September 24, 2007
The Battle of Kohima
I saw the first installment of Ken Burns’ eagerly anticipated “The War” last night and was not disappointed in the least.
 |
|
The Kohima Memorial: “When you go home, tell them of us and say; For their tomorrow, we gave our today” |
These battles are important primarily because they marked the furthest advance of Imperial Japanese forces onto the Indian mainland. By holding back the Japanese in the highlands of Nagaland, combined British and Indian forces handed the imperial war machine its largest defeat thus far in the war and, perhaps more importantly, probably saved India from the savagery that had fallen upon China and Burma earlier.
In British war annals, the battle has a place in the history of WWII akin to America’s recollection of Guadalcanal. Earl Mountbatten referred to it as:
“probably one of the greatest battles in history… in effect the Battle of Burma… [was] the British/Indian Thermopylae”.
For desi’s, the historical record is somewhat controversial as the battles held the dubious honor of being the highpoint of activity by Subhash Bose’s Indian National Army in their alliance with the Axis powers.
Kohima is the capital of the Indian state of Nagaland and is ~400 miles north east of Calcutta over modern day Bangladesh. By this point in the war, British forces had been routed by the Japanese across China, the Pacific, and most of southeast Asia and they were determined to halt imperial advances at the gateway to India.
The Japanese, on the other hand, planned to capitalize on these massive victories with an “audacious” plan to drive the British from Asia altogether, the crown jewel being India. As recounted by the British -
 |
|
…and so began the Japanese invasion of the Desh |
The start of 1944 found the Japanese with a battle plan which was audacious, far-reaching, and simple. This was nothing less than a wholesale advance into India. All told, 100,000 troops were to march to the assault, first to seize the British bastions at Imphal and Kohima, and then to proceed another 30 miles northwards and put themselves astride the Bengal-Assam railway, the main supply road to General Stilwell and the Chinese. If all went well, they would by this time have virtually by-passed the 14th Army and left Stilwell out on a limb. India would then stretch before them, and their long-term plan was to move westwards to Calcutta - relying on political unrest in India to pave the way for their advance into the Delhi.
The fighting at Kohima saw the British / Indian forces face long odds, dynamic battles racing up and down hillsides, and nearly constant hand-to-hand combat -
…The garrison, which included a battalion of the Royal West Kent Regiment and a battalion of the Assam Regiment, was small - it mustered all told just over 1,500 men, including convalescent soldiers, civilians, and cooks. Against it was launched the full fury of the Japanese 31st Division, numbering 12,000 men.For 14 days and nights the defenders of Kohima held the bridgehead to India. Now the eyes of the world were upon them because the Japanese had already made their usual enormous radio claims, among which was the one true one that they stood at last upon Indian soil.
…The Japanese finally withdrew on the night of June 6; the battle of Kohima was over. It had lasted 64 days and had seen some of the most stubborn and bloody fighting of the second world war. The
 |
|
British and Nepali Gurkhas Advancing on Japanese Lines at Imphal |
The decisive factor was the Japanese lack of supplies. Since the offensive started, they had had to make do with meager captured stocks and what they could forage in increasingly hostile local villages….The British and Indian forces had lost around 4,000 men, dead, missing and wounded. The Japanese had lost more than 5,000 men in the Kohima area fighting.
The Battle at Imphal happened at the same time as Kohima and although the territory wasn’t quite as strategic as Kohima, the terrain permitted far larger concentrations of men and material resulting in even more numerous casualties -
Of the 100,000 Japanese who raced with sword and grenade for Imphal, 50,000 were dead.
Imphal was also the venue for the most decisive action seen by Bose’s 40,000-strong Indian National Army who figured prominently in Japanese war plans including crucial flank defense & relief operations -
At the insistence of Bose, the Indian National Army made a substantial contribution. (Originally, the Japanese intended using them only for reconnaissance and propaganda.)* Units of the First Division (initially the Subhas Brigade or 1st Guerrilla Regiment), less a battalion sent to the Arakan) was directed along Tamu road along with the Yamamoto Force. [1]
* The Special Services Group, redesignated as the Bahadur Group acted as scouts and pathfinders with the advanced Japanese units in the opening stages of the offensive. They were tasked to infiltrate through British lines and encourage units of the British Indian Army to defect. Fay quotes British Intelligence sources to confirm that these units achieved some success in these early stages.
…On the Japanese left flank, the INA’s Subhas Brigade, led by Col. Shah Nawaz Khan, reached the edge of the Chin Hills below Tiddim and Fort White at the end of March. From this position, the 2nd Battalion sent companies to relieve Japanese forces at Falam and to Hakha, from where in turn, Khan’s forces sent out patrols and laid ambushes for the Chin guerrilas under the command of a British officer, taking a number of prisoners. In the middle of May, a force under Khan’s Adjutant, Mahboob “Boobie” Ahmed, attacked and captured the hilltop fortress of Klang Klang.
