logo
From the memoir: A former Army general recalls how soldiers opted to fight for India's freedom

From the memoir: A former Army general recalls how soldiers opted to fight for India's freedom

Scroll.in10-06-2025
On 7 December 1941, Japan came into the war against the United States. This naturally brought in Britain on the side of US, and India, as part of the British Empire, also became involved in the war with Japan. For her defence against Japan, India depended on Singapore as her bastion in the east.
By the surprise attack on Pearl Harbour and the capture of the Philippines by the Japanese, Singapore was considerably weakened. Singapore's defences faced the sea, with the land approaches in the rear, undefended. Further, the Japanese had organized an elaborate espionage system in Singapore with the help of the local Chinese inhabitants living in the city, who gave up-to-date and accurate information on the day-to-day movements of British and Indian troops. Again, no one then believed that an attack could be mounted on Singapore by land, because of the extraordinarily long lines of communication through an inhospitable country. So, Singapore was unprepared from a land attack by Japanese – the bastion found itself unprepared, and it fell unexpectedly and rapidly.
After the fall of Singapore, the Japanese drive towards Rangoon gained momentum. Rangoon was evacuated on 7 March 1942, and thousands of Indians began their track to India through the difficult jungles of the Arakan. Here, the forethought of the British in building communications became apparent. The fall of Rangoon had brought the war close to us, as Gen. Alexander's forces withdrew to the Eastern Gates of India, after fighting retreating battles in Burma against overwhelming odds, over such routes which we had helped to build.
Defence measures had, therefore, to be concentrated in India, but full support for the war was lacking because Britain had failed to exercise sufficient effort in getting India to commit herself in the early days. This was unfortunate, as in September 1939, a wave of sympathy for England and against the totalitarian countries and against Hitler, had spread throughout the country, and there was a general feeling that India could have been easily persuaded to declare war against totalitarian aggression. But technically, India was at war when Britain was, and India was deemed committed without her leaders being consulted. It had even provided the troops which had helped delay the first German attack on Paris. The principal political party, the Indian National Congress, which was then fighting for India's political freedom, felt that as Britain was not prepared to recognize India's freedom after the war, Indians would come more and more to believe that this was not India's war despite Japan entering it, and the war reaching the very borders of the country.
It was against this background that, in 1942, Gandhiji launched the Quit India Movement, which later that year turned to overt action. So, the relations between the British and the Congress became further strained.
In retrospect, events appear to have been the natural outcome of the failure to get the cooperation of the Congress leaders, when it was still possible, in the early days of the war.
In spite of these political differences inside the country, events in India moved fast. With Hitler's invasion of Poland, the army in India was mobilised in September 1939, and Indian troops began arriving in Suez from October 1939 onwards. The role assigned to this force was the Middle East and Africa, but some ancillary units were sent to France to provide transport cover to the British Expeditionary Forces. Among them was Capt Anis Ahmed Khan, who was earlier with us in the Madras Pioneers. During the retreat from Dunkirk, he was taken prisoner and remained in Germany throughout the war. I was disappointed that although we were the first troops to leave India for overseas duty, we did not contact the enemy till 1941, whereas those who left India after us, contacted the enemy almost immediately.
During the Second World War, Indian Army units fought gallantly in France, Italy, Africa, the Middle East, Malaya, Burma and Indonesia, whilst at the same time protecting the North-West Frontier of India and carrying out their role of internal security within the country. These duties necessitated tremendous expansion. In October 1939, the strength of the army was approximately half a million, whilst in October 1944, it rose to over 2 million. Throughout this momentous period, our troops made substantial contributions to the Allied cause in the different theatres of war.
