and not blame communities and Nations. It is their Govt and not the people which require attention and even ire, when they act against our national interest. Have you met Pakistanis? I have, including those who fought against us. In battle we would ask for no quarters and give none, but when we met after the War, they were most friendly and peaceable. Should we have carried our hate for those who fought us and they carry hate for us? Unlike you, we, as soldiers, who have actually laid our lives in line for our Nations, do not carry grudges, since we were doing our duty and they, theirs. Much unlike people like you who bay for the blood of others from safe distances of your home, we, the soldiers, the paramilitary ie the most maligned of the 'liberal Pollyanna' lot, have seen the verities of existence and hence, are the actual rationalists than you.

I am not calling you anti-national and others.

About Pakistanis, how many times you meet them? Did you live side by side with them? Pakistanis with your made good behavour then why they behead Indian soldiers? Why do they torture Indian POWs? Behaving as friendly with you during special occasions and torturing brutally Indian POWs mercilessly while back on duty? Is it not sign of that they have 2 faced nature?

If you are really gentleman you will be gentleman all the time regardless of time and place. Pakis are not(mostly)

Government is not thing that drops from sky. People connected with Government and Government's action and reaction reflect what society thinks. We Indians are generally timid in nature, that's why despite losing our soldiers for no reason our Government does nothing, and Pakis despite having nothing can do anything. Government officials, leaders come from society not from sky that what ever Government does society dont care. Our netas are corrupted because we are corrupted.

Why did the British make the Indian Empire? They did not. They merely made the fragments we call India today merge by force and guile to become a part of the British Empire; and called the fragments they united under one rule, as the Indian Empire.

Why did they?

Initially to pursue their business interest in competition with other colonial business interests and when they found that Indians (though they were not Indians then, but various Rajs and Sultanates i.e. Native States) did not have the ingenuity, will, muscle or the power to thwart the British designs, they simply took over and added each to their kitty. Something like what China has done to Tibet and to India in the Aksai Chin and Ladakh. And guess what? You are here merely at your computer board and not showing the nationalism that you profess to have in oodles and not throwing the Chinese out by the scruff of their neck. What prevents you? Could it be the same handicap that the Indians faced during the British Raj? So, can you explain your hypocrisy? Posterity will judge you the same way that you are judging the acts, commissions and omissions of the Indians under the British Raj. Seek and Ye shall find. Do unto others (here, read Judge) as you expect to be done unto you!

Have you heard of the Doctrine of Lapse? The Indians calmly handed over their States to the British instead of standing up to Wellesley's preposterous sleight of hand. Therefore, Indians of every shade or calling calmly subjugated themselves to the British writ. Therefore, showing great courage now that they are not there, is totally hollow and misplaced and disingenuous. It is we, for the want of a spine, allowed the British to ride rough shod over us and to blame them for bagging a cherry that is ready for the picking is false attempt to recoup the pride that we lost because of our own ineptness – the same way Independent India of great patriots have lost Indian territory to the Chinese and still twiddling their thumbs and flooding with bombast on the cyberspace, doing nothing concrete on the ground!

That should indicate if India was a homogenous whole as it is today.

Not only doctrine of lapse, I know about subsidiary alliance as well.

If India was not India then how British got the idea of forming Indian empire? India was united various times under different dynasties and this unification collapsed various times. Why Mughal and Sultans held the title of Emperor of India? If India was not India then why British East India company was seeking Forman in 1717 from Mughal empire Farukhsiar and you know despite then Mughal empire was weak Bengal's ruler Murshidkuli Khan did not disobey this, only Subahders obey imperial orders, Kings are not bound to obey? It again proves that contemporary Bengal's ruler accepted Mughal empire as legal ruler. They needed at least formal legal approval from Delhi, even after battle of Buxar British sought Dewani of Bengal from Mughal empire, at least legally. And it was said that English that time respected Mughal emperor in India as they did to emperor of England.

Leave the idea that British united India, medieval history was Hindu vs Muslim thing and others. British systematically rewrote our history. Leave this crap.

I am not old enough to "fight" against Chinese.:gun:

You display great jingoism and indirectly suggest that you would have taken on the British etc. May I ask you, as to why you not taking on the Scindias, one a Chief Minister and the other a Union Minister, who succumbed to the British and even worked for the British Interest and having them removed from governance of Independent Free Nationalist India?