Traitor, Useful Idiot, or RealPolitik-genius/casualty? The jury on Bose & the INA’s support of the Japanese is still out and controversial to say the least. I’ll refrain from this aspect of it for now to keep the focus on Kohima & Imphal-writ-large.
Regardless, the desi role in WWII is often overlooked. Unlike the other major combatants, Indians in the British Army were an all-volunteer force and their numbers (over 2.5M) made them one of the single largest force contingents in the war overall. And thankfully, decisive action at Kohima and Imphal helped ensure that, also unlike most other combatants, minimal combat would be seen on desi soil.
[related material — a pamphlet from the UK Ministry of Defense commemorating Kohima and a well written first hand account.]
vinod on September 24, 2007 02:40 PM in · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
Field Marshal Sam "Bahadhur" Manekshaw (later would lead India in 1971 - the first surrender after WW II) was one of the heroes of the Burma front.
From wiki on Sam Manekshaw
I have been there, Kohima, and Imphal, and seen those tombstones. Laddies of 17 and 18! In the months earlier my grandfather literally the last civilian to leave Rangoon (as custodian of documents in the War Office, he had to see each and everyone of those files - and the cipher diaries - was burnt) scrambled ahead of a great mass of convicts and inhabitants of local the "mental hospital" - the last two places to be unlocked during an evacuation, according to the British manuals. He trekked the last few 100 miles into Dimapur. Vinod, the Indian contingent in WW2 is the largest volunteer army ever I know over 2.5 million served, would appreciate if you tell us how many were killed and injured in battle.
Kush,
Sam Bahadur disobeyed orders to carry his injured batman out of harm's way.
Vinod,
Bose was fully aware of the horrendous record of the Axis, and declared himself willing to collaborate even with scum to throw out the Brits. He was inspired in part by the Indian rebel of WW1 - "Jai Hind" Shenbagaraman Pillai, who worked with the Central Powers to free India, and was even on board on the Imperial Fleet's Emden when it shelled Madras. Shenbagarman was the one who coined the cry Jai Hind, which became the battlecry of Bose's INA.
In hindsight, had Bose's plan succeeded, India would have probably made it into post-WWII world as a military dictatorship, or even worse a Japanese satellite. However at that time Bose would have had no guarantee that actual independence would follow the war, and going by the British track record and speeches of Churchill, he made a 'wise' decision. For us today, the INA helps to end the perception that India was 'given' its freedom.....if it didn't come peacefully we would have fought for it. That is why Bose and the INA still deserve to be 'heroes' of the independence struggle.
PG Wodehouse - thanks for pointing out the mistake. fixed!
The most poignant words I have ever heard:
"When You Go Home, Tell Them Of Us And Say,
For Their Tomorrow, We Gave Our Today"
Was this the same retreating army, backing into India proper, that practiced a burn and slash policy to prevent the food supply from falling into the hands of the Japanese forces? If so, then the British command was responsible for the deaths of many starving civilian, ie. Bengal Famine 1943.
The fact that millions of Indians volunteered during WWWI and WWII never gets mentioned in American or Canadian (where I live) school history textbooks or media.
Netaji and the INA are heroes. One of my grandfathers was a member and was incarcerated for a year in Singapore. But Bose's plan was doomed to fail after the Japanese lost at Midway. Without there support an armed struggle against British imperialism would have been difficult. Yes, Bose probably did know what the Axis powers were doing. I know I would have been on his side instead of the spineless Congress and Muslim League. At least the INA had the guts to fight.
I met him back in the day on a school trip. He had a place in Ooty and was gracious enough to let a bunch of kids and teachers stop by, take a tour of his place (one of our teachers knew him personally), and recount a few tales including the one where he took bullets to his abdomen for which he was awarded a medal. He was an impressive figure even in his golden years.
Several soldiers from the British Indian Army were recepients of the Victoria Cross for actions on the Burmese front.
Interestingly, Gen. Ayub Khan's son insinuated a few years ago that Gen. Manekshaw had sold India's war plans to Pakistan during the 1965 war. No one took the allegations seriously, because of Gen. Manekshaw's unimpeachable credibility, and also because nothing in Pakistan's strategy in '65 suggested they knew what India was up to.
These and many others are a variation of the epitaph remembering the Battle of Thermopylae
thank you for writing about this little known history for us ABDs or at least some of us ABDs.
I'm amazed that the army was volunteer - I wonder why? Was it b/c their country's economy (a colonized India) gave them few other choices to make a living?
