General Shahnawaz Khan (1914 – 1983) is remembered as an officer who served in the Second Indian National Army during World War II and later came to be one of the three defendants in the first of the INA trials in 1946. Born in the village of Matore, Kahuta, Rawalpindi District, British India, (now Pakistan) Khan initially volunteered to join the British Indian Army in 1940, in the opening stages of the war in Asia – Studio Dharma

 

Muslim Contributions to India’s Freedom Struggle - A Different Narrative
By Professor Nazeer Ahmed
Concord, CA

The traditional narrative about India’s struggle for independence takes a political route. The inference is drawn that India’s political elite compelled the reluctant British to give up their Indian empire and depart peacefully.

A deeper look at the forces that led to the dissolution of the British Empire tells a different story. In this second narrative, it is the Indian army, rather than the political movement that emerges as the principal player in India’s freedom struggle. In this narrative, Muslim names have more than their share in the honor rolls of soldiers, men and women, who laid down their lives for the freedom of their country. The sacrifices of these soldiers make every South Asian hold his head high with pride.

The principle of movement in geopolitics is not goodwill but the aggregate, net flow of sheer economic, diplomatic and military power. The British were not moved by the Indian non-cooperation movement and experienced a sudden change of heart to give up India, the crown jewel of their global Empire. They were compelled by geopolitical forces to quit and depart. It was to their credit and political sagacity that they left when they did, peacefully, unlike the French in Indo China who tried to hold onto their empire by brute force and were compelled to withdraw in defeat and ignominy after the battle of Dien Bien Phu (1954).

An extract from a letter written by P.V. Chuckravarty, former Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court, on March 30 1976, widely available in various publications, including the Wikipedia, reads thus: "When I was acting as Governor of West Bengal in 1956, Lord Clement Attlee, who as the British Prime Minister in post-war years was responsible for India’s freedom, visited India and stayed in Raj Bhavan Calcutta for two days`85 I put it straight to him like this: ‘The Quit India Movement of Gandhi practically died out long before 1947 and there was nothing in the Indian situation at that time, which made it necessary for the British to leave India in a hurry. Why then did they do so?’ In reply Attlee cited several reasons, the most important of which were the INA activities of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, which weakened the very foundation of the British Empire in India, and the RIN Mutiny which made the British realize that the Indian armed forces could no longer be trusted to prop up the British. When asked about the extent to which the British decision to quit India was influenced by Mahatma Gandhi’s 1942 movement, Attlee’s lips widened in smile of disdain and he uttered, slowly, ‘minimal’."

 

The Indian National Army, 1943-45 (INA), and the Naval uprising of 1946

The initial successes of the Japanese army destroyed the myth of European invincibility. Many notable leaders in Asia, such as Sukarno of Indonesia, saw in these initial successes a ray of hope for the liberation of their own countries from entrenched colonialism.

In 1941 and 1942, the Japanese armies advanced rapidly through East Asia and overran large swaths of China as well as the British colonies of Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaya. Thousands of Indian troops who were stationed in these colonies as part of British garrisons were captured. In Malaya alone, some 70,000 Indian soldiers had to surrender. The Japanese onslaught continued and resulted in the capture of the American colony of the Philippines as well as the Dutch colony of Indonesia.

Many of the soldiers felt as did some Asian leaders that the Europeans would not voluntarily relinquish their Asian colonies and had to be forced out. An opportunity for Asia presented itself when the Japanese started to recruit Asian soldiers from the territories they had overrun. Thus, was born the INA, out of a combination of a burning desire of stalwart young Indian soldiers to free their county and the Japanese recruitment efforts to bolster their war effort. It was also called the Azad Hind Fauj.

The first INA was formed in 1942 under the leadership of Captain Mohan Singh. But it was not until April 1942, when Subash Chandra Bose, fondly referred to in India as Netaji, assumed the leadership of the INA that the movement took off. Bose was a dynamic leader, a former President of the Indian National Congress with a mass following at home and global stature abroad. His presence electrified the INA. In addition to Indian troops, thousands of expatriates in South East Asia also joined the newly formed national army.

Prior to partition, the British Indian Army was largely recruited from the region between Delhi and Peshawar, an area with a heavy concentration of Muslims. This was as much a reflection of the political conditions in the various provinces of India at the time as it was a legacy from history. While most of India was reeling under the non-cooperation movement, the Punjab under the Unionist party was supportive of the war effort. Consequently, somewhere between 35 and 40 percent of the British Indian Army was Muslim. This composition was also reflected in the soldiers who surrendered to the Japanese in Malaya, Singapore, Hong Kong and later in Burma.

