Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Indian Army History Thread

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
kmkraoind
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3908
Joined: 27 Jun 2008 00:24

Re: Indian Army History Thread

Postby kmkraoind » 12 Sep 2013 09:11

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Saragarhi

This very day 116 years a back a great battle took place where 21 Sardars countered 10,000 Pathan with 180 Pathan deaths.

The Battle of Saragarhi was fought during the Tirah Campaign on 12 September 1897 between twenty-one Sikhs all born in Majha region of the 4th Battalion (then 36th Sikhs) of the Sikh Regiment of British India, defending an army post, and 10,000 Afghan and Orakzai tribesmen. The battle occurred in the North-West Frontier Province, which formed part of British India. It is now named the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and is part of Pakistan.

The contingent of the twenty-one Sikhs from the 36th Sikhs was led by Havildar Ishar Singh. They all chose to fight to the death. The battle is not well known outside military academia, but is "considered by some military historians as one of history's great last-stands".[9] Sikh military personnel and Sikh civilians commemorate the battle every year on 12 September, as Saragarhi Day.

The British and Indian armies’ polo teams also commemorate the battle annually by holding the Saragarhi Challenge Cup

abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9654
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: Indian Army History Thread

Postby abhishek_sharma » 13 Sep 2013 08:16

Uncovering The War

Reconstructing the IPKF disaster, piece by poignant piece, brought me face to face with rare courage —and inexcusable complacence.

Hiten
BRFite
Posts: 1081
Joined: 21 Sep 2008 07:57
Location: Baudland
Contact:

Re: Indian Army History Thread

Postby Hiten » 17 Sep 2013 21:47

Today Operation Polo got over. Hyderabad integrated the next day. L Edroos announces the surrender



At 3:14+ an aircraft is seen dropping a rag of cloth. What were they doing?

ashish raval
BRFite
Posts: 1188
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 00:49
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Indian Army History Thread

Postby ashish raval » 18 Sep 2013 01:36

^^ ask any true Pathan on whom they fear the most in the world, it will be one, Sikhs, no one else. Sikhs have gallantry of highest order with rock iron will and stubbornness to not die which makes them force multiplier on the field.

Pranay
BRFite
Posts: 1463
Joined: 06 Feb 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Indian Army History Thread

Postby Pranay » 20 Sep 2013 23:26

http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/ ... ing-at-war

How two madmen brought the world to the brink of a third great war
Extracted from ‘The Blood Telegram: India’s Secret War in East Pakistan’ by Gary J Bass, with permission from Random House India


Nixon/Kissenger... and the 1971 India Pakistan war.... Engrossing reading...

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14220
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Army History Thread

Postby svinayak » 22 Sep 2013 11:01

Pranay wrote:
Nixon/Kissenger... and the 1971 India Pakistan war.... Engrossing reading...

Not bad.
Looks like there are parts which are recreated

HK declaring victory and taking it as sign for rebuilding Pak is critical.
He set the policy on Af Pak which is still haunting the foreign policy of Uncle.

Rumsfeld in recent interview during Syria talks about Uncle in a cul de sac on FP

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Indian Army History Thread

Postby harbans » 24 Sep 2013 18:57

Ambassador Alon Ushpiz's Speech on Haifa Day 23rd September

Mr. Rajesh Gogna, Secretary General of HRDI,
Mr. Jaswant Singh,
General Jacob,
Ladies and gentlemen, dear guests,

A hidden link connects two places, thousands of miles from each other. One is in the downtown of the city in which I was born, in the northern part of Israel - Haifa. The other one, a few minutes’ drive from where we are assembled today - The Teen Murti Memorial, just outside of the Teen Murti Bhavan.

Many do not know the full story of the brave soldiers who had freed the city of Haifa and later the Middle East from the rule of the Ottoman Empire on this day, 95 years ago.

Along Jaffa Street in the downtown of Haifa, not far away from the beach in which you can hear nowadays the voices of playing children, lie two cemeteries for the soldiers who fought bravely for the liberation of the city from 400 years of Ottoman control. The Haifa Indian Cemetery and the Haifa War Cemetery pay homage to the many lives of Indian, British, Australian and New Zealand soldiers that died in the First World War in battles against the Ottomans and especially in the battle of Haifa. 354 brave men including 47 Indians.

The heroism, tenacity and cavalry skills of the Mysore and Jodhpur Lancers that took control of the City from the Turks on the 23rd of September 1918, proved to be a decisive factor in the victory over the Ottoman Empire. The historical battle of Haifa paved the way to the victory of the British Army and 30 years later - to the creation of the State of Israel.


Close to 900 Indian soldiers are buried in 7 cemeteries in Israel, from Jerusalem to Ramleh to Haifa, demonstrating the major sacrifice that was made, and act as an immortal testimonial for their heroism.

The connection, ladies and gentlemen, between the Teen Murti Memorial and the cemetery in Haifa goes way beyond honoring those who gave their lives to ensure ours. It is also an expression of a bond between two independent nations that were born thousands of years before gaining their political independence and that truly cherish the same values that our free and open societies treasure.


The Great War happened three decades prior to the independence of both India and Israel. Yet, both people were able to have even before that a strong bondage. A bondage, ladies and gentlemen, which was also reflected in the rich and active lives of the flourishing Jewish community in India, a community whose son and leader, General Jacob, we are fortunate to have with us today.

Haifa, located on the green slopes of Mount Carmel lowering into the blue water of the Mediterranean, shares similarities with India in many ways. It is home to many people with various faiths and religions, living together side by side. Haifa, probably one of the most culturally diverse cities in Israel, is home to Jews, Christians, Muslim, Druze and Baha’i that live together in a blend of language, culture, food and religion.
And this Israeli salad bowl, the equivalent of the Indian Tali, is what makes us special and strong.

