I.N.A. – freedom fighters or traitors?

I’ve been fascinated by the INA for years, and the masterful history by Ward is fantastically detailed (Peter Ward Fay “The Forgotten Army. India's Armed Struggle for Independence 1941-45).

What I’d like to ask the forum members is:

Were those who joined the INA traitors or were they freedom fighters? I’m interested in your views about the nature of service in the armed forces within the colonial context.

HOWEVER, I must put ask replies not to descend to:

a)personal attacks (of other respondents OR anyone else)
b)extend this discussion to contemporary geo-political events that may cause offence to anyone

Just to note that my own view is rather ambivalent. One the one hand I think that the Indian army had a long and distinguished history of service to the British. There were also hundreds of thousands who served with distinction during WW2, and stayed “loyal”.

However, on the other hand I can understand the reasons why some turned to the INA – some joined merely to escape the appalling conditions of Japanese POW camps; others for nationalistic anti-colonial reasons; and, some because they felt let down by their British officers, especially after the mass surrenders in Singapore and other places.



“The Indian National Army (I.N.A) or Azad Hind Fauj was the army of the Arzi Hukumat-e-Azad Hind (The Provisional Government of Free India ) which fought along with the Japanese 15th Army during the Japanese Campaign in Burma, and in the Battle of Imphal, during the Second World War. It consisted mostly of Indian prisoners of war who, in the course of service in the Indian Army, had been captured by Axis forces, although a significant portion were recruited from Indian civilians in Japanese-controlled Malaya and Burma.” (wikipedia)

 

Another man's terrorist, another man's freedom fighter. It is open to interpretation Kyt. One could look on it as treachery from the viewpoint they take advantage of the fact that British resources are stretched. There is the argument that might say that if hostilities hadn't extended to the Indian sub-continent, that they would still me waiting for independance now and they were only seizing the opportunity as they saw it.

It seems a odd reason to join the INA - because they felt let down by their British officers - so they decide to join an organisation to fight them. I am not sure, on this but wasn't the leader, or one of the leaders of the INA in talks with the Germans. If they had formally aligned themselves with the Germans and the forementioned joined them knowing this allegiance/ alliance then they could be tarred as traitors.

I can speak having no knowledge of what was going off internally in India at the time. Your having reading the previously mentioned book would have benefitted you with an insight into the situation, I could only guess at.

With independance in 47 and partition India and the west part the infant state of Pakistan and the unrest that took place then I think there was more than a separation from Britain that was at the heart of the problem. The fighting in 47 must have had it's roots before 47 and it wouldn't suprise me if there was more in the internal unrest than just independance issues.

Britain knew by 47 that India was a complex issue and with the recent end of the war and a nearly bankrupt nation, and the resources and political involvement involved in running it helped in deciding to grant India,Pakistan and Bangladesh independance.

 

Another man's terrorist, another man's freedom fighter. It is open to interpretation Kyt. One could look on it as treachery from the viewpoint they take advantage of the fact that British resources are stretched. There is the argument that might say that if hostilities hadn't extended to the Indian sub-continent, that they would still me waiting for independance now and they were only seizing the opportunity as they saw it.

It is true that at that time (1942/43) nobody knew that India would become independent in 1947, or even if Britain would win the war. After the initial Burma debacle, many militant Indian nationalists believed that they should align themselves with Japan (who so-called philosophy was "Asia for the Asians; a philosophy that was initially believed by nationalists in namy countries, including Aung San Suu Kyi's father in Burma)


I am not sure, on this but wasn't the leader, or one of the leaders of the INA in talks with the Germans. If they had formally aligned themselves with the Germans and the forementioned joined them knowing this allegiance/ alliance then they could be tarred as traitors.

Subhash Chandra Bose - probably the most militant of Indian nationalists - had initially asked for Russian help who passed him on to Hitler (before Babarossa - Ok I've probably spelt that wrong!). Initially, there wasn't much enthusiasm, until the propaganda value was perceived, and even then the whole German (and Italian) venture was a major flop. With the war in the east, he went to Tokyo
With independance in 47 and partition India and the west part the infant state of Pakistan and the unrest that took place then I think there was more than a separation from Britain that was at the heart of the problem. The fighting in 47 must have had it's roots before 47 and it wouldn't suprise me if there was more in the internal unrest than just independance issues.

Britain knew by 47 that India was a complex issue and with the recent end of the war and a nearly bankrupt nation, and the resources and political involvement involved in running it helped in deciding to grant India,Pakistan and Bangladesh independance.

This is rather complex, and for the average Indian soldier, overly complex. The roots of the 1947 troubles of course have an earlier history, but ironically, the least affected elements were the new Pakistani and Indian armies. The descent to the post-independence war(s) infact upset a lot of old comrades, but of course, they did their duties to their respect countries.

