INA History Thread

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Dec 2006 21:13

Folks all this nice but I really want to know the class composition of the INA. A strength of ~ 85000 must have had different parts of India represented in it.

What do those books say on this matter?

I understand many of the officers rose from the ranks and represent the rural India which has civilizational memory. I also want to know about the soldiers.

I believe this has bearing on the British decisons of 1947.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 01 Dec 2006 21:20

ramana wrote:Folks all this nice but I really want to know the class composition of the INA. A strength of ~ 85000 must have had different parts of India represented in it.

What do those books say on this matter?

I understand many of the officers rose from the ranks and represent the rural India which has civilizational memory. I also want to know about the soldiers.

I believe this has bearing on the British decisons of 1947.

INA comprised mostly those soldiers who were surrendered at Singapore in 1941 - you can look up the regiments - including soldiers from Princely States forces

many malayan-indian and burmese-indian civilians who volunteered - not just tamils, but also northerners

others from all over India who made their way to the INA but these are small in number

there was no dominant caste, region or religion

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Dec 2006 21:27

Lalmohan

INA comprised mostly those soldiers who were surrendered at Singapore in 1941 - you can look up the regiments - including soldiers from Princely States forces

many malayan-indian and burmese-indian civilians who volunteered - not just tamils, but also northerners

others from all over India who made their way to the INA but these are small in number

there was no dominant caste, region or religion

This is precisely what I want to know. In other words the freedom impulse was universal among all the troops. Of the regiments not all joined up. I want to know the composition of those who joined up.

Please bear with me.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 01 Dec 2006 21:28

May 20, 2005

From the Calcutta Telegraph

HISTORYâ€™S ROUGH EDGES
- In 1939, Hitler was not regarded as an ogre in India
SWAPAN DASGUPTA

The visit of the prime minister, Manmohan Singh, to Moscow, earlier
this month, to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the victory over
fascism reminded me of an incident in Rangoon â€” or Yangon, as it is now
called â€” four years ago. Sitting in the Indian ambassadorâ€™s office,
Jaswant Singh, the visiting foreign minister, was reflecting on General
William Slimâ€™s famous Burma campaign when the conversation drifted to
Subhas Chandra Bose and his Indian National Army.

Burma was the launching pad of Boseâ€™s campaign to liberate India,
riding piggyback on the Japanese army. Although the mission came to
nought, some units of the INA had fought gallantly against Slimâ€™s
advancing Allied army in 1944-45, particularly around the great nat
shrine at Mount Popa, north of Mandalay. â€œWhat became of the INA
headquarters in Rangoon?â€

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 01 Dec 2006 21:31

ramana,

There are an interesting set of emails on Prof Ed Haynes SAGongs Yahoogroups.

I will try and post some of them here.

Jagan

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 01 Dec 2006 21:33

ramana wrote:

This is precisely what I want to know. In other words the freedom impulse was universal among all the troops. Of the regiments not all joined up. I want to know the composition of those who joined up.

Please bear with me.

Okay found it. The following gives the percentages of soldiers who joined the INA - all the bns were the ones that fell with singapore and malaya.

Please note that the following is the copyright of Prof Haynes

Immediate postwar estimates (IOLR/BL L/WS/2/45) suggested:

2/9, 4/9 Jats - almost 100%
1/14, 5/14. 6/14 Punjab - almost 100%
2/16, 3/16 Punjab - almost 100%
2/17, 3/17 Dogras - almost 100%
2/18, 5/18 R. Garh Rif - almost 100%
4/19 Hyderabad (Kumaon) - almost 100%
RIASC, IAOC, etc. - almost 100%
Kapurthala IS Infantry
HK-SRA (Hindu Jats) - almost 100%

Lesser rates:

Bahawalpur IS Infantry - 25%
7/6 Raj Rif - 20%
HK-SRA (PMs) - 15%
2/1, 2/2 GR - 10%
2/9 GR - 10%
Mysore IS Infantry - 10%
Pioneer Corps - 5%
2/10 Baluch - 0%
Hyderabad IS Infantry - 0%
Jind IS Infantry - 0%

IS = Indian State Forces

All the above and following posts are from http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/sagongs Study of South Asian Medals

shyamm · Post by **shyamm** » 01 Dec 2006 21:34

A Ceylonese volunteer's experiences in the INA

Netaji's army as seen by a Ceylonese recruit

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 01 Dec 2006 21:36

Here is Mandeep Bajwa's take on the figures

Fascinating is the right word. I think it was the Indian leadership in a unit which determined the number of men joining the INA ie the Indian King's Commissioned Officers and the VCOs.

