INA 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.
Rishi
Forum Moderator
Posts: 742
Joined: 29 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: Maximum City

Re: INA History Thread

Postby Rishi » 26 Jan 2009 18:43

Jag.. source for the newspaper report?

Jagan
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3032
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Earth @ Google.com
Contact:

Re: INA History Thread

Postby Jagan » 26 Jan 2009 18:45

Rishi wrote:Jag.. source for the newspaper report?


London Times - but no idea on the date. but presumably from the time after indepedence 1947-52 period.

-Jagan

SRoy
BRFite
Posts: 1843
Joined: 15 Jul 2005 06:45
Location: Kolkata
Contact:

Re: INA History Thread

Postby SRoy » 26 Jan 2009 21:13

Jagan wrote:Sometimes I should read my own posts in this thread. The report is from the London Times (I think) but it tells us of what the Indian Govt did (or did not do) for the INA Vets

Image

From Page 1.


So that's the supporting arguement. The "psychological and practical" problems that you speak of seems to have flown out of that fountain of wisdom of called JLN.

The effect of bits of wisdom spouted by that entity called JLN on national security is for all to see.

Abhi_G
BRFite
Posts: 686
Joined: 13 Aug 2008 21:42

Re: INA History Thread

Postby Abhi_G » 26 Jan 2009 22:34

Acharya wrote:INA Plans in India

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.


So basically JLN played on both sides. He convinced the citizens to thwart Bose's plan and joined the INA defence Committee during the Red Fort trials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INA_Defence_Committee). It was he who relinquished the INA vets. It seems that he cared only for hogging the limelight. And nearly a decade or more later he sidelined Gen. Thimayya. Wow what a character!

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: INA History Thread

Postby RayC » 26 Jan 2009 22:50

Plans!

IG planned Roti, Kapda and Makan.

Dreams!

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: INA History Thread

Postby svinayak » 26 Jan 2009 22:51

Abhi_G wrote:
Acharya wrote:INA Plans in India

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.


So basically JLN played on both sides. He convinced the citizens to thwart Bose's plan and joined the INA defence Committee during the Red Fort trials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INA_Defence_Committee). It was he who relinquished the INA vets. It seems that he cared only for hogging the limelight. And nearly a decade or more later he sidelined Gen. Thimayya. Wow what a character!

This was a leadership competition between JLN and Bose. Bose as a military leader had more popularity and could command national presence if he had come to the political leadership. He could unite all civilian political parties, Indian military including the faction which supported Pakistan and get the full support for nation building. This would create strong nationhood in an undivided India which would be a threat to the western nations.

JLN knew his leadership limitation which was a military experience and command. JLN saw all military leaders as his rivals. Any leader in India with a strong military background will be very popular even now.

This rivalry inside India was exploited by the western powers to threaten JLN with coup and destabilization and made him to keep India weak in military for many decades.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53474
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: INA History Thread

Postby ramana » 27 Jan 2009 04:37

I agree that the post Independence Indian Army should look into the rehabilitation of the memory of the INA soldiers. Maybe a committee of ex-officers and Army historians should look at the prospects of rehabilitation of the INA soldiers memory. I understand the BIA need to declare the INA actions as repugnant but the Indian Army should bring closure to this saga as only it is the last holdout on this matter. The JLN order to allow the INA in other forces is nice but still does not do justice to the INA which needs accomodation/acknowledgement from IA.

Rishi
Forum Moderator
Posts: 742
Joined: 29 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: Maximum City

Re: INA History Thread

Postby Rishi » 27 Jan 2009 04:44

ramana wrote:I agree that the post Independence Indian Army should look into the rehabilitation of the memory of the INA soldiers. Maybe a committee of ex-officers and Army historians should look at the prospects of rehabilitation of the INA soldiers memory. I understand the BIA need to declare the INA actions as repugnant but the Indian Army should bring closure to this saga as only it is the last holdout on this matter. The JLN order to allow the INA in other forces is nice but still does not do justice to the INA which needs accomodation/acknowledgement from IA.


Hear hear!

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 984
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Indian Army History - ww2

Postby ks_sachin » 06 Feb 2009 05:52

Gents,
Can anyone tell me all the Indian formations / units that were captured by the Japanese in WW2.
Cheers

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 984
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: INA History Thread

Postby ks_sachin » 06 Feb 2009 06:18

RayC Sir,
Where was your Bn delopyed during WW2 if it was in existence then assuming it has been raised by then. Was the regiment formed in 1941?
If it was re designated in 1941 what was it called earlier?

As an aside - How much do we atribute the Indian POW's joining the NA to 'nationalism' and how much to the conditions which were horrendous. Indian POW's had one of the highest death rates among allied POW's at some of the camps they were imprisoned.

cheers

Jagan
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3032
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Earth @ Google.com
Contact:

Re: Indian Army History - ww2

Postby Jagan » 06 Feb 2009 06:48

ks_sachin wrote:Gents,
Can anyone tell me all the Indian formations / units that were captured by the Japanese in WW2.
Cheers


sachin this would be of interest to you
viewtopic.php?p=289486#p289486
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

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 984
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: INA History Thread

Postby ks_sachin » 06 Feb 2009 10:47

Jagan,
Immediately after the end of the way the Army set up a commission that was sent to Australia I think and other SE countries were the Japanses held Indian POW's.
All POW's were interviewed to weed out INA sympathisers.
Since I am in Sydney I am trying to get some of these transcripts from the AWM which I visited recently to research an old officer of the Bn.
I had the unique priviledge of reading the original of a letter written by this gentlemen to the 6th Australian Division, (dated 18th April or August 1945 elements of which rescued this band of POW's.
Incidentally the CO of my Bn wich was captured was part of the group of POW;s who worked on the Burma = Thailand railway line as immortalised in famous movie - Bridge on the River Kwai..

ks_sachin
BRFite
Posts: 984
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: INA History Thread

Postby ks_sachin » 06 Feb 2009 10:58

Jagan,
I have the list of Bn captured and the area they were captured in. Also the formation they belonged to. Also some details about operational deployment of at least 2 BN's. Would BR be interested or would that form part of the British Indian Army and be objected to by some worthies!!!

Cheers

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: INA History Thread

Postby RayC » 06 Feb 2009 11:26

ks_sachin wrote:RayC Sir,
Where was your Bn delopyed during WW2 if it was in existence then assuming it has been raised by then. Was the regiment formed in 1941?
If it was re designated in 1941 what was it called earlier?

