Japan vows to invest $35 billion over 5 years in India

[Bigfella]

BF, think you mean Bose, not Modi.

you are sharp as always sir. Ta. :)

[Officer of Engineers]

you are sharp as always sir. Ta. :)

Some days. Others, I can't tie my shoe laces. Damned my nurse hid my scotch collection those days.

[astralis]

In my view British are not Holier than the Japanese. British had committed atrocities to Indians ...not the Japanese. So I take the Japanese devil anyday over the British devil (exception are everywhere but they are exceptions.)

if you can't tell the difference between the IJA and the british, you have some serious blinders on.

there's a good reason why even though the british had been happily trampling over the rest of east/southeast asia with the french for a century, there were serious resistance movements in every country the japanese occupied after less than a year.

the reason why Gandhi succeeded was because the british ultimately thought of indians as human. even the old imperialist churchill couldn't stomach amritsar.

the IJA openly CELEBRATED such mass murder, because anyone not japanese wasn't human.

[tbm3fan]

Quote Originally Posted by sated buddha View Post
The special meeting with Saichiro Misumi and the reverence and genuine warmth shown. This coming close on the heels of the Indian government wanting to confer on Col. Nizamuddina, the 114-year-old former INA officer and close aide of Netaji, the title of Freedom Fighter officially.

Looking at that photo I really wonder if the Japanese fellow even knows who is shaking his hand or even knows where he is sitting while someone is trying to look up into his barely open eyes.

Great photo op if nothing else.

[tbm3fan]

That said, I do not think we need to defend Netaji to anyone. As others have said, this was not our war, though we should be recognize the bravery and heroism of our soldiers who did lay their lives for this.

Oh, you would have been || that close if the British had pulled back. Then while retaking Delhi from the Japanese you would have been able to experience first hand what the Japanese did to the Filipinos in Manila. I'm pretty sure the Japanese had the same ideas about Indians as they had of Filipinos.

[antimony]

Oh, you would have been || that close if the British had pulled back. Then while retaking Delhi from the Japanese you would have been able to experience first hand what the Japanese did to the Filipinos in Manila. I'm pretty sure the Japanese had the same ideas about Indians as they had of Filipinos.

And if my Aunty had a mustache I would call her Uncle. I think I have already acknowledged Japanese war crimes around IndoChina. I don't need to imagine additional "what if" scenarios; we are talking historical facts and their interpretations here.

[Officer of Engineers]

And if my Aunty had a mustache I would call her Uncle.

No, you still will call her Aunty. Google bearded ladies ... on 2nd thought, don't.

[antimony]

Actually, no, I said the British Indian Army saved India from the IJE. A far different cry than the British. The British Army and the British Indian Army are two seperate entities.

Actually, I did some more research and what I found is facinating. The myth has overtaken the reality. Today, everyone of you, including my friend Hitesh, has stated that WWII was not India's war. I could not fathom that. 2.5 million men do not volunteer for a war not their own.

Then it was suggested that these men fought the war because London promised independence. That sounded absurbed. These men could have won India's independence by staying home. Great Britain needed all her Dominions in the War. Without two very specific countries, Canada and India, she would have surrendered. India, obviously for her manpower, but also industries. Canada, for her navy, and a link to the US.

The simple truth is that WWII was very much India's war. Both native Indian political leadership and the Indian populace supported the war full heartily. There were two myths borned and each trying to compete against the other. The Indian National Congress got Britain to promise independence and Bose was fighting for Indian independence. Both are factual myths. India and Indians chosed to fight WWII, for whatever reasons, but not for reasons that both Ghandi and Bose myths stated.

The Indian political leadership, yes, but the Indian populace? I believe patience with the British was mighty short after Quit India and then especially after the Bengal famine.

Ghandi and the Indian National Congress wanted to trade India's participation in WWII in exchange for independence. The British initially refused and jailed the entire leadership both national and local, almost 100,000 overnight. The rest of the Indian dominated Viceroy, supported the war, for whatever reasons. The munitions orders alone made a lot of Indians rich.

However, the writing was on the wall for London and in 1942, the Cripps mission was sent to negotiate with the Indian National Congress about her full support for the war in exchange for British withdrawl. It failed. Ghandi wanted a timetable. London cannot guarrantee one since she was not in control of the war and thus do not know when the war will end. In other words, the negotiations failed to get Britain to leave.

In other words, there was no British promise to leave India. But you all can see where that myth came from.

I agree there was no British promise. I believe Gandhi, Nehru and many of the westernized Indian political leadership knew what was going on in Europe and understood that a wise course would be to support the Allies against Germany and Japan. That is different from the Indian populace being on board.