In the cemetery for those fallen soldiers of the British forces, one can find Christian soldiers, Hindus, Sikhs, Muslim and Jewish soldiers. The sense of shared destiny and friendship among people with different backgrounds, as well as their bravery, is a legacy they left for the residents and people of Haifa and all of Israel today.

A while back, the municipality of Haifa had decided to include in its school curriculum stories of the valiant efforts of the Indian soldiers in liberating the city. For it is our duty to preserve, but even more than that, to share with our sons and daughters this heritage and this memory of those who sacrificed their lives.

Next week we will host a delegation of the Indian Lok Sabha members in Israel. Together with Ambassador Jadeep Sarkar, they will participate for the third time in a ceremony in the Haifa Indian Cemetery honoring the Indian fallen soldiers.

Dear friends, as the Ambassador of Israel and as a proud son of the city of Haifa, I am grateful that you granted me the opportunity to commemorate today those who had liberated my hometown and to pay my respect to those who have lost their lives doing so. Haifa Day is for us a day of memory and honor for those brave soldiers.

May their souls rest in peace.


יהי זכרם ברוך


http://embassies.gov.il/delhi/NewsAndEv ... ember.aspx

They have a facebook page too:

https://www.facebook.com/IsraelinIndia

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48148
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Army History Thread

Postby ramana » 25 Sep 2013 00:27

Harbans, The book"Battle Honors of the Indian Army" by Maj Sarbjit Singh recounts the battle honors won by the troops in liberation of Palestine from the Ottomon Turks.
I did remark that the Indian Army repaid Mir Qasim and his ilk in the WWI.
It was British Indian Army troops under Gen Allenby that liberated the Arabs from the Ottomon Turks.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48148
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Army History Thread

Postby ramana » 06 Oct 2013 01:24

Rohitvats, One of these days I would request you to study IA river crossings in 1971 and document the tactics and extrapolate to current Army exercises and see what the future entails?

Thanks,

ramana

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7571
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Army History Thread

Postby rohitvats » 07 Oct 2013 17:48

ramana wrote:Rohitvats, One of these days I would request you to study IA river crossings in 1971 and document the tactics and extrapolate to current Army exercises and see what the future entails?

Thanks,

ramana


ramana, I don't know whether you know this but river crossing aspect was covered in some depth by me on my blog.

The whole thing started with debate on Arjun thread about length of Bridge Laying Equipment in IA and their weight bearing capacity (MLC 50) being a limitation factor in terms of weight of an MBT. The argument by poster nelson referred specifically to Bridge Laying Capacity for 10 meter wide canals in Pakistan.

This debate triggered two things -

1) I actually tried to access the Defense Canals in South-Central and Southern Sectors of Pakistan - basically Sulemanki Barrage-Fort Abbas sector downwards covering RYK.

It was elaborated here:

http://vatsrohit.blogspot.in/2012/08/pakistan-defensive-canals-in-south.html

http://vatsrohit.blogspot.in/2012/08/canal-based-defenses-in-south-punjab-ii.html

2) Then, I tried to asses the Canal crossing ability of IA by studying the bridging equipment we have+will have and snippets/pics from various exercises done by us. It was covered in a series of posts:

http://vatsrohit.blogspot.in/2012/08/indian-army-canal-crossing-operations.html

http://vatsrohit.blogspot.in/2012/09/indian-army-canal-crossing-operation-ii.html

http://vatsrohit.blogspot.in/2012/09/update-more-images-ia-canal-crossing.html

Hope the above is of some help in context of your query. And in case you're looking for something specific, let me know.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48148
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Army History Thread

Postby ramana » 07 Oct 2013 22:12

Thanks rohit. Is it possible to make all that into a pdf for publication by some book publishers?

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7571
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indian Army History Thread

Postby rohitvats » 07 Oct 2013 23:24

ramana wrote:Thanks rohit. Is it possible to make all that into a pdf for publication by some book publishers?


Publish? :eek: :shock:

Even i don't myself so seriously... :P

Jokes apart, Yes, I can provide the PDF. All the write-up is with me in word format. Only the pics will need to be added to these word documents as they were uploaded from computer to blog directly.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14628
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indian Army History Thread

Postby Karan M » 08 Oct 2013 01:28

ashish raval wrote:^^ ask any true Pathan on whom they fear the most in the world, it will be one, Sikhs, no one else. Sikhs have gallantry of highest order with rock iron will and stubbornness to not die which makes them force multiplier on the field.


And Gurkhas, and x, and y...
No group has a particular hold on courage in the Indian milieu...they are all equally tough.

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4759
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

Re: Indian Army History Thread

Postby Yayavar » 08 Oct 2013 05:20

To add to Karan M's comment. And Sikh-army was formidable but it is not ' only Sikh' only just for clarification. Here is a iist of Ranjit Singh's generals from wikipedia - it includes Sikhs of course, and non-Sikhs such as Hindus, Muslims and Christians :). The soldiers were mixed too. That goes for the armies that occupied Kashmir or Kabul.