When I think of soilders who fought for their country, but were second-class citizens in their country, it makes me feel such a mix of emotions, - pride, awe in their bravery and resilience against racism, and also sadness that they had to suffer the ignomy; When I read about African-Americans fighting in wwII, jewish groups who tried to get support from Polish patriots as they tried to defend Warsaw, Indian soilders fighting in the british army. I always think amid the horror that is war, how the soilders fighting for an institution that denies them their full rights, are able to sustain the morale to be so brave and resilient.
the horrendous record of the Axis, and declared himself willing to collaborate even with scum to throw out the Brits
Colonized people were really between a rock and a hard place, weren't they?. Reminds me of the situation of many Muslims in Bosnia, who during WWii sided with the nazis, or many Vietnamese siding with the communist govt during the time when Vietnam was controlled by the French.
Interesting trip into the history of Burma.
I see your interest in it was very high, so I assume you must be very passionate about it.
Keep up the good work, because you seem to be very successful with it.
Yours Sincerely.
I don't know anything about this, however, in war Generals are known to let plans 'slip' in order to give their enemies a false lead. Think the deception campaign of D-Day where an elaborate scheme was set-up to let Hilter think that Calais was would be the focal point of the invasion, not Normandy. Messages were intercepted, a fake Army was stood up under Patton, plans were given to known double agents, etc.
That's possible, but mostly I think its just a lot of bull. wikipedia has some info:
btw, I was wrong in saying it was a few years ago: it seems to be only a few months (may 2007).
>For desi’s, the historical record is somewhat controversial as the battles held the dubious honor of being the highpoint of activity by Subhash >Bose’s Indian National Army in their alliance with the Axis powers.
The German Army was welcomed in the middle east. They hated the British and the Germans were nice. Most of the middle east aided the German war effort in whichever way they could. This might have had something to do with the fact that the Axis forces in the ME were led by FM Rommel.
Mostly people start screaming murder when they hear this and point to the Holocaust. But the fact remains that one does not reflect upon the other. They are both equally matters of historical record.
Very interesting post. Just a few days ago I came across a BBC radio documentary Stand at East in which Mark Tully interviewed veterans of the "forgotten army". Indian soldiers under the command of both Indian and British officers fought not just in Burma but also in North Africa, Middle East (Iraq, Iran, Syria), Cypress and Italy in WW-II. Very astonishing story. Please do listen to the documentary. It was this army that laid the foundations of Indian armed forces of today.
In no particular order...
Yes, India did raise the largest standing volunteer (as opposed to mandatory service or draft) army ever. I've been long trying to get a reliable estimate of Indian military casualties in WWII, killed and wounded, but for some reason the answer is elusive. I've seen figures from 78,000 to over 200,000. Comparisons are supposed to be odious, but the latter figure (if it represents the dead) would be of the same order of magnitude as United States casualties in WWII.
The Indian Army site's historical section is notably weak on pre-independence British Indian Army details, which is surprising, since at the regimental level, memories and histories go back almost two centuries. I have not check the Pakistan Army sources.
In any case, the Indian contribution to WWII was far from negligible, and I never fail to let my fellow Americans know.
In Singapore, a memorial to the INA was raised in early July, 1945 by Subhash Bose, who died a few weeks later early August in a plane crash in Taipei (or has been seen in Elvis' company, according to some other reports originating in the Eastern parts of India).
The memorial was restored some years ago by the Singapore government.
i don't think this war has any significance. after nagasaki and hiroshima, the japanese surrendered everything they had. the british were equally brutal; remember 5 million bengalis who died because of british indifference (churchill said something like they breed like rabbits). may be we should retire the metaphor rock and hard place and use british and japanese instead.
And lets not forget the Indian soldiers of Wehrmacht's Indisches Infanterie Regiment 95 or the Italian army's Battaglione Azad Hindoustan!
A close relative fought in the INA army. Died a few years ago. He often said that the lowest point of his INA life was to realize that he was not killing englishmen but fellow indians.
The Govt of India has provided a freedom fighter pension for those fought in the INA.
The real traitors were the indians fighting for the British Empire.
CookieBrown:
Wiki says 87K (millitary Only) - 187 K (Millitary + Civialian incl famine)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Casualties_by_country
I think this is accurate since it kinda tallies with a really comprehensive WW2 book I used to own and also with Bharat rashak
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/Galleries/main.php?g2_itemId=739&g2_page=2
(Check out the cool pics!)
When I checked up BRs WW2 section I was surprised how few articles it had, since I had heard so many WW2 from my friends families while going to school in a defense colony (I went past a sherman Tank every day and actully had a friend called Rommel!)
Marginalize_the_macualayites:
If you consider what actually happened to Andaman the only part of India that was 'liberated' by the japanese, calling Bose a dupe is being extemely charitable.
In principle the INC and commies were both against the axis, so the people who signed up for the british empire were hardly traitors,. This is especially true if you consider the sacrifices many of them later made (as sakshi pointed out) to free the members of the INA.
For a thorough and fascinating histoy of the wars in the region, see Chris Bayly and Tim Harper's Forgotten Wars and the follow-on Forgotten Armies. More focused on Burma, but also touches the entire Burmese Crescent, including India's NE.
