BOSEORGANDHIWhoGotIndiaHerFreedom?

MajGen(Dr)GDBakshiSM,VSM(Retd)

Copyright© 2019GDBakshiAll rights reserved.No part of this publicationmaybereproduced,storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmittedinanyformorbyany means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,withoutthepriorwrittenpermissionofthecopyrightowner.

ISBN 978-93-87324-67-1 Paperback eISBN 978-93-87324-68-8 ebook

PublishedinIndiabyKalpanaShuklaKWPublishersPvtLtd4676/21,FirstFloor,AnsariRoad,Daryaganj,NewDelhi110002P:+911143528107E:kw@kwpub.comW:www.kwpub.com

The content of this book is the sole expression and opinion of its author, and not of the publisher. Thepublisherinnomannerisliableforanyopinionorviewsexpressedbytheauthor.Whilebesteffortshavebeenmade in preparing the book, the publishermakes no representations orwarranties of any kind andassumes no liabilities of any kind with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the content andspecificallydisclaimsanyimpliedwarrantiesofmerchantabilityorfitnessofuseofaparticularpurpose.

Thepublisherbelieves that thecontentsof thisbookdonotviolateanyexistingcopyright/intellectualpropertyofothersinanymannerwhatsoever.However,incaseanysourcehasnotbeendulyattributed,thepublishermaybenotifiedinwritingfornecessaryaction.

Contents

Acknowledgement

Prologue:DefiningTheCivilisationalContextofTheDebate

1.WhoGotUsOurFreedom?

2.AnOverviewofTheFreedomStruggle

3.TheAbjectFailureoftheQuitIndiaMovementofMahatmaGandhi

4.TheClementAttlee-ChakrabartyDialogue

5.ConclusiveEvidence:TheCommander-in-ChiefGen(LaterFdMshl)ClaudeAuchinleck’sReportstoTheViceroy

6.ConclusiveEvidence:TheViceroyFdMshlViscountWavell’sCorrespondence

7.ReportsoftheProvincialGovernors

8.IntelligenceBureau’sReportonINATrials

9.EndgameinLondon

10.ASummation:RectifyingHistory

11.Epilogue:NationStateandNationalisminIndia

Appendix

Bibliography

DedicatedToNetajiSubhashChandraBose

andAllRankspastandpresent

ofTheIndianNationalArmy

Whoseenormoussacrificesmadeusfree.Wechosehowevertocarvenotaline

andraisenotastone,intheirsacredmemory.

Acknowledgement

TheauthorwishestospecificallyplaceonrecordhisimmensegratitudeanddebttoDrKalyanKumarDey, author of the excellent book “Netaji Subhas : TheLiberatorofIndianSubcontinant”,forpermissiontoquoteextensivelyfromhisresearchwork.Theauthor isalsodeeply indepted toDrMithiMukherjiof theUniversity of Colorado for permission to quote extensively from her mostinsightfulbook“IndiaintheShadowofEmpire:ALegalandPoliticalHistory1914-1950”. I alsowish to recordmygratitude tomywifeSuneeta for typingand editing this work and to my children, Aditya and Purnima for theirconstructive suggestions and insights. I thank my grand children Samar andAnahita for letting me use the computer while they sportingly played theircomputergamesonthelaptop.Lastly,IamindebtedtoMsKalpanaShuklaandJose Mathew of KW Publishers for their excellent editorial and productionsupport and encouragement without which this book would not have beenpossible.

MajGen(Dr)GDBakshi,SM,VSM(Retd)

KeyBritishDecisionMakers1945-47

PrologueDefiningTheCivilisationalContextofTheDebate

TheDestructionoftheIdeaofIndiaAhistoricaloverviewofthetrajectoryofthecivilisationalnationstateofIndia,is very essential to put this book and its very challenging theme—ofwho gotIndiaherfreedomandhow—inproperperspective.Noothernationintheworldhasfacedsuchaconcertedassaultuponitsidentityandsenseofnationhoodandself, than India. Nation states are entities that have a temporal existence overvaststretchesofspaceandacrosscenturiesintime.TheproblemwithIndiawasthe comprehensivedestruction it facedvia a seriesof bloody invasions.ThesehadoriginallystartedintheseventhcenturyADitself,withtheinvasionsoftheHindukingdomsofAfghanistanandSindhbytheArabarmies.Thelittle-knownfact of history is that, for three centuries, the HinduKingdoms of Kabul andZabul had held off theArab Invaders. In fact the all-conqueringArabArmiessuffered their first major defeat in Hindu Afghanistan (and have since beentalking of the unfinished Gazwa-e-Hind—the final battle for the conquest ofIndia,whichwillhappenat theendof time).TheArab invasionofSindhwashalted by the Gujjar-Pratiharas on the borders of Rajasthan, contained andpreventedfromadvancinganyfurtherforthenexttwocenturies.

TherampartsofIndiafinallyfellwhentheAfghanHinduswereconvertedtoIslamandmountedaseriesofraidsonNorthIndia to loot its fabulouswealth.These started in the tenth century AD as bloody raids for plunder, gold andwomen and once the fact of India’s lack of unity, pacific nature andmilitaryweakness were thoroughly exposed, came the wars of conquest. From thethirteenthcenturyonwardsIndiafacedaseriesofinvasionswherethemarauderswhocametolootandrape,stayedbacktorule.SovastwasthetemporalextentofIndia,however,thatnosingleinvader,nottheMughalsnortheBritishcouldconquer it in its entirety. Thus enclaves of the Indian culture survived andthrived in the southern parts of India for centuries even as theNorthern Parts

werebeingoverrunbytheArmiesofIslam.ThusevenwhileNorthIndiafelltoAfghans,Mongols,Mughalsand,muchlater,Persianinvaders,theCholasoftheSouthweremakingnavalforaysandspreadingIndiancultureandvaluesanditsartsandarchitecturetolargepartsofSouthEastAsia.

Thus it was the sheer size and extent and the very depth of the temporalexistence of the Indian civilisation in time and space, that prevented thiscivilisation from being wholly overrun and destroyed. It was simply its greatdepthinspaceandtimethatsavedtheIndiancivilisationfrombeingwipedout.Fewhistorians,however,highlighttheremarkablefactthatforover400years,i.e., from the thirteenth to the seventeenthcentury, Indiawas ruledbyMusliminvaders.Yetover80%oftheIndianpopulationremainedHindu.Thisisastarkcontrast with the equally ancient and flourishing civilizations of Egypt,Mesopotamia,CentralAsia and Iranwhichwereconvertedenmasse to Islam.Thereisnotatraceoftheiroriginalindigenousculturelefttoday.TheParsisinIndiaareallthatremainsoftheflourishingPersiancivilisationofIran.Howdidthismiraclehappen?Indiaprovedtobeaweakstatebutwasastrongsociety.Thus once the Hindu states in India were militarily overrun, Indian societydeliberately splintered itself into a plethora of Jatis, varna and caste groupswhich kept their flocks together by the severe threat of social boycott andexcommunication.Theythreatenedallwhoconvertedwithexcommunication—viastoppingall tiesofconsanguineouseatingormarriage(Roti,betikarishta,tiesofeatingtogetherandgivingdaughtersinmarriage).Theseweredesperate,last-ditchmeasures topreservegenepoolpurity.ThusaplethoraofcastesandGotra groups arose in India which tightly shepherded their local flocks vialargelylocalisedjatbiradariesorclangroupings.TheHindupoliticalstatesweredestroyedbyinvadingMuslimarmiesbutthenativesheldthemselvestogetherinthefaceofuntoldpersecutionbybandingtogetherinJatandBiradariclustersatthe local level.This prevented comprehensive penetrationofHinduSociety bythe proselytising attempts of Islam. Despite conquest by military force, IslamwasnotabletoconverttheentiremassofthehugeHindupopulationtoIslam.The sheer contrast with what happened in Egypt,Mesopotamia, Central AsiaandIrancouldnotbemoremarked.

UnfortunatelytodaythecastesystemisananachronisminIndia.Thesimplefact is that India is now a full fledged state and we don’t need to fall backanymore on our last line of defence—the caste and jati groups. In fact todaythesearehinderingtheformationofastrongandcohesivenationstateinIndia.As societies industrialise and urbanise, caste becomes a meaningless

anachronism. It should have withered out completely by now but our pygmypoliticians have kept it alive because they have failed to generate any othernational issues except Caste and Jati-based mobilisation. This is nowthreateningtheveryunityofIndiaandcouldonceagainimperiltheexistenceofthenationstateinIndia.

Britain’sPsychologicalEnslavementTheBritishcametoIndiainthesixteenthcenturywhentheMughalEmpirewasin its heyday with Jehangir and Shah Jahan ruling in great opulence andsplendour.TheMughalEmpirewas thengenerating some40%of theworld’sGDP.TheBritishcameaspettytraderstosellsilverandbuybackIndianspicesand hand woven cloth. Then came Aurangzeb who undid the secular-liberalconsensus on the basis of which Akbar had founded theMughal Empire. HereintroducedthehatedJaziyataxandstartedmindlesswarsofconquestinSouthIndia to further expand the Mughal Empire. The temporal spread in spatialterms, was simply too much to control. The Mughal Empire suffered aneconomiccollapsebecauseofAurangzeb’smindlesswars.Afghanistanslippedfrom thegraspof theMughal empirebutwhatwas evenmore tellingwas themassive revolts of theHindus against the tyrannical repression ofAurangzeb.ThesehadgravelythreatenedtheHinduidentityperseand,facedwithgenocide,they revolted.These revoltswere ledbyShivajiMaratha in theSouth and theSikhs of Guru Gobind Singh in the North. In the East an Assamese GeneralcalledLachitBurpukhandecisivelycheckedanyMughaladvancetotheEastandsavedAssamandtheNorthEast fromfallingprey to theMughals.Withinonecentury, the mighty Mughal Empire, which once encompassed the whole ofSouth Asia, had been torn apart. Thus it was not the British who saved theHindus fromMuslimpersecution in India but rather itwere theHindu revoltsthathadcomprehensivelydestroyedtheMughalempire,wellbeforetheBritishbegantheirwarsofconquest.