Mahan Singh Mirpuri
Hari Singh Nalwa
Sardar Gurmukh Singh Lamba
Dal Singh Naherna
Desa Singh Majithia
Hukma Singh Chimni
Dewan Mokham Chand
Fateh Singh Ahluwalia
Veer Singh Dillon (Jallaha of Gurdaspore)
Sawan Mal
Sirdar Gulab Singh Pahuwindia
Sham Singh Attariwala
Sardar Sangat Singh Saini
Sher Singh
Shaikh Elahi Bakhsh
General Ghause Khan (Mian Ghausa)
Sultan Mahmud Khan (Son of Ghause Khan)
Zorawar Singh
Chattar Singh Attariwalla
Balbhadra Kunwar – Gorkhali General who served for Ranjit Singh after the Anglo-Gorkha war (1814–1816).
Mahan Singh Mirpuri
Akali Phula Singh
Lehna Singh Majithia
Misr Diwan Chand

Among his European Mercenary Generals were:

Jean-François Allard - French
Jean-Baptiste Ventura – Italian (Modena)
Paolo Di Avitabile – Italian (Naples)
Claude August Court – French

Rony
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2230
Joined: 14 Jul 2006 23:29

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Postby Rony » 12 Nov 2013 23:32

Lalmohan wrote:the majority of indian officers who volunteered in WW2 did so because they sincerely believed that it was the best way to push for indian independence, this is very clear in their memoirs


May be this is OT but are they same officers who fought INA and Bose in eastern front as "part of their duty" because they thought by helping the Brits crush and kill the Independence leaders, India will get Independence ? :roll:

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12503
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Postby Lalmohan » 12 Nov 2013 23:36

then rony-ji please read "Forgotten Army" which goes into a lot of detail about this
the british generally avoided situations where BIA would have to fight INA
in the end the INA did very little fighting because the japanese did not trust them, whereas the BIA did a lot of the heavy duty fighting in Burma

and BIA (and many white officers) were generally very sympathetic to INA men they captured our encountered

Haresh
BRFite
Posts: 683
Joined: 30 Jun 2009 17:27

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Postby Haresh » 13 Nov 2013 00:00

Lalmohan wrote:the BIA did a lot of the heavy duty fighting in Burma

and BIA (and many white officers) were generally very sympathetic to INA men they captured our encountered


.................and this my friend is in a rather off track way what led to Southall becoming a Indian stronghold in Britain.

After the war a former BIA officer was recruited as a manager at the Walls sausage factory in Southall, he had a habit of employing Sikhs and other Indians in preference to others. I worked there one summer between school holidays and it was overwhelmingly Indian.
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7571
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Postby rohitvats » 13 Nov 2013 01:53

Rony wrote: May be this is OT but are they same officers who fought INA and Bose in eastern front as "part of their duty" because they thought by helping the Brits crush and kill the Independence leaders, India will get Independence ? :roll:


Actually, this is NOT OT.

Many here seem to make a straight forward relationship between people serving in BIA and their allegiance to India and its independence. As if those serving in the BIA were traitors to the cause of India and somehow sided with British.

Well, if that be the case, everyone who was in any way associated with the empire is guilty of conniving with the British to further their interest in the country. Why go further - the redoubtable VP Menon, one widely hailed as responsible for stitching together the 565 princely states post independence and partition was a Civil Servant with the British. And he is the one who got instrument of accession from the Maharaja of J&K. Or take for example another stalwart from South India - Sir Mokshagundam Vishveshwariah KCIE - in whose honor India celebrates Engineers Day on 15 September. He was also a faithful employee of British Raj.

Indians from the same institution of BIA formed the core nascent Services in India and gave account of themselves in the very first war after independence.

"The enemies are only 50 yards from us. We are heavily outnumbered. We are under devastating fire. I shall not withdraw an inch but will fight to our last man and our last round." - This communication was sent by Major Somnath Sharma in 1947 to his Brigade HQ while defending an approach to Srinagar. It was the action of this brave man and his troops which gave India enough time to secure the Srinagar airstrip. And he lived up to his words. And the country honored him with the FIRST Param Vir Chakra (PCV) of independent India for his bravery. But guess what - he was commissioned in British Indian Army in 1942 and fought in Burma against the Japs. And the one and only 'Sam' Manekshaw suffered 9 bullet wounds in a single action in Burma and was awarded Military Cross (MC) for his bravery. By your line of argument, I guess he does not deserve his Field Marshal rank.

We can do better than make these simplistic connections and caste aspersions on the loyalty and integrity of people who serve honor and dignity and gave their everything to the nation.

harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Postby harbans » 13 Nov 2013 02:17

'..there you are. It's nothing you wouldn't do to us'


Reminds me of Ram and Vali or those who throughout lived by Adharmic rules and finally when in power mode or opponent was helpless wanted to play by Dharmic rules. Just not on. That's possibly why Ram told Vali..You played by Matsya Nyaya all your life, don't then blame others playing the same rules.

KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 876
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Postby KrishnaK » 13 Nov 2013 04:57

rohitvats wrote:
Rony wrote: May be this is OT but are they same officers who fought INA and Bose in eastern front as "part of their duty" because they thought by helping the Brits crush and kill the Independence leaders, India will get Independence ? :roll:


Actually, this is NOT OT.

Many here seem to make a straight forward relationship between people serving in BIA and their allegiance to India and its independence. As if those serving in the BIA were traitors to the cause of India and somehow sided with British.

Well, if that be the case, everyone who was in any way associated with the empire is guilty of conniving with the British to further their interest in the country. Why go further - the redoubtable VP Menon, one widely hailed as responsible for stitching together the 565 princely states post independence and partition was a Civil Servant with the British. And he is the one who got instrument of accession from the Maharaja of J&K. Or take for example another stalwart from South India - Sir Mokshagundam Vishveshwariah KCIE - in whose honor India celebrates Engineers Day on 15 September. He was also a faithful employee of British Raj.

