Jallianwala Bagh tragedy shameful scar on British Indian history: Theresa May

[Double Edge]

I didn't run away. What does hiding behind others mean ? You asked for a source i provided it.

Now if you have a problem with the veracity of the claim you take it up with the person who said it.

I've posted an update here from a second source and this time we have a name. C-in-C of India. It's just one sentence. There's a name and without closed captions i'd never have figured out the actual name. Auchinleck, lol. Not a name i come across at all.

As to citations. Understand the format it was presented in.

Spoken word. Not a journal.

I'll update if there is more info.

But this is the second time i'm hearing the same claim.

I don't treat it as false.

[ambidex]

Every time you throw a word or two on India's contribution, in any sphere of History of the world, his missionary instinct get agitated.

Anyone who thinks he doesn't know Rajiv Malhotra beforehand is fooling himself.

Last time he did psychological projection of crude Christian history of conquests and forceful conversion on me suggesting same would have done by Hindus in East Asia. It was quite a common phenomenon that the whole population would convert voluntarily if new Idea of spirituality and religion could win a debate from the intelligentsia practising a popular religion. Many Kings converted from one religion to another without any conquest. The only thing required was convincing that the new Idea of religion has better spiritual, cultural and humanitarian outcomes. Probably the Hindu idea of peaceful conversion hurt him wrongly.

This from where this 'asking for proof is coming'.

No, India’s Army Did Not Play a ‘Significant Role’ at Dunkirk

There must be many revisionists out there who will downplay India's role.

He need technical and specific conjunctures probably operational tactics to prove that contribution of Indians in both the wars made it possible for Britain to win.

We are expecting too much from these *****, BTW. They have statues of animals who participated in World War in England to commemorate their contribution in the wars but not Indian Soldiers till recently. And that too was vandalized after its inauguration which was all an effort of local Sikhs living in Smethwick.

This forum is visited by many military professionals and anyone can slap him with simple mathematics how such large numbers of soldiers can easily change the outcome of the war in that period of history.

Here is the proof:

Oxford Bibliography:

The Indian Army was the largest volunteer force during the Second World War. Without resorting to conscription, the British were able to recruit 2.5 million Indians in the colonial Indian Army. The Indian Army fought the three major Axis powers (Japan, Italy, and Germany) from Hong Kong in the east to Italy in the west. It displayed tactical virtuosity and organizational flexibility while fighting in varying terrains, from the swamps and jungles of Malaya and Burma to the rocky terrain of Eritrea, the sandy desert of North Africa, and the mountains of central Italy. The Indian Army deserves credit for crushing the Italian Army in East Africa and defeating the much-vaunted Wehrmacht in Tunisia and Italy. The Imperial Japanese Army experienced its greatest defeat in Burma, where most of the Commonwealth soldiers were Indians. Strangely, the Indian Army experienced very few mutinies during the war. Nevertheless, both Germany and Japan were able to create pro-Axis satellite armies from captured Indian prisoners of war. However, after the Allied victory in August 1945, the Indian soldiers were demobilized and communal riots broke out. As the sword arm of the Raj disintegrated, India moved inexorably toward independence and Partition.

Guess what recently Britain proclaimed Japanese defeat in Burma as their greatest ever military victory.


A Largely Indian Victory in World War II, Mostly Forgotten in India
By Gardiner Harris

[Double Edge]

There must be many revisionists out there who will downplay India's role.

He need technical and specific conjunctures probably operational tactics to prove that contribution of Indians in both the wars made it possible for Britain to win.

And they are accusing us of also being revisionists.

Why the Indian soldiers of WW1 were forgotten | BBC | Jul 02 2015

The role and sacrifices of Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians and South Africans have been celebrated for some time in books and novels, and even rendered immortal on celluloid in award-winning films like Gallipoli. Of the 1.3 million Indian troops who served in the conflict, however, you hear very little.

Gallipoli is a pilgrimage site for Aussies & Kiwis. I've seen the movie and visited Gallipoli when touring Europe with an Aussie tour operator. I kept arguing why were we going to the middle of no where and what the big deal was. What passed for toilets at the campsite in Galipoli was a hole in the ground. Indian squatting toilets are more luxurious.

Now the aussies & kiwis on the bus weren't exactly your flag waving types insisted it was important to go there.

For whom ? them and this was unanimous!

You should have seen the importance that place holds for them.

A bunch of them got whacked there. Do they want to forget it. NO, every kid from those two countries is told of the supreme sacrifice paid. They did this decades back. Our education system does not do that beyond passing references.

It took the onset of the centenary of WW1 for something to click in India !!

