Secular Army

Veeresh:

You could have titled this piece ``I love my India`` :-)

``But then, face it, at least we can travel freely within India. Barring the odd natural or man-made disaster. How many other countries can make this simple statement?``

I would have thought that this would be true of most countries.

Army and Partition: This is my reading of how the military assets were handled. Hindus and Sikhs in the army units based in Pakistan were given a choice to join Indian or Pakistani army. Muslim soldiers in the army units based in India were given a similar choice. But Hindus and Sikhs in units based in India and Muslims in units based in Pakistan were not given any such choice, they had to stay in their respective countries.

This is what happened in practice in India where many Muslims chose to stay in India but not in Pakistan. There Hindus and Sikhs who wanted to stay in Pakistan (my Chacha and Mama among them) were told that they would not be welcome in the new country. Hoever, the decision might have been taken at a junior level and not necessrily by Jinnah.


fuzair:
I am surprised by the tone of your post re the INA, as you are generally one of the most unbiased and calm interactors. Are there any personal factors involved here?

Not all of the INA people were POWs. A large number of Indians living in Malaysia and Singapore volunteered for it. I saw a TV autobiography made by Mountbatten in which he mentioned the tremendous support enjoyed by the INA in those areas.

For me, the most revealing part was a British war document released only last year and reported by the BBC. It told about what happened in Germany to the Indian POWs from the African front. Apparently, Subhash Bose wanted to recruit some of these POWs for his India Legion. There were a few thousand prisoners and Bose asked for only 200 volunteers. All of the POWs volunteered to join his legion regardless of their caste or creed.

I think that the role of the INA in the army in gaining freedom has been under-estimated. The British were able to rule India only with the help of native soldiers. The defection of POWs to the INA, as well as the Royal Navy rebellion at Bombay, must have showed the British that they could no longer count on the unswerving loyalty of the native soldier and the spirit of Mangal Pandey could be invoked once again. They could be called namak-haram or even traitors to their employers but they could not be called traitors to their land.

kaurasach (#22), ``British sought the help of traitor/kanjars nehru and gandhi``

More I think and read about it, the more i`m convinced that gandhi truly is the father of this nation. no other leader nehru, patel, etc had the wherewithal to weld this super-diverse land into one solid entity. like a good general he understood deeply the enemys strenght and his weakness and more importantly our strenght and our weakness and planned his strategy accordingly. the brits left as friends, which was the best ending, the most useful ending and therefore the most intelligent .

Jinnah tried to play gandhi (at least a poor mans gandhi) and failed miserably. He understood nothing and the country he carved out is today spat upon by all.

Even Mao and western leaders was highly envious of gandhi as some of their freudian slips showed. they understood his achievements better than us. reports of nixon/kissinger talks showed they were wary of indians who they felt were `masters at psychology`.

I think if gandhi was a military man he would hav been the greatest general ever.

It took 400 million indians to produce one gandhi, no surprise. We`ll probably never see the likes of him again. if gandhi was an indian then truly i`m proud to say i`m one too.

Re: # 23

``The army also has blots on its character as regards its role in the Northeast and Kashmir where there have been so many cases of rape and human rights violations by Army personnel. Shouldn’t we be addressing grave issues such as these rather than talking about prettier sounding stuff like their secularity? ``

Human right violations should be avoided. Whenever reported, should be looked at. But it is given that in a troubled area HR would be curtailed to some extent. You can`t expect the army to fight with one of its hand tied behind.
Army chief has set a good precedent by inquiring the alegations set against one of its officers and punishing him in kashmir. He has said that there would be incentive to respect HR`s rather than on kills. Thats a step in the right direction.

Veeresh,

“…neighbouring countries…uniforms have themselves deprived the rest of their citizenry from basic freedom. We, in India, do not have even the faintest clue about what this deprivation means.”

Agreed, that we haven’t experienced deprivation by the Army of our political freedom at the national level but we definitely have more than a faint clue of what deprivation of basic freedom means, army or no army. You have only to ask the Kashmris, Nagas, victims of Sikh and Muslim genocides, and Dalits, to name a few. And I‘m sure this deprivation isn’t any less deplorable than deprivation of freedom by the army.

