WW-II - Indian POV

Discussion in 'World Events' started by rcscwc, Sep 23, 2010.

  1. rcscwc Registered Senior Member

    WW-II - Indian POV

    I am an Indian so I view WW-II from my pov.


    Impossible sons of India shall rise and liberate their Motherland. --- Gandhi

    This is the beginning of the end. --- Winston Churchill

    Both spake in the wake of 1919 Jalianwalla Bagh MASSACRE at Amritsar, India.


    Till 1919, Congress Party and others were only demanding a Dominion Status and Home Rule, like in Canada, Australia etc. But 1919 MASSACRE turned out to be a water shed. Indian attitudes hardened and a complete independence was the new one point charter of demands. The battle was joined. Revolutionaries took a new lease of life, and some of their exploits, like bomb blast in the Assembly, definitely shook the British. In late twenties Gandhi called for non-cooperation and boycott of British goods, pushing Manchester textile industry into bankruptcy.

    During WW-I, the Congress supported the British in return for Home rule. Post War, the British reneged on that promise.

    Later, Germany saw the rise of Hitler. He was of no consequence to Indians and was ignored. In fact Indians were suspicious of him about being from the same pod. What had he to offer? NOTHING. But come 1939, and WW-II broke out. British Indian govt. [not at all representative of Indians] too declared war on Germany. Willy, nilly India was drawn into the War. But Indian hearts definitely not with Britain, or any of its allies. After Tweedledee is not much different from a Tweedledum! Anyway British were imperialists, so were French and Dutch etc. No sympathy. Sure they were getting a few doses of their own medicines. Blunt, is it not? But true too.

    Progress of WAR
    Initially Germany getting all the victories. They were cheered by the Indian at large. Radio sets were scarce, but villagers trudged miles to the nearest set and listened to the war news. Radio Berlin was a special favorite. British tried to ban the RADIOS out right!! Think of that!! Who would enforce the ban? Who could?

    Japan's entry
    Pearl Harbour galvanised Indians like nothing else. WHITES CAN BE BEATEN. That was the refrain. Beat the hell out of them. Ras Bihari Bose organized Indian National Army, recruited from the Indian POWs. It was dependent on Japanese support, military as well as political. Subhash Chandra Bose established Free India Govt, which was promptly recognized by Japan and Germany, AND Soviet Union! INA pushed into India along with the Japanese army and unfurled Indian national flag on soil of India, freed by force of arms.

    The men of INA were declared deserters and mutineers by the British.

    Post WW-II
    There were two significant military events in India. (1) Mutiny by the Indian Navy, [Royal] Indian Air Force AND (2)court martials.

    Pals, I was yet to be born. But my father tells me about the Court Martials. The military courts were anxious to acquit the the accused than the accused WERE!! [ It was not feasible to carry out the sentebes]. British put three officers [mind you OFFICERS] of INA on trial. They wanted to make an example and what a sham it turned out to be!!

    Gandhi, though against violent means, threatened to don the black gown for defense!! What could you expect? Gandhi as a defence lawyer would have got more international press than could be afforded by the British. . Of course the trials collapsed.

    Udham Singh, who as a teenager saw the MASSACRE, pursued Dyer and shot him, in England. His mausoleums a pilgrimage spot.

    The British saw that it was increasingly difficult to hold on to India. It could no longer trust the Indian military to maintain its hold. Moreover, Indians and other Asiatic peoples knew that the myth of "white" invincibility was a MYTH. Are you surprised at Dien Bien Phu?

    British made a "peaceful" with drawl from their POV, in the sense that they were not personal enemies, unlike what happened in Viet Nam and Algeria to France.

    Later events
    French had a few territorial possessions in India. But all of them were transfered to India peacefully. Come on. Dutch had EXACATLY a ONE SQUARE MILE possession which they vacated on 15 August, 1949. Portuguese did bot vacate till they wee forcibly evicted in 1961.


    The prophecies of Churchill and Gandhi WERE fulfilled.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    You're not making Indians look terribly bright, you know.

    So, in a nutshell, you claim you hated the English so much you supported Hitler. You have sympathies for those who supported even a Japanese invasion to get rid of them, all the while probably unaware of their track record with regard to conquered territories up until that point.

    One can understand your despising the conquerer.
    To support those who probably would have turned out even worse, though, in terms of occupational atrocity, speaks more of a nation of disenfranchised slaves than anything else. Ghandi allegedly supporting the sympathisers of the Japanese invader? There's taking a pin to the balloon of reputation. In fact, you make your nation look like a bunch of uneducated peasants crying out for help from anybody to do something they couldn't do themselves.

    In addition, given the Indian divisions role fighting for the British in the second world war, it would appear that your nation was divided on the issue, rather than the united front of opinion you're trying to convey here.