As an aside - How much do we atribute the Indian POW's joining the NA to 'nationalism' and how much to the conditions which were horrendous. Indian POW's had one of the highest death rates among allied POW's at some of the camps they were imprisoned.

cheers


I have served in two Battalions and both were raised well after WW II.

Here is the genesis of my Regiment.

Raising of the Mahar Regiment

In the July 1941, B. R. Ambedkar was appointed to the Defence Advisory Committee of the Viceroy's Executive Council. He used this appointment to exert pressure within the military establishment for a Mahar regiment. He also appealed to the Mahars to join the Army in large numbers. In October, the Army gave in, and the 1st Battalion of the Mahar Regiment was raised in Belgaum under Lt. Col. HJR Jackson of the 13th Frontier Force Rifles and Sub. Maj. Sheikh Hassnuddin. The 2nd Battalion was raised in Kamptee in June 1942 under Lt. Col. JWK Kirwan and Sub. Maj. Bholaji Ranjane. A cap badge was designed for the Regiment by Capt. EEL Mortlemans, an officer of 2nd Mahar. The badge featured the Koregaon Pillar over the word "MAHAR". The third battalion, the 25th Mahars, was raised in Belgaum in the August of 1942 by Lt. Col V. Chambier and Sub. Maj. Sardar Bahadur Ladkojirao Bhonsale, and the 3rd Mahars were raised in Nowshera by Lt. Col. RND Frier and Sub. Maj. Bholaji Ranjane. During the War, the 1st and 3rd Mahars served in the NWFP, while the 2nd and 25th Battalions were employed on internal security duties within the country. The 2nd Battalion also saw service in the Burma Campaign as a part of the 23rd Indian Division, where they suffered 5 casualties and had one officer Mentioned in dispatches. They also served in Iraq after the War as a part of PAIFORCE. In 1946, the 25th Mahars were disbanded, along with many other garrison battalions of the Indian Army. Its officers and men were largely absorbed by the other three battalions of the Regiment. In the October of 1946, the Regiment was converted into a Machine Gun Regiment, and the Regimental Centre was established at Kamptee. Following conversion of the Regiment to a machine-gun regiment, the cap-badge was changed. The new badge had two crossed Vickers machine guns over the Koregaon Pillar, over a scroll that said "The Mahar MG Regiment". The three surviving battalions of the regiment served as a part of the Punjab Boundary Force, and took part in escorting refugees during the Partition of India.


I think the reason for not taking in the INA people into the IA was because it would indicate that anyone who went against the govt after taking an oath, could be taken in if the situation changed.

That would make the loyalty questionable and negotiable.

The Army serves the govt (that supposedly is representative of the Nation), no matter which govt it is.

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3546
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Re: INA History Thread

Postby Paul » 28 Apr 2009 05:57

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_ ... Conspiracy

The Hindu-German Conspiracy failed to engage popular support within India. However, it had a significant impact on Britain's policies both in the empire, as well as on her international relations.[1][2][3][4][5] The outlines and plans for the nascent ideas of the conspiracy were noted and began to be tracked by the British intelligence as early as 1911.[6] Alarmed at the agile organisation, which repeatedly reformed at different parts of the country despite being subdued in others, the chief of Indian Intelligence Sir Charles Cleveland was forced to warn that the idea and attempt at pan-Indian revolutions were spreading through India "like some hidden fire".[6][7] A massive, concerted and coordinated effort was required to subdue the movement. Attempts were made in 1914 to prevent the naturalisation of Tarak Nath Das as an American citizen, while successful pressure was applied to have Har Dayal interned.[8] The conspiracy had been detected early by British intelligence, and had been the subject of strong British pressure from 1914.


Why do they call it Hindu-German conspiracy???


The issue was ultimately addressed by William G. E. Wiseman, head of British intelligence in the US, who passed on details of a bomb plot directly to the New York Police by passing diplomatic channels. This led to the arrest of Chandra Kanta Chuckrevarty. ????? who was he As the links between Chuckervarty papers and the Igel papers became apparent, the investigations by Federal authorities ultimately expanded to cover the entire conspiracy. , with the US agreeing to pass on evidence so long as Britain did not seek admission of liability for Breaches of Neutrality. At a time that diplomatic relations with Germany were deteriorating, the Foreign office directed the Embassy to cooperate with the investigations. These ultimately resolved the Anglo-American diplomatic disputes just as America entered the war.[30][29]


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53474
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: INA History Thread

Postby ramana » 29 Apr 2009 07:34

National Archives of Singapore on

Indian National Army

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53474
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: INA History Thread

Postby ramana » 19 Jun 2009 20:47

X-posted from TSP thread....

SSridhar wrote:Shaharyar Khan's memoirs continue in TFT . . .

Excerpts
Beginning in 1966, I was back in Pakistan, posted at the Foreign Service Headquarters, serving as Deputy Secretary. During this time, I was in charge of the China Desk. In 1967, when the Karakoram Highway had not yet been built, I participated in border talks with the Chinese authorities in Sinkiang, concerning land trade, using a narrow route through the mountains, along which Sinkiang had traditionally traded goods with Pakistan. We went to Sinkiang to formally open this pathway for trade between the two countries. The actual volume of goods was not very large, mostly consisting of items such as lanterns, scissors and the like. But since this was a symbolic link with China, who we considered an ally, it was important.

In Sinkiang, we stayed at a palace which was once the home of the British resident. Our delegation consisted of myself, representing the Foreign Office, a representative of the Ministry of Commerce, a representative of the NWFP government and Habib-ur-Rehman, representing the administration of the Northern areas in Pakistan.

During the evenings we would stay indoors and talk, since there was not much we could do outside after dusk. It was during one of these conversations that Habib-ur-Rehman told us his version of the death of the famous Indian nationalist leader, Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. As a Brigadier he had been an officer in the Indian National Army (INA), a large Japanese backed force led by Subhas Bose, whose aim was to liberate India from Britain with assistance from Imperial Japan. The INA was mostly recruited from the ranks of exiled Indian nationalists, volunteers and troops who had deserted the British Indian army.