This being all said, 2.5 million families got the blessing of the Indian National Political leadership to send their sons to war. Two very large myths got sprung up to say otherwise. Neither is true.

Those 2.5 million families never needed/ wanted the blessings of the Indian political leadership. They had been working for the British Raj since the Raj was established. Note, for the Raj, not for India. The predecessors of the Gurkhas (9th Gurkha) who fought in Malaya, Italry and North Africa also pulled the triggers on civilians in Jallianwala Bagh

India was in WWII because she wanted to be.

BIA soldiers were in WWII because they wanted/ needed to be.

SB stated that this was paying homage to Japan. I'm stating outright that is a freaking lie.

This I agree, with, it was a show for nationalist types at home. His drum routine impressed me much more.

[antimony]

No, you still will call her Aunty. Google bearded ladies ... on 2nd thought, don't.

Looks like you found the scotch :)

[antimony]

Bad history is always galling, especially when it sweeps tens of millions of bodies under the carpet in order to pursue a particular narrative.

As I have said, our focus was/ is on a different part of history - the Independence Movement. Different focus area, different historical facts, different heroes and villains.

You talked about millions of bodies swept under the carpet.

Lets take a different example - Winston Churchill. Churchill might be a great statesman and hero to the Anglo American world, but to many of us (to me) he is an Imperialist, racist pig, for his derogatory views on Indians, his attempts to divide Indians to his utter callousness and indifference during the 1943 Bengal famine, which killed 3 million. How many of these facts are widely publicized about Churchill?

[antimony]

On Antimony, ever noticed that all the Siberian Divisions on parade in Red Square was always caucasians?

Yes, and you are reinforcing my point. These brave soldiers did not deserve the ignominy.

[Bigfella]

As I have said, our focus was/ is on a different part of history - the Independence Movement. Different focus area, different historical facts, different heroes and villains.

You talked about millions of bodies swept under the carpet.

Lets take a different example - Winston Churchill. Churchill might be a great statesman and hero to the Anglo American world, but to many of us (to me) he is an Imperialist, racist pig, for his derogatory views on Indians, his attempts to divide Indians to his utter callousness and indifference during the 1943 Bengal famine, which killed 3 million. How many of these facts are widely publicized about Churchill?

My dislike of selective history is universal. My dislike of Churchill is specific, quite strong & based on a large body of work ranging from merely incompetent to downright loathsome. His failures are widely known, if not necessarily as far to the front as I believe they should be. I am no more a fan of people who fawn over Churchill than I am people who fawn over Bose. I have a more positive view of Churchill only because he was actually put in the position of having to make important decisions about huge things, unlike Bose. As a result his clay feet are considerably more obvious than those of someone who was peripheral to important events. Churchill achieved some great things. He also did some terrible ones, and not just to colonized peoples. Bose postured from the sidelines in a struggle that was ultimately decided by others, despite the inflated claims of the fanbois (cue reference to military unrest in 1946). I have little time for hero worship of either man.

[antimony]

My dislike of selective history is universal. My dislike of Churchill is specific, quite strong & based on a large body of work ranging from merely incompetent to downright loathsome. His failures are widely known, if not necessarily as far to the front as I believe they should be. I am no more a fan of people who fawn over Churchill than I am people who fawn over Bose. I have a more positive view of Churchill only because he was actually put in the position of having to make important decisions about huge things, unlike Bose. As a result his clay feet are considerably more obvious than those of someone who was peripheral to important events. Churchill achieved some great things. He also did some terrible ones, and not just to colonized peoples. Bose postured from the sidelines in a struggle that was ultimately decided by others, despite the inflated claims of the fanbois (cue reference to military unrest in 1946). I have little time for hero worship of either man.

BF,

It is not about you or me individually. I realize you are not a great fan of Churchill, and I don't hero worship Bose as much as I used to, especially since coming to know of the Japanese love for "Indian cooking" (gross and offensive pun intended). However, I am sure our societies have a different view, hence my POV about different historical perspective remain.

[sated buddha]

So last week, I was deep in week-long technocommercial negotiations and meetings with my Aussie partners from Sydney. One day, one of them tried explaining to us about their distaste for Churchill. He was going on and on about some battle where the British left Australian and New Zealand soldiers high and dry or some such. I think it was WWI. There was this cliff or mountain or something and the Brits (Churchill specifically) kep ordering the Aussies and New Zealanders to keep attacking the defensive positions on top (much like Kargil type situation sounds like) in spite of the impossibility, and the Aussies and New Zealanders kept attacking and kept getting cut to shreds. Seems Churchill does not have too many friends in Australia and New Zealand as well as India. They openly agree he was a racist and used the "colonials" lie the Aussies and the New Zealanders as just so much disposable cannon fodder. No surprise then where we brown skins came in the pecking order if the white colonies were used thus.