Touching upon what Kaurasach mentioned earlier, there have been some question marks raised on the ‘secularity’ of the army vis a vis the attack on Harmandir Sahib as part of Operation Blue Star. Apparently, after the attack in which large numbers of army soldiers were killed, when some Sikh residents of Amritsar offered the jawans food, they refused to take it from them and chose to accept it from Hindus instead. However, the officers in charge were quick to notice this and came down strongly on the jawans. This is just one of several incidents pertaining to the army’s conduct during Blue Star. Don’t have the references (it’s mentioned in an essay on Operation Blue Star) for this incident right now, but can definitely look it up if anyone doubts its veracity.

The army also has blots on its character as regards its role in the Northeast and Kashmir where there have been so many cases of rape and human rights violations by Army personnel. I am reminded of Thanglam Manorama’s brutal murder by the Army personnel last year that led to protests by forty Manipuri women, twelve of whom were naked, carrying signs that read, “Indian Army, Rape Us!”

Shouldn’t we be addressing grave issues such as these rather than talking about prettier sounding stuff like their secularity?

I agree with Aditya that being secular, apolitical et all is part of their job and not something that we need to be especially grateful for. However, I must add that as compared to some others in uniform, i.e., the police, the army as an institution is supposed to be more commendable and secular.

Independence Day should not merely be a day to voice jingoistic views but also a day of reflection on the shortcomings of the institutions of India. Instead of putting everyone and everything on a pedestal and worshipping them, we should try and incorporate more critical thinking. It might just be more useful.

The Indian National Army and Bose should be saluted.

I read somewhere that British sought the help of traitor/kanjars nehru and gandhi for indian soldiers` and masses cooperation in exchange for `independence`....and the dogs complied readily for the bones the British would throw them later.

Re: # 7

`the first unfurling of the Pakistani flag by Shri Jinnah on 14th of August `47 is the main reason that I was born an Indian.`

Where exactly did Shri Jinnah shove the Pakistani flag-pole on 14th of August `47.. for you to be conceived as an Indian? How come there`s no acrimony about all this??

`at least we can travel freely within India. Barring the odd natural or man-made disaster. How many other countries can make this simple statement?`

What does this mean???? Russia, Canada, US, Brazil, China, Bangladesh, Nepal etc.. can`t make this simple statement?

Re: # 17

``Do note though that these `sikh` regiments were not always 100% sikhs.....almost always, the officers who lead are from different back ground for obvious reasons.......... ``

the commisioned officers are always from different caste/region and religion(for the SR)that the regiment. The officers do not command regiments based on their caste/community.

Fuzair ji/18, thank you for your detailed response in context with the INA.

a) The main point I was making is that the INA was a secular army. I do not think you are challenging that aspect.

b) I think we differ in the way we perceive how history seems to have recorded the treatment meted out to soldiers from India by the Allies as well as the Axis forces.

c) I was not trying to do any sort of justice to the story of the INA in the space of a few lines on the subject of ``secular forces.

+++

Having said that, and choosing to ignore your little barb about boy scouts, I would like to inform you that I have been able to research the subject of the INA, over and above what I heard from my late father in context with his experiences in Burma during WW-2 with the Baluch Regiment.

One of the better books on the subject is Prof Peter Ward Fay`s ``The Forgotten Army``.

In addition, I did take the opportunity during my travels, in uniform and out of it, to try and find out more about the INA in locations as diverse as Formosa, Japan, USSR, Germany and Portugal . . . in addition to India ofcourse.

+++

Just one more small thing:- your referring to Indians who joined the INA as traitors is not really correct.