TheHumanTerraininIndiaattheTimeoftheBritishConquestThe British studied the human terrain in India with great thoroughness. Theyweregoodanthropologistsandstrategists.Theyfullyexploitedthechaoscausedbythedestructionofthewell-establishedMughalempire.Nosinglepowerhadarisen in India which could truly as yet, step into the shoes of the Mughalempire.TheMarathashadconqueredlargepartsofCentralIndia,thepeninsular

andevenWesternIndia.TheSikhsconqueredmostofNorth-WesternIndiaupto thebordersofAfghanistanandevenconqueredpartsofAfghanistanon theSouthernbanksof the Indus (NWFP,andFATA).DograGeneralsof theSikhEmpire ofMaharaja Ranjit Singh (GeneralsGulab Singh and Zorawar Singh)conquered Ladakh, Baltistan and then invaded Tibet itself. What we werewitnessingwasaHindumilitaryrenaissance.

NativisationIntothiswarringcauldronofstatesinIndia,steppedtheEastIndiaCompanyandotherEuropeanpowers. In trueMachiavellian style theyplayedonepoweroffagainst the other—the Marathas against the Nizam; the Sikhs against thePurbayias (Easterners) of modern-day UP, Bihar and Bengal and so on. TheBritish success lay in nativisation. They recruited local Indian sepoys, trainedthem on European lines to create first-rate infantry units that could fire indisciplined rhythm that could defeat any Mughal-style cavalry charge. TheBritishartillerywasthebestinSouthAsiathen.Thewell-drilledBritishnativeinfantrycouldthenoutfightallMughalstylecavalriesinIndia.ItwasamongstthebestpaidandadministeredofthemilitaryunitsinIndia.Byacombinationofsheerintrigue,andIntelligence-basedoperations,ofplayingoneoffagainsttheother,theBritishslowlybutsteadilycapturedlargeswathesofterritoryinIndia.TheMughalempirehadbeendestroyedbutnosingleHindustatehademergedin India to form a unified political state that could now do away with theplethoraofcastesandcommunitiesthathadbeencreatedasalastditchlineofdefencetosafeguardHindusocietyagainstMuslimproselytisation—whetherbyforceorpreaching.TheBritishplayedoneethnicitybasedstateinIndiaagainstthe other. They fought successive wars against the Marathas, the Nizam andTipuSultanandthentheSikhs.TheyusedthePoorbiyastodefeattheSikhsandthen,whenthePoorbiyasrevoltedenmasseagainsttheirBritishmastersfortheirproselytisingzeal,theyusedtheSikhsandthehilltribesagainstthemtobrutallysuppresstherevoltof1857.

Post-1857BritishConsolidationThus Sir John Seeleywrote:“Themutiny was in greatmeasure put down byturningtheracesof Indiaagainsteachother.So longas thiscanbedone, thegovernmentof India fromEngland ispossible.But, if thiswere tochangeandshould the population bemoulded into a single nationality,wewould have toleave.”The1857RevolthadlefttheBritishtrulyshaken.Itcuredthemoftheirproselytisingzeal.Theyrealisedthatanyattempts toconvertbyforceor fraudthreatened to unleash wars of Identity per se in India.What really perturbedthemhoweverwasthefactthatallthediverseraces,castesandcreedsofIndiahadunitedinanattempttothrowthehatedBritishout.TheBritishwerereallythenon-self,thatwasrefusingtomergeintotheIndiancivilisation,andinfact,

theBritishwerethreateningdeep-rootedIndianidentitiesbasedonreligion.ThisthreattoHinduandMuslimidentitiesbasedongreasedcartridges,almostblewtheempireapart.ThegreatestBritishconcernafterthe1857uprisingthereforewas how to ensure that the disparate and fragmented Indian populationremaineddividedandnever,evercametogetheragaintostagesuchamassiveandwidespreadrebellion.ItwastheveryBritishnon-self,theirforeignness,andrefusal to Indianise in any manner that generated large-scale opposition andrebellion.ItisnoteworthythattheMughalshadIndianisedthemselvestoalargeextent by adopting Indian culturalmores and even learnt to appreciate Indianclassical dance and music. Dara Shikoh had the Upanishads translated intoPersianandbeforehimAkbarhadtriedtoformulateanewsynthesisoffaithsinIndiabyhisDeen-e-Elahi.TheveryarrogantForeignnessofBritishruleinIndia,theirracialclaimsofsuperiority,reallyhelpedtoinitiatetheriseandrevivalonthe national self in India. The whole of India had united against the veryForeignness of British rule. The Indian self had begun to crystallise only inrelationtoaBritishnon-self.

The British Raj now did away with the rule of the British East IndiaCompanyandtheCrowninEnglandtookdirectcharge.ItsprimaryproblemsinreassertingitsruleinIndiawastwofold:

Foreignness. The primary concern was how to overcome the veryforeignness of its rule which automatically presented a hostile non-selfwhichinturnwouldbyitselfpromotenationalunityandacrystallisationoftheIndiansenseofself.Fracturing Sources of Indian Unity. The second was to identify anddestroy all sense of Indian unity and cultural identity. Thus Dr. MithiMukherjeewrites:IftheBritishEmpirehadtosurviveinIndia…ithadtodestroy and dismantle all sources of Indian unity and identity—cultural,politicalandhistorical;andrendertheveryideaofIndiaasmeaningless....Tornbyinternalconflict,itwasclaimedthatIndiawasindesperateneedofaneutralandimpartialpowerat thehelmof thestate tosecurejusticeand order (or justice as order). Given that Indian society was deeplydividedintocommunitiesinconflictwitheachother,onlyanalien,foreignpowercouldbetrustedtobeneutralandimpartial.”

Thus theBritishanswer to itsproblemsofmitigating the foreignnessof itsrulewasnottheMughalideaofassimilationofIndiancultureandethostoblend

and not exacerbate identities thatwould grate, but to blend rather seamlessly.The British however devised the ideology of imperial justice. They claimedIndia was no nation. it was just a squabbling and vicious mosaic of multipleidentitiesforeveratwarwithitself.Indiawasalandofmultipleidentities.Afterthe political and military destruction of the Hindu states in India from thethirteenthcenturyonwards,inalastditchanddesperateattempttosafeguarditsidentity,theHindustateshadfragmentedthemselvesintoaplethoraofmultipleand highly localised Jat-Biradaries of caste and sub-caste groups. Thiswas topreventproselytisationbyIslam.WhenAurangzebthreatenedtheresidualHinduidentity by conversion by violence, therewas an explosion. TheMaratha andSikhRevolts thereafter destroyed theMughal empire.However, no one singlesuccessor state was able to crystallise in India. Had this happened, the re-emergenceofaHindupoliticalstatewouldhavedemandedanendtothecasteandJati-based local identities thathademergedas last lineofdefenceduringMughal rule. That however did not happen and in the meantime the Britishbrought thecoal-based industrial revolution to Indiaandconqueredmostof it.Theirratheraggressiveinitialattemptsatproselytisationbackfiredintherevoltof 1857.Thereafter their ardour forChristian proselytization cooled distinctly.Attempts at religious conversion were now largely confined to remote tribalareas(wheretheywererathersuccessful—especiallyintheNorthEast).

ExacerbatingCasteFaultlinesHowever attempts to exploit every possible faultline in India were intensifiedgreatly.Oneof themost effective faultlines they foundwas caste.TheBritishwent out of theway to deepen and intensify every Caste and Jati faultline inIndia.AsProf.MtihiMukherjeewrites:“TheBritishratifiedcastebymeansofvariouscolonialinstrumentssuchasdistrictmanuals,Gazettes,imperialsurveysand finally theCensusof1872;andmadeVarna, thehierarchicalorderingofcastes into four groups as the central idea behind classification of Indiansociety.” She adds, “The census administrationwas driven by the ideologicalneed to naturalise the absence of national unity and then institutionalise it byintegratingitintoroutineadministrativedecisionsandpolicies.”

Sir John Seeley was the author of the first caste-based census in India in1872.He rubbed it in further by saying, “Indians do not have the capacity todevelop an idea of nationality, let alone rule themselves.” He ascribed itprimarilytotheinstitutionofcaste.“Solongasaregimeofcastespersists,itisdifficult to see how the sentiments of unity and solidarity can penetrate andinspireallclassesofthecommunity.”Thispolarisationofcastewasbegunasthepursuitofsocialjusticeandwastheprimarycolonialmechanismforsplinteringand dividing the Indian population, ofwhich theHindus then constitutedwellover80%.ManyreformmovementsInindiaunderstoodthisgreatweaknessanddisunity thatwas inherent in theHindu caste system. Thus the SikhGurus inPunjabmade the first attempt to downplay caste faultlines and do awaywithcastealltogether.InthebargainanewreligionwascreatedandtheBritishtriedenergetically to prod the Sikhs into becoming a separate religion by way ofpromotingonlyKeshDhariesandnotNamDhariestoberecruitedfortheArmy.ThenextwasMaharishiDayananda,founderoftheAryaSamajwhofoundcastetobefatal toHinduunityasapeopleandworkedenergetically tohomogeniseHindusociety.

