07-07-2005, 10:16 PM
<b>Did India stay neutral in the two World Wars?</b>
by Professor Anirudha Gupta
In neither of the two great Wars: The first between 1914-1919 and second between 1939-1945, did India stay neutral?
Quite the contrary, India became actively involved in all major theatres of the two wars. During 1914-19, the Indian Army was expanded to 2.1 million. Recruited soldiers were sent overseas, particularly in West Asia and the Balkans, to fight on the side of the British.
In World War II, Indian participation reached unprecedented heights. A mighty force of 700,100 were sent to Burma, while other contingents fought the Germans in North Africa, in Ethiopia against Italians and in Italy and the Middle East. Around 30,000 Indians joined the Royal Navy and many thousands served as merchant seamen. The Royal air force attracted 55,000 Indians to work as pilots or ground staff.
A large number of women too joined the Army as nurses, munitions workers and other services. In addition, around 14 million Indians took part in different forms in the war.
The Role of Nationalists and INA
The courage, bravery and endurance of Indian soldiers became legendary. Several soldiers received Victoria Cross. But, the Indian nationalists did not like to over publicize it because Indian soldiers, especially those recruited during the war, were generally considered 'mercenaries'.
There was indeed a strange dichotomy in Congress approach to the WAR. On one side, it condemned the 'war' as imperialist and therefore opposed it. On the other hand individual Congress leaders (like Nehru and Rajagopalachari) pledged full support to British War efforts to fight and defeat the Fascist and Nazi aggressors.
A further complication arose when, in 1943, Netaji Subhas Bose reached Burma to organize a rag-tag force of Indian prisoners of war (INA) and lead into operation against British installations in Burma and Malaya. By this time, however, Allied forces in Europe were advancing everywhere. In Far East as well, British troops began recovering as America, with its mighty military machine, directly sided with Allied forces.
Reviewing the events of the time, one naturally feels that Indian National Army's (INA) war effort was foredoomed. This did not take away any part of INA's posthumous glory, but it did raise a few uneasy questions. One was that in their retreat from Burma, the Japanese could afford no time to worry less about the fate of INA. Knowing this, Bose surely had new or revised plans for the future.
What were they anyway? The INA prisoners on trial at Red Fort were brave soldiers, (including Dhillon, Saigal and Shah Nawaz and others) would surely have divulged such plans, but they never did so. It is possible that Bose had yet to mature his plans after reaching Japan. Or, was it another country? Nobody could be sure.
The amusing part of the INA story is that Congressmen, who had earlier ignored or condemned Netaji's effort, now became his loudest votaries. Popular emotion in support of INA prisoners was so high that even Nehru, who disliked INA'S misadventure, now donned lawyers black clock to defend the prisoners.
Back at home; The Bengal Famine
The most tragic episode during war years was, however, the Great Famine in Bengal. Roughly, 3 million poor people perished and died of starvation on the streets of Calcutta. The deaths reminded old people of the famine that had ravaged Bengal in about 1874 - an episode that provoked sanyasin rebellion.
Popular reaction to the tragedy was great but mostly confined to Bengal. The region's small peasant economy suffered a shattering blow, while agricultural labourers were reported to have been 'wiped out'.
Yet famine also meant super profits for many, including politically important families of the Indian bourgeoisie.
Commenting on Bengal famine of 1943, historian D D Kosambi wrote, 'The Indian bourgeoisie was a specific kind of bourgeoisie, characterized by ravening greed and a mania for speculation rather than initiative or efficiency in developing production.' So, like flies, starving men, women and children perished in the streets of Calcutta, while the bourgeoisie and their spokesmen negotiated transfer of power with the British rulers. But this description is too harsh and over simple.
<b>What we really need is an interconnected account of the events that saw the end of the war and pushed us towards independence. The account - alas - continues to rot in History's cold storage.</b>
by Professor Anirudha Gupta
In neither of the two great Wars: The first between 1914-1919 and second between 1939-1945, did India stay neutral?
Quite the contrary, India became actively involved in all major theatres of the two wars. During 1914-19, the Indian Army was expanded to 2.1 million. Recruited soldiers were sent overseas, particularly in West Asia and the Balkans, to fight on the side of the British.
In World War II, Indian participation reached unprecedented heights. A mighty force of 700,100 were sent to Burma, while other contingents fought the Germans in North Africa, in Ethiopia against Italians and in Italy and the Middle East. Around 30,000 Indians joined the Royal Navy and many thousands served as merchant seamen. The Royal air force attracted 55,000 Indians to work as pilots or ground staff.
A large number of women too joined the Army as nurses, munitions workers and other services. In addition, around 14 million Indians took part in different forms in the war.
The Role of Nationalists and INA
The courage, bravery and endurance of Indian soldiers became legendary. Several soldiers received Victoria Cross. But, the Indian nationalists did not like to over publicize it because Indian soldiers, especially those recruited during the war, were generally considered 'mercenaries'.
There was indeed a strange dichotomy in Congress approach to the WAR. On one side, it condemned the 'war' as imperialist and therefore opposed it. On the other hand individual Congress leaders (like Nehru and Rajagopalachari) pledged full support to British War efforts to fight and defeat the Fascist and Nazi aggressors.
A further complication arose when, in 1943, Netaji Subhas Bose reached Burma to organize a rag-tag force of Indian prisoners of war (INA) and lead into operation against British installations in Burma and Malaya. By this time, however, Allied forces in Europe were advancing everywhere. In Far East as well, British troops began recovering as America, with its mighty military machine, directly sided with Allied forces.
Reviewing the events of the time, one naturally feels that Indian National Army's (INA) war effort was foredoomed. This did not take away any part of INA's posthumous glory, but it did raise a few uneasy questions. One was that in their retreat from Burma, the Japanese could afford no time to worry less about the fate of INA. Knowing this, Bose surely had new or revised plans for the future.
What were they anyway? The INA prisoners on trial at Red Fort were brave soldiers, (including Dhillon, Saigal and Shah Nawaz and others) would surely have divulged such plans, but they never did so. It is possible that Bose had yet to mature his plans after reaching Japan. Or, was it another country? Nobody could be sure.
The amusing part of the INA story is that Congressmen, who had earlier ignored or condemned Netaji's effort, now became his loudest votaries. Popular emotion in support of INA prisoners was so high that even Nehru, who disliked INA'S misadventure, now donned lawyers black clock to defend the prisoners.
Back at home; The Bengal Famine
The most tragic episode during war years was, however, the Great Famine in Bengal. Roughly, 3 million poor people perished and died of starvation on the streets of Calcutta. The deaths reminded old people of the famine that had ravaged Bengal in about 1874 - an episode that provoked sanyasin rebellion.
Popular reaction to the tragedy was great but mostly confined to Bengal. The region's small peasant economy suffered a shattering blow, while agricultural labourers were reported to have been 'wiped out'.
Yet famine also meant super profits for many, including politically important families of the Indian bourgeoisie.
Commenting on Bengal famine of 1943, historian D D Kosambi wrote, 'The Indian bourgeoisie was a specific kind of bourgeoisie, characterized by ravening greed and a mania for speculation rather than initiative or efficiency in developing production.' So, like flies, starving men, women and children perished in the streets of Calcutta, while the bourgeoisie and their spokesmen negotiated transfer of power with the British rulers. But this description is too harsh and over simple.
<b>What we really need is an interconnected account of the events that saw the end of the war and pushed us towards independence. The account - alas - continues to rot in History's cold storage.</b>