+++

From a review on Prof Fay`s book, From Library Journal :- Although Fay got his title wrong--this army was hardly forgotten--his narrative of the famous--or infamous--Indian National Army (INA) and its leader, Subhas Chandra Bose, offers an important contribution to the history of the Indian Independence Movement. Fay ( The Opium War 1840-1842 , LJ 8/75) contends that the (turncoat) INA fought a war of revolution in Burma against the British that must be viewed within the context of Indian independence. In support of this view, he digs into the history of the British and Indian relationship. Further, he justifies the position that the INA, or the ``Jiffs,`` as they were called, did not support the Japanese but existed as a quasi-independent military body fighting against the British for their own independence. That a segment of the British-led Indian Army turned traitor has always been viewed with great hostility by many British historians. Fay`s work, however, convincingly explores new interpretations and deserves a fair hearing. For informed lay readers and scholars.

+++

It suits the (British?)history of WW-2 to describe the INA as ``traitors``. But then, it also suits the history of WW-2 to ignore the same people who died in their lakhs in Europe and Africa.

+++

Something is very wrong with you, Fuzair, and it extends beyond trying to call me ``boy scout``, if you view freedom fighters as traitors.

+++

Mr. Malik,

I fear you are sadly illinformed about many things but I`ll pick on only one point in this email. The Indian National Army (or more accurately referred to as Japanese Indian Forces, just as the real Indian Army is more accurately described as the British Indian Army) was not composed of forces ``abandoned`` by the retreating white Empire. The Fall of Singapore (and before that Malaya and HK) gave the Japanese a large number of captured IA soldiers. The British officers were separated from their men and a senior British Army staff officer was found to preside over a ``handing over`` ceremony in which the troops were officially transferred to the Japanese. This ceremony was carefully designed to give the impression that the British had abandoned their men and `given` them over to the Japanese. That was the reason, obviously, behind the separation of British officers (NOT done at the officers instigation) from their men.

Major Mohan Singh turned his coat and created the first INA by recruiting some of the POWs into `his` army. However, the dearth of recruits (as a rule, Indian troops are remarkably namak halal, at least to their paltan) led to much more rigorous pressures on the POWs to `voluntarily` enlist in the INA; pressures such as torture, beheadings, beatings, starvation, etc. All in all, about 65,000 IA troops were taken prisoner, about 1/3 eventually enlisted in the INA, 1/3 died in the forced labor camps and 1/3 survived their imprisonment and treatment at the hands of the Japanese, Bose and the INA traitors. So despite the worst the `nationalists` could do, 2/3 preferred to die in the work camps rather than betray their paltan or risalla (it`s too much to argue that the jawans were loyal to the King-Emperor, although the vast majority of officers were). The personal example set by many Indian Officers (withstanding torture, etc, rather than turn traitor) who were not separated initially from their men helped in keeping the vast majority of the men loyal.

Under Bose, the second INA greatly expanded in size as Bose was willing to greatly step up the level of torture, maltreatment and psychological persuasion used to increase enlistment rates. Quite a few VCOs/NCOs took their companies/platoons over to the INA en masse in order to get better treatment for their men (i.e., more food and better medical treatment so that they may actually survive, not in order to get some kind of cushy billet) and most of these men deserted back to the British the first chance they got. Newly formed units or units stripped of their senior VCOs/NCOs to supply cadres for new raisings (i.e., units w/out traditions or strong leaders) provided the most recruits to the INA.

A few of the officers, most notably Capt. Durrani, joined the INA specifically to sabotage it. Durrani got the George Cross for his efforts. The story of the INA is much more complex than the little bit of gibberish you wrote about it. If you have actually ever worn a uniform other than a Boy Scout one, you should know that what you wrote insults it.

Indian army is amazing compared to its neighbors and even US army. Soldiers from diverse cultures and religion intermingle without any reservations.....this cannot be said even of the US army.

Indian Army suffers from many maladies though.....the behavior of the Indian Army in the Golden temple was despicable.....they executed innocent sikh youth civillian without hesitation and with eager....there are many cases of contempt for different back grounds....recent developments have helped the prowess of the army; as a fighting machine, the indian army is lacking compared to the western armies.....without going to details that i personally saw, the army lacks in many fronts......bribery, corruption, petty grudges, poor training etc. keep it from becoming world class army.

