Secular Army
Veeresh Malik August 24, 2005
#17 Posted by kaurasach on August 25, 2005 7:47:33 am
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..........
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..........
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#18 Posted by fuzair on August 25, 2005 8:18:35 am
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.
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.
#19 Posted by veeresh on August 25, 2005 9:28:11 am
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.
+++
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.
+++
#20 Posted by Netizen on August 25, 2005 10:19:50 am
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.
``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.
#21 Posted by hamzaad on August 25, 2005 10:37:23 am
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?
`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?
#22 Posted by kaurasach on August 25, 2005 10:42:43 am
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.
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.
#23 Posted by Simran on August 25, 2005 2:10:52 pm
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.
“…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.
#24 Posted by Netizen on August 25, 2005 5:27:12 pm
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.
``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.
#25 Posted by kman on August 25, 2005 6:53:21 pm
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.
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.
#26 Posted by dost_mittar on August 26, 2005 8:04:02 am
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.
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.
#27 Posted by veeresh on August 26, 2005 9:13:53 am
Dm/26 - more like ``I`m explaining my India``.
Free travel for citizens as well as visitors, without restrictions, is not as simple as that within a large number of countries. Leave aside the developed countries, and see what you have? Central Asia, the Arab countries, African countries with maybe a couple of exceptions, Iraq, Burma, China, North Korea, many of the old Soviet Bloc countries . . . dare say I, even large parts of Pakistan?
The specific decision to exclude non-Muslims from the Pakistani Armed Forces on the 14th of August 1947 was taken with Jinnah`s complete participation, documented by the Baluch Regiment brought in from Cawnpore for the specific purpose, and carried out by the British Brigadier in command on that date. Wolpert and Jinnah`s speech of 11th August not-withstanding.
On the INA and the British Army, other than Prof. Fay`s book which I have quoted from, please read up on Dr Mazumdar and the archives at the British War Museum.
simran/23 - nobody`s perfect. yes, I`ve spoken with enough Kashmiris, Nagas and Sikhs, as well as Muslims. Many of them part of my extended family. How far back in history do we want to keep going, or do we look forward too?
hamzaad/21 - to use your metaphors, Jinnah kept the flagpole and sent the flag on it to the barracks of the 10th Baluch. After making it clear that non-Muslims were not welcome in the Pakistani Armed Forces. My late father carried the Pakistani flag and deposited it with the RSM, and then said goodbye to his buddies, and moved on to India. Why should there be acrimony about this?
Kaura/various - I read your tirades on Sikhism, I respect the ideology of the Gurus, but ask yourself - are the followers doing a fair job? When you talk about the composition of Sikh LI and Sikh regiment and BEG, even mahar Regiment has a fair number of Sikhs, you surely also know about the play-off between the ``Caste`` and Mazhabis?
Free travel for citizens as well as visitors, without restrictions, is not as simple as that within a large number of countries. Leave aside the developed countries, and see what you have? Central Asia, the Arab countries, African countries with maybe a couple of exceptions, Iraq, Burma, China, North Korea, many of the old Soviet Bloc countries . . . dare say I, even large parts of Pakistan?
The specific decision to exclude non-Muslims from the Pakistani Armed Forces on the 14th of August 1947 was taken with Jinnah`s complete participation, documented by the Baluch Regiment brought in from Cawnpore for the specific purpose, and carried out by the British Brigadier in command on that date. Wolpert and Jinnah`s speech of 11th August not-withstanding.
On the INA and the British Army, other than Prof. Fay`s book which I have quoted from, please read up on Dr Mazumdar and the archives at the British War Museum.
simran/23 - nobody`s perfect. yes, I`ve spoken with enough Kashmiris, Nagas and Sikhs, as well as Muslims. Many of them part of my extended family. How far back in history do we want to keep going, or do we look forward too?
hamzaad/21 - to use your metaphors, Jinnah kept the flagpole and sent the flag on it to the barracks of the 10th Baluch. After making it clear that non-Muslims were not welcome in the Pakistani Armed Forces. My late father carried the Pakistani flag and deposited it with the RSM, and then said goodbye to his buddies, and moved on to India. Why should there be acrimony about this?
