Talk:Tokyo Boys
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[edit] Appropriate category
These were former service personnel in the British Indian Army that were taken prisoner and agreed to train for service with the Imperial Japanese Army. Although they may not have taken part in combat against the Allied troops, they did intend and were in theory prepared to do so by agreeing to be trained as pilots for service with the Japanese. That makes them collaborators. That they were released due to political pressure after 1946 INS trials, against advice by Auchinleck is an entirely different matter. However, there is a category for trials, and you can add that to ensure that they can be found by readers interested in finding out about their release despite charges of collaboration with the enemy which are a matter of historical fact, though here unsourced, and the category certainly applies.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
First of all, Collaborator is a pejorative term. You acknowledge from your post in my talk page that the "patriotic Indian" view is that they were far better than collaborators, as much as I agree that a distinct very "British" view exists that they were collaborators, bourne not only by the war-time propaganda measures, but also since propounded by some subsequent 1940s-50s historians of the old-cambridgist school. On the factual side, the "Boys", moreover were not soldiers of the British Indian Army, nor were nearly half of the Indian National Army, they were civillian volunteers of Indian origin from South-east Asia who enlisted in the INA after the second INA was formed. On the issue of Patriotic Indian thing you raise, that point of view of "Freedom fighters" is a disctinct point of view as you acknowledge exists, as is the British point of view that the INA were "tratiors", which I too acknowledge does exist. Notice they are diametrically opposite and carries negative connotations to each other.
Moreover, the Tokyo Boy never faced trial, nor did any more than twelve or so personnel of the INA. They were released, as you point out due to political presure, which arose because they were not seen as collaborators by the Indian public, but as patriots. The decision to release INA personnel was moreover, not against Auckinleck's advice, but Auckinleck's own, which he was forced to take to prevent the Indian Army from mutinying, (see Impact section on the INA article). This not my PoV talk, but extensively recorded by works of history on the Raj as well as the INA. You will find a detailed description of this, eg, in Lawrence James' "Making and Unmaking of British India". Further by definition, the Tokyo Boys should have been acting against national interest for personal gain to have been collaborators. That did not happen since they never fought in the war and moreover Japan never invaded India. I do not wish to go into the hypothetical scenario of "if Japan occupied India then they would've been worse than British etc etc...". This is very different from the experiences in Burma and in Indonesia, were the people like Ba Maw and others who were aiding the Japanese were genuinely seen as collaborators by the nation. The Freedom fighter article might put this into context.
I think you will find the controversy section in the INA article helpful, which is I believe a more NPOV approach than branding controversial articles with onesided opinions and categories. Adding a category that describes a solely British opinion and totally opposes the Indian view is, I hope you will see, extremely biased. On the side of the domestic politics of India you raise, that is very important because post-independence India had a policy of not admitting former INA personnel, which is also disctinct point of controversy in Indian history. (Agian refer to the INA article if you want to look further.)
I am undoing the addition of the category. Please discuss in the talk page and leave me note if you have further comments. Regards rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 10:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