So please do give us a break with this whole raah raah routine about the great British Empire and how we Indians were the British Empire.

Read my lips OOE. WE LOATHED THE BRITISH EMPIRE. AND WE STLL LOATHE WHAT THEY DID AND WHAT THEY STOOD FOR. Do spare yourself the effort of the eulogies. Its making ZERO impression on us.

And this whole charade about 2.5 million Indians "volunteering" is the biggest sham I have heard in some time. The British had stripped India of everything. Grinding poverty was the fate of 400 million Indians at the time. There was no livelihood. In such circumstances a job in the army ensured some food on the table and some clothes on the backs of their wives and kids back home. When you see your child crying with hunger and dying of disease, a man will do ANYTHING. Volunteer to fight for the people he hates? That's NOTHING! He will kill his own if it comes to that.

Things have not changed all that much today. The Indian Army is still one of the biggest employers and sought after secure jobs for thousands and lakhs of our rural youth all over the country. It does not mean they enlist only for the security and the money. But you cannot ignore the fact that a job in the Army in this part of the world, while voluntary, does come with financial strings attached. It may not be the case in rich Western countries where the populations are smaller, food is plentiful, and other jobs are there. In India, it is still one of THE go-to options for a huge ercentage of our village boys.

Now look back to WWI and WWII and ask yourselves if the situation for our boys and their families was worse than what it is today, or better.

So lets call a spade a spade. Indians volunteered to fight for the British because the British left them with no food to eat otherwise on their own. Period.

[sated buddha]

Did some digging to understand what my Ausie partner was talking about.

Why Indians need their Anzac moment

As military tributes go, two nations couldn't do things more differently.

While New Zealand observes Anzac Day to honour the 18,000 New Zealanders killed during World War I (and specifically the 2721 men killed at Gallipoli, Turkey), in marked contrast India, which lost 78,187 men during the same war, ignores the contribution of its brave soldiers.

Gallipoli was a British military campaign that ended in disaster. Some Australians such as former Prime Minister Paul Keating see World War I as a meat grinder into which Britain's Winston Churchill callously despatched tens of thousands of young men. In a speech delivered in October 2008 Keating said: "The truth is that Gallipoli was shocking for us. Dragged into service by the imperial government in an ill conceived and poorly executed campaign, we were cut to ribbons and dispatched. And none of it in the defence of Australia....we still go on as though the nation was born again or even, was redeemed there. An utter and complete nonsense. For these reasons I have never been to Gallipoli and I never will."

However, many New Zealanders and Aussies believe Gallipoli was the defining moment that fostered a sense of national identity in the two countries. Anzac Day is, therefore, a major event in New Zealand and is marked by parades and remembrances.

However, India's vital contribution to the Allied victory in the war rarely gets a mention - home or away. The war mobilisation in the subcontinent in terms of men and material was several orders of magnitude greater than the contributions made by other nations.

"India recruited over 1.4 million men and sent more than 1.3 million of them overseas to fight for the British Empire between 1914 and 1918, saving Britain and her allies from an ignominious defeat," says a report by the New Delhi-based Times of India.

According to the report, "When Great Britain declared war on Germany on August 4, 1914 it had only about 150,000 combat-ready troops. It could commit only a little over 80,000 troops to the Western Front in the initial days of the war. In comparison, France had an army of 1,290,000 while Germany had an even bigger army of 1,900,000. The only professional standing army that Britain could bank upon in that crisis was the Indian Army. Britain would use this imperial reserve to the fullest throughout the war, and Indian troops would become the first fighting non-white colonial soldiers in Europe ever."

Of the over 1.3 million Indian troops, 700,000 were pitted against the Ottoman Empire. In Gallipoli they formed part of the Australia New Zealand Division. Of the 5010 Indian soldiers who served in Anzac, 1926 died and 3863 were wounded.

Pradeep Kanthan, author and independent researcher, provides an excellent account of the Indian involvement in Anzac and the wider conflict. He offers an enlightening quote from an Australian Imperial Force commemoration of the Australia New Zealand Division:

"This fighting force was complete only with the participation of troops from India. Several accounts of the campaign remember the Indian soldiers and the camaraderie they shared, which alas is not commemorated as much as it rightly deserves."

