British Indian Army

[ronki23]

Why did the majority of Indian soldiers choose to fight for Britain rather than against Britain ? As we know, Britain and France declared War on Germany in WW1 for invading Belgium and in WW2 because they invaded Poland; not for the plight of the Jews. So what made them choose the side of good over evil ?

 

[MNoBody]

having not much choice in the matter, being "forced" into such affairs, through various means, under duress [that conquistador in particular is very inventive in such social manipulations]
most humans would rather not arm up and go slaughter their neighbors, it just really goes against the grain..... but it still happens, showing the effect of peer pressure and violent devious coercion.....societal engineering.

 

[blü 2]

Why did the majority of Indian soldiers choose to fight for Britain rather than against Britain ? As we know, Britain and France declared War on Germany in WW1 for invading Belgium and in WW2 because they invaded Poland; not for the plight of the Jews. So what made them choose the side of good over evil ?

having not much choice in the matter, being "forced" into such affairs, through various means, under duress [that conquistador in particular is very inventive in such social manipulations]
most humans would rather not arm up and go slaughter their neighbors, it just really goes against the grain..... but it still happens, showing the effect of peer pressure and violent devious coercion.....societal engineering.

As usual, the answer is complex.

First, at the start of the war, India was a British possession. Independence, non-violence and civil disobedience were in the political air through the 1930s, and were making progress.

Simultaneously, the Japanese ambition to form an Asian empire under the name "Co-prosperity region" had been policy through the 1930s and included invading Korea, China, Manchuria, and much of South-East Asia and, from the start of WW2, the Dutch East Indies (especially as a source of oil). It also included ambitions against India, and when (British) Burma had been conquered, from there in 1944 the Japanese staged an invasion of India through the north-eastern state of Manipur, leading to the battle of Imphal, which was won by the Indian army, under British command.

So while WW2 was on, India had a live interest in the outcome, and of the two evils, the British were clearly the lesser.

At a more general level, if you served in the British army, you got paid; and for many Indian people that mattered,

Once the war was over, India quickly won independence, starting 1947. In retrospect, the importance of the British was turning what had been numerous disparate countries into two large and fairly coherent nations, India and Pakistan. And teaching them both cricket, of course.

 

[Stevicus]

Why did the majority of Indian soldiers choose to fight for Britain rather than against Britain ? As we know, Britain and France declared War on Germany in WW1 for invading Belgium and in WW2 because they invaded Poland; not for the plight of the Jews. So what made them choose the side of good over evil ?

I'm not sure, although there were some Indians who sought out Japanese support for Indian independence, and some of them fought with the Japanese.

Indian Independence League - Wikipedia

I'm not sure if they had that much support within India, but I understand the Japanese had various puppet governments and factions throughout Asian nations in support of their military objectives and their goal of an Asian "Co-Prosperity Sphere." They did get some support from those who wanted to throw out the European colonialists, although many recognized that they would be merely trading European colonialists for Japanese colonialists, which didn't seem very palatable either. There were also strong resistance movements against Japanese occupation in several Asian nations, and they were supported by the Allies.

It's hard to say what would have happened if the Japanese had won in East Asia. They ostensibly supported the "independence" of India, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, and all these other countries, but would they just be puppet governments like Manchukuo? Would they have gotten a better deal from Japan?

 

[ronki23]

I'm not sure, although there were some Indians who sought out Japanese support for Indian independence, and some of them fought with the Japanese.

Indian Independence League - Wikipedia

I'm not sure if they had that much support within India, but I understand the Japanese had various puppet governments and factions throughout Asian nations in support of their military objectives and their goal of an Asian "Co-Prosperity Sphere." They did get some support from those who wanted to throw out the European colonialists, although many recognized that they would be merely trading European colonialists for Japanese colonialists, which didn't seem very palatable either. There were also strong resistance movements against Japanese occupation in several Asian nations, and they were supported by the Allies.

It's hard to say what would have happened if the Japanese had won in East Asia. They ostensibly supported the "independence" of India, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, and all these other countries, but would they just be puppet governments like Manchukuo? Would they have gotten a better deal from Japan?

having not much choice in the matter, being "forced" into such affairs, through various means, under duress [that conquistador in particular is very inventive in such social manipulations]
most humans would rather not arm up and go slaughter their neighbors, it just really goes against the grain..... but it still happens, showing the effect of peer pressure and violent devious coercion.....societal engineering.