In 1945, with the Japanese clearly losing the war and the Allies closing in on the Japanese home islands, the INA was falling apart. Bose tried to reach Japan to make another appeal for assistance. Habib-ur-Rehman was in an aircraft with Bose, which took off from Taipei in Formosa (now Taiwan). This aircraft crashed. Habib-ur-Rehman told me that while he himself survived the crash, and rushed to the side of his leader, Bose was close to death. According to him, Bose died because his clothing caught fire from the flames of the burning aircraft. He was taken to a nearby hospital but died from his burns.
I have no reason to doubt Habib-ur-Rehman's story of Bose's death, and I believe it ought to put to rest many of the theories (and conspiracy theories) regarding the death of the charismatic Indian nationalist leader.

. . . . In 1966, the decision was taken to build the Karakoram Highway through the Khunjerab Pass, between northwestern Pakistan and the Sinkiang Autonomous Region in China. I was part of the negotiations and communication taking place to bring the plan to fruition.

We were members of a delegation led by General Faruqi, who was the head of the Engineering Corps of the Pakistani military. The Chinese delegation was led by his counterpart, a general from the PLA (People's Liberation Army). The idea was that the Pakistanis would build the highway through our side of the Khunjerab Pass, while the Chinese would build it from their side of the border.

When the time came to make a commitment on how long it would take each side to complete their part of the construction, General Faruqi estimated that it would take us twelve years. He explained that we could not work more than three or four months every year at that altitude, given the climate and other factors. We then asked the Chinese delegation how long it would take them. We were taken aback at their confident response: it would take them three years! The Chinese general said that his men would work throughout the year, despite the climate.

A shocked General Faruqi took us aside for a private conference. We decided that we too would match the Chinese, and build our part of the highway by working throughout the year, and complete it in four to five years. And that is just how we did it.

I was with the Pakistani diplomatic mission to the UN in Geneva when the East Pakistan crisis broke out. In 1971, with the situation in East Pakistan getting worse, I was sent to the Pakistani High Commission in London, as Counselor (the number three position there). Later, after Daulatana became the High Commissioner in London, I was made Deputy High Commissioner.

With Bangladesh having declared independence, Sheikh Mujib-ur-Rehman was released from incarceration by the Pakistani authorities, and he flew to London for a short while before returning to Bangladesh. Since he had been released by our government and no other Pakistani representative was going to receive him, I thought it appropriate to be present when he arrived at the airport.

In 1972, with Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto at the helm in Pakistan, our foreign policy was such that we withdrew from the Commonwealth. This would have deprived Pakistani citizens of their special rights as members of the Commonwealth, and it would have especially affected the large Pakistani expatriate community in Britain. The British government wanted to extend the privileges enjoyed by Commonwealth citizens to the Pakistani expatriate community in Britain, so they decided to pass the Pakistan Act in Parliament, in order to legally fill the gap left by our departure from the Commonwealth.

This led to a problem, though. Many Pakistani expatriates in Britain were of Kashmiri origin. Their passports indicated that they were "citizens of Azad Kashmir" since the Pakistani government hoped that they would vote in an eventual plebiscite to decide the future of Kashmir. The Parliamentary sub-committee working on the Pakistan Act in London informed us that the privileges extended to Pakistani citizens under the Act could not legally apply to citizens of Azad Kashmir, due to the information on their passports. To get over this problem, I dug out a document from Parliamentary records which proved that in earlier cases, the British government had a precedent for considering Azad Kashmiris to be citizens of Pakistan. When I produced this document, the Parliamentary sub-committee agreed to extend the same rights to Azad Kashmiris as it did to other Pakistanis under the Pakistan Act. The British government, however, later reprimanded me for this effort, as they did not consider it appropriate for diplomatic staff to present Parliamentary records to the sub-committee.

In 1975, I returned to the Foreign Service Headquarters in Islamabad, and for the next two years I was in charge of the East Asia desk. I was part of two delegations led by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto to China, once in 1976 and then again after Mao died and Hua Guofeng became the Chinese premier. During our visit to China in 1976, Mao Zedong was close to death. His mental faculties were no longer as sharp as I had once known them to be. During a meeting with Bhutto, he even thought for a moment that Bhutto was the leader of India, until a Chinese aide explained to him that this was not the case.

I recall that Mao came down to escort Zulfiqar and Nusrat Bhutto to their waiting car. As the tall Mrs. Bhutto got into the vehicle, I remember how Mao put his hand on the top of the door, so that her head would not hit it. I found this to be a very human side of the great revolutionary leader, even at a time when he was close to death. These remembrances of things past are such that one is filled with nostalgia when one recalls them today.

Samay
BRFite
Posts: 1143
Joined: 30 Mar 2009 02:35
Location: India

Re: Indian Army History Thread

Postby Samay » 20 Jul 2009 16:58

Cant say about the british -american causalities ,but one thing is for sure that we will never know exactly how many Indian soldiers died in those wars, as the british had hidden it from the Indian people it remains one of the biggest mysteries of ww2 till date,.
That includes corps from nwfp to nepal ,.
Certainly it does not includes those who fought for their motherland =>INA
Other mass civilian deaths, apart from the singular destruction of European Jews, comprise the hundreds of thousands of slave laborers in the Japanese-held Netherlands East Indies (Indonesia) as well as the 1 1/2 million deaths in Bengal as a consequence of war-related famine.

Only the main combatants are listed.

Jagan
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3032
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Earth @ Google.com
Contact:

Re: Indian Army History Thread

Postby Jagan » 20 Jul 2009 17:18

Samay, while there is no doubt about the famine casualities, you better find sources or some kind of substantiation when you say this :

we will never know exactly how many Indian soldiers died in those wars, as the british had hidden it from the Indian people it remains one of the biggest mysteries of ww2 till date,.


this thread (And the IAF History Thread) is here for another purpose - to dispel gossip, myths, rumours. Something of the sort you have stated above. So better back the statemnt above with some established sources.

Samay
BRFite
Posts: 1143
Joined: 30 Mar 2009 02:35
Location: India

Re: Indian Army History Thread

Postby Samay » 20 Jul 2009 17:40

Jagan wrote:Samay, while there is no doubt about the famine casualities, you better find sources or some kind of substantiation when you say this :

we will never know exactly how many Indian soldiers died in those wars, as the british had hidden it from the Indian people it remains one of the biggest mysteries of ww2 till date,.


this thread (And the IAF History Thread) is here for another purpose - to dispel gossip, myths, rumours. Something of the sort you have stated above. So better back the statemnt above with some established sources.

About the british Indian army I cant say,because of lack of resources but, INA's casualties are still unknown ..

Jagan
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3032
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Earth @ Google.com
Contact:

Re: Indian Army History Thread

Postby Jagan » 20 Jul 2009 17:51

but, INA's casualties are still unknown ..


