INA and India's Independence

The title of the book was provocative but intriguing – Bose or Gandhi: Who Got India her Freedom? Taken at face value, the answer is obvious: whoever or whatever events got us independence, surely it could not be Bose. After all, the man and his Japan backed-Indian National Army (INA) were defeated by the British after some initial successes, chased out of India. In any case, all that during World War II. Bose then died in an air crash, and we got freedom 2 years later in 1947. Case closed, right?

 

A more accurate title of GD Bakshi’s book would have been “Role of INA in India’s Freedom”, but that’s nowhere near as catchy, is it? But that is what the theme of the book really is – not Bose, but the INA.

 

The INA were (largely) soldiers of the British Indian Army who turned against the British and joined hands with the Japanese under Bose. While Bose may have died, not every solider in the INA died (obviously not). After World War II, the British brought them back to India to be tried for mutiny and treason against the British empire (they were soldiers of the British Indian Army, remember?).

 

The British fatefully decided to have a public trial in the Red Fort, in November 1945. Why did they go for a public trial instead of say, exiling them or executing them? Aha, there were many reasons, each of which made perfect sense. (1) Treason could not be tolerated. (2) A message had to be sent. (3) They assumed the loyal soldiers of the British Indian Army who had also been at the receiving end of the INA’s assault would surely see this as justice.

 

The British had badly miscalculated. With India having contributed 2.5 million soldiers to World War II for the British, the mood in the country was one of expectation – surely, as reward for its loyalty, India would get additional freedom? The British, even with a new government under Atlee, had no such intention. Resentment and anger began to grow. The non-violent freedom movement tapped into this anger, as did others who were quite happy with violent means. The trial of the INA soldiers at this juncture happened in this backdrop – more and more Indians began to see the INA as a sign of the British not only reneging on the reward for loyalty in World War II, but even worse, actually prosecuting the soldiers themselves! Suddenly, the INA came to be seen increasingly as nationalists, men who had fought for India’s freedom.

 

The British were caught on the wrong foot. The wave of support that came up was becoming very dangerous. To make matters even more dangerous, most of the British Indian Army’s soldiers were to be decommissioned now, with the war over. Letting such battle-hardened troops free into the general public in such a volatile environment could be very dangerous, the British realized.

 

There were frantic messages exchanged between the British provincial commanders and the Viceroy; as well from in-India analysts back to Britain – the situation was such that the loyalty of the Indian soldiers could not be taken for granted anymore. If things got violent, they weren’t sure if those soldiers would fire upon their fellow citizens. Only white-men divisions could be trusted – could they be rushed to India, they asked. The British government replied in the negative - in war-weary Britain, there was simply no appetite to fight again.

 

Backing down from the INA trial was not an option either – the loss of face, the scent of fear might then set off the very events they were trying to prevent. And then revolts started happening in all pockets of the British Indian Army – it started in the Navy, and spread to the Army and Air Force. Small pockets for sure, but it terrified the British that it would spread.

 

The British were now terrified of how suddenly and violently things might play out. All the signs were against them coming out on top. And so they decided to get out while it was still possible to do so, preferably without bloodshed.

 

This then is the real content of the book, based on extensive documented exchanges among the British leadership in India as well to the British government. As always, reality is extremely complicated, no matter how tempted we are to draw simplistic narratives around events. As many of the Amazon reviewers of the book wrote, it sure makes for an interesting debate in a History classroom.