ReligionandCommunityBasedElectoratesTheBritishturnedtheconceptofdivideandruleintoahighlysophisticatedartform. Thus, after caste, they now decided to deepen Indian religion-basedfaultlinesbyprovidingcommunity-basedelectorates.ThustheMuslimswerethefirsttogetaseparateelectorate,followedbytheChristiansandSikhsandthenitwas given to the Scheduled Castes and Tribes. The British made energeticattemptstohiveofftheDalits(SCandST)fromtheHindumainstreamevenastheyhadsuccessfullysegregatedtheSikhsfromtheHindufold.Atthetimeof1857theBritishhadbeenalarmedbyMuslimpirsandpotentateswho,totheirminds, had tried to restoreMughal rule in India. It is true that the sepoyshadforcedthelucklessBahadurShahtoresumethemantleofMughalEmperor.Foratime,therefore,theRajseemedtofavourtheHindusagainsttheMuslimsbutby the onset of the twentieth century, things had come full circle. Now theHindusweremost active against theBritish in the formof the revolutionariesandthemorepacificCongress.TheBritishnowmostaggressivelychampionedeveryMuslimcauseandmanoeuvredtosodeepentheHindu-MuslimFaultlinethat it finally resulted in the tragic Partition of India. The British had mostcleverlyplayeduponandfannedtheMuslimfearsofbeingsubsumedbyavastHindumajority.

TheConceptofImperialJusticeThis entire gamut of divide and rule policies were designed to permanentlydeepenandsoexacerbatethefaultlinesinIndianSocietythatitwouldreinforcethe colonial narrative of Imperial Justice. The basic tenet was an a prioriacceptance that Indiawas intrinsicallysuchahopelesslydividedsociety that itneeded Foreign rule to ensure even-handed justice between its perpetuallywarring castes, creeds, religions and language communities. Only a foreignpowercouldprovidesuchanimpartialandfairrulebyenforcingtheconceptofImperial Justice. Thus the very Foreignness of the British Empire was turnedintoaninherentadvantageandinfact,theveryjustificationforimposingforeignrule in India. Mithi Mukherjee puts it succinctly when she writes: “Torn byinternal conflict, itwas claimed that Indiawas in desperate need of a neutraland impartial power at the helm of the state to secure justice and order (orjusticeasorder).GiventhatIndiansocietywasdeeplydividedintocommunitiesinconflictwitheachother,onlyanalien, foreignpowercouldbetrustedtobeneutralandimpartial.”Thuswastheideologicalbasislaidforpersistentforeignrule in India that lasted two centuries. The concept of Imperial Justice wasspecifically created to justify foreign rule in a deeply divided and fracturedIndian society.Dr.MithiMukherjeewrites, “For India tohaveanyorderandunity,thestatewouldhavetobeexteriortothecivilsocietyandnation.Itwasthis intervention of the discourse of Imperial Justice, coupled with state’srepresentation of India as a deeply divided society that tried to turn theexteriority and foreign origin of the colonial state into its greatest strength,ratherthanaweakness.”

WhatAilsIndianNationalismTodayAlltheillsthatplaguenationstateformationinIndiatodaystemfromonebasicfoundational problem. The British were ultimately forced out of India not byMahtamaGandhiandNehru’snon-violentfreedomstrugglebutratherstarklybytheINAthatBosehadformedwithJapanesehelp.HehadmountedaninvasionofIndiaalongwiththeJapanesearmies.Tragicallythisinvasionfailedbecauseithadbeenlaunchedtoolate—whenAmericahadintervenedonthesideoftheAlliesandtiltedthescaleswithitshugeindustrialbase.Airsuperiorityhadnowshifted to the allies and they used it to good effect to counter the highlysuccessfulJapanesetacticsofinfiltrationandencirclement.DespitethisitwasaclosefoughtbattleinImphal-KohimaandtheJapanesealmostpulleditoff.Themonsoonsdestroyedthelogisticalsupportoftheiroffensive,forcingthemintoacostlyandpainfulretreat.AfterthewarthevictoriousBritishwereinnomoodto relent. They in fact decided upon the equivalent of another psychologicalJallianwalaBaghbystagingthetrialsofINAOfficersatthehistoricRedFort—thesameiconicFortwherethelastMughalEmperorofIndiahadbeentried.Thetrial was to be highly publicised to terrorise and overawe the Indian ArmyPersonnel so that theGhost ofBose and his INA could be exorcised forever.Bose had been right—the Centre of Gravity of the British Raj had been thesteadfast loyalty of the native Indian Sepoy to the Raj. The INA trials werestaged toensure theSepoy remainedso loyal. Itbackfiredverybadlyandhadtheexactoppositeeffect.TheentirecountrywasenragedandriotsbrokeoutinallmajorcitiesinNovember1945—intheimmediateaftermathofthetrials.TheColonialdispensationwasshakentotherootsbythefuryandintensityoftheseriots.Whatwasworsewastheominousimpactithadontheloyaltyofthenativetroops. The whole country now saw the INA as true patriots and the Indiansepoysrealisedtheyhadclearlybeenonthewrongsideinthewar.

TheViceroyandtheCommander-in-Chief inNewDelhi,FdMshlsWavellandAuchinleck,realisedtheintensityoftheemotionsunleashedandthegravityof the situation. So did the Governors in the provinces. British troops weredrainedandspent.Theyweredesperately tiredaftersixyearsofwarand trulyhomesick.Theywerebeingsentback.Therewere2.5millioncombathardenedIndian soldiers in India then, who were being demobilised. Should they haverevoltedagainsttheempire,thehandfulofBritishtroopswouldhavebeeninnopositiontoquellsuchanuprising.TherewasinfactpanicinLutyens,NewDelhianddesperatecontingencyplansweredrawnuptofacesuchanemergencyand

evacuatesome90,000Europeansandtheirfamilies.InitiallytheRajImperialistsinLondonfelt their functionariesInDelhihad lost theirnerves,andtheywereyet in no mood to throw in the towel. Then in February 1946 came thewidespreadmutinyintheRoyalIndianNavy.Some20,000sailorson79Shipsandmanyshoreestablishmentstookpart.Thiswasthelaststrawthatbrokethecamel’sbackinLondon.TheyrealisedwithashockthatWavellandAuchinleckwereoldIndiahandsandwerenotbeingalarmist.Whattheyhadwarnedagainsthad indeed come to pass. Just one day after the Naval mutiny the Britishleadership inLondon threw in the towel.Pethick-Lawrence announced that heand Stafford Cripps and A. V. Alexander would go to India for finalnegotiations.

That was the end of the Raj. So the historical fact is that India got itsfreedom not because of the long-winded and largely ineffectual Non-violentMovementbutby theactualand impliedviolenceofBoseandhis INA.Therelies the tragedy.Power, however, did not go to Bose or the trenchantly anti-British INA but to the peoplewho had virtually collaboratedwith theBritish.While others fought and laid down their lives, these Congress leaders waitedpatientlyon the sidelines tograb the fruitsofpower.Thiswasa largelyvenaland self-serving elitewhohadnotbeenbaptisedby fireor tested in an armedstruggle. Forgotten in this pacific hoopla and self-congratulations were some26,000 INA soldiers who had laid down their lives to free the country. Theamazingfactisthat,ofthe60,000INA,some26,000hadlaiddowntheirlives.Itwasanenormousscaleofsufferingandsacrificetolose43%oftheentireforce.YetThecourtHistorianshavethetemeritytocalltheIndianFreedomStruggleanentitrelyNon-violentaffair.However,the14,000orsoINABoyswhowererepatriatedfromPOWCampswerenottakenbackintotheIndianArmy.Infacttheyweretreatedastraitorsanddeniedtheirwartimepensions.Thepityiseven70yearsafterIndependence,theystillare.TheyarenotallowedtotakepartintheRepublicDayparade—evenasveterans.WhathasbeenrejectedistheverybasicNationalistideologyofBoseandtheINA.

BosevsNehru—SeriousIdeologicalDifferencesSoisthisalamentforBoseandhisINA?No,itisratheralamentforthenationstateinIndiawhichisstilltiedtotheapronstringsoftheRajandhasadopteditsnarrativesandkeptintactitsbasiccolonialconstructs.TheIndianConstitutionisbasically a reprint of the British India Act of 1935 and wholly retains thecolonialethosvia its replacementof“Imperial Justice”by“Social Justice.” Its

basicpremiseisthatIndiaisnot,andneverwas,anationstatebefore1947.Itisamosaicofconstantlywarringandsquabblingcastes,communitiesandcreeds.ThemaintaskoftheIndianGovernment,àlathecolonialregime,istoarbitratebetweenthesecompetingcastesandcreedsinajustandfairmanner,hencetheoverridingemphasisontheprincipleofSocialJusticeintheIndianConstitution.It has deftly replaced the colonial concept of Imperial Justice. The formerbootlickersof theBritishhaveensured thatnoattemptshouldeverbemade tohomogenise the Indian population and all the cultural differences must bemaintained in their purity .The emphasis is less on unity and far more onpreservingdiversity.NoefforthasbeenwastedincreatingaPan-IndianIdentity.The post-independence politics are purely based on the tribalism of casteArithmetic.No post-colonial dispensation in India (not the Congress nor theBJPoranyotherparty)hasmusteredthecouragetogobeyondcaste.Caste,asadivisive factor,hasonlybeenenhancedanddeepenedbyahostofpettyandself-servingpoliticianswhospreadtheambitofaffirmativeactionbyincludingmore andmore castegroups into the ambit of reservations.Today50%of theIndian population comes under the ambit of caste-based reservations and theclamourisonlytowidenitfurther.TheMarathas,theJats,theGujjarsareallupinarms today.The tragic fact is that theminorityof“Indians“ in India is inseriousdecline.TheideaofIndiaisunderconcertedassaultbythecoalitionofcastes and creeds. A Govt led by Bose would have seriously contested thiscolonial narrative andmade a concerted attempt to alter the very nature andethosofthenationstateinIndia.Itwouldhavebeenreinventedinaradicalnewform.Therewasaneed forabasicParadigmShift from thecolonialnarrativebasedonanIndiaofcompetingcastesandcreeds.HadagenuinelynationaliststatetakenchargeinIndiaafterindependence,itsfirstprioritywouldhavebeentodeepen the ideaof Indiabydownplaying strongly theplethoraof casteandcreed identitiesandhomogenising thestate.BosewasaRealist.Hewanted toobliterateallfaultlinesofcasteandcreed.HehaddonesointheINAbydoingawaywiththeJatiandEthnicitybasedRegimentsoftheBritishIndianarmyandhomogenisedallINAunitsontheall-Indiaall-classmodel.