Slightly tongue-in-cheek answer here.
Do what they did to the Indian Muntineers back in 1857-58.
Strap them to the muzzle of a cannon.

Was that a bit of nostalgia?

Seriously though. Who did they swear allegiance too when they joined up?
Go against that and that defines you as a traitor.
I'm sure each man had his own reasons.
Still traitors though.
As you say lots of loyal service to the Crown from thousands of their countrymen so why should they betray them too?

I suppose I could as the very same question that those who recruited them into the INA asked them - "should your allegiance hold to those who have led you into defeat and into such terrible conditions" (not my words - paraphrasing what was said at the time)

Any captured Jiff should have been summarily executed on the spot.

Weeeellllllll, that is interesting. The post war trials would have ordered that except they were held at the most delicate time in the independence negotiations, and the whole process became a political bomb.

Ironically, those who served in the British Indian army only receive pensions for their war service from the British government. The Indian government only give pensions to the 'freedom fighters' i.e. those who are seen as contributing to the independence movement, including members of the INA

Thanks for your contributions - pertenant points all.

 

Interesting discussion.

I suppose the saying "one man's traitor is another man's hero" certainly applies here.

There were plenty of little "insurections" inside India at the begining of the war and those would certainly be called freedome fighters. Asking the assistance of a foreign country to help you drive out an "occupier" would be the next logical step, so I could understant the sensitivities that the postwar new Indian government struggled with. Especially as most of the freedom fighter leaders were jailed by the British during the war.

 

I've been doing a bit of research into the INA and found an account of some of the methods used by the Japanese to, 'persuade' Indian soldiers to join.

"Eight Malay officers were executed when they refused, but their men were given permission to return home. The first batch of about 100 were loaded into lorries, ostensibly to be taken to the railway station, but were instead taken away to mass executions. ... Despite the pressures put on them, most professional soldiers of the Indian Army resisted any inducement to change sides. Many who refused were beaten, tortured and murdered. … About 20,000 now volunteered to join the Indian National Army, some because they saw this as a genuine opportunity to free India from British rule and the majority in the interests of self preservation. Other accounts also indicate that those who had refused to change sides were being killed or starved.
My own mother told me that Indian officers, including my father, were held at gun point to force them to join the INA. Officers were thus first induced, so the men would follow. Some were shot"

Following on from this I was hoping for some related info. As members of the INA on the whole were not court martialled/prosecuted after the war did they recieve campaign medals, i.e Burma star, for their prior service. Or did only members of the Indian Army who had stayed loyal and became prisoners of war recieve medals?
I ask as I have an Indian Army medal group named to the 1/14th Punjabis who were captured at Singapore comprising Indian General Service Medal 1936 bar, Burma Star, 39-45 Star and War Medal. Its leaving me somewhat confused as the 1/14th seemed to be the core of the INA providing its commanding officer and two out of the three defendants at the Red Fort Trial and I wouldn't have imagined they would have recieved campaign medals. I have also been told that the Pacific Star, not the Burma star, was awarded for the Malaya camapign in 1941-42.
If anyone could shed any light on this it would be really appreciated.

Thanks

Rich

 

Hi Rich,

though those who joined the INA were not court martialled or prosecuted (apart from a token handful), it was decided that they should be dismissed from theArmy forthwith, and lose all privilages, entitlements and awards (including capmaign medals). However, after Independence, INA members started getting pensions from the Indian government, as did all those who were called Freedom Fighters.

As to the Burma/Pacific Star, those who served for at least one day in Malaya and Singapore between 8/12/1941 and 15/02/1942 received the Pacific Star. Howver, they would receive the Burma Clasp if they then fought in Burma. The Burma Star was specifically for the Burma Campaign.

It is interesting to note that your collection has the Burma Star attributed to the 1/14th because, as part of the 5th Indian Infantry Brigade, they surrendered in Singapore. As they fought in Malaya during the whole campaign, I'm rather surprised. Howver, if the individual didn't join the INA (as many didn't), then he would have been entitled to the awards.

BTW, have you read Fay's The Forgotten Army?

 

Hi Kyt,
I haven't read The Forgotten Army but have seen extracts from it. To be honest until I started researching this medal group I had never even heard of the INA. The only thing I had ever seen in the past about Indian troops fighting with the Japanese was in a war stories comic I read when I was a kid and I didn't believe it.
The story of the INA is incredibly fascinating, I think what struck me the most in the limited info I have found about it is the reaction to Col Hunts Farrer park address to the Indian POW's and that a number of Indians have claimed it was this speach that had a major impact on them deciding to join the INA.
I'm starting to have my doubts about the medal group I have. The IGS with NWF 1936 bar is 100% correct but the fact that the Burma star is in the group can't really be reconciled with service in the 1/14th. The stange thing is the group is mounted and has clearly been mounted and worn for a long time and the naming does seem to be correct. Perhaps its the case the individual soldier awarded himself the medals!


Rich