Talk:Indian National Army

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Peer review Indian National Army has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] anti-British?

Excuse me Wikipedia but I have a complaint about this article. There are several parts in it which I feel are anti-British and pro-terrorism. Please look into this. "Leithp"

What may appear as "anti-British and pro-terrorism" are neither anti-British nor pro-terrorist as you would like to have the reader believe but an inalienable part of a troubled phase of British-Indian history that led to its culmination in Indian Independence. Whether your education system has taught you otherwise or not, or whether you would not like to believe otherwise, merely parroting some biased facts written by some racist British or Scottish historian is NOT going to change, neither is going to alter history. For once, why don't you get the other side's perspective by getting the books written by the sufferer's (i.e. Indian) perspective (Brothers Against the Raj --- A biography of Indian Nationalists Sarat and Subhas Chandra Bose by Leonard A. Gordon; Lost hero : a biography of Subhas Bose by Mihir Bose; Netaji and India's freedom : proceedings of the International Netaji Seminar edited by Sisir K. Bose ---- might be good starting points)  ? The tradition of violence had (in addition to Gandhian nonviolence) had a significant contribution to Indian Independence movement whether you accept or not. Being anti-British does not equate as pro-terrorism. Calling freedom fighters as terrorists and altering facts is a very clever strategy of rewriting history of which you contribute but a small part. To stress this point, I would like to give an example: William Wallace or the "Braveheart" may have been a "terrorist" to the British, not certainly to the Scottish, Michael Collins may have been a "terrorist" to the British, not certainly to the Irish, and certainly never Giuseppe Mazzini or Giuseppe Garibaldi for the Italians.

I appreciate your concerns in the wake of the London bombings over what you perceive as terrorism, but attempting to alter historical salience is a rather specious and cheap way to do so. The use of that term should be restricted for other postmodern causalities and eventualities of our otherwise troubled era, which suffers for want of brave and honest people like those who gave their lives for freedom fighting for the INA or in street demonstrations protesting against its unjust trials, rather than the likes of Timothy McVeigh or Osama bin Laden. The latter may equate as terrorists for our era (but maybe a century from now may see them in a different light). But the contribution of the INA will always go down in history as one of stepping stones in the long and arduous route to freedom for the Indian subconinent. Judged by those standards, your arguments, or the lack thereof, do NOT hold much water.

Sincerely, LordGulliverofGalben

The comments above are not mine, as you would have seen had you checked the history, so I will not address your points on terrorism, which isn't something I regard as relevant in a discussion of the INA. What is relevant is WP:NPOV, which I strongly suggest you read. This is an encyclopedia reflecting a neutral perspective and the tone of the article did not reflect this. Leithp (talk) 12:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


"Leithp" May I ask the source of this factually incorrect information: "32 demonstrators died and over 200 were wounded, as well as over 200 soldiers being wounded." Also what exactly is there in the omitted paragraph that does not maintain a NPOV? If instead of hurriedly changing the text, you had taken some time to read the reference materials I mentioned earlier, it would perhaps been much more civil behavior on your part and perhaps more Wikipedially pertinent. LordGulliverofGalben