It cant be more than the strength of the entire force which is

The Japanese were prepared to arm 16,000. When the "first INA" collapsed, about 4,000 withdrew. The Second INA, commanded by Subhash Chandra Bose, started with 12,000 troops. Further recruitment of ex-Indian army personnel added about 8,000-10,000. About 18,000 Indian civilians enlisted during this time. In 1945, at the end of the INA, it consisted of about 40,000 soldiers.


A total of 16,000 of the INA's 43,000 recruits were ever captured, of whom around 11,000 were interrogated.[26]


Plus this book gives you a listing of all the INA soldiers - name address pata - and it is compiled by an INA veteran himself.
viewtopic.php?p=284843#p284843 .

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Indian Army History Thread

Postby Lalmohan » 21 Jul 2009 01:00

regarding INA casualties, undoubtedly many, but very few due to combat, which the INA saw very little of. disease and malnutrition were bigger killers. indian officers and enlisted men who made up the huge bulk of forces in the 'burma theatre' were not hostile to the INA, and many british officers, particularly of indian units saw them was wayward sheep. whilst many joined out of national fervour, many would have joined to avoid the fate of other allied prisoners in japanese camps. the japanese utterly used the INA for propaganda purposes and never trusted them to take the lead, part of Bose's frustration. they were never re-equipped, relying on what was surrendered at singapore for almost everything.

the famine casualties could be as high as 3m, since no one would have kept score. however army casualties are not so easy to hide given the high amount of bureaucracy involved. there are plenty of books detailing indian casualties in malaya, burma I, kohima/imphal and then burma II

the commonwealth war graves used to have a website, with a lot of interesting names that came up on searching

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4773
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

Re: Indian Army History Thread

Postby Yayavar » 29 Jul 2009 03:50

Lalmohan wrote:regarding INA casualties, undoubtedly many, but very few due to combat, which the INA saw very little of. disease and malnutrition were bigger killers. indian officers and enlisted men who made up the huge bulk of forces in the 'burma theatre' were not hostile to the INA, and many british officers, particularly of indian units saw them was wayward sheep. whilst many joined out of national fervour, many would have joined to avoid the fate of other allied prisoners in japanese camps. the japanese utterly used the INA for propaganda purposes and never trusted them to take the lead, part of Bose's frustration. they were never re-equipped, relying on what was surrendered at singapore for almost everything.



Lalmohan, Was looking for info along above lines...posted this in the best-sellers thread:

"just finished reading 'The Glass Palace' by Amitav Ghosh. It touches upon the loss and retreat of the Japanese/INA froces from Manipur/Burma border . It describes some of the INA soldiers continuing to fight on even as the retreat. It is a work of fiction, however it is based on real events - hence my curiosity.

The book implies that these isolated units of INA were hunted down by British Indian army and the Burmese guerrilla forces; were in bad shape from disease and malnutrition in the jungles etc. As a result many of the soldiers deserted/surrendered to the advancing Bristish India Army. All this sounds plausible. However, it further describes a rift, and even contempt, among the soldiers who had originally served with the British India Army and the recruits from the Malay jungles. This last aspect and the events as described in the book (wont list the event here in case someone is reading the book) left a bad taste.

I was wondering if there are any books that one might read from the perspective of someone who actually fought from INA and describes the retreat. I'm curious to know how much is Author's imagination and how much is based on fact. It almost seemed to me that the Author's sympathies are not so much with INA -- but that could be my bias as well."

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Army History Thread

Postby Rahul M » 29 Jul 2009 04:12


Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4773
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

Re: Indian Army History Thread

Postby Yayavar » 29 Jul 2009 04:54



Thanks Rahul...and in-house too :).

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: INA History Thread

Postby svinayak » 08 Aug 2009 02:39

http://www.dayafterindia.com/nov205/cover_story.html

Was Subhash Chandra Bose Murdered?



The Mukherjee Commission, which submitted report to the Union Home Minister, Shiv Raj Patil only this November is the latest to go into the circumstances of the mysterious death of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, one of the greatest Indian freedom movement leader. The investigation into the death mystery followed many paths. The Central Govt extended the term of the Liberman Commission inquiring into the demolition of disputed structure at Ayodhya, but at the same time it has denied extension to the Justice MK Mukherjee Commission investigating the disappearance of Subhash Chandra Bose. Subhash Bose, was believed to have died in a plane crash in Taipei, but recently it was discovered that there was no plane crash at that time.

There were theories that he was in Soviet Union at that time and the Commisin was not visiting Russia to examine the documents due to lack of time.

So the habitual Nehru-bashers always came to their favourite whipping boy, Jawaharlal Nehru, who had infact setup a commision to investigate Bose’s disappearance.

Nehru was accused of being exceptional in patronising one ex-INA brass, Shah Nawaz Khan, who was recalled (virtually highjacked) from Pakistan where he had migrated after Partition, and was made a minister of state in Nehru’s Ministry.

The Supreme Court had dismissed a petition seeking extension of the term of Justice M K Mukherjee Commission probing into the disappearance of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose in 1945.

The court said the central government may decide whether to extend the term of the commission beyond May 13, 2005.

“Netaji disappearance case takes a new turn,” reported the Indian Express recently , which made out that a key deponent of Mukherjee panel says Mitrokhin knew about Subhas Bose’s Russia link.

A key deponent of the Mukherjee Commission, Purabi Roy, who took off for Moscow on September 20, 2005, said Mitrokhin knew about Bose’s Russia link and had helped her locate classified information on him.

A US intelligence report, sent to the Mukherjee Commission, had corroborated the evidence of the Taiwan government that no aircrash had occurred at the Taipei airport or anywhere in that country on August 18, 1945 in which Netaji was supposed to have died.

Earlier, the Taiwan government had said there was no crash in its territory on the said day. It had also given documentary evidence of the relevant crematorium that none called Subhash Chandra Bose or Ichiro Okuda (a pseudonym given to Netaji by the Japanese government) was cremated during the period.

In an article, published in the Daily Pioneer Balbir Punj wrote that the de-classified Soviet archives may or may not be the Holy Grail of Netaji’s “disappearance” mystery. But why is the Justice MK Mukherjee Commission’s access to it being curtailed by not allowing it an extension? There is certainly a method in the madness of the Congress-led Government. That the British who worked overtime to assure Indians about Netaji’s death in Taihoku plane crash were themselves most doubtful about it was proved by two inquiry commissions they appointed, the Finnings Commission (September 1945) and the Chakroborty Inquiry in December 1945. The Frigg’s Report in 1953 proved that Netaji was alive on British mind even after they had left India.