Bose's Forward Bloc Party is alive and well in India today. Ok, well mostly just in W. Bengal. As to his and their politics? Bose himself wrote, "You cannot have a so-called democratic system, if that system has to put through economic reforms on a socialistic basis. Therefore, we must have a political system -- a State -- of an authoritarian character...we have come to the conclusion that with a democratic system we cannot solve the problems of Free India."
The Andaman Islands were where the british overlords of India imprisoned, tortured and hanged thousands of indians including many freedom fighters. The dupes and useful idiots were those who fought to defend and expand the British Empire.
As someone said earlier the real traitors to india were the communist parties and congress bootlickers.
Netaji Subash was the only leader of that time who had the courage and foresight to challenege the british misrule.
His militarism was in stark contrast to Wimpy Gandhi and that is to be admired in a man when the whole of india was under the spell of pacifism.
And that attitude holds true even in the post WWII years:
The British may well have hanged 'thousands', but I doubt if they would bother to take them to the Andamans to do that. There was certainly a famous colonial jail in Port Blair, where prisoners awarded 'transportation' to the 'Kala Pani' were held.
All that aside, the probable reason the Japanese were able to occupy the Andamans is because they were weakly defended, and in any case the Andamans are part of the Indonesian archipelago, the rest of which the Japanese had already occupied.
Another side point - Burma had been administered from Calcutta as part of 'British India' till 1937, just before the War. So I would argue that the fact that the Japanese pushed the British out of Burma should be taken to mean that they did in fact get a substantial chunk of what was 'British India' ('Peshawar to Rangoon') during the War. The Japanese were also able to bomb Eastern Indian seaports - Madras, Vishakhapatnam, Kakinada, and probably also Calcutta during the War. These happenings get rather short shrift in historical accounts of the era.
All that aside, the probable reason the Japanese were able to occupy the Andamans is because they were weakly defended, and in any case the Andamans are part of the Indonesian archipelago, the rest of which the Japanese had already occupied.
Andamans were taken for one reason.
Indonesia has lot of oil and gas, therefore, it was capture by energy-starved Japan for that reason.
Taking Andamans, you control the waterways, and safe passage of your ships carrying gasoline.
my father remembers madras being bombed from burma, and lots of people beforehand had left to go inland to thanjavur and kumbhakonum and such places.
I found the Ken Burns movie Burnsy in that way of his where he makes everyone a little too saintly, and then kind of haphazardly organized, too, especially the first episode, which kind of finishes, and then they tack on the stories of these two mexican marines. Plus he has at once the sort of regular "here's the battle plan" with the maps, etc. but unlike say Civil War, in this he's very adamant about not considering the major strategists and only considering the "regular" soldiers. I also don't like how he only focuses on small towns and people from small towns (waterbury ct, sacramento, some MN town).
other desi connection is that they have norah jones singing the theme song.
Wow! Is there any well made India documentaries about the 'feats' of the Indian army?...or do we have to wait some white to guy to make one! LOL
India was "used" as the source of "man power" and "materials" by Britain during the world wars and they have to do nothing special.. Bring in a concept called "martial races" and throw a few crumbs and people would flock like dogs to join the army.. Because there is nothing much better to do anyways with the economy being strangled..
The Brits were building air fields and weapon factories in north east of India during the early 40s to safeguard their empire from Japanese attacks when millions were dying of famine / hunger / starvation in the same region..
India was "used" as the source of "man power" and "materials" by Britain during the world wars and they have to do nothing special.. Bring in a concept called "martial races" and throw a few crumbs and people would flock like dogs to join the army.. Because there is nothing much better to do anyways with the economy being strangled..
Speaking of Burns PBS documentary "The War", the depressed economy of the US was also given as a reason why so many US voluntarily enlisted in the beginning of WWII.
As far as Indians being used, I'm sure most Indians who joined the British army had to weigh the choices that they had, and understood teh irony of joining a British army that and defending the British crown. I don't think you meant this but when you say "used" and "throw a few crumbs" it makes the Indians who joined the army seem like they weren't cognizant of their situation - I'm sure many of them were.
" The German Army was welcomed in the middle east. They hated the British and the Germans were nice. Most of the middle east aided the German war effort in whichever way they could.
And that attitude holds true even in the post WWII years:
The most notorious of the Nazis granted asylum in Syria was another top Eichmann aide, SS Lieutenant Alois Brunner. After being convicted in France in 1954 of responsibility for the murders of more than 100,000 Jews, Brunner disappeared. Two decades later, the famed French Nazi-hunters Serge and Beate Klarsfeld tracked down Brunner in Damascus, where he was making a comfortable living as an adviser to the Syrian intelligence services.link "
Anyone one who thinks the Nazi's would have remained 'nice' to Arabs after they lost their usefulness is a complete idiot. Hitler considered everyone but North Europeans to be racially inferior. There's no doubt what he would have thought of Arabs, who not only were 'racial cousins' of the Jews, but also primitive and lived in tribes.