MilitarisingtheIndianStatevsDemilitarisationSecondly, the state in India had to be re-consolidated and strengthened as ameans of protecting its citizens from foreign invasions and internal disorder.BosewantedIndiatohaveanarmyofsome3millionmen.LikeMaoofChina,hewasamilitarist.TheNehruvianstateturnedpacificwithavengeance.Itflatly

said it needed no armed forces. This is the critical factor—Bose wanted toIndustrialiseindiaandmakeitamajorMilitarypower,asignificantforceontheglobalarena.NehruactuallywantedtodisbandtheIndianarmy.TherewasnoneedforanIndianarmyforapacific,non-violentcountrylikeIndia,hefelt.Thepolicewouldsufficetoprotect thisstate!Fortunately,Patelarealist,preventedNehrufromhavinghisway.Indiahassincehadtofightfivewarsandstillfacesgrave internal and external challenges. In true Gandhian fashion today, theIndian state refuses to fight Pakistan or China, even when its basic nationalinterests are challenged.Given the tragic history of 10 centuries of invasions,thisisarecipeforcivilisationaldisaster.Welostthosewarsandwereenslaved—preciselybecauseofourlackofinterest inmattersmilitary.Wewillhavetorevive the legacy of Bose tomilitarise ourselves, to defend ourselves and notsubordinatethestateinIndiatosomeuniversalisthumanrightsprinciples,whichthepowerfulstatesoftheworld(likeAmerica,ChinaandRussia)todayviolatewith impunity whenever it suits their core national interests. The Indiancivilisational state had been subjected to virtually 10 centuries of defeat andhumiliation. Just one century of such humiliation had prompted China toMilitarise and reinvent itself in a far more homogeneous and coherent form.TodayChinaisthesecondlargestmilitaryandeconomicpowerintheworldandwellon itsway toperhapsbecoming themostpowerful stateon theplanet—aSuperpower in the true sense of the word. India is still mired in the colonialdesideratumofdivisivecasteandcreedloyaltiesthatarethreateningtotearapartthevery fabricof its unity.The colonial destructionof thevery Ideaof India,remainscompleteand total.Wehavenotbeenable to rebuildwhat theBritishhadsothoroughlydestroyed.WhatweneededwasastrongstatetoprotectthepeopleofIndiafromexternalinvasionsandinternaldisorders.TodaywehaveanationstatethatclaimstobecommittedtothedefenceoftheideaofIndiabuthashesitatedtoactinadecisivemanneragainstanyofourexternalandinternalenemies. It continues to trumpet the pacific and war-avoiding legacy ofMahatmaGandhiandnotthestrongNationalismofBoseandhisemphasisnotonthesoftpowerofahimsabutonthehardpowerofmilitaryforce.Bosewasarealist.Todaywehavechosen to staymired inadreamworldofnon-violenceand ahimsa,when theworld around us growsmore violent by the day.For acountry thathasbeen invaded, subjugated,destroyed, lootedandraped for10centuries,non-violenceisamanifestationofabjectcowardicemasqueradingashigh principle. Let us not forget Mahatma Gandhi himself had decried suchcowardice.

Whatweneededwas a strong state in India thatwouldmilitarise and armitself to defend its citizens. It chose instead to defend the principles of non-violence and pacifism.A set of very hostile neighbours quickly disabused theIndian nation state of its notions of Non-violence and Ahimsa. A State thatcannotdefenditself,tragicallydiesunsungandunweptintoday’sDarwinianeraofthestrongeattheweakanddeviltakethehindmost.Wemaynotmilitariseinthe Germanic sense, but the very least we need is to defend ourselves withvigourandensurethatallsuchwarstodefendIndiadonottakeplaceonIndiansoil à laPanipat all over again.Takea lookat J&K—that ispreciselywhat ishappening there today.We are fighting in awholly defensive, reactive formatconfinedentirely toConsequence-Managementonourownsideof theBorder.Bosewouldhavemade Indiamilitarilyverystrong.Hewas theonly leaderofthe Freedom Struggle who understood the military idiom. The other politicalrulers of India know very little of military matters and have not bothered tolearn.Theyhaveused civil andpolicebureaucracies tomuzzle themilitary inIndiaandmarginaliseitfromalldecisionmaking.Wehaverepeatedlypaidthepriceforitbutwesimplyrefusetolearn.

DoingAwaywiththeLegacyofCasteandCreedAs Ihave said, theColonial state in India startedwith theapriori assumptionthattherewasnonationcalledIndia—thatIndiahadneverbeenanationstate.HowthenwereChinaandJapanchracterisedasnationstates?Theyweremuchmorehomogeneoussocieties.India,youhadtoaccept,wasacauldronofcastesand creeds but theBritish constructwas that it neededForeignRule for goodgovernance.IfcasteandcreedweretobeusedasjustificationsforForeignruleandcolonisation,thenthefirsttaskofanynewbornnationstateinIndiawastodoawaywithcasteandcreedall together.Instead,whatdidthenewbornstateanditspowergraspingpoliticiansdo?TheydeepenedtheideaofCasteasbasicidentity bynowadding economic tagson the caste identity.Affirmativeactionwasneededprimarily for theSCandST—especially the latterwhoweremostdeprivedandbackward.Aseriesofself-servingandpettypoliticianslikeV.P.Singh,addedsome50%oftheIndianpopulationintothereservedcategory.Thistendstodrivealltalentandmerit-basedselectioncriterionintothedustbin.IthascreatedaCommunismofCaste,astiflingmediocritythatservestodriveoutallourtalenttoForeignlands.EvenAmbedkar,theframerofourConstitution,hadwanted caste-based reservations to be a temporary phenomena. The presentbreedofPoliticiansinIndia,Congressorotherwise,wanttofreezecaste-based

reservations in perpetuity, for the next 10,000 years perhaps. One fails tounderstand the Leftist discourse and diatribes against Brahmins and so-calledupper class elites. If Muslims ruled India from virtually the tenth centuryonwards,howweretheBrahminsandupper-classpeopletherealpowerwieldersand brokers?Theywere themost persecuted of the lot inMuslim-ruled statesand have been out of power as social groups virtually for the past 800 years.DuringtheBritishrule,however,theymasteredandexcelledinthenewsystemofeducationandinamerit-basedmileu,camebackto thefore.Iamnotatalltrying to justify the caricatures of the caste system like untouchability, etc.,which were abominable practices, and we have taken energetic action toeradicate them.As an independent nation state, however,we cannot afford toemphasise caste and clan-based identities which make the society regress totribalism. That was a desperate, last-ditch mechanism for defence againstProselytisation by the invading Muslim Armies. They came as a defencemechanismwhentheHindustatesinIndiafailedpoliticallyandmilitarily.Theyweredestroyedandinnoposition todefendtheirpeople.SothepeoplehadtofallbackonlocalcasteandJaticlustersandKhappanchayats.TheIndiannationstatehasnowbeeninexistenceforthelast70years.Itisthedutyofthenationstatetoprotectitspeopleandtheirwayoflife.Whathavewedonetoeradicatethe sub-identities of caste and creed which now threaten the nation state andmilitate against a pan-Indian identity. A nation state has to homogenise to anextentandbringequalityofopportunitytoallitscitizens.Anysensiblestatewillpromote merit and not ensure it is driven out to other countries. That is thesurest way to ensure a civilisational disaster. So far our educated elite wereeagerly lapped up by other states—notably America and Europe. Withprotectionismontherisethisisnotlikely,notanylonger.Wehaveahugeyouthbulge todayandanalarmingshortageof jobs. Insuchamileuwehaveunrulyagitations formore andmore caste-based reservations.The Jats, theMarathas,the Gujjars, the Patels etc., are all clamouring for reservations on the plea ofbackwardness.Whatkindofanomalydowewishtocreate?Astatebasedon80or90percentreservations?Whatdoes thatdo to thehapless20%thatwillbeleft out of this reservation empire? Presumably for ever. As a civilisation wehave actualised Communism to its ultimate degree. We have succeeded increating a Communism of Caste. It is amost inefficient form ofGovernmentwhichhasbeenuprootedfromRussia,ChinaandallEastEuropeanstates.EvenChina has transformed its economy by liberalising trade and turning capitalistwithavengeance.Ourpoliticiansstillwish to thriveon theColonialmodelof

divideandrulebasedonvotebanksandthearithmeticofcaste.Thesoleissueinourelectionsiscaste.Itisapatheticfailureofourcolonialeraelitetooutgrowthatsystem.Nationbuildingisnottheprimeconcernofthesepoliticalpygmies.Grabbingandretainingpowerbyanymeans—fairorfoul,is.