As for the fate of Indian Army units within the INA, Mohan Singh initiated certain measures which were upheld by Netaji. These were, the abolition of :-
1. Class composition in toto
2. Separate messing for different classes
3.The system of VCOs. All the ex-VCOs were commissioned as officers
4.Religious institutions within the units. Though Gurbaksh Singh Dhillon says in his book that the Sikhs were granted permission to keep their place of worship going in his Brigade.

Units which resisted joining the INA were those with strong Indian Commanding Officers or senior officers or Subedar Majors.. For example Lt Col (later Maj Gen)Gurbaksh Singh, DSO, OBE. He was a towering figure with a magnificent personality. He forbade any of the men of his battalion, the Jind State Infantry from joining and was successful in dissuading many others. His belief in the ultimate victory of the British was unshakeable.The influence of Subedar Majors is somewhat underestimated outside the Army but is very strong. They are virtually father figures and command strong loyalties.

this is an excellent piece of information ! Very, very interesting. I think the reasons for certain units contributing a higher number of INA recruits was probably the influence of the Indian officers and VCOs particularly the Subedar Majors.

Interesting to note that Gurkhas also joined the INA.What could be their possible motivation ?

While 2/10 Baluch produced one of the most prominent INA leaders, Prem Sehgal of the Red Fort INA Trials fame it seems that he failed to motivate his comrades.Jind Infantry stood fast because of the firm leadership of their CO, Lt Col (later Maj Gen) Gurbaksh Singh, DSO,OBE. He was also successful in dissuading his brother the future Army Commander and hero of the 1965 War, then Capt Harbaksh Singh of 5/11 Sikh from anything beyond a minor flirtation with the INA's leaders. I believe 5/11 Sikh also had a large proportion of its personnel joining the INA. The influence at work here was that of Capt Taj Mohd. Khanzada, DSO, MC whose recommendation for the VC was cancelled after his defection to the INA became known.So he claims, although I'm not sure how much the British knew about the composition of the INA at that stage. Their intelligence network in SE Asia was pretty rudimentary in those days.

One of the officers captured with 7/6 Raj Rif was Maj Mahavir Singh Dhillon who served as Military Secretary to General Mohan Singh even though he was senior to him.Sent to the front he took the first opportunity to 'defect' to the British. Became a Brigadier after Independence and sadly lost his life to dacoits along with his wife.

It would be interesting to know about the percentage if any from 3rd Cavalry joining the INA. 2 of their officers along with Capt (later Maj Gen) Ghanshyam Singh namely Capts ( later Lt Gen and Maj Gen respectively) KP Dhargalkar and HC Budhwar were the heroes of the POW Camps, refusing to join the INA and showing defiance and suffering horrendous tortures consequently.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 01 Dec 2006 21:37

and Prof Haynes' note

Important to INA recruitment was what was perceived as the abandonment of their troops by many British officers. Rightly or wrongly (and I know in some circles this is still controversial), many of the Indian POWs believed they had been left in the lurch by fleeing Brits and this resentment left them open to INA recruitment. There was also a generalized sense of British incompetence, British collapse. Any study of the Singapore business leads one to this conclusion, even today. If you look at the war diaries -- I have only looked at the Kapurthala IS Infantry one in any detail -- then the real sense of chaos comes through, a chaos in which the British officers were doing their best to adandon their troops and get themselves out by any means possible; no wonder the Kapurthala forces went almost 100% INA.

Perthaps the other important factor in INA recruitment is what the VCOs did. If the VCOs or even senior NCOs went INA, then many followed them. If they reseisted, then others did likewise.

Again, I cannot vouch for the accuracy of these numbers. All is can say is that they're what the British reported as of ca. 1946. Such is the nature of research, a s oopposed to guessing, a researcher is stuck with their sources, a guesser can opine anything.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Dec 2006 21:51

Two posts in blogs.
First

Im afraid I cannot agree with the INA was fighting for free India while british Indian army was fighting fror england hypothesis.