About this time, news reached India of the formation of the Indian National Army (INA), under the dynamic leadership of Subhas Chandra Bose. When Singapore fell on 15 February 1942, some 60,000 Indian troops had joined what was named the 'Indian National Army'. This was to be the army of free India, with a provisional government under the presidency of Subhas Chandra Bose.
But according to British Military Law, these men had committed the offences of mutiny, desertion and waging war against the king. For them, therefore, it was a very serious step particularly as their comrades, that is men of sister battalions of the same regiment and drawn from the same stock, were winning glory and admiration for their fellow soldiers, British and American, in North Africa, France and Italy.
Perhaps the reason why some of these troops went over to the enemy was because of nationalistic fervour. Were these men right? These soldiers were recruited in the INA under the command of Capt. Mohan Singh, who made his choice from a genuine conviction and was prepared to suffer, and did, in fact, suffer for his beliefs. Further, the personality of Subhas Chandra Bose was overwhelming. But, in Military Law, the offence of mutiny cannot be condoned. This fact is of interest to the future leaders of our army. To new India, the Indian Army can only be a valuable asset if it preserves its loyalty and discipline. This question is of particular interest because there have been talks of independent states. It will equally be an offence if a soldier, in the event of a conflict with a state, prefers to fight for the state to which he belongs rather than to India as a whole.
In December 1942, my name appeared in Indian Army Orders, to attend the Staff Course at the Command and Staff College, Quetta. About the same time, my posting orders came through appointing me to command an infantry battalion. I preferred this posting to an appointment of the staff. 'Staff' led to closer contact with senior commanders and gave an insight into higher military thinking. On the other hand, 'command' meant association with troops on active device, an experience to which I had been looking forward. I had had ample experience of regimental work; and was now anxious to 'command', particularly under conditions of modern war. So, I opted for 'command' in the hope of proceeding with a unit to a theatre of war.
The 'command' came on 27 December 1942, of a newly raised battalion, the 6/19 Kumaon Regiment, which was then located at Bannu, on the North-West Frontier of India. The brigade commander felt that the battalion was not in very good shape, and I was given the task of preparing it for war in the shortest possible time. The regiment had good officers, six British and five Indian, the VCOs were men of experience; and the soldiers were young and active.
What was required, however, was coordinated work and hard and intensive training; stress was also to be placed on discipline and firepower, as we had then to learn the special techniques required for conducting operations on the frontier, appreciating that the Pathans had a reputation for springing surprises, that they were good marksmen and very mobile on steep slopes. The Pathans carried merely a rifle and a bit of food. They were tough, used to the terrain and consequently very active. We, on the other hand, were handicapped with heavy boots and equipment and were not so mobile. We thus gave the enemy the advantage of mobility, and freedom to select the point of attack. The Pathans were also very clever with their ambushes, to which the only answer was to keep fully alert. An example of alertness is given in advance through Shakti Tangi at a time when no enemy had been seen. The intelligence officer of the South Wales Border Regiment spotted a cleft in the very close horizon, through which he could see daylight. Suddenly, daylight was blotted out, and he sensed that it was the enemy.
As the men of the South Wales Borders took cover, there was a burst of enemy fire.
The North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) has six frontier districts of the Punjab compared to six tribal areas administered directly by the Government of India. On the other side of the NWFP was the buffer state of Afghanistan, separating the two empires, the Russian and the British. The Durand Line, between Afghan territory and tribal areas which the British administered, bordered a belt of territory in which some tribes were vaguely regarded as British and others as Afghans; but neither were wholly subject to the authority of either power, though they were treated as British 'protected' persons. The tribes could thus play off the Amir of Afghanistan against the British, while the Amir intrigued with them to keep the British busy. People living in these areas were, therefore, very 'unsettled'.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