EconomicCriterionforAffirmativeActionThis is the era of InformationTechnology. Today India has created amiraclewiththeAadhaarCard.LetusnotuseitmerelyforthestatetospyonitscitizensandcreateanOrwelliansociety.Aadhaarcardsarebetterusedtotargetsubsidiesto weaker sections of society. Now with the bulk of the population on theAadhaar card map, is it not time to switch to an Economic criterion basedsystemofaffirmativeaction?Thestateshouldtargetsucheconomicaffirmativeaction to those who are genuinely economically deprived—those who aregenuinely below the poverty line. It should be the state’s prime endeavour tobring up these genuinely economically deprived Indians—regardless of caste,creed, gender, religion or language. They are Poor Indians and must becorrectly identified via the agency of Aadhaar cards and helped in a targetedfashion.ThiswillautomaticallyhelptheSCandSTcategorythemost.Theyaregenuinelypooranddeservehelp.ItwillweedoutofthisperniciousAffirmativeAction regime,all thosewhoclaim iton the solebasisofcasteandcreedandmanufacturednarrativesofhistoricaldeprivationandmarginalisation.

ThatiswhythedebateaboutNationstateformationinpost-colonialIndiaissoveryimportant.Howactuallydidwebecomefree?Whatwerethetrueoriginsandcausativefactorsforapost-colonialstatetoemergeinIndia?Thequestionofwho got us our freedom and how would determine the kind of state we havebecomeandlaydownourfuturetrajectoriesofchangeoroffreezingthestatusquoinperpetuity.Themaincontentionofthisbookisthat,inactualfact,itwasBoseandhisINAthattrulydroveouttheBritishin1947.Lefttonon-violencealone, freedom would have come to us in India somewhere in the 1980s or1990s, just as it had come to SouthAfrica only inApril 1994 because it hadrelied on non-violence alone. The tragedywas thatBose and his INAdid nottakechargeofafreeIndia.Theyliberateditbutwereedgedoutbyaself-servingCongresselitethatwerequiteweddedtothecolonialpast.TheBritishactuallyhandedoverpowertoanAnglophilebandofquislingsandcollaboratorsoftheRajwholoyallycontinuedtokeepIndiamiredinitscolonialpast.TheystartedwiththeaprioriBritishassumptionthatIndiawasnotanationbutacompetingcauldronofCastesandCreeds.TheGovernmentofIndia’ssolefunctionwastoadjudicate between these caste and community groupings in a just and fairmanner.HencetheIndianConstitution’semphasisonSocialJustice,inplaceoftheColonialconceptofImperialJustice.

The post-Colonial state in India needed to bemilitarily strong if itwas tooutgrowitspacificacceptanceandtoleranceofabjectdefeatandforeignruleofcenturies. It had to homogenise its society and downplay identities based oncasteandcreedandemphasiseanewpan-Indiaidentity.Whatthepost-colonialstateinIndianeededwasaPardigmshift.Whatitgotinstead,wasanewelitewho kept it wedded to the narratives of the empire. Between pre-and post-colonial India therewasvery littledifference inbasic ideology—SocialJusticehad replaced Imperial Justice and India is still a competing and squabblingcauldronofcasteandcreed.Allelectionsaresimplybasedonthearithmeticofcaste.That iswhywho freed India andwhy is a seminal andvitaldebate thatwilldefinethebasicsofourNationhood.

In the end, I would like to acknowledgemy gratitude to two IntellectualswhohaveprovidedtheInspirationforlargepartsofthisBook.DrKalyanKumarDey,whoseexcellentMonograph(NetajiSubhash:theTrueLiberatorofIndia)hasputtogetheralltherelevantdocumentaryevidencefromtheBritishTransferofPowerarchivestoprovebeyondanyreasonabledoubtthatitwastheINAofBosethatactuallyforcedtheBritishtoleave.Iammostgratefultohim,forhispermissiontoquotechapterandversefromhisexcellentstudy.TheotherisDr.MithiMukherjee,oftheUniversityofColorado,whoseexcellentbook,IndiaintheShadowofEmpireisperhapsoneofthebestandmostinsightfulaccountsofIndia’s Freedom Struggle available today. It provides an alternative historicalnarrative of the British Empire in India. I have learnt a great deal from thepioneeringworksof these twovery eminent scholars.Thisbook then seeks toturnthesearchlightonourrecentpastandgainnewinsightsaboutwhoweare,howwe came into being as a nation state and,most important,where areweheaded?Intheend,wherewearegoingdependsalotonwherewecamefrom.

WhyNow?Why this book now, is a simple and logical question. 21Oct2018,isthe75thAnniversaryoftheformationoftheHukumateAzadHindGovtinexilebyNetajiSubhasBoseinSingapore(1943).Thiswasrecognisedby12countries,includingthethenSovietUnion.NetajithenwasthefirstheadofStateand Commander in Chief of a Free Indian Govt in exile.Mahatma Gandhi’s150th Birth Anniversary falls on 02 October 2019. It is a most appropriatemoment for reflecting upon our recent history and the role of these two greatpersonagesinmakingIndiafree.

1

WhoGotUsOurFreedom?

ThisbookisanattempttorescuethehistoryofourFreedomStrugglefromsomehighlymotivated colonial andpost-colonialmythmaking that is patently falseandtendentiousandthatseekstoglorifythe“benign”natureofcolonialruleinIndiaandkeepusforeverinitspsychologicalthrall.MosteducatedIndianstendtoviewitasaneraofemancipationofsortsinourhistorythatservedtouniteadisparate and ever squabbling people into a cohesive and governable nationstate.Thiswasthecolonialnarrativethathadsopatentlyandsuccessfullybeenimposed on our people. Unfortunately it is still believed by a bulk of oureducated population. As long as we do not cast away these psychologicalcrutches,weshallneveractualiseourfullpotentialasagreatcivilisationalstatethatisheirto8,000yearsofaglorioushistory.

This book therefore begins with a seminal and straightforward question—Whoreallygotusourfreedom?WasittheINAofNetajiSubhashChandraBoseandhismostcredible threatofarmedviolenceorwas itMahatmaGandhiandhismethodology ofAhimsa,Non-violence and themysticalmumbo-jumbo ofSatyagrahaandsoulforce.Whatmadeusfree—theSoftpowerofahimsaortheHardpoweroftheINA?

TheseseminalquestionsthereforedealprimarilywiththeissueofhowIndiagotitsfreedom.WasitbecauseofthesoftpowerofAhimsa,non-violenceandSatyagraha?Orwastheuseofforce,thehardpoweremployedbyNetajiandhisINA, instrumental in forcing the Britons to leave? These are seminal issuesabout the very how and why of nation state formation in India. Today, theydeservetobedebatedanddiscussedindetail.Whereournationstateisheadeddependsagreatdealonwherewecamefrom—howwecameintobeing—whatweretheperspectivesthatshapedouroutlookandinstitutionsthen?Thesimplefactisthattherehasbeenanorchestratedattempt,tofalsifyourrecenthistoryand impart to itaperniciousspin.TheentireroleofNetajiSubhashBoseand

hisINAhasbeenmoreorlesseffacedfromourhistorybookswhichhavebeenturnedintohagiographiesforadynasticleadership.Indiaisademocracywherewehaveseenthephenomenonofcourthistoriansdeliberatelydistortinghistory.BipinChandra’sbookonIndia’sFreedomStruggleisamagnumopusthatrunsintoover600pages.ItdevotesjustonepageandahalftoNetajiandtheINA.Thatissimplyaquantitativeindicationofthelevelandextentofthedeliberatedistortionsinemphasisthatarebeinginjectedintoourpost-colonialnarratives.

The sad fact is that the empire, even as itwas forced topack its bags andleave,methodicallyhandedoverthereinsofpowertoasetofanglophileelite,whowerehandpickedtokeepusineverlastingthrallandbeholdentotheempire,apartoftheBritishCommonwealth(auselessanachronisminthisdayandage)andtobeginwithjustaDominionoftheempireandnotreallyanindependentnationstate.Pakistan,theotherdominioncarvedoutofIndia,hadthedecencytoselectoneofitsown—MohammadAliJinnahasitsfirstGovernorGeneral.Weindulgently and affectionately appointed Lord Mountbatten—the last BritishViceroy as our FirstGovernorGeneral, so overwhelmingwas the affection ofour political elite—especiallyNehru—for the British Raj. The pity is that theBritishhad created a set of brown-skinnedEnglishmenwhowere cast in theirown image and steeped inMacaulay’sColonial education andmindset. Thesebrown-skinnedelitewouldstriveveryhardtoseethatweremainedloyaltothetenetsof theRaj.Britainhad conquered Indiawith an armyofbrown-skinnednativesepoys.Itspsychologicalswayanddominancewouldbeperpetuatedpost-independence by another army of brown-skinned anglophiles and intellectualswhowoulddescribethemselvesasleftist-liberalintellectuals.Thesearethenewsetofnativesepoys thatcarry theburdenofempireandensure thatwedonotdeviatefromthehistoryandgrandnarrativesthattheBritishmastershadwrittendownforus.