In other words, your diatribe is all bark and no bite and all booster, no payload.

Viceroy of India and not Viceroy of Bengal?

Regrettably, a post is too small a space to enumerate the history of over 300 years.

However, to encapsulate, and that should suffice, the office was created in 1773, with the title of Governor-General of the Presidency of Fort William. The officer had direct control only over Fort William, but supervised other British East India Company officials in India. Complete authority over all of British India was granted in 1833, and the official became known as the Governor-General of India.

Since much of India was not ruled directly by the British government; outside the provinces of British India, there were hundreds of nominally sovereign princely states or "native states", whose relationship was not with the British government, but directly with the monarch. To reflect the governor-general's role as the representative of the monarch to the feudal rulers of the princely states, from 1858 the term Viceroy and Governor-General of India (known in short as the Viceroy of India) was applied to him.

That should clear the cobwebs to some extent.

The so called "Sovereign Native states" were just puppet state of British. Those native states had no foreign policy, there was always British resident in those Native states, through out India only British was issued currency was legal. Native states did not have their own currency. And there were various incidents when rulers of Native states were forced to obey British.

Are they signs of Sovereignty? According to Gandhiji they were Indian dressed British ruler. Study more about those Native states.

I again tell you I am not leader of Indians that I will force my opinion on them. Many helped British, many fought, I like those who fought.

If India was not India, then they would simply employ viceroy of Bengal instead of India.

Viceroy of Bengal(or Governor General) cant rule India, but Viceroy of India could.

When Alauddin Khilji was dreaming of to conquer world(when he just ascended to throne), his one advisor told him "Sir, how can you dream of conquering world when your rule is not established well in your country India itself?"(I cant remember exact dialogue), still you say British united India?

 

[Ray]

I am not leader of Indians, that I will tell you why or support those Indians who sided with British and Mughal. Indians were not so much nationalistic and even not today they are, that's why supporting British or any invader(what Rajputs did with Mughals) or supporting Indians who served British with respect is happening here.



Then why do we condemn cast and creed system from present perspective? Even when Nazis were raging then still some Germans opposed them, they were said as traitors by contemporary regime. But today they are respected as heroes. back that day Waffen SS was celebrated as Elite force in Germany, now they are condemned as killing force. Same to Southerners. Germans are not Nazis because from present perspective they dont approve what Nazis did. Many southerners are not racist because from present perspective they dont approve civil war and slavery. Similarly from present perspective I dont approve what British-Indian army did.

I am with those few Indian people who said to be granted independence and were portrayed as "traitors", "terrorists" by contemporary regime but today they are celebrated National Heroes. I am not with those people who were hailed as Hero by contemporary regime but now considered as British pet.

You understand what I am talking? I am with the those people who always preferred right, that's why History has proved Nazis wrong, Southerners wrong, but History proved what minority Germans and Southerners did was right. History proves whether your perspective is wrong or right.

As for Kasab, yes he was brainwashed indeed. But what about the valour shown by terrorists during battle with NSG commandos? where handful terrorists fought against large commando force? Your cause may be wrong or right. You can show valour in battlefield any time.

So if you still stick to valour then you must praise terrorists who fought against us. I am not with valour as scale of my judgement. What I see that is interest of my country and humanity.

You praise British-Indian army for valour but dont praise terrorists for valour that is hypocrisy. I dont judge valour as my basis to judge any one. I praise them on basis of what they did to humanity and countrymen.



Apology cant rewrite history. But what is wrong if they seek for apology? Germans cant rewrite history of Holocaust, by issuing apology, still they issued apology and really feel shame about those incidents. After being looted for 200 years cant we expect an apology from them? Still they dont, then why celebrate those Indians who sided with British?

Issuing apology does no rewrite history, but shows humbleness of your character. My question if those people can kill our countrymen in Millions still neglect and deny this(like Holocaust denial) why doing this?



If police despite knowing whom they are helping and whom they are beating still follow order then what is wrong if public hates them? If people with valid cause and despite causing any trouble is beaten by police, than this police action must be condemned. And that's why protestators despite knowing their action not against police throw stones to police simply because police is helping the bad.

Doing bad work and supporting those who do bad work both are condemnable. Was it really necessary to open fire in Jalianwalabagh?