#36 Arjun,
>Anyone one who thinks the Nazi's would have remained 'nice' to Arabs after they lost their usefulness is a complete idiot. Hitler considered >everyone but North Europeans to be racially inferior. There's no doubt what he would have thought of Arabs, who not only were 'racial cousins' of >the Jews, but also primitive and lived in tribes.
Because we just 'know' the British were very nice in the ME. Hell if anything they treated them worse than the treated us. The bombed whole villages. Imagine! Or is it only a war crime if white people are mass-murdered?
Umm...comparing the British to the Nazis does neither justice. British may have committed war-crimes, they may have acted racist at times, but the British never claimed to want to extinguish an entire group of people. Though many may have been killed, the British never had mass murder as the OBJECTIVE of policy. The British acted like colonialists...fine, but the Nazis claimed to be, and acted like murderers. Even amongst colonialists the British come out far more humane than, for example, the Belgians in Africa or the French in Vietnam.
"The bombed whole villages. " This comes of rather comedic in its effect, since a village has what...100 people max.
Is being humane only defined by war-crimes ? Is the metric of being humane defined by how many people you have killed ( as if killing 10 is better than 100 ) ? I think there have been innumerable/immense socio-economic exploitation of the Indians by the British; which doesn't make them humane at all. And what about the Jalianwala Bagh massacare and many other such small scale killings of ordinary folks which probably never made it to the headline news just because it was not mass-extermination ?
Subhash Bose is considered the ultimate 20th century Bengali hero.. I am yet to meet a bengali who doesn't like him and/or thinks he is one of the most important figures in the Indian independence movement. And most bengalis also think that there was a conspiracy by other Congress leaders to get rid of him (In that way, I guess he is probably our JFK).
He made some very passionate, soul-stirring speeches.
My grandfather and his brothers were in the freedom struggle at a local level. They admired Bose. And Bose did not seem the type who reveled in the holocaust. Indians had so many problems of their own that the holocaust's real impact was not felt here just the same way India's suffering was not really felt in the U.S. as much as it should have. The U.S. has partnered with monsters in the past for convenience. Unless we are prepared to denounce our government, should we be looking down on Bose's desperate attempt at getting allies? What were his options back then??? DO you seriously think Bose could have asked France or the U.S. for military help?
It is to the credit of our grandparents that many of them have no held long lasting grudges towards the British as much as other communities have had towards their oppressors.
Let's get real people.
Subhash Chandra Bose is the most popular Bengali of all time in Bengal - and lots of the rest of India. There is little debate there, which sounds more like a Eurocentric perspective.
Spoken like a true macaulayite apologist for british rule. The british committed numerous genocides and atrocities:
http://phoenixwoman.blogspot.com/2005/12/british-genocides-in-india-could-top.html
http://www.alternet.org/stories/42219/
http://www.danielnpaul.com/BritishGenocide-1759.html
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/sep1999/geno-s07.shtml
and much much more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andaman_Islands
Subhash Bose is India's Washington. Even if washington had lost we would be no less honorable.
When nazis were bombing britain, the british were bombing indians. nor suprising that gandhi stayed out of the war since from india's perspective both british and nazis were evil empires.
My father is a world war 2 vet (not an officer). He volunteered along with the other 2.5 million. The post-independence govt's treatment of these vets is little short of shameful. They were denied benefits that ex-servicemen get in India because they were not recognized as having served the govt of India (unless they stayed on after Independence). He friends fought in Italy, Somalia, Ethiopia, Egypt, and garrisoned Iraq (yes, Iraq!). Finally, during Rajiv Gandhi's PMship, they got ID cards recognizing them as ex-servicemen. Go figure!!
I have just one picture of him in his uniform.
MarginalizeTheMacaulayites @45:
Your own link shows that the Andaman Islands were used as a penal colony, that many people died there - from mistreatment and being worked too hard.
That's what happens in a penal colony where people are sent for 'life' - they die there. The fact that such a penal colony existed, that most of those who were sent there were political prisoners, and that the dead might have numbered in the thousands, is in itself a pretty damning indictment of the nature of British rule in India. That many of them died there, however, is not the same thing as saying that they were hanged. It makes no economic (or even penal) sense for people to be sent from the mainland to the Andamans to be hanged.
First of all Priya there is a BIG difference between killing 10 and 100 people, and I'd have about 90 people that have my back on that one.
Second I agree the EFFECTS of British policy were often the deaths of millions. The policies were often careless, racist and despicable. And of course they economically exploited their colonies...thats what makes them colonialists. Of course they were the worst of oppressors.
I had not heard of this Kikuyu genocide, I will read about it when I get the chance. I have heard of the Mau-mau rebellion, but was under the belief that that was more part of a war strategy than genocide.