As usual, the answer is complex.

First, at the start of the war, India was a British possession. Independence, non-violence and civil disobedience were in the political air through the 1930s, and were making progress.

Simultaneously, the Japanese ambition to form an Asian empire under the name "Co-prosperity region" had been policy through the 1930s and included invading Korea, China, Manchuria, and much of South-East Asia and, from the start of WW2, the Dutch East Indies (especially as a source of oil). It also included ambitions against India, and when (British) Burma had been conquered, from there in 1944 the Japanese staged an invasion of India through the north-eastern state of Manipur, leading to the battle of Imphal, which was won by the Indian army, under British command.

So while WW2 was on, India had a live interest in the outcome, and of the two evils, the British were clearly the lesser.

At a more general level, if you served in the British army, you got paid; and for many Indian people that mattered,

Once the war was over, India quickly won independence, starting 1947. In retrospect, the importance of the British was turning what had been numerous disparate countries into two large and fairly coherent nations, India and Pakistan. And teaching them both cricket, of course.

I thought what Subhas Chandra Bose led was called "The Free India Army" ?

And I don't understand why they decided to fight for Britain when Gandhi and Jinnah were all about Civil Disobedience?

 

[Stevicus]

I thought what Subhas Chandra Bose led was called "The Free India Army" ?

Not sure. The link I posted above said it was Indian National Army.

Established primarily to foster Indian Nationalism and to obtain Japanese support for the Indian Independence Movement, the League came to interact and command the first Indian National Army under Mohan Singh before it was dissolved. Rash Behari Bose handed over the INA to Subhas Chandra Bose. Later, after the arrival of Subhas Chandra Bose in South East Asia and the revival of the INA, the League came under his leadership, before giving way to Azad Hind.

And I don't understand why they decided to fight for Britain when Gandhi and Jinnah were all about Civil Disobedience?

Lesser of two evils? If there was a chance that India could be taken over by the Japanese, they might have thought that would be worse than being under British control. But then there were some who fought for Japan, so it seems there were those who supported Japan.

 

[ronki23]

Not sure. The link I posted above said it was Indian National Army.

Established primarily to foster Indian Nationalism and to obtain Japanese support for the Indian Independence Movement, the League came to interact and command the first Indian National Army under Mohan Singh before it was dissolved. Rash Behari Bose handed over the INA to Subhas Chandra Bose. Later, after the arrival of Subhas Chandra Bose in South East Asia and the revival of the INA, the League came under his leadership, before giving way to Azad Hind.



Lesser of two evils? If there was a chance that India could be taken over by the Japanese, they might have thought that would be worse than being under British control. But then there were some who fought for Japan, so it seems there were those who supported Japan.

I mean what made them choose British occupation over Japanese occupation ? Did they hear about the takeover of Manchuria and genocidal rape of Nanjing ? Or how Taiwan was treated ?

Either way, a lot of Indian soldiers fought in the West in Africa and the Middle East so why did they choose to ? @Aupmanyav

 

[Stevicus]

I mean what made them choose British occupation over Japanese occupation ? Did they hear about the takeover of Manchuria and genocidal rape of Nanjing ? Or how Taiwan was treated ?

That's entirely likely. I presume they would have received the same war news in India as the rest of the Allied countries.

Either way, a lot of Indian soldiers fought in the West in Africa and the Middle East so why did they choose to ? @Aupmanyav

Hard to say, although in some countries, joining the military has been a way out of poverty. Or maybe they're just bored and saw it as an opportunity to travel the world. I don't know if that's the case for the Indian soldiers who fought for the British, but it appears to be a common reason in many other situations.

 

[blü 2]

I thought what Subhas Chandra Bose led was called "The Free India Army" ?

Supporters of Bose (who was anti-British but not anti-violence) gave assistance to the Japanese in the Battle of Imphal. They were thus part of the defeated forces.

And I don't understand why they decided to fight for Britain when Gandhi and Jinnah were all about Civil Disobedience?