We are expecting too much from these *****, BTW. They have statues of animals who participated in World War in England to commemorate their contribution in the wars but not Indian Soldiers till recently. And that too was vandalized after its inauguration which was all an effort of local Sikhs living in Smethwick.

This forum is visited by many military professionals and anyone can slap him with simple mathematics how such large numbers of soldiers can easily change the outcome of the war in that period of history.

The brits kept meticulous records. The chinese even more through. Indians are happy with this vocal tradition.

If you heard which animals took part in WW2 then somebody went through the archives and then told you.

It's up for more Indians to do that research and unbashfully teach our own. Shashi started the ball rolling.

There is more, a reluctance on the Indian side to talk about Indian participation in foreign wars. Does not gel with the anti-imperialist position of the Indian left. How then did we conduct a regime change in '71 ? Intervention in SK in the 80s. what was that. R2P ? power politics ? what. heh.

We chose to forget the British Indian army enforced the peace from the Suez to Singapore until WW2 and went on to fight the Imperial Japanese.

Something else queers the pitch here. People on the Indian right want to idolise Bose. Bose chose to colloborate with the Imperial Japanese which makes him a traitor to compatriots who died fighting the imperial Japanese.

Indian army's unsung role and sacrifices in World War I | India Today | Nov 29 2018

Sir Claude Auchinleck, Commander-in-Chief of the Indian Army once said "Britain couldn't have come through the wars if they hadn't had the Indian Army."

Presumably that's where Rishabh got the line.

[Bigfella]

I didn't run away. What does hiding behind others mean ? You asked for a source i provided it.

Now if you have a problem with the veracity of the claim you take it up with the person who said it.

I've posted an update here from a second source and this time we have a name. C-in-C of India. It's just one sentence. There's a name and without closed captions i'd never have figured out the actual name. Auchinleck, lol. Not a name i come across at all.

As to citations. Understand the format it was presented in.

Spoken word. Not a journal.

I'll update if there is more info.

But this is the second time i'm hearing the same claim.

I don't treat it as false.

You made a very specific claim about WW1 and then completely failed to defend any element of it. Present your argument, your proof and your sources and I'll spend time discussing the issue further. Until then this is just another propaganda thread for nationalist fanbois who seem to love their nation best from afar....in some cases very afar.

I'll check back in a month or two and see how you've done. Not holding my breath.

[Firestorm]

There is more, a reluctance on the Indian side to talk about Indian participation in foreign wars. Does not gel with the anti-imperialist position of the Indian left. How then did we conduct a regime change in '71 ? Intervention in SK in the 80s. what was that. R2P ? power politics ? what. heh.

Participation of the BIA in WW1 and 2 and the 1971 Indo-Pak war are not remotely comparable. 1971 was not a "foreign" war. The crisis was right on our border and the East-Pakistani refugees were streaming into India not a third country. The official war also began with pre-emptive air-strikes inside India by Pakistan if you remember.

We chose to forget the British Indian army enforced the peace from the Suez to Singapore until WW2 and went on to fight the Imperial Japanese.

One imperial power was fighting another imperial power using the manpower provided by a subjugated territory. Same applies to our participation in WW1 and WW2 as well whether it was the European theater or North Africa. While it is definitely important to remember and commemorate the sacrifices made by Indians in these wars it is also a legitimate argument to say that we had no business fighting on the side of our own oppressors. A third argument made is that Gandhi and some others wanted Indians to fight in WW2 for example to gain combat experience. How true that is I am not sure. But if it is it certainly proved prescient since w reuired the srevices of the professional army we inherited, very quickly after independence.

Something else queers the pitch here. People on the Indian right want to idolise Bose. Bose chose to colloborate with the Imperial Japanese which makes him a traitor to compatriots who died fighting the imperial Japanese.

Again this is not so clear cut. Yes during the battles against the Japanese in the North-East BIA soldiers fought and killed the INA soldiers. But when the INA soldiers were court-martialed and tried the British could not carry out their sentences for fear of mutiny in the BIA ranks. Auchinleck himself wrote about this in a letter to British officers of the BIA. Indeed mutinies had already started in the RIN in Bombay and in the BIA in a few places. If the sentences had actually been carried out Auchinleck was expecting a complete breakdown of the BIA.

[Double Edge]

While it is definitely important to remember and commemorate the sacrifices made by Indians in these wars it is also a legitimate argument to say that we had no business fighting on the side of our own oppressors.

How do you reconcile the inherent contradiction in that sentence ?

The political side of it dictated the first be forgotten. The suggestion was made that the Indian PM be invited to the Normandy parades. But as pointed out by the general in the show, Indian military officers have attended those get togethers.