India's bulldozer demolitions are being fuelled by political silence
India's bulldozer demolitions are being fuelled by political silence

Scroll.in

time9 minutes ago

  • Scroll.in

India's bulldozer demolitions are being fuelled by political silence

In June, the Assam government demolished just over 600 Muslim homes in Goalpara district in what it described as a crackdown on ' illegal encroachments '. In Jahangirpuri in Delhi, homes and shops were razed despite a Supreme Court stay in April. The next month, the Ahmedabad municipality demolished 8,500 houses in Danilimda in a drive aimed at 'illegal Bangladeshis'. The same month, in Saharanpur in Uttar Pradesh, a mosque under construction was demolished without warning. Bulldozers have emerged as the state's favourite weapon in Narendra Modi's India, flattening Muslim neighbourhoods with clinical choreography. Each such demolition redraws the geography of citizenship and belonging. Like Israel's bulldozers in Gaza and the West Bank, India's bulldozers flatten buildings while erasing memory, rewriting history and reinforcing majoritarian rule. Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben warns of the 'state of exception': legal limbo where democratic rights are suspended in the name of national interest. Agamben's 'state of exception' is evident when citizenship is overridden by suspicion, when due process is abandoned and when the law is fashioned into a tool of punishment. The state that is meant to protect rights becomes an agent of violation. 'We lost everything in a day,' Fatima Begum, a mother of four in Goalpara told The Observer Post. 'My children now suffer in the heat and rain. We only ask for dignity and safety.' Dignity is precisely what is being denied, deliberately. In Goalpara, the administration cited a 2021 land notification, claiming that the homes were located in a wetland. If that is true, why were only Muslim homes demolished? Were notices issued? What compensation was paid? Was there the basic recognition that these are landowners, labourers, teachers, children – citizens? 'This is not just an attack on property but on our identity,' schoolteacher Imran Hussain told The Observer Post. The bulldozer, as the mascot of a majoritarian state, arrives after riots, militant attacks or just before elections. It performs collective punishment, collapses the law into spectacle and leaves behind silence. It is demographic engineering bearing a saffron flag. The bulldozer is theology in motion. It enforces a belief that Muslims are intruders on Indian soil and their citizenship conditional. As damning as the state's actions is the near-silence or symbolic deflection of the so-called secular parties. In Assam, the Congress opposition leader wrote to Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma of the Bharatiya Janata Party to halt the evictions and the police reportedly stopped an eight-member delegation from reaching the site. But beyond this procedural tokenism, there has been no serious political reckoning, no sustained outrage. Not one senior national leader of the Congress, Rashtriya Janata Dal, Samajwadi Party or Trinamool Congress showed up. Apart from a few headlines, there was no press conference or protest. There is now a quiet consensus across much of the political spectrum that Muslim suffering no longer warrants attention. The logic is cynical and dangerous: Muslims will not vote for the BJP anyway, so why speak? Why risk Hindu votes by opposing bulldozers? A few lone voices, like Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader Subhashini Ali, have spoken out. But most parties are mute, cautious or calculating, treating Muslim pain as a liability rather than a constitutional crisis. This is the new arithmetic of Indian politics. Parties flaunt their Hinduness, visiting temples, reciting mantras, donning sacred threads, believing that if they just appear Hindu enough, political victory is certain. However, Hindutva is not just a vote bank but a project of erasure. The more political parties pander to this script, the more they become like the Aam Aadmi Party in Delhi – hollow, spineless, and complicit. The BJP may have started the bulldozer down this dangerous path, but it is the silence of the rest that propels it forward. Much like the Zionist strategies in Palestine, where demolitions serve to fragment, displace and erase Palestinian presence, India's Hindutva regime is scripting its own slow-motion Nakba. Even the Supreme Court, which has declared such demolitions 'totally unconstitutional', is routinely ignored. When bulldozers move faster than law, what remains of constitutionalism? More than a 'Muslim issue', this is a warning to every Indian. When citizenship becomes negotiable for one community, all are rendered vulnerable. We are witnessing the emergence of a parallel era where excavators dictate justice and headlines normalise apartheid. Where displaced women are forced to give birth in plastic tents. Where children study in the shadows of debris. Where heatstroke deaths are accepted collateral in the war against an unwanted identity. The bulldozer is an emblem of Hindu supremacy that leaves behind broken lives and the broken promise of equal citizenship. Listen to the sound of a republic disappearing: crumbling homes and the steady hum of machinery.

Modi's Bharat vs Indira's India: 11-yr report card of politics, diplomacy, economy, nationalism
Modi's Bharat vs Indira's India: 11-yr report card of politics, diplomacy, economy, nationalism

The Print

time9 minutes ago

  • The Print

Modi's Bharat vs Indira's India: 11-yr report card of politics, diplomacy, economy, nationalism