Indians from the same institution of BIA formed the core nascent Services in India and gave account of themselves in the very first war after independence.

"The enemies are only 50 yards from us. We are heavily outnumbered. We are under devastating fire. I shall not withdraw an inch but will fight to our last man and our last round." - This communication was sent by Major Somnath Sharma in 1947 to his Brigade HQ while defending an approach to Srinagar. It was the action of this brave man and his troops which gave India enough time to secure the Srinagar airstrip. And he lived up to his words. And the country honored him with the FIRST Param Vir Chakra (PCV) of independent India for his bravery. But guess what - he was commissioned in British Indian Army in 1942 and fought in Burma against the Japs. And the one and only 'Sam' Manekshaw suffered 9 bullet wounds in a single action in Burma and was awarded Military Cross (MC) for his bravery. By your line of argument, I guess he does not deserve his Field Marshal rank.

We can do better than make these simplistic connections and caste aspersions on the loyalty and integrity of people who serve honor and dignity and gave their everything to the nation.

The strategy adopted by our independence leaders was not revolution. That allowed us to inherit an almost completely working government with all organs except the elected leaders. The route chosen by Bose and the INA was probably more satisfying, but would it have resulted in a better solution ? There's a lot more to nation building than starting off a revolution.

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Postby brihaspati » 13 Nov 2013 06:30

The BIA fought against the Japanese army. Armies in modern times are supposed to fight against armies of other states[nation-states] but not against "nations/states" themselves. A fight against the"state" leads to excuses of total warfare and genocide.

If the fight between the BIA and the Japanese army was between nation-states, which nation were the Japanese armies attacking? India as a nation or the British empire as a state? Whoever fought against the Japanese as a nation therefore were fighting for the British empire if the conflict has to be seen as a conflict between two states.

A collateral consequence of the fight by the BIA was the potential prevention of war reaching the territory of British India, and thereby saving loss of lives or collateral damage. In that sense, the Indian component of the BIA was also fighting to protect its population in British India. Since the war did not reach Indian territory as a large scale war zone - how much damage it would have done, how atrocious they would have been on Indians, whether INA and Bose would have had no role to prevent such consequences cannot be tested, and therefore remains a speculation either way. It might or might not have happened.

What we do know from actual events is that the BIA had little role in prevention of the large scale genocidal violence of the Partition on Indian soil, and when it still had full strength before the end of the war - it could not prevent the casual genocide of Indians through the imperial machinery's removal of local transport to create an artificial famine supposedly to preempt Japanese penetration. In this the Indian component had the justification that they could play no such role because relevant orders were not given. So BIA Indians could do little on their own initiative - for India - unless it also was in the imperial interest, and in carrying that interest out - the imperial interest prevailed over Indian interests.

Any brave soldier should be respected, and those who suffered in active duty, deserves our respect. I guess that extends to the brave German and Japanese soldiers fighting against the British while officially under command of atrocious regimes. Those Indians who died fighting against the Brits and for whom the Singapore memorial was built by the INA, deserved also the respect of those whom we should now respect as part of BIA.

The monument was destroyed under direct orders of Mountbatten and carried out by, among others, parts of the BIA who happened to be Indian in origin. This Mountbatten was accepted and eulogized by the leaders of the INC and was the head of state of the transitional regime. To date, UK or the British army has not apologized for its destruction of the memorial even though a plaque has been installed on the site on funds raised in public primarily from Indians in Singapore. I would be curious to know if post-independence Indian Army acknowledged the incident and expressed any regrets?

Its the British and a section of Indians who repeatedly try to represent the INA as insignificant, not-fighting, and subservient/part/stooge of the Japanese. Assuming that whatever this section claims is the sole truth, the INA soldiers who died - died for their concept of the nation of India. At least the current logic seems to be that even if you are fighting officially under the banner of a foreign imperialist regime - you can still at heart be fighting for your nation. Is that extensible to the INA soldiers too - or that is not applicable because the Brits do not think it is applicable to anyone who did not fight under their banner?

So if they died also for their nation, respecting them is to be expected. Not respecting that respect to the fallen - should be acknowledged and apologized for. Something has come forward for Jallianwallhbg. Hopefully it will happen in the future for the Singapore memorial too.

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9823
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Postby Vayutuvan » 13 Nov 2013 08:08

KrishnaK wrote:The route chosen by Bose and the INA was probably more satisfying, but would it have resulted in a better solution ? There's a lot more to nation building than starting off a revolution.

Bose was not a revolutionary. He raised an army which is an honorable thing to do (rather than hit-and-run terrorist tactics) - going back to my cave to escape the inevitable flames of hell fire.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16225
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Postby Rahul M » 13 Nov 2013 08:20

KrishnaK wrote:The strategy adopted by our independence leaders was not revolution. That allowed us to inherit an almost completely working government with all organs except the elected leaders. The route chosen by Bose and the INA was probably more satisfying, but would it have resulted in a better solution ? There's a lot more to nation building than starting off a revolution.

the route chosen by INA was to provide an example to Indians in BIA, RIN and RIAF that they did not need to follow the colonial govt with unquestioning loyalty. in fact, the very objective of INA was to inspire BIA and its sister services to turn against the british because they couldn't hope to hold India without the assistance of the military which was overwhelmingly Indian.
and that is precisely what happened. so, it was Bose and INA's route which was successful.
not the 'independence leaders' who merely reaped the fruits of those efforts. the last major effort of these leaders was 5 years before the independence and it was crushed. no one seriously thinks the brits left due to the efforts of these so-called independence leaders.