Kaura/various - I read your tirades on Sikhism, I respect the ideology of the Gurus, but ask yourself - are the followers doing a fair job? When you talk about the composition of Sikh LI and Sikh regiment and BEG, even mahar Regiment has a fair number of Sikhs, you surely also know about the play-off between the ``Caste`` and Mazhabis?
#28 Posted by fuzair on August 26, 2005 10:37:10 am
Dost-mittar #26 and Veeresh
Re: The INA
Not really personal factors, my cousin`s one grandfather was a Japanese POW and lived to tell the tale (no mean feat in and of itself) and another was killed in the Fall of HK but they were not my relations. If my tone seemed a bit excessive, its because I`ve had this argument several times with Indians (mainly Bengalis) who are unabashed Bose apologists/followers. Bose was either a fool (not likely, given that he topped the ICS exam, IIRC) or a power-hungry Quisling if he was willing to cooperate with the Japanese in attacking India. What did he think that a Japanese-occupied India would look like? My guess is he was willing to act the Pu Yi role in Manchuria as long as he got to be the head Indian. So to call Bose a `freedom fighter` or a patriot is to insult the ones who actually fought to free India, not to hand it over to someone else.
I am not aware of the documentary/documents you mention. I am surprised that Phillip Mason, who as Secretary of the Chiefs of Staff Committee (India) during WWII would have known of any such document, does not mention it in his history of the Indian Army. I respect his intellectual honesty enough to have no doubt that he would have at least alluded to it indirectly.
As far as excluding `non-Muslims` from the Pakistan Army goes, that is incorrect. Many Christian officers opted for Pakistan and were welcomed. During the 1950s and 1960s, there was a fair proportion of Christians in both the PA and PAF. There were some Hindu officers who opted for Pakistan but were asked to reconsider their decision. IIRC, the pressure on them to change their minds was as much from India as it was from Pakistan. In spite of this, there was one Hindu Colonel, Bakshi (?not sure if I recall the name, am working from memory here) who insisted on staying on in Pakistan.
Ooops have to run; more later.
Re: The INA
Not really personal factors, my cousin`s one grandfather was a Japanese POW and lived to tell the tale (no mean feat in and of itself) and another was killed in the Fall of HK but they were not my relations. If my tone seemed a bit excessive, its because I`ve had this argument several times with Indians (mainly Bengalis) who are unabashed Bose apologists/followers. Bose was either a fool (not likely, given that he topped the ICS exam, IIRC) or a power-hungry Quisling if he was willing to cooperate with the Japanese in attacking India. What did he think that a Japanese-occupied India would look like? My guess is he was willing to act the Pu Yi role in Manchuria as long as he got to be the head Indian. So to call Bose a `freedom fighter` or a patriot is to insult the ones who actually fought to free India, not to hand it over to someone else.
I am not aware of the documentary/documents you mention. I am surprised that Phillip Mason, who as Secretary of the Chiefs of Staff Committee (India) during WWII would have known of any such document, does not mention it in his history of the Indian Army. I respect his intellectual honesty enough to have no doubt that he would have at least alluded to it indirectly.
As far as excluding `non-Muslims` from the Pakistan Army goes, that is incorrect. Many Christian officers opted for Pakistan and were welcomed. During the 1950s and 1960s, there was a fair proportion of Christians in both the PA and PAF. There were some Hindu officers who opted for Pakistan but were asked to reconsider their decision. IIRC, the pressure on them to change their minds was as much from India as it was from Pakistan. In spite of this, there was one Hindu Colonel, Bakshi (?not sure if I recall the name, am working from memory here) who insisted on staying on in Pakistan.
Ooops have to run; more later.
#29 Posted by kaurasach on August 26, 2005 10:58:40 am
``......are the followers doing a fair job........``
Of course NOT!........if they were, they wouldn`t be in such miserable condition.
Of course NOT!........if they were, they wouldn`t be in such miserable condition.
#30 Posted by jang on August 26, 2005 11:49:04 am
pucca sahibs still exist loong after the real sahib has left .