We Indians as a General lack nationalism like Japanese or Germans. Why only British Indian army? Even those Babus of Kolkata who were kissed and kicked by British as per their need, all are condemnable. After all we Indians let British to loot us for 200 years that's why British managed to loot us. So in this scale not British Indian army all Indians working with British administration should have left their posts as Gandhiji invited all to do.

And those Indians who supported British against their own countrymen often they were attacked by their fellow countrymen. Just look into what happened to those Mahajans during tribal revolts.



I am not calling you anti-national and others.

About Pakistanis, how many times you meet them? Did you live side by side with them? Pakistanis with your made good behavour then why they behead Indian soldiers? Why do they torture Indian POWs? Behaving as friendly with you during special occasions and torturing brutally Indian POWs mercilessly while back on duty? Is it not sign of that they have 2 faced nature?

If you are really gentleman you will be gentleman all the time regardless of time and place. Pakis are not(mostly)

Government is not thing that drops from sky. People connected with Government and Government's action and reaction reflect what society thinks. We Indians are generally timid in nature, that's why despite losing our soldiers for no reason our Government does nothing, and Pakis despite having nothing can do anything. Government officials, leaders come from society not from sky that what ever Government does society dont care. Our netas are corrupted because we are corrupted.



Not only doctrine of lapse, I know about subsidiary alliance as well.

If India was not India then how British got the idea of forming Indian empire? India was united various times under different dynasties and this unification collapsed various times. Why Mughal and Sultans held the title of Emperor of India? If India was not India then why British East India company was seeking Forman in 1717 from Mughal empire Farukhsiar and you know despite then Mughal empire was weak Bengal's ruler Murshidkuli Khan did not disobey this, only Subahders obey imperial orders, Kings are not bound to obey? It again proves that contemporary Bengal's ruler accepted Mughal empire as legal ruler. They needed at least formal legal approval from Delhi, even after battle of Buxar British sought Dewani of Bengal from Mughal empire, at least legally. And it was said that English that time respected Mughal emperor in India as they did to emperor of England.

Leave the idea that British united India, medieval history was Hindu vs Muslim thing and others. British systematically rewrote our history. Leave this crap.

I am not old enough to "fight" against Chinese.:gun:



The so called "Sovereign Native states" were just puppet state of British. Those native states had no foreign policy, there was always British resident in those Native states, through out India only British was issued currency was legal. Native states did not have their own currency. And there were various incidents when rulers of Native states were forced to obey British.

Are they signs of Sovereignty? According to Gandhiji they were Indian dressed British ruler. Study more about those Native states.

I again tell you I am not leader of Indians that I will force my opinion on them. Many helped British, many fought, I like those who fought.

If India was not India, then they would simply employ viceroy of Bengal instead of India.

Viceroy of Bengal(or Governor General) cant rule India, but Viceroy of India could.

When Alauddin Khilji was dreaming of to conquer world(when he just ascended to throne), his one advisor told him "Sir, how can you dream of conquering world when your rule is not established well in your country India itself?"(I cant remember exact dialogue), still you say British united India?

That solves the whole issue. If you are not a leader and can't change a sausage, so were those Indians of the past that you decry and abuse with venom!

The Indians of yore was as nationalistic as you today. It is just that they were helpless as you to change the situation, for good reasons. QED.

Caste and creed condemnation is because of education and emancipation and nothing else. If you have not understood that, you have understood nothing. In Bengal, from where you claim you are, caste was not an issue since from a long time because education brought in social reformers and emancipation dawned.

On the issue of Nazis and Southern Americans, please clear your views and then write. You are going round and round in circles without being coherent.

I have explained what is valour and how it differentiate murderers or terrorists or rioters from those who show courage within the ambit of law and societal norms. If you have not understood that, let us not waste time.

You fail to understand what is valour because you have never seen it being exhibited. Armchair postulations is hardly a qualification to understand the same.

What is wrong in asking for an Apology? What is wrong is that it cannot change history or bring anyone alive. It is only hot air.

The British don't celebrate what the Indians did for them?

It just shows your blind hatred. It shows you have not even read the article and have gone ballistics feeing your bile! Just read the article.

Maybe this would also show how much of regards the British have for Indian contribution.

Lt General MM Lakhera, retired and erstwhile Adjutant General of Indian army, talks of an episode in his book, "RESURGENT INDIA" about it. Would you care to know about it ?