Rony
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2230
Joined: 14 Jul 2006 23:29

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Postby Rony » 13 Nov 2013 09:30

Lalmohan wrote:then rony-ji please read "Forgotten Army" which goes into a lot of detail about this

I will keep that book in my need to read list. Thanks.

Lalmohan wrote: the british generally avoided situations where BIA would have to fight INA
in the end the INA did very little fighting because the japanese did not trust them, whereas the BIA did a lot of the heavy duty fighting in Burma.BIA (and many white officers) were generally very sympathetic to INA men they captured our encountered


Indian National Army's interactions with British Indian Army

The INA's interactions with the British Indian Army occurred over two distinct phases. The first of these was December 1942 – March 1943, during the First Arakan offensive at a time that the morale of the Sepoy was low and the knowledge about the INA was minimal. The INA's Special Services agents led a successful operation during this time in encouraging the Indian troops to defect to the INA, while those who returned to India beaten in the field took back horrific if unbelievable stories of Japanese troops using their parachutes not only to drop from the skies, but to go back up again. The threat of the INA at this time was significant and successful enough for the British intelligence to begin the Jiffs campaign as well as engage in a campaign to improve morale and preserve the loyalty of the Sepoy. A general news ban on reporting the INA allowed the British Indian Army to consolidate and prepare for defence of Manipur, which it successfully did. By the end of March 1945, the Sepoy of the British Indian Army was reinvigorated and perceived the men of the INA little more than savage turncoats and cowards. Bayly and Harper mentions that a number of times, the Sepoys in the field units shot captured or wounded INA men, relieving their British officers of the complex task of formulating a formal plan for captured men.[53] The author George MacDonald Fraser stated that INA prisoners had to be guarded by British troops to prevent them from being shot by British Indians. After Singapore was retaken, Mountbatten ordered the INA's war memorial to its fallen soldiers to be blown up.


rohitvats wrote:Actually, this is NOT OT.

If you think so, so be it. I was only echoing JEM - "Gents kindly take historical issues to appropriate thread. This is for current news and discussion."

rohitvats wrote:Many here seem to make a straight forward relationship between people serving in BIA and their allegiance to India and its independence. As if those serving in the BIA were traitors to the cause of India and somehow sided with British.


'Traitor' would be a strong word.But they did sided with the British for whatever reasons until at least the Royal navy Mutiny of 46.

rohitvats wrote:Indians from the same institution of BIA formed the core nascent Services in India and gave account of themselves in the very first war after independence.


No body disputed that. I think we are talking about BIA pre-47. My original comment was in response to Lalmohan garu's comment that "majority of indian officers who volunteered in WW2 did so because they sincerely believed that it was the best way to push for indian independence". My impression is that majority of Indian soilders and officers joined BIA in WW2 to escape poverty and for practical non-nationalist reasons and not because they thought this will nudge the British to grant independence. I did not read the book which Lal Mohan garu mentioned. So i need to do some more reading here.

Brihaspati garu, as usual fabulous post.

brihaspati wrote:I would be curious to know if post-independence Indian Army acknowledged the incident and expressed any regrets?


I would be curious to know the answer as well.

devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5111
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Postby devesh » 13 Nov 2013 12:45

the problem with "inheriting" an essentially rapine State, whose sole basis was to facilitate the loot of the governed people by the masters of the Govt, is that the essential character of that State doesn't change very much. the purpose remains intact. the master switches. but the facilitation of loot for the sake of the new master continues.

this is also the same problem we "inherited" from the BIA. when IA cannot own up to and proudly accept the INA as a crucial part of Indian Military History and Legacy, even after 70 years of "Independence", it really does raise of the question of who or what "core" brains are behind the thinking of the IA.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12503
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Postby Lalmohan » 13 Nov 2013 12:54

the INA was definitely NOT inconsequential. its greatest achievement was to convince the british authorities that the BIA would not indefinitely do its bidding. without the BIA there would be no empire

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16225
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Postby Rahul M » 13 Nov 2013 13:45

devesh, please let us know when and how IA facilitated loot. you are sounding eerily like the foghorns who spout 'aazad cashmere' and 'Indian imperialist' at the drop of a hat.
the INA was definitely NOT inconsequential. its greatest achievement was to convince the british authorities that the BIA would not indefinitely do its bidding. without the BIA there would be no empire
the idea is definitely getting more traction that INA's influence on BIA was perhaps the single biggest factor that brought about 1947. a couple of years back an UPSC question asked whether the RIN mutineers were the unsung heroes of freedom struggle !

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Postby brihaspati » 17 Nov 2013 02:37

A curious connection : while reporting on suspected intel role in the homicide of this man
http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/william_mcrae.htm
Born in 1923 in Wester Ross, northern Scotland, William McRae had been from an early age politically active in the Scottish National Party (SNP). After serving in the army during the war, he joined the Royal Indian Navy, where he served in Naval Intelligence. It was here, that he learned to speak Urdu, and began addressing public meetings in Scotland. He resumed his political activities when he joined the Indian National Congress, then an illegal organisation involved in an underground war against British colonial rule in India. It was probably at this point that he came under surveillance by MI5 and MI6, which would continue until his death in 1985.


I know of all the known such Brit origin folks who somehow had reasons to be in India, usually in connection with BIA - and who claim to have been members/sympathetic to the INC. The RIN connection is significant. But here it might also illustrate the possible double roles they might have been forced to play.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 14628
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Postby Karan M » 17 Nov 2013 02:56

amazing thing is george orwell of 1984 fame got his ideas from the work that he did in suppressing the indian narrative for the british state. speaks volumes about the Raj.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7571
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Postby rohitvats » 17 Nov 2013 04:05

devesh wrote:the problem with "inheriting" an essentially rapine State, whose sole basis was to facilitate the loot of the governed people by the masters of the Govt, is that the essential character of that State doesn't change very much. the purpose remains intact. the master switches. but the facilitation of loot for the sake of the new master continues.