    Last edited: Sep 23, 2010
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    How come the OP skips the recapture of Axis territory, Indian troops fighting in Italy, Africa and the Middle East, etc.? The actual WWII period in the narrative there is awfully abbreviated.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    and ignores the fact that some of the units that the germans feared the most were british colonial troops them and the armies of the states in exile were some of the more feared units to the germans.
  8. Zephyr Humans are ONE Registered Senior Member

    rcscwc is telling the story from an Indian nationalist perspective. Collaborators have no place in that.
  9. rcscwc Registered Senior Member

    Did I claim we hated the English?

    Will you ever get rid of the notion that Indians were bound to despise Hitler just because you people did? When did the westreners start hating Hitler? In 1930 or 33 or 36 or 38 or 39?

    And how do you surmise we support Hitler? He is not our hero. But come on Churchill is definitely our viallin.


    OK, uneducated peasants. But the British and other allies too begged Stalin for his help. NO? And track of record of Stalin? haha. Talk of track records. British and French did not have a bright one. It was jet black.

    And could we not do it? man, we diddit.

    Sure Indian soldiers did fight. But lesser known fact is 20,000 of them deserted and joined Germany. Hushed up. After WW they were repatriated without publicity!! They were not even court martialled.

    Anyway, it is known that many British, French and Americans too were fighting for Germany.
    Sure. But post WW-II British could no longer depend on their continued loyality.
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2010
  10. rcscwc Registered Senior Member

    It is purely from Indian POV. We are not influenced by the cliches like democracy, freedom etc when they were just meaningless words as for as as India is concerned.

    In any other places such troops would indeed be treated as collaborated, but it did not happen India.

    Those Indians were driven by poverty and army service was gauranteed to improve their lot. Families of thopse deployed in far off places got their monthly money orders. But then they had to brought back after qabout 2 years of tour of duty. And those retuenees could see the turmoil in India. Their views had to change and did too. What about their replacements. They had already seen the turmoil and most must have felt revolted too. Any surprise that they could drafted into the INA?
  11. kmguru Staff Member

    British still control the game. Gulf War (Desert Storm), Opium War, and all the wars in between.
  12. rcscwc Registered Senior Member

    Sorry. Not related to the OP.

    Just say NETAJI, every Indian thinks of Subhash Chandra Bose. His memory has not faded, nor will ever fade. His slogan: Give me blood, I will give you INDEPENDENCE. It did galvanise Indians.

    Miliatary impact of INA was not much. The British say it was zero. So be it. But the psychological impact was great. Even the indecisive ones were convinced. Uneducated peasants as a member said, but clear about their objective. Mind you, uneducated peasants were the backbones of French and American revolutions.

    I was born in 1949. But I clearly remember an educated peasant in my village. His hands and limbs shook, his teeth were gone, his speech was blurred. He was a freedom fighter who endured years of torture. We boys used to collect around him and listen to his teachings about nationalism. The Saint died and in 1961 and our village erected a shrine for him. A very humble shrine, but lists his nearly 20 years in British jails.
  13. Brian Foley REFUSE - RESIST Valued Senior Member

    Of course we all know the outcome of WWII in Asia, but if you cant beat them, join em.

    CNN:Indian Men skin bleaching

    This thread is pointless...
  14. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    You can certainly claim not to, but your OP seems to indicate otherwise.
    I'll presume english isn't your first language and excuse you on those grounds.

    Never claimed anything of the sort. I don't have that notion.
    Lumping all whiteys in the same basket, are we?

    I merely surmised that it would have been rather silly of you to cheer for one side over the other at all. You, on the other hand, have had to backpedal afterwards in an attempt to appear neutral.

    You said your people were cheering for the Germans, did you not? If that isn't support, I don't know what is.

    I doubt anyone would deny that. What I'm tired of seeing is those who try to hold up the people of their own countries as heroes when in fact they're about as selfish as everyone else and are essentially doing the same thing they hate their oppressors for doing - looking after their own skins without a clue as to anything other than where their own best interests lay.
    They aren't heroes. They're simply human.

    Not by yourselves. Britain was hardly in any condition after the war to even try to hold onto India.

    Besides which, you were so divided among yourselves on predominantly religious grounds (of all things) you lost half your country.
    Did you forget that? Or is it too embarrassing to mention?

    Doesn't matter. I mentioned it only to emphasize the divided nature of India during the war. Those Indian divisions attached to the British Army fought extremely well - Keren & Imphal, by way of example, are regarded as being two of the more decisive victories in the war, particularly Imphal - and they were fought almost entirely by Indian troops.

    The simple fact is that soldiers who don't care what they are fighting for and are shanghied into service don't usually fight all that well. The performance of the Indian divisions would seem to indicate that they were not in that category, and that Indians themselves were more divided ont he issue of independance than you would like to admit.

    Not on the same scale. Besides, we're talking about India, aren't we?
  15. rcscwc Registered Senior Member

    Don't tell me what it "seems " to be. Tell us what it is.

    Never could tell apart the Tweedledee from Tweedledum. Can you?