I dont expect you to since you are not an Indian. The INA was not fighting for Nazi or Japanese rule over India. They were fighting for "Indian" rule over India.

The BIA was prmarily employed for the defense of INDIA against the Empire of Japan. Im no fan of the british ruling India. But I dont think I would have been a fan of "railroad of death" Tojo ruling India either. Mark my words, the Japanese were in no mood to "liberate" India.

Let me tell you that kind of argument have no takers among Indians. The British were defending the "British Empire" not India. For us, we wanted neither the British Empire nor the Japanese Empire. Indians were never in doubt about the Japanese intentions but that does not make British Empire a better choice. Its no use saying the Japs would have been worse than the Brits. The British Empire was bad enough and that is that.

And the Indian troops who fought in the BIA by and large believed that they were fighing a just and good war, AND defending the motherland.

The Indian Army fought in places like North Africa, Easter Europe, Middle East, Afghanistan, Persia, Indo-China, and South east Asia. In none of these places they were defending their "mother land". They were defending British imperialism by being cannon fodder. The poverty of India under the British drove many people to join the Army not to defend their country but to make a living.

The INA was the only army that fought for "INDIA".

And

Given the Japanese track record in China (Documented in 'Flyboys' by James Bradley, same guy who is the son of one of the Iwo Jima flag raisers and who also wrote 'Flags of Our Fathers') and elsewhere, I would go with ketelone.

Well thats because you dont know much about Britains track record in India. Its the victors who always writes the history and so the Brits according to today's history are the "good guys" and the Japs and Nazis are "bad guys". We Indians know our history very well and we dont buy the lies churned out by the British press and their propaganda machinery.

Of course the Brit record (especially in 1942) ......
1942 was hardly much as comapared to what happened for 150 years before that.

British to be the much lesser of the two evils.
All I can say is that you have no idea. For starters, ever heard of the history's worst man made famine that took place in Bengal, that killed 5 million people, which dwarfs even the Cultural Revolution in Communist China? British was an equal evil if not more.

The Japanese would have raped the country.
So did the Britis.

But that does not make traitors of those who fought for the British traitors.

I didnt say they were traitors. It was good that Indians contributed to the destruction of Nazism and the axis power and its a thing to be proud of. But the INA was the only army that fought for India.

Thanks Jagan. Some progress about class composition.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Dec 2006 21:57

Good article from Encyclopedia Brittanica

http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-9311795

Anand K · Post by **Anand K** » 01 Dec 2006 21:58

One must not forget the sheer desperation of POWs which drive them to support their captors in myriad ways...... especially when you got the fr1ggin' Imperial Japanese for your captor. Many Poles actively aided the Nazis in the holocaust "efforts"; other such examples are the Ustashia regime, the Ukrainians down to the Jewish collaborators who "policed" and snitched for the Nazis in the camps. (On that last note, anyone, i.e except Rudradev

, read Art Spiegelman's Maus? Very disturbing form of art.... sort of assaults your brain seeing anthropomorphic animals playing out a ethnicities in a dark time of humanity.). Anyway, seeing how the Japanese treated the western Gaijin I can only imagine how they treated "subhuman, swarthy, anaemic Hindus".
Now throughout history subdued enemy forces have been offered a chance to fight for the captors in return for amnesty..... in wars they have no stake in! The Russian Civil War in the CAR which raged not a hundred miles from the Indian frontier saw German POWs fighting for BOTH Reds and Whites. Hey, didn't good ol' Patton himself want the Allies to re-equip the Wehrmacht to fight the USSR in March 1945? Was that his "eccentricity" speaking?