And what would be the examples of Indian Armed Forces inherited by independent India to facilitate the 'loot' by the state? When and where did it allow exploitation of Indians by acts of commission or omission?

this is also the same problem we "inherited" from the BIA. when IA cannot own up to and proudly accept the INA as a crucial part of Indian Military History and Legacy, even after 70 years of "Independence", it really does raise of the question of who or what "core" brains are behind the thinking of the IA.


It is the duty of the nation to owe contribution of INA to the freedom struggle of India. And exploits and history of INA's action is part of INDIAN Military History - NOT Indian Army's Military history. Same as exploits of Shivaji Maharaj or Zorawar Singh or Rana Pratap or Ranjit Singh. Though some part of regional military history is part of some Regiments of Indian Army.

So, you can stop making these inane comments.

Coming to the 'Core' brains behind the thinking of IA - Well, these 'Core' brains have done enough to prove their mettle and patriotism; they hardly need certificates on their conduct from arm-chair patriots.

The structure and conduct of the Services has stood the test of time and done yeoman service for the nation - so, the 'Core' did do its job correctly and guide the armed forces of a nascent independent nation correctly.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3347
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Postby Cosmo_R » 17 Nov 2013 05:56

Rahul M wrote:devesh, please let us know when and how IA facilitated loot. you are sounding eerily like the foghorns who spout 'aazad cashmere' and 'Indian imperialist' at the drop of a hat.


+1

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Postby brihaspati » 17 Nov 2013 09:46

rohitvats ji,
the 17th Dogra under BIA was mentioned as the one who were physically involved in the destruction of the INA fallen soldier memorial at Singapore. The 17th was reformed as part of the Dogra Regiment of IA post independence. Is there any acknowledgment of this in regimental memoirs, or any regrets?

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Postby brihaspati » 17 Nov 2013 21:05

There is a certain viewpoint that presents the IA as being a fresh start post Independence, which is thereby taken to imply a complete rupture with the BIA and no continuities at all. In many senses this is perhaps true, but there are confusing and contradictory postures on this.

(1) The logic used by the GOI to prevent reabsorption of the INA surviving soldiers fit otherwise for active duty into IA - was based on formal technicalities of the BIA rules, and explicitly cited discontinuity of service, among others. As far as I know explicit orders connected to this are associated with JLN and Sardar Baldev Singh - who used adjectives like "perverse" in connection to INA. The new IA command appears not to have protested this. If there are docs which are not public which state otherwise, then I do not know.

(2) The RIN uprising - those dismissed on spot after surrender - and others dismissed through court martial, in spite of formal promises otherwise given in person by JLN and Sardar Patel, were under BIA rules. These rules appeared to be valid for the "fresh start" IA so that these dismissals were not overturned after independence.

(3) The Jabalpur uprising soldiers were almost all dismissed, under similar situations as that of RIN, and were never reinstituted.

(4) I remember having discussions on this forum where BIA period bravery/recognitions of battlefield prowess - were remembered with pride, cited and associated with for example the Mahars. The continuity with BIA seems very much there back in the mind when it can be associated with pride and glory.

A detail that should help understand the context of the transitional period is that

(a) the first "uprisings" were from sections of the Brit soldiers of the BIA, and were primarily from RAF - who were striking to press for their quicker repatriation back to "home", and had nothing to do with consciously supporting the Indian cause. They were treated sympathetically and without the formal army disciplinary procedures as applied very soon afterwards to the Indian soldiers.

(b) These RAF British/Oz "strikers" however were eager to bomb striking Indian counterparts

(c) All the known leadership and bulk of the Indian soldiers uprisings came from the lower ranks even among the Indians. They were not led by the officer category - even to up to the mid levels then allowed at most to Indians within the BIA. None of the post independence "upper" level commanders of the IA were associated with any of the uprisings. If there are exceptions, will be most glad to be corrected.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7571
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Postby rohitvats » 17 Nov 2013 23:09

brihaspati wrote:rohitvats ji,
The 17th Dogra under BIA was mentioned as the one who were physically involved in the destruction of the INA fallen soldier memorial at Singapore. The 17th was reformed as part of the Dogra Regiment of IA post independence. Is there any acknowledgment of this in regimental memoirs, or any regrets?


I've not read the history of Dogra Regiment but internet search after you made your post shows that Sappers blasted the memorial and soldiers from Dogra Regiment finished off the remnants. I don't know whether it is captured in the regimental history but given the cold manner in which the regimental histories are compiled, such an event could hardly be missed. But that is speculation on my part.

Coming to the regret(s) part - regret by whom?

The people who compiled and recorded the regimental history today? What do you expect them to write? That it was a dark chapter in the history of the regiment or some such stuff? I don't think it is going to happen that ways. It is an event in the history of the regiment and will be recorded as such.

Those who record the regimental history today cannot sit on judgement of actions of those who fought under the BIA in WW1 or WW2 or earlier.

devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5111
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Postby devesh » 18 Nov 2013 00:30

Rahul M wrote:devesh, please let us know when and how IA facilitated loot. you are sounding eerily like the foghorns who spout 'aazad cashmere' and 'Indian imperialist' at the drop of a hat.