Bose recruited the best available officers for key positions. Noteworthy among those who served in the INA were Lt Col Shah Nawaz Khan, Chief of General Staff; Major Habibur Rahman, commandant of the Officers Training School; Captain Malik Munawar Khan Awan; Col Inayat Kiani, commandant of the 2nd guerilla brigade; and Col Abdul Aziz Tajik, commander of the 2nd division during the Imphal (Assam) offensive. A women’s wing, the Rani of Jhansi Brigade, was formed under the command of Captain Lakshmi Sahgal. The total strength of the INA in 1945 stood at 40,000 among whom were thousands of Muslim soldiers and officers who served with zeal and dedication.

Short of supplies and hammered by American air power, the INA fought on and suffered enormous casualties. As the Japanese offensive fizzled out, the INA withdrew through the jungles of Burma with thousands more falling due to fatigue, exhaustion and disease.

After the surrender of Japan in August 1945, the INA was disbanded and some of its leaders were put on trial. Noteworthy among them were Major General Shah Nawaz Khan, Colonel Prem Sehgal and Colonel Gurubakh Singh Dhillon. They were accused of treason and abetting the atrocities committed by the Japanese armies in China and Indonesia. The court martial of these three officers in Red Fort, Delhi attracted wide publicity in India. None other than Pandit Jawarhalal Nehru himself led the defense team of these stalwarts. There were widespread demonstrations all across India in support of the officers who were hailed as revolutionaries and patriots. The INA had galvanized India as no other movement had done before.

The pent-up nationalist energy let loose by the INA manifested itself with full force in the mutiny of the Indian navy in February 1946. What started as a grievance against food served in the cafeterias quickly mushroomed into a full-scale boycott and then into a revolt. The first to strike were the sailors on board the ship HMIS Hindustan in Karachi. It quickly spread to HMIS Talwar in Bombay and ships stationed in Cochin, Vizagpatnam, Madras and Calcutta. The strike caught the imagination of a population already fired by exploits of the INA and Subash Chandra Bose. The Tricolor was hoisted across most ships and naval installations. Army personnel in Pune and other barracks joined the revolt.

It must be noted that the mutiny was looked at with disfavor by the major political parties including the Indian National Congress and the Muslim League. Were they concerned that an armed insurrection would lead to a chaotic breakdown of law and order and ultimately lead to international intervention? Was it that they were alarmed at their own loss of control over the fast-moving events of the Uprising? Historians may argue about these issues endlessly.

Bereft of political support, the mutiny died down in a few days but not before demonstrating to the British that their hold on the Indian armed forces was slipping. The British Empire was a mammoth enterprise held up by the Indian army and the Indian civil service. The British could no longer count on the Indian army as a reliable partner in keeping the Indian masses at bay. Britain was exhausted after Hitler’s war. It had no money and had to borrow heavily from the Americans. An unreliable Indian army would mean that the British would have to keep a large army in India to keep India at bay. Britain was demobilizing and it had no money. These were the reasons that led to their decision to quit India, and to do so in haste.

The British Empire without the Indian army was like a lion that had lost its claws. This was most obvious during the Suez crisis of 1956. The British (along with the French and the Israelis) occupied the Suez Canal in Egypt but were forced to withdraw under American pressure.

This is not to diminish the importance of Gandhi’s non-cooperation movement in India’s independence struggle. Indeed, the events of 1946 highlight Gandhi’s achievements. What Gandhi did was to make India aware of itself. An India that was self-aware responded to the exploits of the INA during the Second World War and the RIN uprising of 1946 with the energy and enthusiasm that forced the British to quit India. It effectively drew the curtain on the British Empire that had dominated the world for two hundred years.

Summarily, Gandhi made India self-aware. The INA, in which the Muslims of Punjab had a dominant position, convinced the British to give up their Indian empire and leave.

Some historians seek to compare Gandhi with Jinnah. The two were leaders of different ilk and a comparison between the two is like comparing apples and oranges. In historical hindsight, Gandhi was closer to Iqbal than Jinnah although their methods were entirely different. Iqbal was a philosopher-poet who made the Muslims of India self-aware. Gandhi had his own philosophy and was a highly effective passive-activist. His non-cooperation movement energized vast sections of India’s population. Jinnah, on the other hand, was a strict constitutionalist. Gandhi transformed India. Iqbal transformed the Muslims of India. Jinnah achieved Pakistan. All three had an impact far beyond the South Asian region. However, none of them can be said to have had a decisive impact on the British decision to quit India when they did. That credit must belong to the INA. This subject requires a deeper analysis. (Continued next week)

(The author is Director, World Organization for Resource Development and Education, Washington, DC; Director, American Institute of Islamic History and Culture, CA; Member, State Knowledge Commission, Bangalore; and Chairman, Delixus Group)