Anyway what I am saying, is even when the British did these things, they never 'revelled' in it publicly. THey at least kept up a 'veil' of decency. The Nazis screamed that they were going to commit genocide...and then they did it. They revelled in their evil. That is the difference.
This is also why most would say Hitler was worse than Stalin(I wouldn't necessarily agree), but Stalin's 20 million dead were the results of poor, incosiderate policy, while for Hitler the policy WAS death. Also the Nazis were FAR more ruthless in the killing of children....just look at the disgusting medical experiments they often seemed to carry out 'for kicks' with gypsy children. One such experiment....to counteract the effects of hypothermia "beautiful" 15 year old naked gypsy girls were bundled with soldiers who had just spent hours in cold water. You can go read about many many worse examples. What the Nazis did, at least in a scale of "pure evil," cannot be rivaled. The British and American governments ALSO have a history of unsavory medical experiments(mostly regarding poisen gas), but they were mostly on adult populations, often soldiers. Maybe the Belgians in the Congo come close.
And also the British misdeeds had at their core an economic goal. The Nazi misdeeds had at their core pure hatred.
I was amazed to find out that the British actually had concentration camps for Afrikaaners/Boers (i.e. WHITE PEOPLE) in South Africa at one time...during a war between the two or something (details a little vague in my head, I'll look it up if I have time). Children (white, European-descent Boer children) were starved to death. Somehow I could imagine the Brits doing that to Indians or Africans, but to other whites? Shows you that their policies were simply designed to strengthen the Empire, politically and economically, at any cost to anyone subject to them, including genocide. That being said, they were better than the Nazis.
Putting up a deceitful veil of decency over evil acts of racism, genocide and enslavement makes the british somehow better than the nazis? It only made the british more insidious and hence more successful international criminals. Besides being genociders, enslvers, exploiters, racists etc the british were also the biggest drug pushers of all time who tried to make an entire nation, China, addicted to opium under a veil of 'decency' aka laissez faire capitalism.
Typical macaulayite eurocentrism. The nazis killed in Europe. They did not kill any indians other than those who were fighting for the British Empire aginst them. The British on the other hand killed millions of Indians. Yet many still-colonized subcontinentals remain brainwashed into thinking that the british were better than the nazis! Try to look at the world with desi eyes for a change.
Then there's Aussies.
MarginalizeTheMacaulayites:
I should have given you more information on the occupation of Andaman by the Japanese and why it reflects very badly on Bose.
As you pointed out Andaman was a penal colony where british exiled freedom fighters. So when the Japanese invaded they were greeted as liberators. Unfortunatly, the Japanese turned out to be worse than british- they indulged in large scale rape and murder. All in all in the short period of 3 years, the Japanese killed more people than the british had during their entire occupation.
The worst part about this is that when these atrocities occured Bose was the ruler of Andamans.
It speaks terribly of Bose that such atrocities were inflicted under his watch on a natually sympathetic population. One only shudders to think of what would have happened if the rest of India was 'liberated' by the Japanese similarly.
The only good thing that Bose did (and the value of this should not be underestimated in any way) awas to prove to the British that there was a viable violent option available instead of Gandhism and that the enforcers of the british empire (the indian army/civil service) could at any time take this option if there was a charismatic leader
Otherwise Rajaji's 'leaky boat' comment proved prophetic.
Some of this information is in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_and_occupation_of_the_Andaman_Islands_during_World_War_II
The rest of the information is based on a Son et Lumiere Show on the history of Andamans I had seen in Port Blair ages back
#51 Arjun
And also the British misdeeds had at their core an economic goal. The Nazi misdeeds had at their core pure hatred.
--> Weaver in 19th century India: Where did all the trade go ? Why am I starving?
British: We made you obsolete. We had our economic prosperity at our heart.
Weaver starves to death anyway.
Nazis were in a class of their own when it came to despicable acts. British were much more pedestrian in their killings.
As much as I like Bose for doing what he did(offering an alternative to the best-politician-there-ever-was Gandhi), he would have taken India on a lesser road than what Nehru did.
Yes, the British were horrible. But there is no comparison to the Nazis. Anyone doubting that should read up a bit (wikipedia is a good place) on the Holocaust.
from the view point of the victims, there is no difference between colonialists, nazi, communists etc. Basically they were victims of power and aggression. The bullet fired by these aggressors follow the laws of physics and not some underlying ideology of the aggressors. did the bullets fired at jalian wallah bagh had some soft and slow motion landing because it was fired by colonialists? why do you think the tens of millions of people who died of starvation and famine better off than victims of communism and nazism?
did the bullets fired at jalian wallah bagh had some soft and slow motion landing because it was fired by colonialists?
Yes, what you say is right - when you you die you die. But for the Indians' families who died under colonialist rule, there is a difference between who they died under. Was it institutionalized in the British empire to kill those they ruled under? no...those underlying policies are very important even if death is death - it's very important the Indians that survived, the families of the Indians that died.