Rahul M, please go back and re-read my post. there are 2 paragraphs. both have different focus. and they talk about different things.

the first one is specifically about the broader State apparatus (like IAS, ICS/IFS, IPS, etc). and that is where I brought up the issue of the State not loosing its original function as a facilitator of the apparatus essentially for the purpose of top-down control and loot.

in the 2nd one, I've spoken about the reluctance of the IA (post-1947) in owning up to the legacy of the INA as a legitimate part and parcel of Indian military history. I never said anything about "loot". don't put words in my mouth, please.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7571
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Postby rohitvats » 18 Nov 2013 00:36

brihaspati wrote:There is a certain viewpoint that presents the IA as being a fresh start post Independence, which is thereby taken to imply a complete rupture with the BIA and no continuities at all. In many senses this is perhaps true, but there are confusing and contradictory postures on this.


No one has made any such suggestion.

Au Contraire - the Indian Armed Forces on 15th August 1947 were the same people who were constituents of British Indian Armed Forces in India a day earlier. And who had fought the Japanese in Burma and under the British Flag elsewhere.

However, contrary to the line of thought pushed here about men who formed part of BIA being somehow traitorous to cause of Indian independence and associated nonsense, these men were in fact responsible for maintaining the territorial integrity of new nation state. If a 'Baba' Meher Singh was dropping supplies to BIA soldiers in Burma before 1945 and earned the sobriquet of "The Eyes of the Fourteenth Army", he was also singularly responsible for ensuring Poonch did not fall into the hand of Pakistanis or Ladakh was saved.

To cut the long story short - Men who joined the BIA before 1945 joined for many reasons. As did those who worked with British administration from ICS cadre to peons. It all boils down to the political consciousness of men in uniform. The same Britishers were not sure of the loyalty of men in BIA in 1945 if another Quit India movement was launched - which they feared would happen.

The institution of Services has stood the test of times. More so during the critical phase from 1947 to 1965. And it was that way because of the men who formed the backbone of this institution.

(1) The logic used by the GOI to prevent reabsorption of the INA surviving soldiers fit otherwise for active duty into IA - was based on formal technicalities of the BIA rules, and explicitly cited discontinuity of service, among others. As far as I know explicit orders connected to this are associated with JLN and Sardar Baldev Singh - who used adjectives like "perverse" in connection to INA. The new IA command appears not to have protested this. If there are docs which are not public which state otherwise, then I do not know.


There is material on the net to show that one of the conditions of granting independence to India which was put forth by Mountbatten was that these men will not be reabsorbed into Indian Army. Because while India was getting independence, there were many other countries which continued under British rule and he did not want their thoughts to spread. He (and British) wanted to exterminate every evidence of armed uprising against British Empire. The technicalities you site were simply tools to implement the same.

It has been further suggested that Nehru did not want such politically conscious soldiers in the army who could question political authority.

(2) The RIN uprising - those dismissed on spot after surrender - and others dismissed through court martial, in spite of formal promises otherwise given in person by JLN and Sardar Patel, were under BIA rules. These rules appeared to be valid for the "fresh start" IA so that these dismissals were not overturned after independence.


I've already written about the re-absorption bit based on what I've recently read.

As for the Army Act - The Indian Army Act of 1911 was revised and introduced in the Constituent Assembly in 1949 and became an act in 1950. Indian Army is governed by this act today. In the intervening period of 1947 to 1949, the then GOI could have cited the old rules and regulations to implement a certain agenda. Why it did so is something for them to answer. Not the Indian Army.

<SNIP>

(4) I remember having discussions on this forum where BIA period bravery/recognitions of battlefield prowess - were remembered with pride, cited and associated with for example the Mahars. The continuity with BIA seems very much there back in the mind when it can be associated with pride and glory.


Please. You can do better than to present a twisted argument such as above about Battle Honors from pre-independence period.

Th Regimental History is an account of the conduct of a body of men who have chosen profession of arms for earning their living. The Battle Honors were earned for acts of valor and courage. Of men going beyond call of duty and putting everything on line for matter of honor. Honor of their clan(s), their brotherhood, their regiment.

The Battle Honors are the part of the legacy of a regiment - testament to the fact the forefathers of current generation fought with bravery and were true to their profession. These acts of valor are not diminished by the fact that the Regiment was under British when some of these Battle Honors were awarded. As per gallantry Award.

4th Sikh is one of the most respected regiments of the Indian Army. And very sought after by GC passing out of IMA who wants to be part of Sikh Regiment - Do you know why? Because it draws it lineage from the same unit whose 21 men in in 1897 chose to go down fighting to last man in the Battle of Saragarhi. Even today, The Sikh Regiment celebrates this day as the Regiment Day.

So, is Indian Army lesser of a nationalistic force because The Sikh Regiment considers Saragarhi as part of their marital history? The simple answer is NO. The act of valor and bravery of those 21 men is an example which every Sikh soldier is expected to imbibe. Because it the history of his forefathers in the Regiment.

<SNIP>

(c) All the known leadership and bulk of the Indian soldiers uprisings came from the lower ranks even among the Indians. They were not led by the officer category - even to up to the mid levels then allowed at most to Indians within the BIA. None of the post independence "upper" level commanders of the IA were associated with any of the uprisings. If there are exceptions, will be most glad to be corrected.


And is that supposed to mean something?

devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5111
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Postby devesh » 18 Nov 2013 00:45

rohitvats wrote:
Coming to the regret(s) part - regret by whom?

The people who compiled and recorded the regimental history today? What do you expect them to write? That it was a dark chapter in the history of the regiment or some such stuff? I don't think it is going to happen that ways. It is an event in the history of the regiment and will be recorded as such.