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. The NPOV section I removed was this:
All over the Indian subcontinent, the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League, divided by ideology, joined hands in demanding freedom of the I.N.A. prisoners of war. The I.N.A had for them, so visibly elucidated by Mahatma Gandhi, achieved what individually the Congress, the League and Gandhiji could not: putting the cause of the Indian nation state above communal, sectarian and divisive ideologues and thereby joining hands to expel the British. The greeting of Jai Hind had transcended all other religious and communal oriented greetings.
Support for the INA was not unanimous as this suggests. This section, moreover, expresses the opinion of the author as regards the importance of the INA in achieving independence.
The source of my information regarding the casualties of the demonstration was The Lost Hero : A Biography of Subhas Bose ISBN 070432301X, one of the sources you referenced above. Extracts are available here. I removed the emotive claims of "cripples, women and children" being injured as I was unable to find any independent confirmation of this.
Wikipedia is not about expressing a "right" version of history, any opinions expressed should be clearly identifiable and attributed. They should certainly not be those of the author(s). Leithp (talk) 13:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Can you provide a source for the statement "of the 75,000 British Indian soldiers in Japanese hands, 70,000 joined the INA"? This conflicts with accounts I have read of recruitment among POWs. While large numbers of troops did join the INA, I don't believe that it was in the region of 90%, as suggested here. I have removed it from the page for the moment. Leithp (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
The problem's on my end; I just went back and checked my source, which was Sugata Bose and Ayesha Jalal's "Modern South Asia," and I'd misread the number; it should have read 40,000 out of 45,000, which meshes with the figures you had. Assuming there are no problems with that, I'll put something to that effect up in a day or so. What I'd like to know is the civilian enlistment. The S.C. Bose article says 85,000 total, which would mean 45,000 civilian out of an expat community of 2 million, which sounds reasonable, but I'd like to find corroboration in sources for that before I put it up. Have you seen anything? Robth 13 November 2005
40,000 from 45,000 is the figure given by John Keegan in his The Second World War. So that's at least some corroboration. Leithp (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, well one day the British Empire will be resurrected. And then I`ll be the one who`s laughing. Good Day

[edit] Mohan Singh Deb

My information is that Rashbehari Bose, political president of the Provisional Government of Free India appointed Capt. Mohan Singh Deb as the commander of the Free Indian Army; that as South-East and South Asians realized during the Japanese occupations that the Japs were even worse than the Europeans, and began to resist, Deb also turned and ceased to cooperate, was seized, taken to Sumatra and later executed, and that Hitler sent Subhashchandra Bose by submarine to his Jap allies to restart the Free Indian Army.

Yet, I never find any information on Deb, and no sympathy or acknowledgement by Bharatiyas for him and his actions, or for the numerous Indian women raped by the Japanese in the Andaman & Nicobar Archipelago.

Why is it that no Indian ever celebrates Deb and his sacrifice? Is it because the Indians identify totally with Hitler and Tojo, as a matter of fact, most that I know, do?

Another important fact I have read somewhere is that the tendency of the Indians to continue to support the Japanese turned the Burmese and other Asian people against them, leading to the expulsion of Indians from Burma, etc. There is no discussion of this either.

Please note that I am not making assertions, but merely asking for a debate on these allegations.


WikiSceptic 03:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Er.....

"The Indian National Congress and the Muslim League both made the release of the three defendants the central issue of the massive independence movement of 1945-6."

Er...surely the central issue of the massive independence movement of 1945-6 was persuading the British to leave, and arguing over the division of the spoils once they did so? Also the Azad Hind Legion whose decorations are mentioned at the end was a unit affiliated to the Waffen-SS in Germany, and was never part of the INA. Does this section really belong on this page? Sikandarji 21:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


Actually, the Azad Hind Legion was not attached to the waffen ss till after two months of D-day landings. Besides, it was formally declared a part of INA after the formation of AHG, and a lot of troops and leadership were transferred to south asia by German blockade runners.Rueben lys 12:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting facts NEVER touched upon by Indians when writing about Bose: (And interesting stuff the Not-so-Indians don't talk about when talking about INA's fighting capacities and the context in which Bose launched Azad Hind).

1. Only 6% of all Indian combatants in WWII were in the INA. 2. Japanese and British (and even contemporary Indian) sources agree that the INA were terrible fighters, so prone to surrendering and fleeing that the Japanese often kept them away from the front lines and used them as guards and coolies. 3. His allies viewed Indians with contempt, Japanese officers would not treat INA officers as equals. 4. There were well demented and incredibly cruel atrocities against innocent Indians on Indian soil and abroad. 5. The British kept their word and retreated from India soon after WWII, in retrospect making his whole fratricidal campaign (pitting Indian troops against Indian troops) quite pointless, and vindicating the Indian troops who fought for the British against Fascism.

When one considers all of the above (completely valid and correct) points, Bose seems rather a misguided figure. Unfortunately Indian intellectuals would completely eradicate any such comments in the main text. This is another deeply biased article which tells us a lot more about modern patriotic Indian sensibilities than Mr. Nazi Bose, the completely incompetent INA and his criminal bedfellows.

