02-03-2004, 04:26 AM
http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?m...t&counter_img=2
What if INA had backfired?
Priyadarsi Dutta
Mutiny" should not be an inglorious description of 1857. One soldier rebelling was more calamitous than 10 swordsmen launching a frontal attach. Not unreasonably, Rash Behari Bose (1885-1945) had tried to apply the wisdom of 1857 "Mutiny" way back in 1915 from Lahore. Acting in league with Ghadar Party, he had meticulously planned a mutiny in army cantonments spanning from Peshawar to Singapore. However, the mutiny was betrayed deferring India's independence. In 1942, Rash Behari helped raise the INA in Singapore whose Supreme Commandership passed on to Netaji Subhas Bose in August 1943.
INA's potential should not be assessed on its face value. Were INA successful in liberating Imphal, it would have had a domino effect. The British Indian Army comprised Indians overwhelmingly. Indians would have shifted their loyalty and joined Subhas' patriotic army. No wonder, the Red Fort trial provoked the revolt of Naval Ratings in February 1946 at Bombay and Karachi docks.
Michael Edwards writes in Last Years of British India (p.93): "If Subhas and his men had been on the right side - and all India now confirmed that they were - then Indians in Indian Army must have been on the wrong side. It slowly dawned upon the government of India that the backbone of the British rule, the Indian Army might now no longer be trustworthy." Netaji shattered that backbone of this unqualified loyalty never disturbed by Congress.
But Subhasists emotionally claim that had Netaji succeeded India would not have been partitioned. Would that have been a boon or disaster? There is no gainsaying that Muslims, whose contribution to freedom movement post-1857 (under the profound impact of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan) had been next to nothing, fought valiantly in INA. Netaji could weld Hindu/Sikhs-Muslims-Christians in an exemplary brotherhood. But two big questions remain. One, could a two-year long communal honeymoon by men in uniform in South-East Asia solve 1200-old communal discord amongst 400 million Indians? Two, what would have happened if Netaji would not have been there? For example Netaji's legendary "trusted aide" Habibur Rehman fought zealously on Pakistani side in 1948 in Kashmir.
BR Ambedkar sagaciously observes in Thoughts on Pakistan, 1940 (reprinted Pakistan or Partition of India, 1946): "...the Indian Army today is predominantly Muslim in its composition. The other is that the Musalmaans who predominate are the Musalmaans from the Punjab and the NWFP. Such a composition of the Indian Army means that they are sole defenders of India from foreign invasion. So patent has this fact become that the Musalmaans from the Punjab and NWFP are quite conscious of this proud position, which has been assigned to them. For, one often hears them say that they are the "gate-keepers" of India. The Hindus must consider the problem of the defence of India in the light of this crucial fact - if Afghans singly or in combination with other Muslim states march on India, will these gatekeepers stop invaders or will open the gates and let them in? This is a question which no Hindu can afford to ignore." He adds: "To oppose Partition is to buy a sure weapon of (Hindus') own destruction. A safe army is better than a safe border."
The Muslim presence in peacetime army varied anywhere between 52 to 70 per cent by various estimates. Would army (including the vast numbers who never crossed over to INA) been eternally loyal to Netaji or the succeeding head of state? Ambedkar asks, "That the Indian Army behaves well under British control is no guarantee of its good behaviour under Indian control. A Hindu must be satisfied that it will behave as well when British control is withdrawn."
United India would have been a catastrophe ruled by a Muslim military Junta. But Ambedkar with his sound grasp of situation was academic still. Even after Partition, what would have happened if that large Muslim army turned back and conquered vast tracts of Punjab, Bengal and Assam a la Kashmir defending by a much smaller Hindu army?
The man who saved us from this situation was Veer Savarkar with his cry "Militarise Hindus" he prevailed upon Hindu-Sikh youths to enlist themselves in large numbers in the British Army during World War II. Congress was against enlistment but its writ ran only over Hindus. Yet Hindus, majority in the country, easily outnumbered Muslims once they started enlisting, encouraged by Savarkar's "whirlwind propaganda". Thus at independence the Hindu-Sikh proportion stood around 75 per cent against 25 per cent Muslim.