The report of Justice GD Khosla Commission (1970) seemed a foregone conclusion. It upheld, in its very opening sentence, the findings of the Shah Nawaz Committee report, thus defeating the very purpose of its institution. Justice Khosla failed to carry the conviction of people. It is precisely for this reason that then Prime Minister Morarji Desai rejected the findings of both the committee and promised to set up a new one. However, due to the sudden collapse of the Janata Dal Government, he could never set up a new commission. It took almost 21 years for the Mukherjee Commission to see the light of day during the NDA Government.

Nevertheless, the Mukherjee Commission was the first enquiry commission to officially investigate the matter. It visited the places inhabited by that monk and examined his personal belongings preserved with Faizabad district administration. Bhagwanji was a mysterious but opulent monk who resided in various places of Uttar Pradesh like Lucknow, Sitapur, Faizabad, Basti and Ayodhya for three decades till his death on September 16, 1985. He not only commanded his personal security men but was in touch with Dr Pavitra Mohan Roy of Dum Dum Road, Calcutta, once the foremost functionary of Secret Service of Indian National Army. A few local people of Ayodhya like Teerth Ram Purohit who knew him, found him referring to foreign countries like Germany, Japan, Burma and Tibet. Curiously, the first three countries feature prominently in Netaji’s life. At Neemsar (Sitapur), where the monk stayed during 1956-60, he had planted different trees. That place is now famous as Subhas Chandra Bose Park.


However, what that “Man of Mystery” left behind is still more curious - spectacles with golden frames resembling the ones worn by Netaji in his photographs, powerful German binoculars, a coloured picture of Swami Vivekananda, some Bengali books, an original copy of the summons issued to Suresh Chandra Bose to appear before the GD Khosla Commission, several editorials and articles dealing with the Netaji mystery, a national flag, a map of undivided India, an album of foreign origin consisting of 13 family photographs of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose in different settings. Out of these, two have never been seen by the public before, and not even available with the Bose family.

It was therefore, intriguing why that “Man of Mystery” never emerged before the public. Or why people like PM Roy died with the mystery. The Mukherjee Commission, which has examined the personal objects left by the monk and witnesses, will have to provide a credible explanation for all this in its report. Its insistence on accessing Russian archives is suggestive of Netaji having survived the Taihoku aircrash. In other words where was he after he survived?

Another Pioneer report raised more questions about the great death mystry. Pioneer on Netaji trail said, the man who could have confirmed the presence of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose in Russia has been declared “untraceable” by Moscow. “Alexander Kulesnikov is very much alive and is serving his country’s foreign service in either Kyrghztan or Turkey,” the report says. Kulesnikov was a Warsaw Pact Major-General who had access to files in the Soviet Army’s GRU, or high command. What is most intriguing is that Kulesnikov had met members of an Indian parliamentary delegation to Russia. He shared his secrets with Forward Bloc MP Late Chitta Basu and had handed over a file in which he had provided details from an old Soviet file, which specifically mentioned a meeting held in October 1946 between Stalin, his foreign minister Molotov and former Soviet Ambassador to Tokyo, Jacob Malik.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: INA History Thread

Postby svinayak » 20 Aug 2009 22:41

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/ind ... 46345.html

Netaji died in Taihoku air crash: Italian Envoy

January 23rd, 2009 - 9:26 pm ICT by ANI Tell a Friend -

Kolkata, Jan 23, (ANI): Italian Ambassador in India, Alessandro Quaroni said on Firday that Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose died in 1945, in an air crash at Taihoku and therefore there is no point in undertaking further research.
Addressing the media at Subhash Chandra Bose’’s ancestral house on his 113th anniversary, Quaroni said, “I personally do not see the point of research because unfortunately, the person, Netaji died, but his message lived on and still remains.”
When asked about whether he had document indicating Netaji’’s death in the Taihoku crash, he replied, “But I don”t know if there is any Japanese report. After all, there is a possibility of a plane crash. At that time, Taiwan, where the crash occurred, was under Japanese dominion. So, if there is any written proof or record of the circumstances, that should be in the Japanese records.”
Quaroni’’s parents were very good friends of Bose. His father Pietro Quaroni, who was then the Italian Ambassador to Afghanistan, gave a false passport to Netaji in the name of Orlando Mazzotta in Kabul.
The government has already appointed three-enquiry commissions- the Shah Nawaz Commission, the Khosla Commission and the Justice Manoj Kumar Mukherjee Commission, to look into the matter.
The Shah Nawaz and The Khosla Commissions agreed that Netaji was killed in the Taihoku air crash, while the Mukherjee commission concluded that Netaji was alive when the crash took place. (ANI)


svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: INA History Thread

Postby svinayak » 21 Aug 2009 00:16

http://www.forwardbloc.org/www/Netaji%2 ... 0Crash.pdf

He died in an air crash at Taihoku (now Taipei) in Taiwan (formerly Formosa) on. August 18,1945. ... plane crash at Taihoku air port on 18th August,1945. ...

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: INA History Thread

Postby svinayak » 21 Aug 2009 00:25

ImageImage
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/spec ... ubodh3.htm


'Air crash story was made up at Taihoku'


(This paper by senior Supreme Court advocate Subodh Markandeya was censored during Emergency. This is the first time it is being published)

The present paper is based on the research, which I made in the National Archives of India and it was to form the last chapter of my book entitled Passage to Immorality on Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. The original chapter was sent to Professor D C Saxena of the English Department of the Punjab University for editorial purpose.

After duly editing it, Professor Saxena sent it back to me, but it became a victim of unannounced censorship practiced during the Emergency of 1975-77, I received manuscript back from Professor Saxena in a torn and mutilated condition and of 40 typed pages sent to him, only7 or 8 pages were retrieved. I again went to national Archives for 3 or 4 weeks for piecing together the Chapter. The second attempt was not so satisfactory because some of the files, which I had originally seen, were not available on the second occasion.

British Intelligence officer's report

The mystery shrouding Netaji's reported death in the air crash at Taihoku Airport, on August 18, 1945 has remained unsolved even 50 years after the event. On hearing about the Japanese announcement, the Viceroy, Lord Wavell, in desbelief, recorded in his journal: "I wonder if the Japanese announcement about Subhas Chandra Bose's death in an air-crash is true. I suspect it very much. It is just what would be given out if he wanted to go underground."