Anand K · Post by **Anand K** » 01 Dec 2006 22:37

The second phase of "Revolutionary Terrorism" had been effectively stamped out by the mid thirties..... the leaders either in exile or hiding or dead. The INM was totally focused on Gandhian Satyagraha which was becoming more and more radical but not violent. Roy's, Trotsky's and Bukharin's plans of unleashing a revolution in India had also failed spectacularly. Now all this left rudderless a lot of young men and women who formed the rank and file of the extremist movements. Now they didn't think much of Satyagraha but they also did not even have an underground movement now! Many did not empathize with Communism and the ones that did were dumbstruck by the (now-so-familiar) commie volte-face right after Op Barbarossa. It was then that Subhash Chandra Bose, easily the most powerful, credible and charismatic leader in the "alternate" stream of the INC started transforming into Netaji. He soon left the "wimpy" INC, fooled the Brits and made contact with exiled revolutionaries and the seemingly unstoppable Axis forces. The chain of following events, familiar to all of us here, attracted mostly this group of people.
AFAIK the not-so-large non-POW component was made up of the same demographic that constituted the Revolutionaries of the first and second phases, i.e educated middle and lower class (Hindu) young men from the British provinces of Bengal, Bombay and Madras. The offer for amnesty for the POWs was a factor, but what clinched it was someone like Netaji standing in front of you, personally pleading for your help to liberate your country. Rash Behari Bose, Barkhatullah etc were in walking around for a long time without much of a success.... but this time it was Subhash Chandra Bose himself! You see, the ideas of the INM had permeated even the BIA since the 20s, even the jawans from present day IRoT couldn't resist that.

The Japanese (who called the shots out there) being in a hurry not to lose their initial momentum and capitalise on the misplaced trust of the natives (who would soon begin to long for the French or the Brits or the Dutch) didn't have time to consolidate their gains, train these untrained (but motivated) young men in large formations and teach them the ropes in real battle. (This sort of "desperate" thing them Japs would do much later, when they started training pre-school kids to kill the invading evil Gaijin as Japan waited for Op Olympic). They used a few poster-boys but mostly relied on the POWs.....
One reason was that it was difficult for large numbers to sneak out of British territory into Japanese domains, it was too risky and the journey too long. For e, a senior CPI leader from Kerala confessed in his autobiography how local commies betrayed nine INA "recruiting officers" who arrived in Kerala by submarine. The freedom fighters and desperados were coming, but only in a trickle.... and the "Great Eastern Co-Operation Sphere" can't wait for all these stupid brown men, can it?

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 02 Dec 2006 04:10

the regular british indian army were sympathetic to the INA - thinking that they were misguided. the BIA (atleast officers) fought for britain on the belief that the axis was bad for india and that having won WW2, britian would have to free india. so the BIA was also fighting for india. its lack of enthusiasm to fight the INA and its unwillingness to punish them after the war convinced the british that they could no longer count on the BIA to back up the Raj - in effect that was the impact of the INA, and in that it achieved its purpose to free india.

many british officers during the burma counter offensive were also favourably disposed towards INA pows, treating them mostly (but not always) as lost sheep coming back to the fold. many INA would "defect" back to allied lines whenever a chance occured, the japanese always expected this and treated them accordingly.

many INA men simply perished in the burmese jungle, out of sight and out of mind, no food, supplies or anything else. the japanese who never trusted them were in no mood to look after them once the rout began

much as i looked for evidence of the heroic INA (and i really wanted to find it), there was little i found except betrayal, exploitation and humiliation by the british and the japanese. in the end, combat by the INA was limited and it achieved few objectives. the japanese provided no new clothes or equipment or weapons to them, they kept what they had surrendered with and fought with that where they would not interfere with the japanese plans. sure, the japanese filmed the INA raising the flag on indian soil, but it was just for the cameras.

by the time the 17th(?) army came rolling down the arakan hills, the BIA was better equipped, clothed (in jungle green and not INA khaki), trained and motivated and it is they who through grit and courage drove the japanese back through burma... and having won the war, achieved the greater objective of ending british rule in india

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 Dec 2006 04:20

Lalmohan wrote:

much as i looked for evidence of the heroic INA (and i really wanted to find it), there was little i found except betrayal, exploitation and humiliation by the british and the japanese. in the end, combat by the INA was limited and it achieved few objectives. the japanese provided no new clothes or equipment or weapons to them, they kept what they had surrendered with and fought with that where they would not interfere with the japanese plans. sure, the japanese filmed the INA raising the flag on indian soil, but it was just for the cameras.

how many ija people were ready to fight with netaji

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 02 Dec 2006 23:34

the psychological effect of the INA on the BIA should not be ignored.
naval mutiny and sporadic acts of rebellion commited against the commanding british officers. remember reading a sunday article in bengali daily Ananda bazar patrikas some years back, in which an ex BIA commisioned officers son had written(based on his father's anecdotes) that nationalist feelings rose high in the Indian soldiers during INA's exploits in the NE. in fact they considered themselves to be unlucky to be fighting on the wrong side and tried to make life as hard for the britishers as they could by non-cooperation.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 05 Dec 2006 04:45

Rahul M wrote:the psychological effect of the INA on the BIA should not be ignored.
naval mutiny and sporadic acts of rebellion commited against the commanding british officers. remember reading a sunday article in bengali daily Ananda bazar patrikas some years back, in which an ex BIA commisioned officers son had written(based on his father's anecdotes) that nationalist feelings rose high in the Indian soldiers during INA's exploits in the NE. in fact they considered themselves to be unlucky to be fighting on the wrong side and tried to make life as hard for the britishers as they could by non-cooperation.