What if INA had backfired?
Priyadarsi Dutta
Mutiny" should not be an inglorious description of 1857. One soldier rebelling was more calamitous than 10 swordsmen launching a frontal attach. Not unreasonably, Rash Behari Bose (1885-1945) had tried to apply the wisdom of 1857 "Mutiny" way back in 1915 from Lahore. Acting in league with Ghadar Party, he had meticulously planned a mutiny in army cantonments spanning from Peshawar to Singapore. However, the mutiny was betrayed deferring India's independence. In 1942, Rash Behari helped raise the INA in Singapore whose Supreme Commandership passed on to Netaji Subhas Bose in August 1943.
INA's potential should not be assessed on its face value. Were INA successful in liberating Imphal, it would have had a domino effect. The British Indian Army comprised Indians overwhelmingly. Indians would have shifted their loyalty and joined Subhas' patriotic army. No wonder, the Red Fort trial provoked the revolt of Naval Ratings in February 1946 at Bombay and Karachi docks.
Michael Edwards writes in Last Years of British India (p.93): "If Subhas and his men had been on the right side - and all India now confirmed that they were - then Indians in Indian Army must have been on the wrong side. It slowly dawned upon the government of India that the backbone of the British rule, the Indian Army might now no longer be trustworthy." Netaji shattered that backbone of this unqualified loyalty never disturbed by Congress.
But Subhasists emotionally claim that had Netaji succeeded India would not have been partitioned. Would that have been a boon or disaster? There is no gainsaying that Muslims, whose contribution to freedom movement post-1857 (under the profound impact of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan) had been next to nothing, fought valiantly in INA. Netaji could weld Hindu/Sikhs-Muslims-Christians in an exemplary brotherhood. But two big questions remain. One, could a two-year long communal honeymoon by men in uniform in South-East Asia solve 1200-old communal discord amongst 400 million Indians? Two, what would have happened if Netaji would not have been there? For example Netaji's legendary "trusted aide" Habibur Rehman fought zealously on Pakistani side in 1948 in Kashmir.
BR Ambedkar sagaciously observes in Thoughts on Pakistan, 1940 (reprinted Pakistan or Partition of India, 1946): "...the Indian Army today is predominantly Muslim in its composition. The other is that the Musalmaans who predominate are the Musalmaans from the Punjab and the NWFP. Such a composition of the Indian Army means that they are sole defenders of India from foreign invasion. So patent has this fact become that the Musalmaans from the Punjab and NWFP are quite conscious of this proud position, which has been assigned to them. For, one often hears them say that they are the "gate-keepers" of India. The Hindus must consider the problem of the defence of India in the light of this crucial fact - if Afghans singly or in combination with other Muslim states march on India, will these gatekeepers stop invaders or will open the gates and let them in? This is a question which no Hindu can afford to ignore." He adds: "To oppose Partition is to buy a sure weapon of (Hindus') own destruction. A safe army is better than a safe border."
The Muslim presence in peacetime army varied anywhere between 52 to 70 per cent by various estimates. Would army (including the vast numbers who never crossed over to INA) been eternally loyal to Netaji or the succeeding head of state? Ambedkar asks, "That the Indian Army behaves well under British control is no guarantee of its good behaviour under Indian control. A Hindu must be satisfied that it will behave as well when British control is withdrawn."
United India would have been a catastrophe ruled by a Muslim military Junta. But Ambedkar with his sound grasp of situation was academic still. Even after Partition, what would have happened if that large Muslim army turned back and conquered vast tracts of Punjab, Bengal and Assam a la Kashmir defending by a much smaller Hindu army?
The man who saved us from this situation was Veer Savarkar with his cry "Militarise Hindus" he prevailed upon Hindu-Sikh youths to enlist themselves in large numbers in the British Army during World War II. Congress was against enlistment but its writ ran only over Hindus. Yet Hindus, majority in the country, easily outnumbered Muslims once they started enlisting, encouraged by Savarkar's "whirlwind propaganda". Thus at independence the Hindu-Sikh proportion stood around 75 per cent against 25 per cent Muslim.