I think it is b/c of Britain's underlying policies on Colonial rule, their own philosophy that guided their laws, is what Gandhi's movement used to win freedom for India, in a relatively bloodless way; If it was Nazi ideology and laws that India was under, I'm sure many more millions would have been killed.
The involvement of the Sikhs in the 2 World Wars is quite well-documented (for example: http://www.sikhs.org/ww1/,
http://www.unitedsikhs.org/rtt/Sikhs_in_France.htm,
http://www.sikhspectrum.com/122002/soldiers_ww.htm,
http://www.sikhspectrum.com/112003/sikharmynames1.htm),
but is also quite controversial on the same lines: why would a defeated Indian community sign up to defend their former enemies? Perhaps it was the "martial races" propaganda that convinced them..
Just some ideas:
Acceptance of reality?
Lack of other economic avenues?
Opportunities to exploit the new situation and advance one's/one's caste's interests? Both Jatt Sikhs as well as 'low-caste' Sikhs gained certain benefits at least during the early decades of colonisation (although that was much before the WW1 and WW2 eras).
Lack of awareness of the big picture?
A way to continue an already long-existing military tradition?
Cultural attraction to the military?
Anyone read this story?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Article
The basic point is that there's a distinction between bad and worse. The British were bad. The Nazis and Japanese were worse. In the end, Bose failed to make that distinction.
"Traitor" s probably too strong a word-- God knows he had no reason to be loyal to the British Empire, but so is "hero." "Useful idiot" hits the target squarely.
Speedy
indian soldiers in the british army, princes and other minions of birtish were the useful idiots who helped to sustain the evil british empire for more than 150 years.
I am surprised that there were so many apologists for the british rule in india. Lincoln once famously remarked about that the apologists for slavery should be subjected to slavery so that they stop apologzing for slavery. In the same vein I would suggest that the apologists for the evil british rule in india should be subject to kalapani type of experience or worse, should see that their children starve to death in front of their eyes-- just like the millions of people in India had this misfortune due to the series of famines during the 150 years of british rule that killed tens of millions of people. I am amazed that the apologists for british rule have absolutely no empathy for the tens of millions of people who died of famines which are clearly caused by british misrule.
Yes, the consequences of British rule in India were disastrous for India and Indians but seriously does anyone think that Japanese occupation would have been any better. Considering their record in China, Korea and else where, I think it would have been a disaster of unmitigated proportions. So yes in retrospect Bose does seem like a useful idiot.
I doubt Bose was looking for the Japanese to take over India. What options did Bose have at that time? He had to take a risk. Can you suggest some allies that would have helped Bose militarily? You guys act like Bose had a choice of partners in the fight for liberation.
in retrospect even the sainted churchill is a useful idiot for allying with stalin and ceding half the europe to communism.
Bose may not have wanted Japanese to take over India, but that is in all likelihood, what would have happened had Japanese defeated the British in India.
INA was a relatively small force ( Apart from the symbolism of an "Indian Army" what did the INA really achieve? Bose's judgment regarding the choice of his allies and tactics does seem questionable to say the least.
There is no guarantee that Japanese would have had the will to take over all of India.
And once again, what were the other options Bose had? Name one country he could have used as an alternative ally.
"I was amazed to find out that the British actually had concentration camps for Afrikaaners/Boers (i.e. WHITE PEOPLE) in South Africa at one time...during a war between the two or something (details a little vague in my head, I'll look it up if I have time). Children (white, European-descent Boer children)"
What's to be amazed? Whites kill whites? Browns kill browns? Mirabile dictu! Also--the people actually carrying out murder on command are usually chosen for the job. They rarely pop out of nowhere--it takes selection and grooming. Maybe that wacko I recently heard is right--the ruling class is a bunch of reptilians. but I digress....
I am just reading an essay on depopulation of various types in the last 200 years. For such a small population, the English (not my favorite flavor, btw, but not the worst either) certainly stand accused of killing an awful lot of people. I am not sure it was quite possible, especially in the 19th century, victimization hyperbole notwithstanding.
My friend who showed me the genocide essay, reminds me that the quite white population of Ireland, right next door to England, lost several million during the mid-19th century famine, despite mild sympathy and milder assistance from the British government. All the usual nastiness attendant to such a situation, went on. Yet Irish survivors--Catholics even--cheered Queen Victoria when she visited them a few years later. Her great-grandson got cheers when he visited India in 1920. Human relationship with our "leaders" is very strange and unpredictable. Yet colonized countries continued to be a source of volunteers for the British army into the 20th century. Go figure.
Some SMs are amazed that Indians would serve with distinction in the British army? Why? It was job. Also a chance for public display and acknowledgement of some admirable skill. It's not rocket science figuring out why they would do it. After all, while the comparison may not be entirely apt, much of the "American" army in Iraq are mercenaries, or the modern term, "contractors."