#31 Posted by dost_mittar on August 26, 2005 12:00:03 pm
fuzair#28:
Thanks to Dr. Google, I have been able to locate the BBC report, so you do not have to take my word for it (I post the url and excerpts at the end of the post). The Mountbatten comment, however, is based on a tv memoirs produced and directed by Mountbatten, starring himself. This was in early 70s. In it he mentions Nehru`s visit to Singapore during the War (they may have met there for the first time) and Mountbatten unsuccessfully tried to use Nehru against Indians supporting the INA or the Azad Hind Fauj as it was called. BTW, while Indians treat INA soldiers as freedom fighters, they do not consider loyal soldiers to be traitors either. In fact, there was a fictionalised story in a film, Samadhi, made in 1950 about two brothers fighting on the opposite side of the war (Indians have always fallen for maudlin sentimentality!).
Url: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3684288.stm
Some excerpts:
Hitler`s secret Indian army
By Mike Thomson
BBC News
....................................................................................................................................
In the closing stages of World War II, as Allied and French resistance forces were driving Hitler`s now demoralised forces from France, three senior German officers defected.
Legionnaires were recruited from German POW camps
The information they gave British intelligence was considered so sensitive that in 1945 it was locked away, not due to be released until the year 2021.
Now, 17 years early, the BBC`s Document programme has been given special access to this secret file.
It reveals how thousands of Indian soldiers who had joined Britain in the fight against fascism swapped their oaths to the British king for others to Adolf Hitler - an astonishing tale of loyalty, despair and betrayal that threatened to rock British rule in India, known as the Raj.
Bose, who had been arrested 11 times by the British in India, had fled the Raj with one mission in mind. That was to seek Hitler`s help in pushing the British out of India.
By the end of 1941, Hitler`s regime officially recognised his provisional ``Free India Government`` in exile, and even agreed to help Chandra Bose raise an army to fight for his cause. It was to be called ``The Free India Legion``.
I managed to track down one of Bose`s former recruits, Lieutenant Barwant Singh, who can still remember the Indian revolutionary arriving at his prisoner of war camp.
``He was introduced to us as a leader from our country who wanted to talk to us,`` he said.
``He wanted 500 volunteers who would be trained in Germany and then parachuted into India. Everyone raised their hands. Thousands of us volunteered.``
In all 3,000 Indian prisoners of war signed up for the Free India Legion.
But instead of being delighted, Bose was worried. A left-wing admirer of Russia, he was devastated when Hitler`s tanks rolled across the Soviet border.
Matters were made even worse by the fact that after Stalingrad it became clear that the now-retreating German army would be in no position to offer Bose help in driving the British from faraway India.
When the Indian revolutionary met Hitler in May 1942 his suspicions were confirmed, and he came to believe that the Nazi leader was more interested in using his men to win propaganda victories than military ones.
So, in February 1943, Bose turned his back on his legionnaires and slipped secretly away aboard a submarine bound for Japan.
A year later the Indian legionnaires were sent back to India, where all were released after short jail sentences.
But when the British put three of their senior officers on trial near Delhi there were mutinies in the army and protests on the streets.
With the British now aware that the Indian army could no longer be relied upon by the Raj to do its bidding, independence followed soon after.
At the end of the war the BBC was forbidden from broadcasting their story and this remarkable saga was locked away in the archives, until now.
Thanks to Dr. Google, I have been able to locate the BBC report, so you do not have to take my word for it (I post the url and excerpts at the end of the post). The Mountbatten comment, however, is based on a tv memoirs produced and directed by Mountbatten, starring himself. This was in early 70s. In it he mentions Nehru`s visit to Singapore during the War (they may have met there for the first time) and Mountbatten unsuccessfully tried to use Nehru against Indians supporting the INA or the Azad Hind Fauj as it was called. BTW, while Indians treat INA soldiers as freedom fighters, they do not consider loyal soldiers to be traitors either. In fact, there was a fictionalised story in a film, Samadhi, made in 1950 about two brothers fighting on the opposite side of the war (Indians have always fallen for maudlin sentimentality!).