ImperialJusticetoSocialJusticeHowstrongandperniciouswastheinfluenceoftheRajisborneoutbythefactthat the entire Constitution of Indiawasmore or less a faithful reprint of theBritish India Act of 1935. Thus the very preamble of the Indian ConstitutionbeginswithSocial Justice.Why thisprimacy tosocial justice?Whynot to theprinciplesofLiberty,FraternityandEquality?WhySocialJustice?Becausethishelped us to deftly replace the Colonial concept of “Imperial Justice,” with“Social Justice.”This entailed that the new rulers of independent Indiawouldforeverhave tobepsychologicallyextrinsic to thenative Indianmilieu.Nehruwaspreciselysuchabrown-skinnedEnglishman—hewasthereforesupposedlybeyondthethralloftheplethoraofIndianreligions,castesandcreedsandracesandlanguages.HewasnotreallyaHindu.Hewasanagnostic.Becauseofbeingso very British in orientation, he was above and beyond themorass that wasIndia and could dispense Social Justice between the various castes and creedswithoutfearorfavour.SocialJusticehaddeftlyreplacedImperialJusticeasthecornerstone of the constitution of the New Republic that had so deeplyinternalisedthecolonialnarrative.NehruhadbeenhandpickedbytheRaj,whichpresumably impelledGandhi toanointhimas the firstPrimeMinisterof IndiaovertheadministrativelyfarmorecompetentSardarPatel,whowasthechoiceoftheCongressPartyperse.

OnlytheNehru-Gandhifamilywasthereafterdecreedfittorulethischaoticmass of disparate people because theNehru-Gandhi clanwere so veryBritishandso“propah!”Theyalonecoulddispensesocialjusticeinsteadoftheimperialjustice that the empire had ruthlessly enforced over the warring, squabblingcastesandcreedsofIndia.Thus theveryfoundationof thisRepublicwaskeptconfinedwithin the imperial constructsof theRaj.ThisWeltanschauungsadlyreflectsintheveryPreambleofourconstitution.

The British left but they left behind a set of WOGs (Western OrientedGentlemen) who would forever be beholden to the Raj. These wogs wouldremainsadlyoblivioustothedeliciousironythatwogswasalsothesecondhalfofaBritishtermcalledGolli-wog—ablackDollthatwasusedasaracialtermofcontemptforthenativeswhoputonairsofbeingBritishstylegentlemen.

The British left behind a Civil bureaucracy and above all an IntelligenceBureau, many of whose servants retained a residual loyalty to the Raj. TheIndian IB had detailed dossiers on many of the political leaders of the new

dispensation.So they retainedan inordinate amountof influenceover thenewdispensation.ThefirstheadoftheIB(B.N.Mullick)becameanEdgarHooverof sorts.He remained theheadof the IB for almost 13years.TheMi-5 left aLiaisonOfficeinNewDelhi.AmazinglytheIndianIBcontinuedtoreporttotheMI5 inLondonabout themovementsofNetaji’skin till almost theendof thedecadeofthe1960s.WasthiswiththeknowledgeandapprovalofNehru?Didhe know what was going on behind his back, or was it with his expressknowledge and approval?These are seminal questions thatmust be asked andinvestigated.Wemustgetourownhistoryright.WemustoutgrowtheshacklesofpsychologicalslaveryandbegintothinkforourselvesasIndians.

TheBritishleftbuttheyleftbehindasetoflackeysthathavekeptthenationpsychologicallyenslavedandbounddownbytheGrandNarrativeshandeddowntousbytheempire.

This book therefore begins with a set of seminal and straightforwardquestions.Who reallygotusourAzadi?Who reallymadeus free?Was it theINAofBoseandtheirthreatofandactualuseofarmedviolence,orwasitthesoftpowerofMahatmaGandhi’sSatyagrahaandnon-violencewhichreallygotusourfreedom?

There is that popular lyric that sums it all up so neatly. It is part of thehagiography that has been so assiduously been built around the legacy of theNehru-Gandhidynasty.Itsays:

“DedihameazaadibinakharagbinadhaalSabarmatikesanttunekardiyakamaal.”

Thistranslatesinto:“OsaintofSabarmatiYouwroughtamiracle

Yougaveusourfreedomsansswordandshield.”

Thislyricisanunabashedinsulttothe26,000martyrsoftheINA.TheINAhadanoverallstrengthofsome60,000.Ofthese,aspertheofficialINAhistory,some26,000laiddowntheir lives.Thisamounts to43%of theForcethatwasmartyred. It is an awe-inspiring scale of casualties and sacrifice and it is anunmitigated insult to all thosemartyrs to call the Indian Freedom Struggle asentirelypeaceful andnon-violent. It is adisgraceful lie andpatentuntruthandyoucannotattributeittoasaintwhomadeafetishofalwaysspeakingthetruth.AnationthathasSatyamevJayate(TruthAloneTriumphs)asitsmottocannotsubscribetosuchanarrativethatisatsuchsharpvariancewithgroundrealities

and the truth.Why did the Nehru regime spend somuch time and energy incraftingapacificnarrativeforIndia?ItseeminglyharkenedbacktothetimesoftheBuddhaandAshoka to layexaggeratedclaims toa legacyofpacifismandnon-violence.Nehru tried topainthimselfasanotherGautamBuddhacome toridtheworldofitsscourgeofwarandviolence.Whythisexaggeratedemphasisonalegacyofpacifismthatwasatobviousvariancewithmuchofourhistoricalexperience. India’smain epics—theRamayana and theMahabharata—are allaboutwarandrighteouswarorjustwar.Indiawasfirstunifiedbymilitaryforceby theMauryanEmpireofChandraguptawhowasguidedby thehard realismandrealpolitikofKautilya.ThishappenedinIndia’speriodofthewarringstateswhen16MajorStates(MahaJanapdas)wereconstantlyatwarwithoneanotherforsupremacy.Thiswas just like inChinaof theperiodofwarringkingdoms,when 6major stateswere at constantwarwith one another. India’s historicalstrategicculturehademergedinthatperiodofwarandviolenceintheformofKautilya’sArthaShastra.Itwashardlypacificinorientationandurgedtherulerto be vijayadishu—a conquerer (who would constantly expand the size andpowerofhiskingdom).IndianpacifismofthelaterAshokanperiod,infact,costit dearly as from the tenth century onwards India succumbed to a series ofinvasions fromWestAsia andCentralAsiawhich led to a horrific bloodbathamounting to genocide. India was subjugated for 800 years thereafter byforeigners.Indiahadadireneedtomilitariseanddefenditself—notpreachnon-violencetoaveryviolentworld.

The reasons for this policy option weremore rooted in Nehru’s quest forpoliticallegitimacywhichwasbadlythreatenedbyBoseandtheviolenceoftheINAwhich had in reality freed India. The convoluted narrative of an entirelypeaceful and non-violent freedom struggle was a deliberately manufacturedmyth.TheBritishspreadittopaintashiningsunsetpictureoftheir200yearsofrapaciouscolonialrule,whichtheynowtriedtopresentinverybenevolentandliberal colours.TheNehruviandispensationdid it topresent themselvesas thetrue liberators of India who hadwon her Independencewithout firing a shot.Twenty-sixthousandINAsoldiershadbeenmartyredintheIndianstruggleforFreedomyetNehruhadthenervetocallitanentirelypeacefulstruggle.Hewasfighting with the Ghost of Bose and his INA. But a deeper look suggestssomethingfarmoreseriousafoot.

PacificationofMilitaryCulturesAftertheSecondWorldWar,theAlliesmadeamajorefforttopacifythehighlymilitaristic races ofGermany and Japan.They had exhibited amazing fightingspirits and intense nationalism. The Americans imposed a pacific culture andconstitution on both Germany and Japan. Today these countries are majoreconomicpowers,buttheyremainedthoroughlydemilitarisedanddefanged.Notso well known is the fact that another country that the British virtuallydemilitarised and defangedwas India. They simply imposed upon it a PacificPoliticalleadershipwithaveryexaggeratednotionoftheefficacyofsoftpowerof Ahimsa (non-violence) as opposed to hard power. The deliberate BritishdesignwastoleavebutinstalapacificIndianleadershipthatbelievedinthesoftpowerofBuddhismmorethaninthehardpowerofacrediblemilitary.ThevastmilitarypotentialofIndiahadbecomeevidenttothewholeworldduringWorldWarIandII.Indiahadgeneratedmassivearmiesof1.3millionand2.5millionrespectivelyinthesetwowars.BythetimetheBritishlefttheyhadreducedtheIndian Army from 2.5 million to a pathetic 350,000 which they then dividedbetween the two warring Dominions. How dangerous this was has now beenproved by the four wars India had to fight after independence. India’s actualsecurityneedshavenecessitatedanewarmyof1.3millionmen.

Fortunately India was set free from this pacific outlook. The NehruviandispensationledIndiatoadisastrousmilitarydefeatinthe1962warwithChina.This traumatic defeat cured India emphatically of the Nehruvian disease ofpacifism. The decade from 1960 to 1970was the decade ofmilitarisation forIndia. Juston theheelsof theChinese attack, thePakistanmilitarydecided toinflictacoupdegraceonaflounderingpacificstate.TherumpstateofPakistanwasone-fifth thesizeof India.However ithadnobaggageofabjectpacifism.TheAmericansgifted it huge amountsof cutting edgemilitary equipment andverysoonitsArmytookchargebyimposingMartialLawinPakistan.

AsIndiabegantorearmandexpanditsarmedforcesinthewakeofthe1962disaster, the self-styled FieldMarshal Ayub Khan of Pakistan sensed his lastchance tokick in this totteringrepublicandseizeKashmir.HeevendreamtofdrivinghisPattontanksintoNewDelhi.AthoroughlychastisedIndianpoliticalestablishmentnowlistenedattentively to theadviceof itsprofessionalmilitarychief.Pakistan’sdesperategambletograbKashmirbyforcebackfiredbadly.Itled to an escalatory spiral that saw India launch two Corps-sized

counteroffensives across the International Border (IB) directed at the keyPakistani cities of Lahore and Sialkot. Pakistan was forced to recoil fromChhambandfightdesperatelytosaveitsownexistence.