There appears to be close connection between the partition of India/Partition of the British Indian army and the surrender of INA.

INA had attracted the Muslim officer class of the BIA and would have prevented the split of the BIA at the time of independence. One of the reason the British needed a partition is to prevent the rise of a nationalist army in Independent India. Victorious INA would have merged with the Indian army and would have created a strong state as per the vision of Bose. That would undermine the plans of the western powers to create weak states in Asia.

Hence Britain had to support ML and Jinnah to create a facade of a new country during partition but the real reason was a new country for a breakaway Indian army.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 05 Dec 2006 07:34

Acharya wrote:There appears to be close connection between the partition of India/Partition of the British Indian army and the surrender of INA.

INA had attracted the Muslim officer class of the BIA and would have prevented the split of the BIA at the time of independence. One of the reason the British needed a partition is to prevent the rise of a nationalist army in Independent India. Victorious INA would have merged with the Indian army and would have created a strong state as per the vision of Bose. That would undermine the plans of the western powers to create weak states in Asia.

Hence Britain had to support ML and Jinnah to create a facade of a new country during partition but the real reason was a new country for a breakaway Indian army.

Acharya:

I am

We know that the ex-INA folks weren't allowed to join the Indian Army after independence, but were they allowed to join the Pakistan Army?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 05 Dec 2006 07:47

Partition ended all plans for INA

shyamm · Post by **shyamm** » 05 Dec 2006 07:47

Narinder Singh Sarila, former ADC to Mountbatten, mentions in his book
The Shadow of the Great Game : The Untold Story of India's Partition that the Paki raiders of 1947 consisted of many former INA men who had became mercenaries.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 05 Dec 2006 07:54

Acharya wrote:Partition ended all plans for INA

Acharya - can you elaborate as to what these plans were?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 05 Dec 2006 07:55

Akbar Khan who was the main Pak officer to plan the raid to Kashmir in 1948 was a INA officer.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 05 Dec 2006 08:10

Acharya wrote:Akbar Khan who was the main Pak officer to plan the raid to Kashmir in 1948 was a INA officer.

Not really
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_General_Akbar_Khan

He may have planned to use ex-INA veterans, but he was not from the INA.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 05 Dec 2006 08:27

You are right
http://www.weeklyholiday.net/100103/inret.html

The Kashmir issue ï¿½ XXXII
Pakistani raiders in Kashmir

K. Z. Islam

Akbar Khan based his plan called ï¿½Armed Revolt inside Kashmirï¿½ on these rifles. The plan was formulated to achieve two objectives. First, it sought to strengthen the dissident Kashmiri elements within the State itself, against the Maharajaï¿½s army of 9,000; 2,000 Muslim members of the Maharajaï¿½s army were expected be sympathetic to the cause of liberation and therefore would either desert or at least remain passive in the armed encounters. The remaining Dogra army was reported to be thinly spread over the State and therefore likely to be overcome by attrition and fighting in small pockets. The major portion of the rifles, 2800, was allocated for this purpose. The second objective was to prevent the Indians from reinforcing the Maharajaï¿½s forces at the two points at which it could be done.

For co-ordination and organisation of the operation, the plan suggested the employment of ex-army officers of the Indian National Army (INA, formed by the Japanese from the British Indian army prisoners of war taken on the Burma front during the Second World War) who might be willing to ï¿½volunteer.ï¿½ These assumptions of the plan were either proved to be incorrect or irrelevant to the situation which did not permit a long-drawn-out guerrilla fight. Akbar Khan had no access to an intelligence briefing on the morale and fighting capabilities of the rebels, the strength and disposition of the Dogra troops inside the State, and the prospects and nature of the assistance which the Indians might extend, or may even be extending at that very time, to the Maharaja to put down the rebellion or even occupy the State. He did not visit Poonch to assess for himself the strength of the Dogra army at different points to substantiate his assumption that it was thinly spread and could be overcome by arming the local ex-servicemen with some rifles.

shyamm · Post by **shyamm** » 05 Dec 2006 19:50

some interesting links:

Sikhs of the Indian Legion

Indian Legion Postal Stamps

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 05 Dec 2006 21:02

Jagan wrote:
Acharya wrote:Partition ended all plans for INA
Acharya - can you elaborate as to what these plans were?