A third argument made is that Gandhi and some others wanted Indians to fight in WW2 for example to gain combat experience. How true that is I am not sure. But if it is it certainly proved prescient since w reuired the srevices of the professional army we inherited, very quickly after independence.

AFAIK Gandhi & Nehru were against any involvement by India in WW2. The reason was the British reneged on according autonomy for our participation in WW1. That provided the impetus for the Quit India movement that Gandhi started shortly after WW1 ended. They might have relented later realising the ultimate prize was independence. The left was against participation in WW2 but once Russia was attacked changed their position. The right had no objections to participating in WW2.

Again this is not so clear cut. Yes during the battles against the Japanese in the North-East BIA soldiers fought and killed the INA soldiers. But when the INA soldiers were court-martialed and tried the British could not carry out their sentences for fear of mutiny in the BIA ranks. Auchinleck himself wrote about this in a letter to British officers of the BIA. Indeed mutinies had already started in the RIN in Bombay and in the BIA in a few places. If the sentences had actually been carried out Auchinleck was expecting a complete breakdown of the BIA.

Fine but that left the INA soldiers and by extension the INA where exactly ? Could they return to their outfits or were they disbanded if not court martialed.

[DarthSiddius]

One imperial power was fighting another imperial power using the manpower provided by a subjugated territory. Same applies to our participation in WW1 and WW2 as well whether it was the European theater or North Africa. While it is definitely important to remember and commemorate the sacrifices made by Indians in these wars it is also a legitimate argument to say that we had no business fighting on the side of our own oppressors.[/B] A third argument made is that Gandhi and some others wanted Indians to fight in WW2 for example to gain combat experience. How true that is I am not sure. But if it is it certainly proved prescient since w reuired the srevices of the professional army we inherited, very quickly after independence.

You are right, one imperial power was fighting another. Having said that I still think it was our business to help the British fight the Japanese (and the Germans). Not that we had an option - India, being British India at that time, was at war with the Axis powers. You should read up on the Land Disposal Plan. The Axis powers had grand plans (too grand as it turns out) and India was part of those plans.

Indian soldiers played a decisive role in defending India from the Japanese. The battles of Kohima and Imphal are considered to be amongst the greatest British victories. And they are! But they are also Indian victories, as Indian soldiers fought the Japanese, and at times other Indian soldiers (INA) to defend India, in India. And honestly, this alone should be a reason good enough to commemorate and remember them. Also, the added bonus of being on the right side of history - fighting Fascism and all!

There really is no reason to believe (and plenty of reasons to believe otherwise) that India under the Japanese influence would have been any better than British India. And the Japanese would have brought the war to India one way or another. Again, we had no business fighting on the side of our own oppressors but it was our business to fight for ourselves!

As it turned out India got it's Independence after the war, are we certain that we would have had it if the Japanese were in charge? I shudder to think what would have happened if the Japanese and the INA were successful.

Again this is not so clear cut. Yes during the battles against the Japanese in the North-East BIA soldiers fought and killed the INA soldiers. But when the INA soldiers were court-martialed and tried the British could not carry out their sentences for fear of mutiny in the BIA ranks. Auchinleck himself wrote about this in a letter to British officers of the BIA. Indeed mutinies had already started in the RIN in Bombay and in the BIA in a few places. If the sentences had actually been carried out Auchinleck was expecting a complete breakdown of the BIA.

The difference is killing attacking INA soldiers to defend your regiment/country under attack vs killing them after the battle was won at which point they were just ex-compatriots who really were exploited POWs. This reluctance in carrying out the sentences by the British should be an indication that the average Indian soldier was not just fighting to protect British objectives.

Not sure why there is such a yearning for recognition from the British in this thread. Yes, colonialism was bad and exploitative, and the British sure did a lot of reprehensible things in the past - just like any other colonial power. We really need to move on from beating this dead horse.

[Double Edge]

Not sure why there is such a yearning for recognition from the British in this thread. Yes, colonialism was bad and exploitative, and the British sure did a lot of reprehensible things in the past - just like any other colonial power. We really need to move on from beating this dead horse.

If we hauled their asses out of the fire not once but twice then that needs recognition. Changes the perception doesn't it, they colonise us but still depend on us to save themselves.

We are no longer weak & subjugated. They are no longer better than us.

If you want to forge a national identity then everything helps.

[DarthSiddius]

If we hauled their asses out of the fire not once but twice then that needs recognition. Changes the perception doesn't it, they colonise us but still depend on us to save themselves.

But that's just it. It was not just their asses we saved in WW2, we saved our own as well. And there is recognition. Just not to the degree you and others might deem appropriate. But then what is appropriate? Why do we even care what they think? We are to blame as well, the sacrifice of Indian soldiers in WW1 and 2 is hardly a talking point in our own circles.