To find out the truth, Wavell's Government sent out an intelligence team headed by Flover Davis, Mountbatten,s Headquarters at Singapore despatched a team of sleuths led by Col. F.G. Finney.

The Director to Military Intelligence (D.M.I.) stationed at Chunking in China, on October 17, 1945 reported to Mountbatten that though Subhas' entourage was "in the plane that crashed, Bose was not there".

After analysing the material and circumstances the report continued; "Perhaps the story about air crash was cooked up at Taihoku. Possibly after that Bose escaped somewhere," adding that "one cannot rule out the possibility of Bose being still alive."

Was Bose a prisoner in USSR?

The British authorities believed that the news about Subhas' death was only a ruse, which enabled him to escape to the Soviet Union. Wavell was so scared of facing Netaji alive in India that in his letter, dated August 20, 1945 to the Secretary of State for India, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, he wrote "it would be a good thing if he was disposed of, without being sent to India."

Sir Robert Francis Mudie Wavell Home Member, in a detailed note on the subject of "Treatment of Bose", prepared for the consideration of the British Cabinet, conceded that the Indian masses had deep admiration and respect for Subhas Bose's "as a sincere patriot and a leader without peer." Mudie proposed the following broad alternatives for the "treatment" of Netaji, (I) to try him in India, Burma or Malaya on charges of waging war against the King or (ii) to try him by a military court outside India or (iii) to intern him in India or some British possession like Seychelles island, and recommended that the easiest course would be to leave him where he is and not ask for his release".

Discounting the reported death of Netaji, the American Office of Strategic Studies commented on January 24, 1946, that the "location of accident and hospital were never given….a good proportion of Indians and British believe that he is alive and hiding in some place" and characterised the story of his death in an air-crash "as untrue and made up by the Japanese".

The Allied teams sent to South East Asia to trace Subhas had the specific authority to arrest him, alive or dead. According to the British Intelligence Report, produced before Shah Nawaz Committee, Gandhiji's "inner voice" on the basis of which he believed Netaji to be alive and hiding, was really the secret letter that he received from Bose. The report added that the Soviet diplomats in Kabul and Tehran confirmed that Subhas was one of the Congress refugee in Moscow-a fact which was vehemently denied by Pravda and the Moscow Radio.




Michael Edward in The Last years of British India candidly observed that "British had not feared Gandhi the reducer of violence; no longer feared Nehru…The British, however, still feared Subhas Bose…The ghost of Subhas, like Hamlet's father walked the battlements of the Red Fort and his suddenly amplified figure overawed the conferences that were to lead to independence."
Gerard H.Corr in the War of Springing Tiger says that "Bose had a lot going for him. He had the glamour, Charisma, hypnotic effect on those who met him, he could inspire total devotion among his supporters."

According to Hugh Toye:

"For most, the personality of the man was overwhling; there was a genius of enthusiasm and inspiration …By the magnitude of his conception, by the example of his magnetic, burning zeal his tenacity and personal force, by the tradition he left of sacrificial patriotism, must be measured the status of Subhas Chandra Bose.

His place in the Indian History cannot be denied. Idol of masses…his youthful daring, his panache; his reckless courage caught the imagination of India. He gave much to his country. Had he lived to see the Republic of India, he would assuredly have given much more.

Toye goes on to admit that with his remarkable personal magnetism Subhas "inspired in the soldiers he led, loyalty which…..obliterated their sentiments for the remote King Emperor", carefully fostered by the British rulers over long decades of their rule. The G.O.C.-in-C, Eastern Command, Tucker found this to be "alarming for the future…..threatening to tumble down the whole edifice of the Indian Army." The net result was the mighty British were thoroughly demoralised at the stark prospect of "chaos in the country at large and probably to mutiny and dissension in the Army culminating in its dissolution". In the words of Auchinleck, "it would be unwise to try the Indian army too highly in the suppression of their own people and as time went on the loyalty of even the Indian officials, the Indian Army and police might become problematic."

There can be no doubt that the final and fatal blow to the British rule in India was indeed inflicted by Subhas Bose. By bringing about a complete psychological transformation of the Indian Officers and men of the British armed forces - from being pro-British mercenaries to fiercely militant nationalists, who were no longer willing to be instruments of imperialism - Bose enabled India to wrest her freedom from Great Britain.




The Transfer of Power (1942-47), Vol.VII, 1976, throws on the attitude of the top Congress leaders towards I.N.A. The armed forces motivated by considerations other than mercenary were unacceptable to them. The re-instatement of the I.N.A. personal in the Armed Forces was out of question. In a speech on January 9, 1946, Jawaharlal Nehru said that the I.N.A. personnel were fit only for absorption in the public works like Industrial Co-operatives village re-construction.

But more shocking was the device used to ease them out by offering the terms which were humiliating - disregarding I.N.A. rank and exclusion of I.N.A. service. In a speech in the Central Assembly delivered on March, 1948, Nehru turned down the demand for reinstatement of the I.N.A. personnel on the ground that "there had been a long break in their" shockingly implying thereby that the glorious service rendered by these patriotic men in the I.N.A in staking their life was of no consequence to the national government of free India.

The I.N.A. soldiers were hurriedly despatched to their villages. Some of the pliable officers were given insignificant jobs - two Major Generals, Shah Nawaz and Bhonsle became at different time, Deputy Ministers at the Centre.

Three questions had cropped up between Commander-in-Chief Auchinleck and the Defence Minister of Interim Government, Sardar Baldev Singh : (I) release of the remaining members of I.N.A., (ii) payment of arrears of pay and allowance and (iii) their reinstatenment. At the very outset the Congress abandoned the last question. On the other two questions, Sardar Baldev Singh requested the Interim Cabinet, headed by Jawaharlal Nehru, to make recommendations to the Commander-in-Chief because he had to face questions in the Central Assembly.

Auchinleck rejected these demands. The British Viceroy Wavell threatened to veto any consideration of these two matters. The British Government in London endorsed its Viceroy,s stance. The Commandar-in-Chief also threatened to resign. The British Viceroy as well as C-in-C were sure that not a single Congress minister would offer to resign on these issues.