Azad Hind: Writings and Speeches 1941-3, Netaji collected Works, Volume 11

Azad Hind: Writings and Speeches 1941-3, Netaji collected Works, Volume 11 (Hardcover)
by Subhas Chandra Bose

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 05 Dec 2006 21:04

shyamm · Post by **shyamm** » 05 Dec 2006 21:22

shyamm wrote:some interesting links:

Sikhs of the Indian Legion

The home page of the above link has good collection of photographs, some of them very rare.

http://punjabsher.5u.com

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 05 Dec 2006 21:38

Acharya wrote:
Jagan wrote: Acharya - can you elaborate as to what these plans were?
Azad Hind: Writings and Speeches 1941-3, Netaji collected Works, Volume 11

Azad Hind: Writings and Speeches 1941-3, Netaji collected Works, Volume 11 (Hardcover)
by Subhas Chandra Bose

Acharya,

What does the book talk about? How does that answer my question?

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 05 Dec 2006 22:09

Sorry, I have not read the book. The book has details about INA plans.
I dont have any links to URL which talks about INA plans on India.
If you want I can post some para without links of the kind of plans INA had for India liberation. Let me know.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Dec 2006 03:55

Culture and Combat in the Colonies

PDF file.

SRoy · Post by **SRoy** » 19 Dec 2006 12:41

Indian Volunteers in the Wehrmacht in WWII

Order of Battle

I.R. 950 (ind) / Freies Indien Legion 1943-44[22]

Legionskommandeur: Oberstleutnant Kurt Krappe (until 25/6/43)

Ausbildungs und Betreutungsstab (Training & Maintenance Staff) formed 27/4/43 then renamed on 7/7/43 as: Regiments-Stab (ind.) Infanterie Regiment 950
I. Bataillon: w/ 4x Infanterie Kompanien (Nr. 1 - 4)
II. Bataillon: w/ 4x Infanterie Kompanien (Nr. 5 -
III. Bataillon: w/ 4x Infanterie Kompanien (Nr. 9 - 12)
13th InfanteriegeschÃ¼tz Kompanie (Infantry-Gun Company w/ 6x 7.5cm leichtes InfanteriegeschÃ¼tz 18)
14th PanzerjÃ¤ger Kompanie (Anti-tank Company w/ 6x Panzerabwehrkanone)
15th Pionier Kompanie (Engineer Company)
Ehrenwachkompanie (Honour Guard Company)
Hospital / Convalescent Home

klemen · Post by **klemen** » 24 Jan 2007 19:33

"The I. N. A. Heroes: Autobiographies of Maj. Gen. Shahnawaz, Col. Prem K. Sahgal [and] Col...." by Prem Kumar Sahgal & Shah Nawaz Khan. Published by Hero Publications in 1946. 266 pages

Does anyone have a copy of this book or know where one could obtain it? I am in pursue of Colonel Prem Sahgal's account, who was present at Kota Bharu on 7th December 1941 in the first battle of the Great Pacific War.

Mandeep · Post by **Mandeep** » 08 May 2007 02:11

Quite a few ex-INA officers were used by the Pakistani authorities to help plan and organise the tribal invasion of Jammu and Kashmir. Among these were Maj Gen MZ Kiani and Col AIS Dara.