[Double Edge]

But that's just it. It was not just their asses we saved in WW2, we saved our own as well. And there is recognition. Just not to the degree you and others might deem appropriate. But then what is appropriate? Why do we even care what they think? We are to blame as well, the sacrifice of Indian soldiers in WW1 and 2 is hardly a talking point in our own circles.

The man said a plaque outside parliament.

Why do we care what they think ? what motivated Tharoor to give his speech at Oxford ?

He saw there were attempts afoot by people to whitewash things and thought he's set the record straight.

This is just a small part in a grand project

What motivated Malhotra to go down this path is during a party in '99 he asks Ashish Nandy what it means to be an Indian. The answer he got was two sentences.

If that is all a noted sociologist can say on the matter then who we are needs work.

We're not going to get better otherwise or reach our potential.

Every country you would consider advanced has a grand narrative.

[Double Edge]

The immediate beneficiaries of such a recognition would be British Asians.

They feel good about their heritage they try to reconnect with us.

They then become a lobby for us there and prevent actions detrimental to our interests.

Indians in the states (Canada even ) are more ahead as a political lobby than in the UK.

Wembley remains the biggest draw Modi got. Nearing 60k, beating Houston.

Yet you don't get the feeling that the Indian lobby there is very effective.

Labour party passing a resolution, unopposed against 370 shows we don't have bipartisan support in the UK unlike in other countries.

[DarthSiddius]

The man said a plaque outside parliament.

Why do we care what they think ?

It shouldn't matter. After all, it is our duty to remember our fallen not Britain's. A plaque outside the Sansad Bhawan would be far more impactful in my opinion.

what motivated Tharoor to give his speech at Oxford ?

He saw there were attempts afoot by people to whitewash things and thought he's set the record straight.

Tharoor was invited for the debate I believe. He made some great arguments and I agree with a lot he said. But we are not critiquing the Empire here. The topic is Indian contribution to the world wars.

Don't get me wrong, it would be great for Britain to recognize and remember the contribution of Indian soldiers (British subjects at that time) more. But let's not lose context. Our role was limited to certain sectors. Italy, Africa, India. We didn't save Britain (or their asses) in the battle for Britain for instance. Having the largest volunteer army in history (2.5 million strong) was an amazing asset surely, and was certainly of immense use to the British and the Allied forces. The BIA was the principal force against the Japanese in South East Asian theatre. This doesn't mean that just by itself the BIA was responsible for Britain winning the war. They were one of the reasons for an Allied victory and this alone should be good enough reason to remember them!

[Double Edge]

If it were up to me it would be in their school books. British school books. Plaques are only visible to those who see them.

Don't dilute what has been said. Let me repeat this again

Sir Claude Auchinleck, Commander-in-Chief of the Indian Army once said "Britain couldn't have come through the wars if they hadn't had the Indian Army."

No Indians they lose. Both wars. Simple.

That guy would have prevented a million deaths from Partition if he was not over ruled by Mountbatten. I wonder what the reasons were. They had something better to do or some where else to be.

[Firestorm]

How do you reconcile the inherent contradiction in that sentence ?

There is no contradiction. You can recognize the sacrifices made by individual soldiers while still opposing participation in the war. Opponents of the Vietnam war and the Iraq war in the US did the same for example.

AFAIK Gandhi & Nehru were against any involvement by India in WW2. The reason was the British reneged on according autonomy for our participation in WW1. That provided the impetus for the Quit India movement that Gandhi started shortly after WW1 ended. They might have relented later realising the ultimate prize was independence. The left was against participation in WW2 but once Russia was attacked changed their position. The right had no objections to participating in WW2.

Quit India movement was started in 1942, not right after WW1. Gandhi's actions have always had internal contradictions. He supported participation in WW1 for example while exhorting non-violence at the same time and criticizing armed revolutionaries who were directly fighting the British. Many of these stem from the inherent ineffectiveness of his philosophy when it came to actually forcing the British hand. But like I said, I have no reference for what I said about him wanting participation so that the largely disarmed Indian populace gains combat skills. That might have been during WW1 instead, not WW2.

Fine but that left the INA soldiers and by extension the INA where exactly ? Could they return to their outfits or were they disbanded if not court martialed.

Most of them were not accepted back. That is a thorny point in itself with various people blaming Nehru, the IA leadership or both. But they were not sentenced for the crimes that the British accused them of, and that was largely due to the British fear of mutiny in the BIA if that happened.

P.S: There were exceptions - like RS Benegal. He trained to be a fighter pilot with the Japanese while being part of the INA. Later, he joined the IAF and actually won the MVC in 1971! Quite a remarkable story.