He says that in 1995 he had visited Britain along with one Sh. UMRAO SINGH the last surviving Victoria Cross (VC) winner, of Second World War. (He is no more) They had gone as a part of a delegation to celeberate the VICTORY DAY of the Second World war. After the ceremonies were over, General Lakhera along with Sh. UMRAO SINGH, VC were walking down a road to catch a taxi to go to their Hotel. At the ZEBRA crossing, as they were waiting to cross the road, a limousine came to a screeching halt. A well dressed gentleman got down from the car and walked straight to Sh. UMRAO SINGH and said, " Sir, May I have the rare honour of shaking hand with a Victoria Cross winner." Having done this, he asked General Lakhera , if he could do anything for them. General Lakhera thanked the gentleman and asked him his name. It turned out that the said gentleman was then Deputy Prime Minister of UK. Lakhera was stunned and thanked the dignatory for this gesture. The Deputy PM said, " No, General, it is we the BRITISH PEOPLE, who should be thankful to you and India- who produced such gems as Sh. UMRAO SINGH who made us win the SECOND WORLD WAR. England will always remain grateful to India and his brave sons." This was another shock to Lakhera. In the mean while, Lakhera realised that a long stream of cars had lined up behind Deputy PM's car. So he told the dignatory to move on as a long queue behind his car was crowding the road. The deputy PM remarked, " No, No General, how can I move ahead of our VC winner? He must cross the road before us. " Lakhera thanked the Deputy PM and moved across the road along with UMRAO SINGH. As they reached other side, they saw the dignatory still waiting to see them safely across. He waived at them and then moved. This shows why BRITAIN had ruled the world because they knew how to rule. They never forget history.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...om/why-did-british-rule-the-world_418353_blog

Now, how many of your Independent Nationalistic Ministers have bothered to care about honouring our soldiers? India does not even have a War Memorial! All gas and no go, just like your fake nationalism.

As far as the Pakistani soldiers I spoke about, I have met them a couple of times on the LC. We had lunch together (not the ceremonial type or a special occasion as you would imagine, but merely tiffin, one to one). And there was no animosity.

I have traced history how the British made India what is India today and Patel gave the finishing touches. I can't explain it any better. If the Native States were puppets as you claim, then was the rest of India roaring Tigers?
















=















.

 

[desicanuk]

What ever it was ...

....... British managed to loot India for 200 years.

That is irrelevant to us.

Blame it all on our mercenary ,traitor ancestors for what happened not others such as Muslims and Brits who conquered us and then enslaved us for almost a millennium.If you bend over they are all going to have a go.Can you blame them?

 

[roma]

I stand in awe of the high quality debate on this thread and admit that i am in no way up to it, nevertheless allow me
a simplistic question or two ? :-

(1) What if the "volunteer " army had refused to fight - i.e surrender in droves as the Pakistan army did in 1971. COuld they then have been trained by the Germans for "counter-operations" in large numbers ?
(2) Would that have in fact hastened the independence of India or would it have had repercussions

If these questions have been dealt with elsewhere, then please ignore an delete the post . Thanks in advance
(Not blaming anyone or community, just a simple "what if" )

 

[Simple_Guy]

It would be of interest to note what reasons the British gave for the loyal service of Indian troops.

"The Armies of India"

Regular pay, due sympathy, and prompt justice may, and do, appeal to the mercenary soldier, and bring men of martial proclivities to a service in which profit and suitable recognition of devotion follow on services. But the reasonable fulfillment of the written word, the acting up to the provisions of an attestation paper, is not to account for the deeds of the Indian soldier.

There must be more that brings Hindu and Musalman, Afghan and Indian, Sikh and Gurkha, to an alien ruler and an alien race.....there was no feeling of sympathy with the rebels, or that it was disgraceful to give assistance to those opposed to the brave Indians trying to shake off an alien yoke. There was no feeling that the patriot fought for his country-side. And why ? Probably because every one knew that the sepoy could not keep the peasant and the trader in peace and safety ; nay, that he was among the first to prey on them.

Here indeed we do strike the point where the 75,000 British bayonets hold India, viz. in the confidence that they give as the strong arm, to maintain that civil power that gives safety to all races and all religions, to live their own lives against all comers. Since no other rule has done the same for over a thousand years, small wonder that the length and breadth of the country, trodden out by the companies of free-lances and the wars of the barons, welcomed those that let the old man and the maiden sleep secure o' nights.