---

...........Sikh regiments traditionally been the only case of Religious regiments even during the British rule. The reason could be that sikhs think of themselves as a ``nation`` or a ``brotherhood`` that is beyond the traditional definition of a religion.

and sikhs do fight better for ``God and Guru``, than another cause....After the govt caused 80s grievances, sikhs batallions were dispersed or disbanded....

Do note though that these `sikh` regiments were not always 100% sikhs.....almost always, the officers who lead are from different back ground for obvious reasons..........

``I am not grateful to it for its apolitical nature. To do so, is to be grateful to the postman who delivers post or the electricity guy for doing his work etc.``

Aditya, that was an astounding statement because it was so completely true.

Yet...to be able to assert that `truth` one has to live in a very lucky, fairly well-run country. I am sure you would agree.

Re: # 13

``but I fail to understand what was the need to have regiments inthe names of religions/castes etc...``

It was started by Brits and have been left intact after independence.
there are no regiments based on religion other than the Sikh regiment and SLI.

Some time back there was a question of restructuring the army without any caste/regional affiliations.
People in favor of the current form argued that it would take more time and effort for people from two distinct areas to understand and build camarederie between them. Some cite it as an internal strength of the army as soldiers fight for the honor of the regiment.

Re: # 6

``but attempts have always been made by the communalists to communalize the ranks.``

can you please elaborate? Any eg.

while there are no doubts about the secular character of Indian Army and its distance from the politics,but I fail to understand what was the need to have regiments inthe names of religions/castes etc...e.g. Sikh regiment, Mahaar regiment,Sikh LI etc....and I have witnessed family members of Army officers using caste-based derogatory language for some regiments .

Re: # 2

Romair:

````That Jinnah`s instructions for the introduction of religion as a litmus test for remaining in the Pakistan Armed Forces at the inaugural ceremonies in Karachi on the 14th of August 1947 was part of such a dream was visible very soon.``

Could you point me to the speech. I was unaware of any such restriction.......... ``

---

This incident was reported in ``Freedom at Midnight`` by lapierre and Collins. Jinna wanted all the non-Muslims out of the Pakistani army.. While in India, people in the army are given a choice, in Pakistan there was no choice for non-Muslims. Actually an incident in which an accidental firing by a Sikh soldier (I believe resulted in no injuries/death) in a Sikh regiment based in Pakistan started off a rumor that the departing Sikh regiments are killing Muslims, and that resulted in large scale killing of Hindus/Sikhs.. Actually I think rumors killed a lot of folks..

Hi Veeresh

Nice article and you made some interesting points which you could have pushed further.

1. The Secular Army?
In a coutry, where most institutions have failed completely the army is glorifies as `secular`, apolitical reflecting our own failures. An army is as good or as bad as the people of the country it is drawn from. How long will the Indian Army remain secular and apolitical when the public sphere and the body politic is slowly becoming undemocratic and communal?

2. The Apolitical army?
the Indian army is apolitical not only because of its traditions and its commanders but more importantly because the political space for it to take over is just not there. The very nature of politics in India, parties representing different groups,castes and aspirations is the result of the democratic processes initiated by the freedom movement ,supported by the Constitution. While the process has been through its ups and downs, it is still a viable process and it has left little space, despite its many failures, for the army to take over.
(Perhaps this is a good time to acknowledge Nehru for laying the foundations of democracy. Whatever the faults the poor man is cursed for today, remember you can curse him only coz its a democracy.)

The point here is that, while i am proud of the army, I am not grateful to it for its apolitical nature. To do so, is to be grateful to the postman who delivers post or the electricity guy for doing his work etc.

Veeresh, I do hope you understand what I mean. As a son of an Army officer i am proud of the army as well. My school, Army Public School,Delhi has a martyr`s gallery to honour its aluminis who died in Kargil and lots of my classmates serve in the army now.

And yet, I also see the army as the most colonial institution in India. Perhaps its these very colonial traditions that keep it secular , at the same time, one must recognise that the system of orderlies for officers and other such vanities has to come to an end.

cheers

Aditya