Url: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3684288.stm
Some excerpts:
Hitler`s secret Indian army
By Mike Thomson
BBC News
....................................................................................................................................
In the closing stages of World War II, as Allied and French resistance forces were driving Hitler`s now demoralised forces from France, three senior German officers defected.
Legionnaires were recruited from German POW camps
The information they gave British intelligence was considered so sensitive that in 1945 it was locked away, not due to be released until the year 2021.
Now, 17 years early, the BBC`s Document programme has been given special access to this secret file.
It reveals how thousands of Indian soldiers who had joined Britain in the fight against fascism swapped their oaths to the British king for others to Adolf Hitler - an astonishing tale of loyalty, despair and betrayal that threatened to rock British rule in India, known as the Raj.
Bose, who had been arrested 11 times by the British in India, had fled the Raj with one mission in mind. That was to seek Hitler`s help in pushing the British out of India.
By the end of 1941, Hitler`s regime officially recognised his provisional ``Free India Government`` in exile, and even agreed to help Chandra Bose raise an army to fight for his cause. It was to be called ``The Free India Legion``.
I managed to track down one of Bose`s former recruits, Lieutenant Barwant Singh, who can still remember the Indian revolutionary arriving at his prisoner of war camp.
``He was introduced to us as a leader from our country who wanted to talk to us,`` he said.
``He wanted 500 volunteers who would be trained in Germany and then parachuted into India. Everyone raised their hands. Thousands of us volunteered.``
In all 3,000 Indian prisoners of war signed up for the Free India Legion.
But instead of being delighted, Bose was worried. A left-wing admirer of Russia, he was devastated when Hitler`s tanks rolled across the Soviet border.
Matters were made even worse by the fact that after Stalingrad it became clear that the now-retreating German army would be in no position to offer Bose help in driving the British from faraway India.
When the Indian revolutionary met Hitler in May 1942 his suspicions were confirmed, and he came to believe that the Nazi leader was more interested in using his men to win propaganda victories than military ones.
So, in February 1943, Bose turned his back on his legionnaires and slipped secretly away aboard a submarine bound for Japan.
A year later the Indian legionnaires were sent back to India, where all were released after short jail sentences.
But when the British put three of their senior officers on trial near Delhi there were mutinies in the army and protests on the streets.
With the British now aware that the Indian army could no longer be relied upon by the Raj to do its bidding, independence followed soon after.
At the end of the war the BBC was forbidden from broadcasting their story and this remarkable saga was locked away in the archives, until now.
#32 Posted by dost_mittar on August 26, 2005 12:12:02 pm
fuzair#29:
``As far as excluding `non-Muslims` from the Pakistan Army goes, that is incorrect. Many Christian officers opted for Pakistan and were welcomed.``
From what I have read, only Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs were part of this division of assets. Christians and others did not figure in this ``bandar-baant``.
``As far as excluding `non-Muslims` from the Pakistan Army goes, that is incorrect. Many Christian officers opted for Pakistan and were welcomed.``
From what I have read, only Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs were part of this division of assets. Christians and others did not figure in this ``bandar-baant``.
Interact Index
Also by Veeresh Malik
Similar Articles
- ‘Dustbin of history’ or ‘history of sorts’ Gowhar Geelani
- Historian Amaresh Misra on South Asia AliHasan Cemendtaur
- Remembering the Jallianwala Bagh, Gandhi, Churchill and Jinnah Anil Kapuria
- Toward a Pakistani Media Strategy Ethan Casey
- Long Live Pakistan kashkin dabruski
US Elections 2008 Primaries
Get Chowk RSS FeedLatest Interacts
- usmi: It is quite interesting... Pleas For Sanity as
- Levitate: nkg... dead hindoos :)... Pleas For Sanity as
- Levitate: Zarrar Said are you... Nothing Queer About It
- nkg: HP.... If the world would... Pleas For Sanity as
- Levitate: :) dead hindoos ...... The Future of Indo
- Levitate: :) dead hindoos... Pleas For Sanity as
- borivili_express: jang its a very... Pleas For Sanity as
- dharma: Re: # 217 "dharma says... Pleas For Sanity as