The great divide

The arrival of the Indian Army in Europe was fraught with several constraints. Britain was reluctant to ship large numbers of Indian soldiers overseas because the colonial government knew it was sitting on dynamite. For nearly 200 years Britain had employed Indian soldiers to expand the empire. It was the Indian Army that ensured the safety of British lives in a country that was forever rebellious. "The moment Britain gets into trouble elsewhere, India, in her present temper, would burst into a blaze of rebellion," wrote Scottish critic William Archer.

The main reason for the distrust was that just 57 years before the outbreak of World War I, Indian soldiers of the British East India Company had revolted on a nationwide scale, sparking India's First War of Independence. The British were able to cling on to the second richest country in the world only by their fingernails.

The horrendous bloodletting of the 1857 War had indelibly left a scar on the collective British psyche, with even a humanist like Charles Dickens calling for the annihilation of the Indian race. The Indian Army was therefore, considered a double-edged sword - it had to be wielded carefully for the preservation and expansion of the British Empire.

The British, therefore, constantly tweaked the composition of the Indian Army, in step with the shifting alliances with Indian kingdoms and religious groups. In fact as early as 1843 a leading British educationist named Thomas Macaulay had advised Britain to choose Muslims over Hindu "idolaters" because where Hinduism seemed like a strange religion to colonial soldiers and administrators, many of who were evangelists too, in their eyes Islam was a sister faith with ancient connections to Christianity.

"The duty of our Government is, as I said, to take no part in the disputes between Mahometans and idolaters," Macaulay said in a speech in the British parliament. "But, if our Government does take a part, there cannot be a doubt that Mahometanism is entitled to the preference."

The Indian Army at the time of the 1857 War was overwhelmingly Hindu. Once the lost territories were re-conquered the colonial government adopted a policy of chipping away at the Hindu component of the army.

When World War I started the Indian Army was starkly unrepresentative of India. The country was nearly 80 per cent Hindu but Muslims formed around two-thirds of the Indian Army, with soldiers recruited largely from Punjab and Baluchistan in present-day Pakistan. The British preferred Muslims from these provinces because Punjabi Muslims and Balochs had offered the least resistance to British colonial rule.

The outbreak of the war presented the British with a major conundrum - they were apprehensive of despatching tens of thousands of Muslim soldiers to fight against Turkey, which was the home of the Islamic Caliphate, which Indian Muslims held in high esteem. So units with Muslim troops were moved away to France, leaving the Hindu Gurkhas and some Sikhs to fight in Gallipoli.

Indian Johnny's

Although the Indian Muslims troops were not comfortable fighting Turkey and some did revolt, largely British fears proved to be baseless. M.K. Gandhi had played such a brilliant role in dousing Indian anger against the colonial government that even those who were preparing for a final showdown with the British security forces became influenced by his peacenik overtures.

During World War I the self-styled apostle of non-violence and peace urged Indians to enlist as combatants in the British Army. He in fact set up recruitment camps to enlist Indians. For his efforts he was awarded the Kaiser-i-Hind (Caesar of India), British India's highest civilian award.

Much earlier Gandhi had written: "Should the British be thrown out of India? Can it be done, even if we wish to do so? To these two questions we can reply that we stand to lose by ending British rule and that, even if we want, India is not in a position to end it."

The masses were won over by the half-naked man pretending to be fighting the mightiest empire of the day, when in reality he was most likely collaborating with it.

Gandhi's sales pitch aside, there was another reason why Indians volunteered in such massive numbers to join the army. That was poverty. Industry and agriculture had been almost entirely destroyed under colonial rule. The country that invented calculus before Isaac Newton and the 'Pythagoras' theorem before Pythagoras was now reduced to a nation of "hewers of wood and drawers of water". In this backdrop, for an illiterate peasant the army assured a steady monthly income.

Despite the brutality of the Raj, India came to the empire's defence. The UK's History Learning site says: "When war was declared on August 4, 1914, India rallied to the cause. Offers of financial and military help were made from all over the country. Hugely wealthy princes offered great sums of money. Despite the pre-war fears of unrest, Britain, in fact, could take many troops and most of her military equipment out of India as fears of unrest subsided. Indian troops were ready for battle before most other troops in the dominions.

"They fought in most theatres of war including Gallipoli and North and East Africa. In all 47,746 were classed as killed or missing with 65,000 wounded. The Indian Corps won 13,000 medals for gallantry including 12 Victoria Crosses.

"Such was the cost of the war, that India's economy was pushed to near bankruptcy."

The Indian support given to Britain's cause surprised the establishment in Britain. The Times wrote: "The Indian empire has overwhelmed the British nation by the completeness and unanimity of its enthusiastic aid."