Earlier many ex-INA men were involved in the ethnic cleansing of Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan. Col AIS Dara stands accused of organising the attack on Hindus and Sikhs at the Lahore Railway Station on 13th August 1947. He had also arranged a large number of weapons and ammunition from the Frontier and distributed them in Lyallpur Distt for the purpose of killing non-Muslims.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 08 May 2007 03:59

INA Plans in India - some details - No links

Bose, was able to flee house arrest in Calcutta, and go to Germany. Studying the German viewpoint of the international politics gave him an understanding that Gandhi and Nehru may not have had. In a very daring trip, he would go further on to Japan, spend a few years there, and have an audience with the Premier. He would subsequently land in Burma and take control of the Burmese Indian National Army. Upon learning that Bose had come to Burma and was raising an army, the Indian soldiers of the British army switched sides in favor of their countryman. Bose was thus able to raise an army about 40,000 strong, equipped with arms from Japan. In addition, the Emperor of Japan committed about 100,000 Japanese troops and some air squadrons for his assistance. With this formidable combine, he stood a good chance of marching on to Delhi. The 100,000 Japanese troops would eventually back down, but Bose resolved to continue the fight. He occupied the Andaman and Nicobar islands, Nagaland, Mizoram, Assam and was about to enter the Bengal. From the vantage of the Andaman and Nicobar islands, the Indian National Army had effectively tied up Mountbatten in Ceylon, and he was unable to move. Bose had a brilliant strategy. A main force was to march on to Delhi. This would however be aided by three other forces, each of which would have first performed the task of destroying the British hold over three major ports Calcutta, Vishakapatnam and Chennai as well as the Dutch control of ports at Machilipatnam and Yanam. The unit landing in Calcutta would join the units from Nagaland and Assam towards Delhi, while the units from Vishakapatnam and Chennai would march towards Bombay. The conquest of these five cities, to be completed in two weeks, would have effectively ended British rule in India, cutting it off from the sea. But Bose would follow the same moral principle that Napoleon had: "Never my sword against my own people". Around the end of July 1945 he dropped leaflets over the cities of Madras, Vishakapatnam and Calcutta, requesting citizens to leave so that the INA could bomb these coastal towns prior to landing. He set a two week deadline, after which he would start the attack.

But at this critical juncture, the Nehru-Gandhi combine would intervene under pressure from Mountbatten holed up in Ceylon (it is no coincidence that Mountbatten was supreme commander of the Allied Fleet in the Pacific). They would use all available communication channels to convince the citizens of Vishakapatnam, Chennai, and Calcutta and Machilipatanam to disobey Bose and not leave the cities, thus thwarting Bose's plan. Of course the Gandhi name was put to good use in this blackmail. Gandhi would later regret his decision when the partition plan was pushed down his throat.To be fair to Gandhi, it is not likely that he was, in any sense of the term, acting as an agent of the British. He may have genuinely thought that the Indian people were not prepared to fight a full fledged war with the mighty and ruthless British, of whom he had a good taste during his stay in South Africa.

At any rate, Subhash planned to strike against the British and it is very likely that they would have been unable to face an attack by the INA. On 6 August 1945, before the deadline set by Bose was to expire, Hiroshima would be bombed, and then on 9 August, the second bomb would be dropped on Nagasaki. The historians believe the following subsequent set of events: After the Japanese surrender, Subhash evacuated the Andaman on 15 August 1945, in a plane with Japanese markings. This plane was shot down by American gunners over Manila, en-route to Tokyo. Three POWs were taken in this crash. In accord with the Geneva convention, they stated their rank, name and age. The American captors did not realize who their prisoners were.

The impact Bose and the INA had on the events in British India has since been downplayed by all the power groups that have controlled India, and not much is taught in modern history about the role played by this very great man. Clement Attlee, is on record at least once having said that the primary reason that forced the British to leave was the damage done by Bose. In this same record, he mentions Gandhi's influence on this decision as having been minimal. Again, although much of the critical information surrounding Bose and the INA are not easily available, it is at least possible to draw conclusions on the principle: "if the British propaganda said something about him in a context, negate it to arrive at a reasonable view of the truth" (analogous to British war-time propaganda that had told Indians that the Japanese were barbarians etc, to prevent Indians from siding with the Japanese.) In this context, one mention that after the defeat of the Bose-Japanese combine at Imphal (due to a combination of circumstances, including the monsoon), the British propaganda in India had ascribed this to a mis-calculation on the part of Bose. Bose, they told us, had incorrectly assumed that if his army were to enter India, the people of India would rise to support him. Negating this position, one could conclude the British fear: if the armies of Bose had been able to even enter mainland India, the attacks on the British positions would have been led by not an army of 40,000 INA soldiers, but by millions and millions of Indians who would have joined them. This would have resulted in an ignominious defeat and loss of face for the British.