Funny Bose should be considered a criminal bedfellow and a Nazi by God-knows-who-you-are when the British (and I am not saying you are British) acted like Bustards in India for 200 years. Also, I don't know what books you've been reading, but if it's the one of those that says that an INA soldier had to shoot seven times before he could kill an Australian PoW, I'd say read a bit deeper, 'cause the para above it says he was great fighter and one of the elite soldier's unit when he was in the British Army. And talking about fighting capacity and stuff, anybody knows who is held most culpabale for the fall of Singapore??? Anybody knows why Aussies call their running shoes Gordon Bennets??? Have a look here [1]. Especially the last two paras.

[edit] Ref: Image:Azadcomm.jpg

Image:Azadcomm.jpg does not exist, someone please upload it or I am going to delete the link.--Victor.P.Das 22:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --Victor.P.Das 18:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Combat Effectiveness

Er, the rest of the piece at the link posted as a reference to this assertion reads

"The bid to take Imphal was frustrated by the collapse of Japan's supplies and the Allies' total control of the skies. It was at this stage that two INA officers went over to the British side. The deserters not only botched the attack but also gave the British a graphic account of the INA's desperate situation.

The British decision to retreat was reversed, reinforcements sent and air attacks on the INA and Japanese troops intensified to force the hungry and thirsty expeditionary force to retreat."

Doesn't sound like much of a victory to me. As far as I know, the Japanese never really trusted the INA or provided it with modern weapons and logistical support. Disentangling its "victories" against the Indian Army from those of the Imperial Japanese Army is difficult, and it is certainly fair to say that militarily the INA was pretty ineffective. As a propaganda weapon, and in terms of the response to the trial of the INA officers, its impact was much more considerable. Sikandarji 20:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting edit by Torb37

Torb37 makes two points in a very POV way which he does not back with references. The first is a quote or words attributed to a person which are not referenced, and also written in what seemed very ill-organised way. This edit also attributes the term 5th columnist to the recruits of the INA and goes on to raise questions about Patriotism.

First of all, everything that Torb37 says have already been discussed and noted in either this page or the Azad Hind Page. Secondly, his edit seems very POV, in the wrong section of the article (there is a section dealing with after effects of INA, which talks about the perceptions as collaborators, which is what Torb37 seems to be alluding to). Also there is a referenced view point noted in the section which notes that the INA soldiers where seen as patriots by the soldiers of the Indian Army who fought for the allies, after end of the war.

[edit] Reversion of the eidt that majority of INA troops were sikhs

I have reverted the edit that majority of the INA troops were Sikhs. This is because some unreferenced sources I have claim that large majority were south Indians, mostly Tmails, while others assert that a large number were Sikhs, which will be unsurprising since a large number of Indian Troops were (and still are) Sikhs. But if you're quoting on the demographic, I think it is helpful if you can provide a reference since it will also help to expand on the demographics itself as a whole and not just one community, which may also seem like a POV assertion. It is possible that a large number of the civillian volunteers of the INA were South Indians while a large number of the troops derived from the British Indian army were sikhs, I would like this clarified.Rueben lys 12:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

In these context, I believe Torb's quote can ve preserved but only if referenced. Also, overt POV should not be added (specially in the wrong section) unless it is referenced to accepted view points on an issue like this.


[edit] Article is opinionated

Parts of the article seems to be personal opinion and speculation. I refer to the parts where it is discussed that granting freedom to India has been largely the work of the mutineers, and not the Congress and Gandhi. Though I personally believe it to be true, this cannot the stated so flatly in this article. However, it seems very probably, and that the future led Congress led governments of India might have overemphasized their role in the freedom struggle. The contemporary history books reflect this to a large extent. -Unregistered user, 12 March 2007

[edit] Kohima

This section seems to give the INA too much of a presence on the battlefield - U-GO was a predominantly Japanese offensive. And why does it mention 'Anglo-American positions?' There was no American presence in the area, aside from US air support! 14th Army was a Commonwealth army. Darkmind1970 08:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorting this out (will take a bit of time). But the INA did have a substantial commitment in taking Kohima (See Forgotten Armies by Bailey and Harper, The Forgotten Army by Peter Fay, and Jungle Alliance by Joyce Lebra). I agree though a lot of the article needs clearing up and sorting out facts.Rueben lys 21:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