There was a fair bit of camaraderie between Indian and Anzac troops. Major H.M. Alexander, Indian Mule Transport, said: "The Anzacs called every Indian 'Johnny' and treated them like a brother, with the consequences that the Indians liked them even more... I often saw parties of Australians and New Zealanders sitting in the lines, eating chuppatties and talking to the men."

Blanking out the Great War

The chief reason for the collective amnesia about the Indian contribution is that India itself does not care to remember the conflict. Because mercenary Indian soldiers were fighting for the Raj, there was hardly any interest in the war that was being fought a continent away.

Based on monitoring of letters written by Indian soldiers to their families back home, "Indian soldiers were less likely to remark that they were fighting for 'India' than for the king" says a BBC report. The fact that these soldiers were not fighting for India but for the Raj is one of the reasons World War I has never really touched a chord in India despite the ultimate sacrifice by over 78,000 men.

It's a bit like boxing world champion Mohammad Ali refusing to be drafted in the US Army during the Vietnam War, saying: "No Vietcong ever called me ******." Indeed, why would a black man fight for America where he was a treated worse than an animal.

Similarly, in India there is a feeling that Gandhi should never have bailed out the British. Nearly all Indian leaders unanimously said Britain must first treat Indian soldiers as equal, starting with equal pay for equal rank. Also, Indian military officers who were expected to die for the Raj were not allowed to use the swimming pools used by British officers - in India. These demands were shot down.

The other quid pro quo insisted upon by Indian political leaders was that Britain should pack up its bags after the war. The colonial government offered some vague promises including dominion status like Britain had granted Canada. Of course, after the war, Britain backtracked on these assurances.

At any rate, European conflicts were too distant and rarely bothered the Indian masses. Even during World War II (during which two million Indian soldiers fought for the British) the interest of the Indian masses as well as the political leadership was limited to rejoicing at the setbacks received by the British Army against Adolf Hitler's Germany. In fact, despite Hitler's contempt for Indians, many Indians supported the Nazi leader and collaborated with the Fuhrer simply because he was the enemy's enemy.

The reason why India's contribution has been overlooked overseas is that "as an erstwhile colony India's contribution was taken for granted and with no independent political resonance to back it up".

In France, for instance, 78 per cent believe India stayed neutral in the conflict and didn't send any troops. The reality is that over 140,000 Indian soldiers fought to defend France and thousands died while doing so.

Another reason for India's cavalier attitude towards Gallipoli and the World War I is that in the Indian consciousness these conflicts were hardly as cataclysmic as the wars fought by Indians in India. Over the centuries Hindus had fought life-or-death battles against Islamic invaders from Arabia, Afghanistan, Central Asia and Iran. In the 1857 War against the British, 10 million Indians were killed.

As Kanthan says, the Indian Army in its history from 1757 to 1914 had on many occasions suffered heavier casualties where whole battalions were wiped out. "Thus Gallipoli was not such a major milestone for the Indian Army as it is for Anzac," he says. In fact, even during World War I much heavier casualties were suffered in France and Flanders.

Turkey's Ataturk, who led the Turks to victory at Gallipoli, wrote: "Those heroes that shed their blood, and lost their lives, you are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore, rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side here in this country of ours. You, the mothers, who sent their sons from far away countries, wipe away your tears. Your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land, they have become our sons as well."

Don't abandon your fallen

Even though it was a lost cause and thousands of New Zealanders died in World War I, the country continues to respect its dead. This is something the Indian political leadership needs to emulate. Last week when a highly decorated Indian Army officer and another soldier died fighting Islamic terrorists in Kashmir, the Indian media ran this headline: "Major killed in Kashmir". No names, no mention of their heroics. This is the pathetic depth to which Indian pride has fallen under the Nehru-Gandhi fat cats.

India's participation in World War I should no longer be viewed as a shameful thing but needs to be remembered as a great tragedy that claimed over 78,000 Indians lives. Those men fought bravely despite fighting to save a foreign empire. Their sacrifices seem greater when you consider that Britain didn't protect its own empire or its subjects when it mattered. In 1942 when Japan attacked Malaya, tens of thousands of British soldiers melted away or surrendered before the Japanese Army.

Today, in India there is a growing sense of India's "re-rise". Memories of how Gandhi emasculated the Indian freedom movement are giving way to new pride in missions to the moon and Mars. But with power must come maturity. If Turkey can embrace its enemies, India should have no hesitation in offering a final tribute to its own sons.

(Rakesh Krishnan is a Features Writer at Fairfax Media and writes a column on strategic affairs for the Moscow-based Rossiyskaya Gazeta Group, Russia's leading media conglomerate)

- Auckland City Harbour News

Why Indians need their Anzac moment | Stuff.co.nz