Had Subhash been able to complete execution of his plan, the division and bifurcation of India would perhaps not have taken place. India's western border would have been located at Iran, the Northern border at Kazakhstan, the North Eastern border well inside modern day China, the Eastern border with Malaysia, and in the south Ceylon would have been part of India as well. India would have not been pushed into declaring itself as a "secular republic", whatever that might mean. Instead, it would have been a constitutional republic on the lines of France. In place of the current division and secession oriented Indian constitution would have been a unification-oriented constitution drafted by Subhash Chandra Bose himself. India would have become a superpower, rather than a junior partner for the Western Elite. India would have been closer to continental Europe than to Britain or English-speaking America. Japan would anyway have been devastated at the close of the war. But the situation after 1952 would have been different. With the Indian resource base, India and Japan would have been economic partners and would have risen to economic giants. At an international level, Britain would have been rendered virtually powerless with the loss of India (see the statements by Colonel Greene).

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 08 May 2007 04:03

sorry, none of this stacks up with anything else I have read about the INA and Bose from diligent researchers

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 08 May 2007 04:07

That is OK.

PradyD · Post by **PradyD** » 08 May 2007 04:39

it really pisses me off when i read of Sardar Patel and how he died just 3 years after independence and left India to Nehru. and now this thing about Bose makes me even more pissed off. how in the god-damned hell did our country fall into Gandhi-Nehrus' hands when there were several other figures like Bhagat Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad, Sardar Patel, Bose, and many others....if there is a single thing that i could change about India, i would go back in time and erase (for the lack of a better word) Gandhi and Nehru from the time, early in their political careers.

niran · Post by **niran** » 08 May 2007 11:54

Dear Acharaya Sir,
Sir, my family lost three members in INA. one great grandfather two grand uncles. the fourth my uncle was in logistic at bangkok.he survived.according to him INA soldiers were never fully fitted according to their needs. he had to depend on the donation of the Indian diaspora to buy the food. then again no transport were available. in the end INA men fought with whatever clothes they had when they were pows. many perished due to hunger & illness. only few died of enemy bullets.matter of fact they were used as mere propodanada tools by the Japs and Britsh.

by the above naration you can imagine the real picture. An army without supplies is a paper army. their war plans,just war plans. so sir before any one can think that INA would have liberated India, they should talk to the men who were there, the people who lost their family members, according
to them INA liberating India was just a dream. though great dream a dream nevertheless.

Rahul Mehta · Post by **Rahul Mehta** » 08 May 2007 14:07

.... many perished due to hunger & illness. only few died of enemy bullets.matter of fact they were used as mere propodanada tools by the Japs and Britsh. .. An army without supplies is a paper army. their war plans,just war plans. so sir before any one can think that INA would have liberated India, they should talk to the men who were there, the people who lost their family members, according to them INA liberating India was just a dream. though great dream a dream nevertheless.

Many real armies start like this. From a rag-tag army, they become mighty armies if and when the get support of rank and file of nation.

The Indian elitemen back then did NOT want INA to become prominent. They preferred defunct leaders like Gandhi, Nehru, Sardar, Rajendra etc. So mediamen, who work as per the orders of elitemen, did not get enuf coverage to INA inside India.

If the mediamen back then had given enuf coverage to INA, 10000s of youth would have started joining INA and many upper/middle middle class men too would have started donating big/small amount. Weapons find way once money becomes available. With weapons, money and youth, INA could have become as mighty as PLA of china.

---

IOW, INA lost due to defunctness and spineless of the then elitemen. Shri Rana Pratap was lucky that he got at least one Bhaamaa Shah. But Subhajee did not get even one.

--

The Indian National Congress did not play any (ANY) role in independence. The REAL sucker punch to Raj was Navi Mutiny, and a fear that many Indian soldiers would revolt under the leadership of left-over of INA. That would have been 'Return of the 1857' except that this time Indian soldiers and engineers were far far more trained and capable of even manufacturing guns. So the left-over of INA played more important role than Gandhi, Vallabh, Rejendra and Jawahar.

--

(Aside : I am running a small time campaign to remove ALL statues of Gandhibhai and replace them with Subhashjee's statues, and putting photo of Subhashjee on currency notes and removing all notes with Gandhibhai's photo. Those who are interested may contact me at MehtaRahulC@yahoo.com . Thanks )

.