They were not mistaken. Alan Campbell Johnson in his Mission with Mountbatten tells us that although it was Nehru who had prodded Sardar Baldev Singh to raise these issues the C-in-C, during debate in the Central Assembly on April 2, 1947, Nehru "backed Auchinleck to the hilt as he promised he would", Surprisingly I.N.A. personnel were not even treated as freedom fighters till 1974 and it was only twenty seven years after independence, in 1974, that the Government of India thought it to pay them pension of Rs. 150/- per month.



In response to persistent public demands, Jawaharlal Nehru visited Singapore in March 1946 to "study the fate of the Indians who had helped the I.N.A." and other misdeeds of the British including dynamiting of Shaheed Smarak. Nehru, who was sent to study the misdeeds of Mountbatten agreed to be his guest!

Then on, the wily British Lord was in complete command. Mountbatten proudly showed the demolished Shaheed Smarak, which Nehru saw without mildest protest. Marie Seaton in Panditji - A Portrait of Jawaharlal Nehru recounts that at Singapore, Mountbatten did not restrict Nehru in any way, but requested one concession that he would forgo laying a wreath on the War Memorial erected to the memory of Indian National Army. Nehru agreed so that Mountbatten was impressed by Nehru's reasonableness"!

This attitude of denigrating Netaji and I.N.A. soon reached its apogee under the government of free India. In a confidential memo dated February 11, 1949, under the signature of Major General P.N. Khanduri, the Government "recommended that photos of Netaji Subhas Bose be not displayed at prominent places unit Lines, Canteen, Quarter Guards of Recreation rooms."



ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53474
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: INA History Thread

Postby ramana » 21 Aug 2009 01:45

Who is Major Gen P.N. Khanduri? Is he related to the BJP CM of Uttaranchal-B.C. Khanduri?

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53474
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: INA History Thread

Postby ramana » 14 Sep 2009 09:53

Mainstream on Remembering Sarat Chandra Bose


Mainstream, Vol XLVII, No 39, September 12, 2009
Remembering Sarat Chandra Bose

Saturday 12 September 2009, by From NC’s Writings

Sometimes, in moments of introspection, one is tempted to ask what could have happened if people in authority had behaved differently, had different views about each other. Even orthodox Marxists have not been able to deny the role of the individual in history, but the reality perhaps is more explicit on this score than they would concede.

Recently I had a strange feeling about how the destiny of our country could have turned out to be very different had those at the helm in the past behaved differently not only collectively but individually towards each other. The occasion for such introspection was provided by an invitation from Dr Sisir Bose, the Executive Director of the Netaji Research Bureau in Calcutta, to participate in a symposium organised in connection with the centenary of the birth of Sarat Chandra Bose, his father and Netaji’s elder brother.

Sarat Babu, as we used to know him in our youth, was a great leader by his own standing, counted in the thirties as one of the big five of the Bengal Congress—a leading member of what was known those days as the nation’s undisputed High Command.

The Netaji Research Bureau is housed in the very building where Subhas Chandra Bose lived throughout his tempestuous career. It was from this house that he had disappeared in 1941 eluding the dragnet of the British sarkar’s police. He escaped to a remote station in Bihar to catch the train to Delhi from where he was picked up by his Communist courier, Bhagat Ram Talwar, to trudge incognito through the difficult terrain around the Khyber Pass to reach Kabul from where he cut through Russia with Soviet clearance en route to Germany for his Azad Hind mission. The car in which he escaped is still preserved and the young man who had driven him to the secret point in Bihar was his nephew, Dr Sisir Bose himself.

Those dramatic scenes of 1940-41 came back to mind as I entered the house after nearly 50 years. I used to visit the place as a young journalist and, more often, the nearby house of Sarat Babu at Woodburn Park.

This time I saw a television documentary produced by Dr Sisir Bose’s son, Sugata, who is working in an American university. The programme, captioned Rebels against the Raj, depicts the story of Subhas Babu’s struggle abroad, first in Germany and then in Japan and the birth of the Indian National Army and its career.

Watching this TV programme—which, incidentally, Doordarshan did not care to pick up—I wondered how history would have been different if the INA had pushed just a little further from the mountains to the plains of Assam and Manipur. The Japanese Army command seemed to have looked upon the operation in purely military terms and did not seem to realise the tremendous political potential in allowing the INA to infiltrate the mountain jungles down to the plains. In a positional war, the British could not perhaps have been vanquished, though it was a touch-and-go situation. The relics of the battle for the Deputy Commissioner’s bungalow at Kohima still bear testimony to this. But the appearance of Netaji and the INA in the plains—even a handful of them—would have led to the collapse of the Raj.

In Sarat Bose’s eventful career there were moments of great significance. He was not just the elder brother of Subhas Bose. He was a leader of great eminence in his own right. True to the tradition set by Deshbandhu Chittaranjan Das of fighting the Raj through constitutional means, Sarat Babu emerged as a great parliamentarian, leading the Congress in the Bengal Assembly in the mid-thirties and forties. At the same time he never spared his resources to help Subhas or for that matter many revolutionaries who were branded by the British as terrorists.

As the Muslim alienation from the Congress became increasingly evident, Sarat Babu tried his best to reverse the trend. In 1941, as the Muslim League Ministry collapsed as a result of internal dissent, he formed a progressive coalition which comprised Fazlul Haq’s Krishak Praja Party, the progressive elements from the Muslim League, Hindu Mahasabha (then coming up under Shyamaprasad Mukherjee), the Scheduled Caste, Anglo-Indian and Indian-Christian groups together with his own following from the Congress which had broken away with Subhas’ exit from the Congress. They commanded a comfortable majority in the Assembly and demanded to be called by the Governor to form the Ministry. This effort at unity was scotched by the British authorities when Sarat Bose was suddenly arrested on December 11, 1941 and detained till the end of the year.

But Sarat Babu’s tireless endeavour for Hindu-Muslim unity could not be suppressed. As he found the national leaders more and more ensnared in Mountbatten’s partition plan, Sarat Babu took the bold initiative of retaining the unity of Bengal even if the country was to be divided into India and Pakistan.

The idea of a united Bengal was not a far-fetched fantasy. The British were watching it. As the British Government’s recently published Transfer of Power volumes disclose, Mountbatten had kept ready two drafts for his famous June 3, 1947 broad-cast.

But that was not to be as the big bosses of the Congress rejected the idea of a united Bengal despite Gandhiji’s disapproval, while Jinnah and Liaqat turned it down.

The ifs and buts of history are no doubt important in assessing our past.