    Whom were your people cheering? We jeered the British mainly, cheers for Germany was incidental. Why should we have cheered the British?? We don't feel any need to appear neutral or apologetic. Indian masses were not neutral.

    That does not translate into a support.

    Haha. You are just humans when track records are mentioned. But we are not humans when we consider those track records? What was the track record of Germans vis a vis India? And what were the proven track records of the British, French and Dutch in their colonies and empires?

    Yes, we were selfish. We wanted freedom, just as French under nazis did. We were selfish just as the British were. We were selfish just as American were when they sought French help. Yes, we were selfish just like allies who begged Stalin to help them out. We did not want an overlord like them. How are Indians lesser in that respect. Skin?

    Yeah. One of the reasons was political hypocrisy to try to hold on. Second was doubtful loyality of the Indian soldeiery. So they tried to cut their losses. French were not so smart. Portugese were even less smart. Indian example clarifies it. Potugese had to be evicted by military action. Hahaha. Votaries of "freedom and democracy" like USA, Britain, France voted againsy India on this issue!! Haha.

    That is another matter. But the Brits were ejected.

    Then you forgot about the divided nature of allied countries.
    Impal and NE India region. By that time the British hardly trusted Indian soldiers. There are scores od "war" cymmetries. They have about 7000 graves of British, French, American, Canadian, Australian, New Zealabder etc soldiers. In lesser civilised places they would have been dug up, but Indian allows them to be maintained, of coursec India does not. Tell you something? Defence of the Jewel of Empire!! Every "whitey" joined in.

    Come on. They fought because they had to. Not for defence of "freedom and democracy" in Britain. They were uneducated, not much aware too. But in later years of the war they were deployed largely for occupation.

    Scale does not matter, facts do. Moreover those Americans etc. were volanteers. When Indians had a chance they too volanteered for INA!! Indians at least were fired by nationalism, what were those Americans etc. fired by?
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2010
  16. rcscwc Registered Senior Member

    Yes, pointless. Because it presents another perspective, which is not exactly palatable. After all, why permit an Indian POV?
  17. adam2314 Registered Senior Member

    Kohima where my father fought ..

    Out numbered by five to one by the Japanese. 12500 to 2500.

    If the Indian troops involved had gone with the INA it would have been a walk over for the Japanese..

    It was not... They hung on, down to the last couple of hundred starving exhausted men.

    Holding about 300 square metres when finally relieved...

    Their graves and memorails are still on those hills.
  18. rcscwc Registered Senior Member

    Yes. Their graves are still there. But that is India where even an enemy dead is respected. Those soldiers were not our enemis, enemy was the Empire, supported in WW-II by all whites, Americans included. But did the allies respect the Japanese dead? Not at all.

    But pal, OP does not discuss the battles. It tries to present an intergrated picture.

    But I wonder why they starved. After all supply lines were were not that long. Like others, British too fed their armies well, even if they caused the worst famine in 1942-43. As one of our poem says: On troubled waves came legions of skeletons". That is the Bengal famine pal. This famine till today is a topic of research like no other famine. except starving part, I am not commenting on your post.

    With Japs were Indians too. You think any of the Indians with the British would have to loved to fire on his country men?. There could have been someone from from his village even!!

    Did your father survive it?
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2010
  19. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Actually, what you are doing is the same thing that some African-Americans are doing. Namely, they present themselves as victims of segregation - even when nobody is segregating against them.
    So they defend themselves against an attack that did not take place ... This, however, in turn does earn them secondary segregation. Nobody likes whiners.
  20. rcscwc Registered Senior Member

    Changeling, are you not? Should I take it that you were whining at Germans, that Jews were whining at holocaust with you joining in?

    African Americans are different. They are welcome to their POV though irrelevant here, you to yours. Why balk at our POV? Are you not whining even now, just because an Indian POV is projected?

    Anyway, I am not doing a comparative study.
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2010
  21. adam2314 Registered Senior Member

    Yes my father survived..

    My point is.

    You must be wrong, when so many could have turned against the British but did not.

    Quite the opposite..

    2,800000 joined up..

    As for respecting your enemies dead..

    there was not much respect when India partitioned into Pakistan East and West.
  22. rcscwc Registered Senior Member


    Whole India did.

    Nothing. I explained what impelled them. Poverty.

    What happened in 1945? Why did the Indian soldiery revolt?

    The graves of your countrymen have NOT BEEN dug up. They could have been, in less less civilised places.

    As related by my g'father.

    By end of 45, British officers had nearly lost their legitimacy. Only a huge amount of decency tolerated them. The writing was on the wall.
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2010
  23. adam2314 Registered Senior Member

    Whole India did.. ???

    Me thinks you exaggerate

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    So England was the new America ..

    Send me your poor !!. hahahaaa.. You Wally..

    Respect for the British graves is acknowleged.

    Because they respected them.. ( Or because of lose of aid ?? )

    My statement was you did not respect your enemies in the partition .

    So.. You talk Bullshit..

Share This Page