Hitler was inspired by the Turkish genocide of the Armenians in the first decades of the 20th century--as he put it, "who remembers that now." The British may have been inspired by the Irish disaster in their treatment of the Boers. Allowing people to starve when food is at hand takes a certain cold-blooded detachment and practice. In fact, the Irish themselves collaborated with the British, sending food to England for profit. The way of all flesh. They needed the money.
Yet although hunger, disease and emmigration did depopulate that country, I would not apply the word genocide. That has stronger connotations of intent and concentration. The Turks deny they committed genocide of the Armenian Christians because they can blame it on other ethnic groups in the country, or they say that many of the people died during forced marches and of disease. Witnesses however, speak of deliberate murder and torture.
Nazis had the technology to do things lesser would-be genociders could only dream of. Do we think they also had greater responsibility because they were supposed to be "civilized?" The Japanese were a shock to the idea of moral progress, as were the Germans. How could people so advanced, so gentile, etc., be so cruel? Like the English, they may be ladies and gentlemen par excellance under normal circumstances. But give them a bloody war and they go insane.
However, after spending time at missions in Africa, I would not say the cruelty there, African on African, any less horrific. They make do with cruder tools, but they get the job done. The infernal machine keeps on grinding away, base human nature and the triumph of those with the bigger toys.
If their treatment of people of Indian descent is anything to go by, you can be sure that the Nazis' feelings towards Indians, whether they were fighting for the British or not, were not going to be benign:
To amitabh et al. (and apropos the surprise at white on white cruelty):
its all about power. When you are more powerful than the other, you look for reasons to justify your power. racial or cultural superiority is one of them. for example, before the political ascendancy of the east india company in india, there are several instances of the mughals putting europeans to death for various 'crimes'. some complained, but since the balance of power was more or less equal in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, even british and dutch officials (of the various east india companies)agreed with the mughals. the basic reason was that they were equal in power. this would have been unthinkable after the mid eighteenth century when the british slowly began to take over india.
"If their treatment of people of Indian descent is anything to go by, you can be sure that the Nazis' feelings towards Indians, whether they were fighting for the British or not, were not going to be benign:"--
Oh, I should not think they would be benign! of course I know about the Roma's fate. Still, i don't think they intended to exterminate India--I mean, come on--just too many people and anyway, they were in their own continent. The Third Reicht wanted Germany for germans and the rest of Europe and western Asia for Germans. I don't think they thought it through too much further. A tragic thing is, that the Nazis were willing to have the Jews leave and go to Palestine, but the British, who then ruled it, would not have it; even Jewish leaders were not too enthusiastic for various strange, inscrutable reasons. Truly tragic to have so much murder and mayhem in such recent, "civilized" history.
Acually, German linguists did realize that the Gypsy was an "Aryan" language, and at first, the Gypsies were just studied under Nazi scrutiny. Many were killed, but from all accounts, compared to the Jews, the genocide of gypsies was often half-hearted and sporadic. There is a story of a village in Italy, where the Nazis rounded up a bunch of Roma children and were going to kill them. The Italians would not have it--they got very angy and made the Nazis leave the children alone, which they did. The kids were not killed--forget where I read that; but i don't think intervention on behalf of Jewish kids would have worked in such a situation.
Amreekan:
On the Roma: "..proportionately, the death toll equaled "and almost certainly exceed[ed], that of Jewish victims.."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust)
Hey even Anne Frank survived for a while under Nazis. Sparing a group of children under the hostile pressure of the locals means little --> After all, Italy during WW2, was either a mainly independant ally (prior to Mussolini's deposition) or a hostile country (post Il Duce's lynching). It makes little sense to turn an ally against you over such a small matter.
The Gypsy toll proportionately equalled the Jewish toll? Do you mean percentage of total wiped out? In Eastern Europe the Jewish population was reduced by some 90% in Poland (largest percentage of Jews in Europe), and the Baltics; 80% reduced in Hungary, 60% reduced in Romania. Pretty much eliminated in Greece. No Jews were wiped out in Denmark. Overall, about 90% reduction in Europe, although it is true that a large number of Jews escaped to Russia and other places. A Jewish fellow once told me that Stalin organized a removal of Jews from the advancing Germans. This surprised me as I know Stalin was anti-Jewish although his daughter married one.
I very much doubt that 90% of the Gypsies were killed off. In fact, I KNOW that was not case. However, I will research to find more exact information--please, do not depend on Wikipedia for your information, except that of a very cursory and generic nature. Do not depend on most commenters here, unless we are siting some very good stat sources, more than one preferably, and can make corroborations. As for your assertion that many more Roma would have died had the Nazi regime remained--well, duh, as they say nowadays. And many more Christian Poles and Communist Slavs as well, who were also on the decimation list.