Those who record the regimental history today cannot sit on judgement of actions of those who fought under the BIA in WW1 or WW2 or earlier.



rohitvats ji, I'm sure you know more about the "formal" history of the IA than me.

but what you describe above, about the historians being essentially a cold, purely logical, completely unbiased, recorders of history seems a bit unreal to believe. are you seriously saying that in all of the formal history books of the IA, they never show any hint of pride about any operations/wars/battles of the past? that they merely record the entire thing as some bland event that happened, and leave it at that ?! if that is truly the case, then clearly, you are right and any mention of INA should also be viewed through the same PoV. but if there is an obvious discrepancy in how the INA is recorded, and how other events (pre-'47 and post-'47) are recorded, then there is cause for further investigation. it cannot be lightly glossed over as "unbiased" book-keeping.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16225
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Postby Rahul M » 18 Nov 2013 01:08

devesh wrote:
Rahul M wrote:devesh, please let us know when and how IA facilitated loot. you are sounding eerily like the foghorns who spout 'aazad cashmere' and 'Indian imperialist' at the drop of a hat.


Rahul M, please go back and re-read my post. there are 2 paragraphs. both have different focus. and they talk about different things.

the first one is specifically about the broader State apparatus (like IAS, ICS/IFS, IPS, etc). and that is where I brought up the issue of the State not loosing its original function as a facilitator of the apparatus essentially for the purpose of top-down control and loot.

in the 2nd one, I've spoken about the reluctance of the IA (post-1947) in owning up to the legacy of the INA as a legitimate part and parcel of Indian military history. I never said anything about "loot". don't put words in my mouth, please.


your words, not mine.
devesh wrote:the problem with "inheriting" an essentially rapine State, whose sole basis was to facilitate the loot of the governed people by the masters of the Govt, is that the essential character of that State doesn't change very much. the purpose remains intact. the master switches. but the facilitation of loot for the sake of the new master continues.

this is also the same problem we "inherited" from the BIA.
when IA cannot own up to and proudly accept the INA as a crucial part of Indian Military History and Legacy, even after 70 years of "Independence", it really does raise of the question of who or what "core" brains are behind the thinking of the IA.

rohitvats
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 7571
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 18:24
Location: Jatland

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Postby rohitvats » 18 Nov 2013 01:13

devesh wrote:
rohitvats ji, I'm sure you know more about the "formal" history of the IA than me.

but what you describe above, about the historians being essentially a cold, purely logical, completely unbiased, recorders of history seems a bit unreal to believe. are you seriously saying that in all of the formal history books of the IA, they never show any hint of pride about any operations/wars/battles of the past? that they merely record the entire thing as some bland event that happened, and leave it at that ?! if that is truly the case, then clearly, you are right and any mention of INA should also be viewed through the same PoV. but if there is an obvious discrepancy in how the INA is recorded, and how other events (pre-'47 and post-'47) are recorded, then there is cause for further investigation. it cannot be lightly glossed over as "unbiased" book-keeping.


You're using preconceived notion to imagine things here.

Let me first make couple of points clear here - There is no single official book which documents the Official History of Indian Army. There are many books which analyze Indian Army during various time periods. But most of them relate to post-independence actions of the IA. And have been written as private ventures by serving or ex-IA officers. Secondly, the pre-independence part gets captured generally in the histories of various Infantry Regiments of the Army. Many senior Regiments have their origin 200+ years earlier under the British. These are again private ventures though some regiments have commissioned their history.

Now coming to how the Regimental History part - there is obvious pride for acts of achievement and bravery. And for receiving Battle Honors and bravery awards and citations and mentioned in dispatches. For the same reason I mentioned earlier - that the forefathers in the Regiment lived up to their oath and fulfilled their duty with utmost sincerity and bravery. It is NOT a political commentary but something which will place the acts of the battalions of the regiment in context.

As to your grouse about Indian Army not owing up to the acts of INA - Well, I have said this before and I'm repeating it again here. INA's history is part of INDIAN MILITARY HISTORY and NOT Indian Army's history. If anything, it is the GOI acting through MOD which should commission a study on the role and importance of INA in Indian freedom struggle.

It is not IA to comment on how it views INA - heck, what you think IA is? Is it separate from the GOI or India? No. They have never commented on anything about INA. We don't even have official releases of war-histories post-independence nor history of the Services.

So, all this contention about taking pride and stuff and IA not doing the obvious is patently absurd in my POV.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17871
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indo-UK News and Discussion - April 2013

Postby Philip » 18 Nov 2013 06:15

Rohit is right.The INA was never part of the IA (or forces comprising Indian nationals who served in British units during both wars) at all.It isn't the IA's responsibility to beat a tattoo for the INA.The great contribution of the INA in the freedom struggle should be examined in minute detail by the GOI and our great historians for the sake of the nation.

Though the INA had very little military significance during the war,its political significance was massive.When INA soldiers were put on trial at the Red Fort and humiliated,it galvanised our countrymen in manner never seen under British rule.The Governor of what is now UP wrote to the Viceroy and said that "Bose is rapidly usurping the place held by Gandhi in popular esteem". GS Dhillon of the INA openly engaged in fistfights with his captors and dared the jury,including the future IA chief,Gen.Cariappa to hang him.In the night handbills were plastered all over the walls warning of bloody retribution.The IB said in 1946 that "there has seldom been a matter which has attracted so much Indian public interest and ,it is safe to say,sympathy".The British saw the writing on the wall!

(Xcpts. from "India's biggest cover up" by Anju Dhar)


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jayram, shivatar and 29 guests