As I said, on the one hand India had something to lose from a successful Japanese invasion. And as for the British Indian army, much of which served in Europe and closer to home with more distinction than is usually recognized, if you served in the army, you got paid. Nor was opposition to British rule uniform across all levels of Indian society. Many Indians served in the public service, for example.

 

[MNoBody]

I thought what Subhas Chandra Bose led was called "The Free India Army" ?

And I don't understand why they decided to fight for Britain when Gandhi and Jinnah were all about Civil Disobedience?

there is always more to those types of pictures than ever meets the civilian eye. since history is entirely the propaganda of the victor, one has to look through it to see the political intrigues behind the stage show the public sees. and Gandhi was a lot more complex character than he seems at first glance, involved in a very complex game.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Either way, a lot of Indian soldiers fought in the West in Africa and the Middle East so why did they choose to ? @Aupmanyav

Job, money. A soldier cannot refuse to fight.

 

[ronki23]

having not much choice in the matter, being "forced" into such affairs, through various means, under duress [that conquistador in particular is very inventive in such social manipulations]
most humans would rather not arm up and go slaughter their neighbors, it just really goes against the grain..... but it still happens, showing the effect of peer pressure and violent devious coercion.....societal engineering.

As usual, the answer is complex.

First, at the start of the war, India was a British possession. Independence, non-violence and civil disobedience were in the political air through the 1930s, and were making progress.

Simultaneously, the Japanese ambition to form an Asian empire under the name "Co-prosperity region" had been policy through the 1930s and included invading Korea, China, Manchuria, and much of South-East Asia and, from the start of WW2, the Dutch East Indies (especially as a source of oil). It also included ambitions against India, and when (British) Burma had been conquered, from there in 1944 the Japanese staged an invasion of India through the north-eastern state of Manipur, leading to the battle of Imphal, which was won by the Indian army, under British command.

So while WW2 was on, India had a live interest in the outcome, and of the two evils, the British were clearly the lesser.

At a more general level, if you served in the British army, you got paid; and for many Indian people that mattered,

Once the war was over, India quickly won independence, starting 1947. In retrospect, the importance of the British was turning what had been numerous disparate countries into two large and fairly coherent nations, India and Pakistan. And teaching them both cricket, of course.

I'm not sure, although there were some Indians who sought out Japanese support for Indian independence, and some of them fought with the Japanese.

Indian Independence League - Wikipedia

I'm not sure if they had that much support within India, but I understand the Japanese had various puppet governments and factions throughout Asian nations in support of their military objectives and their goal of an Asian "Co-Prosperity Sphere." They did get some support from those who wanted to throw out the European colonialists, although many recognized that they would be merely trading European colonialists for Japanese colonialists, which didn't seem very palatable either. There were also strong resistance movements against Japanese occupation in several Asian nations, and they were supported by the Allies.

It's hard to say what would have happened if the Japanese had won in East Asia. They ostensibly supported the "independence" of India, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, and all these other countries, but would they just be puppet governments like Manchukuo? Would they have gotten a better deal from Japan?

Job, money. A soldier cannot refuse to fight.

So which of the colonies did the British Indian army and Gurkhas fight to free from Axis occupation ?

Or was it more a matter of defending British and French colonies ?

 

[Aupmanyav]

"In 1939 the British Indian Army numbered 205,000 men. It took in volunteers and by 1945 was the largest all-volunteer force in history, rising to over 2.5 million men. These forces included tank, artillery and airborne forces. British Indian Army earned 17 Victoria Crosses during World War II."
India in World War II - Wikipedia

 

[ronki23]

"In 1939 the British Indian Army numbered 205,000 men. It took in volunteers and by 1945 was the largest all-volunteer force in history, rising to over 2.5 million men. These forces included tank, artillery and airborne forces. British Indian Army earned 17 Victoria Crosses during World War II."
India in World War II - Wikipedia

What made them realise that British rule is better than Japanese rule ?

 

[blü 2]

So which of the colonies did the British Indian army and Gurkhas fight to free from Axis occupation ?

Or was it more a matter of defending British and French colonies ?

British Indian Army in World War 2.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What made them realise that British rule is better than Japanese rule ?

Thy were soldiers of an army. They did what was their duty. It was not their business to make comparisions.