Mrs Gandhi and Modi took over in completely different circumstances. There was also the differential in political capital they began with. Mrs Gandhi had not won an election in 1966. She was a convenient compromise after Lal Bahadur Shastri's death. She didn't help her cause by looking overawed in Parliament early on, and socialist Ram Manohar Lohia dismissed her as a 'goongi gudiya' (a doll who didn't speak). She had also inherited a broken economy. The growth rate in 1965 was negative, -2.6 percent in fact. The triple blow of a war, droughts, food shortages and instability, and the deaths of two Prime Ministers in harness within 19 months had weakened India. First of all, we need to look at the larger political realities in which each took over power and the challenges to their authority. Then we will assess their record across four dimensions: politics, strategic and foreign affairs, the economy, and nationalism. On the day Narendra Modi won his third term in June, 2024, it was inevitable that this year, he would become India's second longest serving Prime Minister in consecutive terms, surpassing Indira Gandhi (24 January, 1966 to 24 March, 1977). It also became inevitable, therefore, that around this time in 2025, the season of Modi vs Indira comparisons will begin. Let me be the first, or among the first, off the block. The picture for Modi in 2014 was the exact opposite. He won a majority, the first in India after 30 years, and was his party's chosen candidate; the economy was averaging a robust 6.5 percent growth across the preceding 15 years. His was a peaceful, planned, predictable electoral transition. The degree of difficulty on his first day in power was way lower than Mrs Gandhi's, just as his political capital was enormously higher. It is also important to underline that Mrs Gandhi's 11th year wasn't electorally earned, but self-gifted by mauling the Constitution in a Parliament where she had a brute majority (Congress was 352 out of 518) and the Opposition in jail. In contrast, Modi's third term was earned through general elections, though he fell short of a majority this time. His 11 years have seen no challenge, either within his party or from the Opposition. The global situation has also mostly remained stable and favourable, until the arrival of Trump 2.0. Also Read: RSS chief Bhagwat draws the line at 75. India's politics stares at the Modi Exception Now, the comparisons across the four dimensions we listed. On domestic politics, the first question is: who's been the strongest Prime Minister of India, Modi or Indira? The rest don't count. While Mrs Gandhi redefined her politics in an ideology (deep-pink socialist) first out of compulsion and then preference, Modi was born, dyed and seasoned in his (saffron). Mrs Gandhi's power ebbed and peaked with the times. Modi's has almost been constant, barring the few months of hard dip after the 240 seats of 2024. Even at 240 now, one challenge he need not bother about is from within his party. He's marginalised all, replacing the state satraps with unknown lightweights. That isn't so different from Mrs Gandhi. On ruthlessness, therefore, they are equally matched. On dealing with the Opposition and free speech, the Emergency will be a hard act to match even if somebody—God forbid—wished to do so. On the respect for institutions, the competition is tough, like a dead heat. For convenience, let's limit ourselves to just one institution: the Rashtrapati. With V.V. Giri, Mrs Gandhi reduced the job to that of a porcelain president: a fragile, ornamental object expected to do nothing except sign on the dotted line. The Modi era presidents have been of a piece with those. Modi rose with the power of a '56-inch chest', Mrs Gandhi was often described in times innocent of political correctness as the only man in her Cabinet. Both lived up to these propositions. With Mrs Gandhi, we saw another manifestation of political skill, out of power and back again in 1977-84. But that period is out of the syllabus in this 11-year comparison. Also Read: One prime minister's 19-month legacy is bigger than another's Emergency An important question is who kept India's cohesion better. Mrs Gandhi ruthlessly fought insurgencies in Mizoram and Nagaland. Her troubles on this score came post-1980. Modi has made a dramatic improvement in the Kashmir Valley, and continued with normalisation in the Northeast. But Manipur is an unending failure. A big positive is the near destruction of the Maoists in east-central tribal India. This dovetails neatly into strategic and foreign affairs. Mrs Gandhi's 11 years were across the peak of the Cold War. She signed a treaty with the Soviet Union with a cleverly drafted mutual security clause, endured the Nixon-Kissinger tilt to China, and deftly navigated the narrow spaces still available to India. Modi started out with a 'friends with all' approach but Pakistan-China realities soon caught up with personalised diplomacy. Mrs Gandhi announced India's nuclear status in 1974 (Pokhran-1) but it took Modi in 2019 (Balakot) and in 2025 (Operation Sindoor) to call Pakistan's nuclear bluff. That's a big plus in his corner. As things soured in the neighbourhood, India warmed up to the US/West and then the complexity of Ukraine arose. This gave rise to multi-alignment. The Trump bull has trampled all over this China shop. Pakistan is playing the US and China as it did in 1971. And like Mrs Gandhi then, Modi has to look for alternatives, but then, the Soviet Union is long gone. His predicament is tougher than Mrs Gandhi's in 1971, but India is enormously stronger. The economy is where we might have expected to see many contrasts, but surprisingly, there are many similarities, too. Modi came to power promising to be the exact opposite of Mrs Gandhi, asserting that it's no business of the government to be in business. But on many basic instincts, he's emulated her. The larger, if enormously more efficient distributive politics, for example. An abiding commitment to the public sector instead of privatisation. Even this year, the budget allocated Rs 5 trillion for fresh investments in PSUs. Compare that with our defence budget, Rs 6.81 trillion. Modi has brought in some significant reform—digital payments, GST and the bankruptcy code. Many others, from mining to manufacturing and electricity economics, are meandering. In his first and second terms, Modi attempted some audacious reform—land acquisition, farm and labour reform laws, lateral entry into civil services. All have been given up now. Until Trump came to power, Modi seemed settled into the 6-6.5 percent figure, which we'd risk calling the Hindutva rate of growth. The logic: a politics driven by Hindu identity and polarisation would win elections with 6-6.5 percent risk-free. The Trump arm-twisting and the resultant free trade agreements have rocked that leisurely cruise. Let's see if this can force fresh reform at gunpoint. And finally, how do we compare the two greatest proponents of employing nationalism in their politics? For Mrs Gandhi the backdrop was multiple wars between 1962 and 1971. India was already a jai jawan, jai kisan country. The liberation of Bangladesh, Green Revolution and non-aligned world's adulation fuelled her nationalism. Modi's nationalism is more muscular, in military livery. We can't prejudge the consequences of a commitment trap in promising to respond militarily to a terror act and leave it to historians to reflect on the consequences of such strategic predictability. Under Modi, a new Hinduised nationalism has emerged. While this has united a critical mass of Hindus to keep him secure, it has also created divisions. India's adversaries would be tempted to run a dagger through these. We've seen the Pakistanis try that not just with our Muslims but also the Sikhs, especially during Operation Sindoor. Also Read: You can put words in Mrs Gandhi's mouth & get away. But too much fiction, and you mess with Bhindranwale