Thiswarwasmoreor less adraw. ItwasPakistan’s last chance toexploitIndia’spacifismanddefeat Indiamilitarily. India’sdefencemodernisationwasnow put in top gear and by 1971 this process had reached its peakwith verygenerous support from the erstwhileSovietUnion.Resultantly,whenPakistanonceagainprovokedIndiabypushingout10millionrefugeesintoIndiaafterageneral crackdown in East Pakistan, India reacted in a ruthless manner. Itlaunchedamassivetri-servicescampaigntoliberateBangladeshandresettletherefugees.Infourteenactionpackeddays,Indiawonadecisivemilitaryvictory.It brokePakistan into two,marchedon an enemycapital and enforced regimechange.ItresultedinthelargestmasssurrenderofforcesposttheSecondWorldWar.Some93,000PakistanitroopssurrenderedinDacca.Indiahadshakenoffthesloughofpacifismandwononeofitsgreatestmilitaryvictoriesinitsentirecivilisationalhistory.

ThisishowasetofwarsthatwereforceduponIndiaimpelledittojettisonthe post-colonial legacy of pacifism. The fiction created by the empire hadsustainedthislegacyofpacifism.Ittrieddesperatelytohidethetruecausesthathadactuallycompelled theBritish to leaveand tried tosustain the fictionofanon-violent struggle. No one is questioning here the transparent sincerity anddedication ofMahatma Gandhi and what he was able to achieve in terms ofmaking the Indian independence movement a mass-based struggle. He was asaintlyfigureandtrulybelievedintheneedforAhimsa.Noonecaneverdoubthistransparentsincerity.NolessapersonagethanSubhashBosehimselfcalledGandhithe“FatheroftheNation.”

It was just that the Empire found Gandhi’s philosophy of pacifism mostconvenient. Without Gandhi actually knowing it, the British subtly helped topropelhimtotheforefrontofIndia’sPublicAwareness.Theempirewashappythat the Indian struggle for independence was being kept peaceful and non-violent by Gandhi who truly abhorred violence. It is just that the highlymanipulativecolonialadministrationsubtlytriedtopreventaviolentoverthrowof theEmpire in India by directing all protests into non-violent channels thatwould make it wholly manageable. It painted the Raj in liberal and angeliccolours,enablingthemtodealwiththenon-violentagitationwithease.TheRajfoundnon-violenceentirelymanageableandhencetheytacitlyencouragedit.

TheybuiltuptheGandhipersonaintoalargerthanlifefigureinSouthAsia

also for the consumption of other colonies in Asia and Africa. They tacitlyencouragedhispacificphilosophyandensureditputalidonallviolentprotestsand wars. Sadly, the strategists of the Raj subtly used and exploited theGandhian philosophy. This form of protest was entirelymanageable and theycouldhavesustainedthemselvesinthefaceofsuchprotestsfordecades.Haditbeen left entirely to the non-violent protests and civil disobedience ofGandhiandNehru,theRajwouldhavecontinuedandgoneonwellintothe1980sandperhaps even beyond. This is not a speculation or conjecture. The peacefulGandhian-style agitation of Nelson Mandela delayed the South AfricanindependencetillApril1994—almosttowardstheendofthetwentiethcentury.Itwas only the very real threat of armed violence and amilitary threat to theempirethatforcedtheBritishtopackuptheirbagsandquitIndiain1947itself.

BosehadmostastutelyunderstoodthatthecentreofgravityoftheRajwasthe loyalty of sepoys of the British Indian Army to the colonial regime. TheBritishsuccesslayinnativisation.TheyhadusedanArmyofnatives(trainedonEuropeanlines)tosubjugatetheirownpeople.Whenthisloyaltyunravelled,theBritishhadnooptionbuttoleave.ItwasBosethereforewhocatalysedanearlyexit of the Raj and dealt it an effective body blow that precipitated its hastywithdrawal.

TheenormoustragedyofitallisthatevenastheRajwasforcedtorecede,itbrokeupIndiaintotheantagonisticdominionsofIndiaandPakistan.EvenmoreitleftbehindadispensationinNewDelhithatwasentirelyanglophileinoutlookandorientationandhadinfactcollaboratedwiththeRajinitslastdays.

Gandhihadsurprised theBritishby launching theQuit IndiaMovement in1942.HehaddoneitagainsttheadviceofNehruandAzadand,infact,againsttheopinionoftheentireCongressWorkingCommittee(CWC).TheBritishwerefightingawarandwereinnomoodtoindulgethe“nakedIndianFakir.”Theymustered up some five divisions worth of white troops and crushed the QuitIndiaMovementwithridiculousease.WartimecensorshiphelpedthemtobanishGandhiandhisfreedomstrugglefromthenewspaperheadlines.Deprivedoftheoxygen of publicity, theQuit IndiaMovement collapsed like a pack of cards.Virtually the entireCongress leadershipwas jailed.WhenGandhiwent onhiscustomaryfast,Churchilldecreedthatheshouldbeallowedtodieunsung.TheBritish now began to rely farmore on the highlymanipulableNehru than onGandhi.Gandhiwas finally released in1944.Hewas trulybroken inspirit. Inhispressstatementsheadmittedasmuch.

ThePushtoPacifismI would, however, like to dwell a bit more on the issue of how BritaindeliberatelypushedthenewbornstateofIndiatowardsPacifismbyimposingonitaleadershipthatlaidexaggeratedclaimsuponalegacyofNon-Violence.Wasthereadeliberatestrategicdesign toprevent theemergenceofanewcentreofpower inAsia?At the end ofWorldWar II India had fielded the largest all-volunteer army in the history of the world. At 2.5 million men what wassignificant was that this Army had been recruited without any conscription(unlike in Europe, America and the USSR). This army had proved to beprofessionally robust and reliable. By 1943, British senior commanders hadclearly started indicating their preference for Indian divisions and units overBritishmilitaryunitsthatwereshowingclearsignsofwar-wearinessandfatigue.Indian troopswerehardyandSpartan,neededmuch less logisticalsupportandwere tenacious in combat. On both sides in Burma, it was primarily Indiantroopswhohadperformedverywell inactualcombat.TheBritishwereratherkeen todisarmIndiabefore theywentaway.Theyslashed the IndianArmyby85% to leave a rump force. They left behind a pacific regime that abhorredviolence and hated the Armed Forces with a venom and virulence that wassurprising. Just like Japan had been pacified and turned into a toothless stateafter theSecondWorldWar.Itwasforcedtoadoptpacifismasstatepolicysothat it would never threaten the USA or Europe again; similarly India wasdefangedbeforetheBritishleft.Theydemobilisedthe2.5millionstrongIndianArmy into a rump force of some 350,000men thatwas then divided betweenIndiaandPakistan.LikeMao,BosehadwantedtohaveanINAthatwouldbe3millionstrongandapowertoreckonwithinAsiaandtheworld.ItisnoteworthythatthePLAofChinahadactuallyreachedapeakstrengthofastaggering4.2millionmen(aftertheKoreanWar).Post-WorldWarIItheUSAhadtakencaretodemilitariseJapanand imposeapacificconstitutionon it toensure itwouldneverbeathreatagaintotheUSA.TheBritishdidbetter,theysimplydisbandedIndia’smassiveandcombathardenedarmyof2.5millionmenaftertheWarandleftbehindasetofrulerswhohadmadeafetishoutofpacifism(totryandgainlegitimacy vis-à-vis Bose, a leader who had fought for India’s freedom byviolent means and was the key catalyst for their decision to quit India.) Toovercomehislegacyofviolence,theyhadgoneoverboardintryingtopromotepacifism.PanditNehruhated themilitaryandhad in fact told theFirstBritishChiefofIndependentIndia’sArmy,thathedidnotneedarmedforceinIndia—

thepoliceforceswouldsuffice!ThelookofshockandincredulityontheBritishGeneralSirRoyBucher’sfaceshouldhavebeenpreservedforposterity.

Veryfortunately forIndia, the traumaofpartitionandthelarge-scaleriotsthat followed, the Pakistani invasion of J&K and the need to liberateHyderabad,underlinedtheinescapableneedformilitaryforceinaWestphalianstate system. Sardar Patel was a strong nationalist leader and a clear-headedrealistwhounderstoodtheneedfortheuseofforceintheaffairsofstate.ItwasPatelwhoundidtheunholymosaicofprincelystatesleftbehindbytheBritishandmadeIndiaaviableterritorialentityintheWestphaliansense.UnfortunatelyforIndia,Pateldiedmuchtoosoonafterindependence.

Post-Patel, the Indian Nation state under Nehru turned with a redoubledvigourtoestablishamanufacturedNationalNarrativeofitselfasanexceptionalstatebasednotonhardpowerbutasoftpowernarrativeofAhimsa,moralforceandpersuasionasopposedtomilitarycoercion,compellenceandactualuseofhard power. India was now part of the Westphalian system of nation statespremised upon hard power. India’s contrived narrative however said it was astate with a huge difference. It was formed on the basis of soft power ofSatyagrahawhichhaddrivenout theBritish.Unfortunately, thiswasnotbasedon empirical historical facts. The British had left because of themilitary andhard power challenge of the INA and its ability to instigate armed rebellionamongst 2.5 million trained men of the demobilised British Indian Army. Ifthesehad rebelled inmass, thebattle-wearyBritishwere simply inno state todeal with such a massive armed revolt in India. The Ghost of the INA wascapableof initiatingpreciselysuchanarmedrebellion.That iswhatmade theBritish quit. They felt they were perfectly capable of dealing with the non-violent movement. It was only the possibility of large-scale violence by 2.5milliondemobilisedsoldiersthatimpelledtheBritishnottogetboggeddownina military morass and cut their costs and leave, when they did. Let us nowanalysethisissueinasequentialmanner.