But they didn't take Kohima at all! And why insist on this bit about "Anglo-American" positions again? They were Commonwealth - there was NO US ground presence at Imphal-Kohima. The only US troops in Burma were with Stilwell in the north of the country. Darkmind1970 08:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say they "took" Kohima, (I think, haven't looked properly). The assault on Kohima intially took the upperhand, and the INA's commitment here was a major factor.(as far as I know). As I said, I'd need to sort through this stuff. Gimme a few weeks.Rueben lys 16:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea - I'll look through my books as well so that we can try and come to some kind of a consensus. In the meantime I'm going to remove the 'Anglo-American lines' phrase that keeps making me want to grind my teeth. It's utterly incorrect for the Battle of Kohima. Darkmind1970 07:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help Improve

I have expanded this article a lot, and added and am still adding a lot of stuff. I am just a bit surprised going through all the above discussions and comments, and comparing it with what I am reading in Fay. It is clear there are two diametrically opposing PoVs here and some of the editors have deliberately tried to introduce this in the article to promote these, in spite of being aware of established work that totally opposes it. I think it is important to set the Propaganda (both Indian and British) aside and try and help improve the article with facts and not how you would like this army to be seen (includes views as savage turncoats and views as freedom fighter).Rueben lys 13:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese Shooting Sikh POWs pic

I included this pic in the section Motivation if only because of the following line in the text:

Others, especially ICOs and VCOs have said that they initially joined the first INA to prevent any possible ill-treatment of their subordinate Indian soldiers.

Any thoughts on that? I thought this image is relevant to the article and must go somewhere! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 00:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


With regards to the photo of "Sikh" prisoners being shot, first of all I cant verify the source in the IWM website. Moreover, you mentioned that the threat of ill-treatment may have been a strong motivation to join up, whereas all the references I read cite mostly three factors for the INA recruits. These are the devaluation of the Raj and the vulnerability around the surrender at singapore, the prospect of a more successful career, and lastly (this is more post 1942) the charisma of Bose. See eg, Subhas Chandra Bose and the Indian National Army, by Stephen P. Cohen, Pacific Affairs, Vol. 36, No. 4 (Winter, 1963-1964), pp. 411-429.

I know there are mentions of threat of ill-treatment, but quite consistently, I am yet to read about forcible recruitment or of joining under duress, although some of the officer corps joined to prevent possible ill-treatment of their troops.

One of the reasons why I moved the image is there is a strong PoV that the INA were "traitors", and that image to me seemed to be put in to imply this view point, which really is quite a strong PoV position. I admit I myself may be seeing it in a skewed light. I have not undone the revision, but would appreciate your views and comments. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 09:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

See my talk for response. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 09:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Hasty end [to the Raj]"

The last sentence of the first para. says this:

These events in the twilight of the Raj are accepted to have played a crucial role in its hasty end.

Was this necessarily a good thing, given that Partition was essentially botched, and more time should have been given to the people and provincial authorities to prepare for it? What do you think? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 09:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure what the reply to this is, since attempting to judge wether the affects of INA trials on a hasty end of the Raj with reference to Partition,and thence wether that was a good or a bad thing, would border on WP:OR. I think the history of INA ends more or less with the millitary unrests in 1946, possibly stretched to the cabinet missions etc. There isn't really much after that that can be linked to INA. The other stuff on Malayasian congress, Hyderabad resistance, etc are more of an epilogue. I will try to refine the article a bit more in a few weeks time, and see if it can be improved enough to be a GA and FA. But I wouldn't want to put OR or judgements on this article (and rewrite those places where these have crept in), since that along with strong PoVs, is one of the main problems that I thought made this article rather sub-standard in the past. Regards rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 16:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies

I see you started a new article on this. I have no problem with that and see no POV problems. Controversies by definition involve diametrically opposed POVs. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)