Fund Diversion: Temple committees demand crackdown on false claims
Fund Diversion: Temple committees demand crackdown on false claims

Hans India

time9 minutes ago

  • Hans India

Fund Diversion: Temple committees demand crackdown on false claims

Mangaluru: In a bid to counter rising misinformation, members of temple management committees from Dakshina Kannada have urged the Karnataka government to initiate legal action against individuals alleging that temple hundi funds are being diverted for non-Hindu religious causes or to the state treasury. The demands were made during a consultation session hosted by the Department of Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments at Kudmul Ranga Rao Town Hall on Friday. District in-charge and Health Minister Dinesh Gundu Rao, who presided over the meet, described the campaign of falsehoods as dangerous and politically motivated. 'These claims are often broadcast on national television and are misleading the public. Temple committees must counter these narratives with facts,' he said. Rao also highlighted that tastik payments to certified priests had been increased from ₹24,000 to ₹72,000 under the Congress government. 'The system was introduced by my father, former CM Gundu Rao, and has been consistently strengthened,' he noted. MLCs Manjunath Bhandary and Ivan D'Souza expressed concern over the misuse of temple spaces. Bhandary advocated for ID cards for B and C-grade committee members and visible notices at temples assuring donors that funds are not misappropriated. Cultural scholar Lakshmish Gabladka stressed the need to preserve temple-based traditions in coastal Karnataka while limiting political interference. He advocated development of temples belonging to Scheduled Castes and called for recognition of poojaris as legitimate Hindu leaders. Committee member Raghava H from Beltangady suggested reviving art forms such as Yakshagana and devotional music within temple precincts. Other speakers, including Dilraj Alva, Venkappa Gowda, and Balakrishna Gowda, recommended a fast-track mechanism for temple land disputes, funding parity, and expansion of tastik grants. The session was attended by several dignitaries including former minister Ramanath Rai, Cashew Development Board chairperson Mamatha Gatti, MUDA chairman Sadashiva Ullal, former MLC Harish Kumar, Kannada and Tulu Academy president Sadananda Mavanje, deputy commissioner Darshan H V, ZP CEO Vinayak Karbari Narvade, and ADC Dr Santosh Kumar. The programme began with a welcome by endowment department assistant commissioner Jayamma and an introduction by Bappanadu Temple officer Shwetha Pally.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store