The British Indian Army that fought the Great War a hundred years ago cannot be labelled as a mercenary force, writes J.J. Singh
28 Oct 2014
Bengalee War Memorial, Calcutta, 1914-1919
The profession of soldiering is as old as the evolution of human civilizations. The glory of the armies and the valour of men in arms in India find a mention since the Vedic era, in the Upanishads and the Mahabharat. Continuing through the Maurya and Gupta periods, the Cholas and the Vijaynagar dynasty, the Mughal and British rule, the soldiers of Hindustan have displayed bravery, a sense of honour and loyalty in abundance. Their allegiance to the king, the State, the cause or dharma was seldom in question. They lived and died for naam, nishaan, namak, dastur and izzat (their name, the colours under which they would go into battle, loyalty, tradition and honour). These were simple, disciplined, sincere and industrious men from rustic backgrounds, and, when required, they could be ferocious warriors and second to none in gallantry. It wouldn’t be wrong to say that they remain so even today.
In the centennial of the Great War for Civilization, I recently attended a book-release event in Delhi in which India and the First World War by Vedica Kant and the role played by the British Indian army in that war was focused on. A question arose in some minds as to whether the Indian army’s role in this war was worth remembering at all, as “these soldiers were mere mercenaries”. Such remarks have often been made in the past by others too, including those from the political classes. Therefore, it is not surprising to read the views expressed by some soldiers fighting in Europe, Mesopotamia or other far-off lands in their private correspondence — “If I die here who will remember me?” Not all of them were fully aware or convinced of the cause for which they were fighting, and because of this ambivalence many had a lurking feeling that the nation would forget them and their sacrifices.
World War I would also be remembered as the “war for civilisation”. India — Punjab and Maharashtra in particular — lost thousands of young men in foreign lands, for the British Empire, for a free world and for the glory of their “paltan”. Let us not forget that many senior battalions of infantry, regiments of cavalry and some units of artillery proudly nurture glorious histories with detailed accounts of battles won or lost, acts of bravery and traditions going back to the 18th century or earlier. We are inspired by them even today.
For the “Mahrattas”, the Mesopotamian campaign was an epoch-making period of their impressive and ancient martial tradition of bearing arms. As a mark of honour for the regiment’s impressive display of gallantry, steadfastness and ability to withstand harsh battlefield conditions and severe deprivation in World War I, it was given the elitist title of “Light Infantry”. All the paltans (battalions) suffered heavy casualties; some had to be raised again during the war itself. It was during this campaign that the 117th Battalion, now the 5th Maratha Light Infantry, was given the honorific title of “Royal” for conspicuous gallantry and the most outstanding standards of conduct, discipline and dedicated service in the face of severe odds and privations. It may be worth recalling that this battalion was raised in December 1800 as a native fencible regiment, and subsequently formed a part of the army of the Bombay Presidency.
What is perhaps forgotten is that political leaders of eminence such as Mahatma Gandhi, Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Sarojini Naidu, besides many others, supported the participation of Indian soldiers in this war. In his response to the appeal made by the viceroy to prominent leaders to support the war effort, Gandhi said, “With a full sense of my responsibility, I beg to support the resolution.” And this great “votary of non-violence” is reported to have toured the villages of his home province of Gujarat exhorting young men to join the army to fight in World War I. One of the important reasons for them to do so was the perception that such contributions would facilitate the grant of home rule or independence to India. Tilak, too, asked the people to come forward with the slogan, “Purchase war debentures but look at them as title deeds of home rule.” Appreciating the positive qualities that war was said to bring out in men, Gandhi highlighted fearlessness, comradeship and a sense of duty (dharma).
Therefore, would it not be grossly unfair to make uncharitable and demeaning statements that these soldiers were “mere mercenaries”? I would define a mercenary as some kind of unscrupulous soldier of fortune, driven by an urge for personal gain — one who makes himself available for hire to fight for a group or an organization and to the highest bidder. Of course, it can be argued that the humble beginnings of some of the older regiments and battalions as locally recruited levies to guard the bases and assets of the East India Company could be seen as mercenary in nature. However, these men were sons of the soil undertaking their assigned duties for a livelihood, and possibly the attraction of adventure and the pride of bearing arms. They were definitely not “fortune-seekers”. In the same vein, how would one see the role of Indians in the administrative service, police, the railways and the post and telegraph service during the British raj? Could they be classified as mercenaries as they were working for the colonial masters too?
The spirit of nationalism, though not always overtly palpable, was intrinsically a part of the psyche of every man in uniform since ages. As has been brilliantly described in The Indian Army: An Illustrated Overview, the 1857 uprising was ignited by a mutiny of native regiments of the Bengal Army, and was the “defining moment for Indian Nationalism and can rightly be said to be the event that gave birth to an Indian national identity”. The contribution of the armed forces in hastening the decision of the British to give India independence is an aspect on which adequate research has not been done. Certain disparate and un-orchestrated actions by units, officers and men of the armed forces indicated solidarity with the civil disobedience and freedom movements. Isolated acts of defiance and refusal to obey orders amounting to mutiny in the army and the navy began to gather momentum towards the final stages of World War II, which gave a terrible jolt to the British raj. As a matter of fact, the 1857 revolt had never really been obliterated from the British psyche. Lord Wavell had noted in his journal that Churchill had the impression that the Indian army was liable to rise at any moment; and he accused Wavell of creating a Frankenstein by putting modern weapons in the hands of sepoys. Furthermore, Lord Clement Attlee, the British prime minister, while discussing at the Raj Bhawan with the then acting governor and chief justice, B.P. Chakravarti of the Calcutta High Court, stated that one of the principal reasons for the British decision to leave India in a hurry was “the erosion of loyalty to the British Crown among the Indian Army and Navy personnel”.
Talking about the spirit of nationalism amongst the officers and men during the interregnum of the World Wars and the peak of our freedom struggle, General J.N. Chaudhuri, the former army chief, recounted an incident. A group of young Indian officers approached Nehru in 1936 and complained of the discriminatory attitude of the British system, but were told to stay on. “Learn all you can... When Independence comes we shall want good military leaders. We shall have need of you,” was Nehru’s advice to them.
Therefore, by no stretch of the imagination can the British Indian Army of yore be labelled as a mercenary force and its soldiers as mercenaries. It would be grossly unfair and unjustified to belittle their contribution towards the nation. Its successor the Indian army has been, and continues to be, imbued with and possessed of highly prized core values of a professional and disciplined army. It has always been a role model for our youth, and done our nation proud each and every time.
The author is a former chief of army staff and a former governor of Arunachal Pradesh
No comments:
Post a Comment