(Mainstream, October 14, 1989)


Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9554
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Indian Army History Thread

Postby Yagnasri » 10 Oct 2009 17:50

We have to understand that there is no Indian Army before our republic is born. What we had is a merce force who fought for money and even are ready to kill our own people which they did. So let us not glorify anything before 1950 (1947 )

Avik
BRFite
Posts: 193
Joined: 06 Oct 2009 00:16

Re: Indian Army History Thread

Postby Avik » 10 Oct 2009 20:38

Narayan Rao,

Thank you for sharing your wisdom. Just wanted to understand whether you share the same perspective about other Indian organisations like the IPS, IAS, CRPF, Indian Railways,Indian Justice System IISCO and possibly even private entities like the Tatas, Times of India etc. because all the above entities also contributed to perpetuating British Rule in India?

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16834
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: Indian Army History Thread

Postby Rahul M » 13 Oct 2009 00:50

Narayana Rao wrote:We have to understand that there is no Indian Army before our republic is born. What we had is a merce force who fought for money and even are ready to kill our own people which they did. So let us not glorify anything before 1950 (1947 )

that's an over-simplistic POV. yes, pre-independence Indian army did fight its own on occasion but then so did each and every army from our history, starting from chandragupta maurya !

if an army is mis-used the blame falls primarily on the commander. moreover, soldiering was a profession like any other. one would be hard-pressed to find an Indian from those times who existed in complete isolation from the brits. let's not forget the ground realities of the time.

secondly, during the two world wars members of the Indian armed forces genuinely believed that they were fighting to save India from an attack by foreign powers (russia and germany/japan respectively).
lastly, you'll find that many nationalist leaders actually encouraged young men to join the armed forces (just as they were encouraged to get a modern education) so that these vital skills were not absent in an independent India.
thank god that they did else we would have found really difficult to re-create our armed forces from scratch during our extremely vulnerable initial years. our history might have different and much more depressing had that been so.

even from a purely military point of view, the performance of Indian forces abroad was nothing less than exemplary and a point to be proud of.

IMO, we would do them a great disservice by considering them to be mere mercenaries.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Indian Army History Thread

Postby Lalmohan » 13 Oct 2009 02:00

I was wondering if there are any books that one might read from the perspective of someone who actually fought from INA and describes the retreat. I'm curious to know how much is Author's imagination and how much is based on fact. It almost seemed to me that the Author's sympathies are not so much with INA -- but that could be my bias as well."


yes i have read the book too, but also others. what is described is more or less corroborated by first hand experiences. i dont think he is unsympathetic to the INA. you have to remember, the INA did a lot less active fighting than the japanese forces and was almost never supplied by them. the japanese kept them off to one side for propaganda purposes by and large. as for the bipartisan approach, the rationale that ghose uses is that the IA 'deserters' were being rehabilitated by the IA to keep the serving soldiers on side, but the civilian volunteers had no such clemency to look forward to.

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4773
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

Re: Indian Army History Thread

Postby Yayavar » 23 Dec 2009 10:26

Lalmohan wrote:
I was wondering if there are any books that one might read from the perspective of someone who actually fought from INA and describes the retreat. I'm curious to know how much is Author's imagination and how much is based on fact. It almost seemed to me that the Author's sympathies are not so much with INA -- but that could be my bias as well."


yes i have read the book too, but also others. what is described is more or less corroborated by first hand experiences. i dont think he is unsympathetic to the INA. you have to remember, the INA did a lot less active fighting than the japanese forces and was almost never supplied by them. the japanese kept them off to one side for propaganda purposes by and large. as for the bipartisan approach, the rationale that ghose uses is that the IA 'deserters' were being rehabilitated by the IA to keep the serving soldiers on side, but the civilian volunteers had no such clemency to look forward to.


I recently bought the book 'Forgotten Army' by Fay since I've been curious and not fully satisfied by what I read. The book borrows a lot from first hand experiences of Col Prem Sehgal (for Sehgal Dhillon ShahNawaz) and Laxmi Sehgal. Will update if I find anything different. Looking for other books too (some indicated in this thread).

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: INA History Thread

Postby Lalmohan » 23 Dec 2009 13:53

^^^ viv, that is an excellent book, and more objective, being written by an american

Jagan
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3032
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Earth @ Google.com
Contact:

Re: INA History Thread

Postby Jagan » 23 Dec 2009 20:35

Recently a set of three original photo albums of the Free India Legion (The INA predecessor with the Nazis) went on Auction in some western auction . It had some rare photographs of the legion including pictures of Subhash Bose visiting them etc. They were sold for the equivalent of Rs 3-4 Lakhs IIRC.

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

Re: INA History Thread

Postby brihaspati » 26 Dec 2009 19:31

RahulM wrote
secondly, during the two world wars members of the Indian armed forces genuinely believed that they were fighting to save India from an attack by foreign powers (russia and germany/japan respectively).


RahulM, can you give some pointers to personal narratives of Indian army personnel from this period that shows this feeling you refer to? I am aware of some from the "Naval mutiny" (but these are not from "higher" echelons), but would like to gain references for the two other wings. What was the "India" they described, directly or indirectly, that they thought they were defending? Had they no feeling that they were committed to defending the British Empire in India rather than "India"?

The higher ranks are supposed to have come more from so-called martial races or supposed "aristocrats" - both based practically on criteria of personal loyalty to the British, not "India". It would be really interesting to find evidence of sentiments you mention in the officer cadre (up to the level they were allowed to rise). By training, early education, they are likely to be affiliated more to "loyalty to the British" rather than any "concept" of India. Still it would be enlightening to have counter-views from those directly involved.

In the whole attitude to the INA soldiers, after their final surrender, by the victorious BIA - do we see any real proof of identification with the aims (apart from the propaganda of INA being a cover for Japanese occupation) of the INA if not agreement with the methods? After all, the Japanese would have replaced one occupier by another - so question of loyalty to the "nation" does not arise. It was fighting on behalf of one occupier against another - unless the preexisting occupier was being accepted as the "nation".

Jagan
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3032
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Earth @ Google.com
Contact:

Re: INA History Thread

Postby Jagan » 26 Dec 2009 21:25

brihaspati wrote:[

RahulM, can you give some pointers to personal narratives of Indian army personnel from this period that shows this feeling you refer to? I am aware of some from the "Naval mutiny" (but these are not from "higher" echelons), but would like to gain references for the two other wings.



Get Birth of an Air Force by AVM Harjinder Singh. Gen Thimmayya's biography as well as Gen Rudra's biography.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kakarat, sgopal, Vamsee and 65 guests