2

AnOverviewofTheFreedomStruggle

If the British Empire had to survive in India… it had to destroy anddismantleallsourcesofIndianunityandidentity–cultural,politicalandhistorical;andrendertheveryideaofIndiaasmeaningless. ...Tornbyinternal conflict, it was claimed that Indiawas in desperate need of aneutralandimpartialpoweratthehelmofthestatetosecurejusticeandorder(orjusticeasorder).GiventhatIndiansocietywasdeeplydividedintocommunitiesinconflictwitheachother,onlyanalien,foreignpowercouldbetrustedtobeneutralandimpartial.

—DrMithiMukherjeeIndiaintheShadowsofEmpire:ALegalandPoliticalHistory

ThemutinywasingreatmeasureputdownbyturningtheracesofIndiaagainsteachother.Solongasthiscanbedone,thegovernmentofIndiafrom England is possible. But, if this were to change and should thepopulation be moulded into a single nationality, we would have toleave.”

—SirJohnSeeley

India has been unified only thrice in its history of over fivemillenniums.Thesewere theunificationseffectedby the threegreatempires inhistory—theMauryan Empire, the Mughal Empire and, finally, the British Empire. Thepresent Indian Republic is the successor entity of the British Empire. Thereputed German historians, Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund, havecitedthenon-revolutionaryandsmoothtransferofpowerasenablingtheIndianRepublic to continue seamlessly,with the institutions fashioned by theBritishEmpire like the Armed Forces, the civil bureaucracy and the police andintelligenceservices.

Thesomewhatdisconcertinghistorical fact,however, is that theBritishdidnotgrantindependencetoIndiain1947.TheycarriedoutatransferofpowertoanAnglophilecoterieoflawyersintheIndianNationalCongressledbyNehru.ForthefirstthreeyearsIndiaremainedaDominionoftheEmpireandbecameaRepubliconlyin1950.Inhindsight,wecanseethatitsautonomyandautarchyremained subject to subtle controls and constraints created by an Intelligenceservice and civil bureaucracy that surprisingly retained elements of loyalty totheRajwhichhadgiventhemtheirprivilegedpositions.Dr.MithiMukherjeeofthe University of Colorado has, in her very original and path-breaking book,India in the Shadows of Empire: A Legal and Political History (1774-1950)thrownnew lighton the IndianFreedomStruggle.Herbook links thecolonialand post-colonial periods of Indian History into a seamless narrative, andthereby provides a radically new overview on the emergence of India as amodern nation state. To understand the current Indian politics, therefore, wemustunderstandourrecenthistory.

The1857UprisingAurangzebhaddestroyed the secular consensusonwhichAkbarhadbuilt andthen taken theMughalEmpire to suchgreatheights.Akbarhadmonetised theeconomy on the silver standard and rationalised the taxation regime. He hadestablishedmatrimonialallianceswiththeRajputPrincesandco-optedsomeofthem as generals in theMughalArmy.Aurangzeb, however, reintroduced thehated Jazia tax and intensified persecution of the Hindus and Sikhs. Hecompletely unravelled the secular consensus put in place by Akbar (who hadcalledIndiahisHomeland).ThisledtotherevoltsoftheSikhs,theMarathasandthe Ahoms in Assam. These revolts had torn apart the Mughal Empire, wellbeforetheBritishestablishedtheirsway.Intothisvacuum,theBritishEastIndiaCompany stepped in innocuously. It recruited Indian sepoys, drilled them onEuropean lines and soon created a cost-effective Infantry-based Army thathelped it conquer virtually the whole of India, starting from the three coastalbridgeheadsofCalcutta,BombayandMadras.TheEast IndiaCompanywasacommercialandmercantileenterpriseandintentnotupongoodgovernancebutthesystematiclootofthecolonisedlandanditspeople.Itwasalsocharacterisedby racial arrogance and deeply ingrained white supremacy attitudes. Theydestroyedthelocalcraftsandindustrytopushtheirmassmanufacturedproducts.TheycutoffthehandsoftheweaverswhousedtoweavetheveryfineMuslinclothofDacca.LatertheyforcedthelocalstocultivateopiumforsaletoChina.

Cumulatively, these actions spread great resentment and outragewhich finallyresulted in the great mutiny of 1857 amongst the sepoy ranks of East IndiaCompany’s Presidency armies. The sparkwas provided by the proselytisationeffortsandtheintroductionofgreasedcartridgessaidtobedippedinthefatofcowsandpigs.Thissparksoonmutated intoamajorpopularuprisingalloverNorth India.Overaperiodof time, some80,000 Indian soldiers rebelled.Hadthey all rebelled together, or had they had competent leadership, the BritishEmpire in Indiawould have come to a swift and inglorious end. TheBritish,however,quelledthisuprisingwithbrutalforce,butitshookthemtotheirroots.TheBritish subsequentlydeclared thePoorabiya (Eastern) troopsofUP,BiharandBengal,withthehelpofwhichtheyhadconqueredthebulkofIndia,asnon-martial and stopped their recruitment into theBritish IndianArmy.The entirerecruiting biaswas shifted to the Punjab—to the Sikh and PunjabiMusalmantroops who had largely remained loyal to the Raj. Also, a large number ofGurkha and hill troops regiments, likeKumaonis,Garhwalis andDograswerenowrecruitedtokeepthepeopleoftheIndo-Gangeticplainsundercheck.ThenewIndianarmywasraisedonsegmentedethniclinestoensurethattheywouldnever subscribe to the idea of India. Their primary attempt thereafter was tosanitise theirBritish IndianArmyandensure that it remained loyal to theRaj.ThatiswhyitsentirerecruitmentfocuswasdivertedtothePunjabandtheHilltribes (Gurkhas,Garhwalis,Kumaonis). The heavy emphasis on aRegimentalSystemofmotivationservedthecolonialdesignofaccentuatinglocal,ethnicandlinguisticidentitiesandpreventingthecrystallisationofa“Pan-Indian”identitythat the nationalistswere so desperately trying to forge.The only flaw in thisthesiswas that in times ofwar and rapid expansion (as in the twowars) thisnarrowmanpowerbaseofthemartialclassescompletelybrokedownandhadtobe supplemented by recruiting thousands of soldiers from clans and castesdeclarednon-martialbytheBritish.Thus,inthesewarstheBritishwereforcedtorecruittheMazhbiSikhs,MaharsandBiharis,etc.

Post1857:BritishDivide&RulePoliciesThismassiveuprisingerodedthecarefullymaintainedfaçadethattheCompanyruled on behalf of theweakMughal Emperor. Dr.MithiMukherjeewrites inIndiain theShadowsofEmpire,“therevoltunderlinedthatsignificantpartsoftheIndianpopulation,thoughseeminglyhostiletooneanother,werecapableofuniting against colonial rule. Force by itselfwould not suffice tomaintain theempire. If the British Empire had to survive in India, it had to find away to

overcomeitsforeignnessasasourceofprovocationforfutureuprisings.Ithad,evenmoreimportantly,todestroyanddismantleallsourcesofIndianunityandidentity—cultural,politicalandhistorical;andrendertheveryideaofIndiaasmeaningless.” She continues, “Torn by internal conflict, it was claimed thatIndiawasindesperateneedofaneutralandimpartialpoweratthehelmofthestatetosecurejusticeandorder(orjusticeasorder).GiventhatIndiansocietywasdeeplydividedintocommunitiesinconflictwitheachother,onlyanalien,foreignpowercouldbetrustedtobeneutralandimpartial.”ThuswaslaidtheideologicalbasisforpersistentforeignruleinIndiathatlastedtwocenturies.Theconceptof Imperial Justicewas specifically created to justify foreign rule in adeeplydividedand fractured Indian society.Dr.MithiMukherjeewrites, “ForIndiatohaveanyorderandunity,thestatewouldhavetobeexteriortothecivilsocietyandnation.ItwasthisinterventionofthediscourseofImperialJustice,coupledwithstate’srepresentationofIndiaasadeeplydividedsocietythattriedto turn the exteriority and foreign origin of the colonial state into its greateststrength,ratherthanaweakness.”

Thus came into being the British imperial discourse of justice as equity.Onlyaforeignandextrinsicpowercoulddealimpartiallywiththemanywarringsections of a deeply divided Indian society. Hence foreign rule was neededsimplybecauseIndianpolitywassodeeplyfracturedandincapableofgoverningitself.Onlyanexternalpowercouldhaveenforcedjusticebetweencommunities.

SplinteringIndia:TheColonialConstructionofCasteThe primary aim of colonial rule therefore was to deeply fracture the Indianpolity,andexploiteverycultural, religious,ethnicandlinguisticfaultline in itssociety.Onesuchcolonial toolwastheaccentuationofcaste inIndiansociety.Thiswasdoneby theBritish throughthemechanismofCaste-basedCensusoftheIndianpopulation.Mukherjeewrites,“TheBritishratifiedcastebymeansofvariouscolonialinstrumentssuchasdistrictmanuals,Gazettes,imperialsurveysand finally theCensus of 1872; andmadeVarna, the hierarchical ordering ofcastes into four groups as the central idea behind classification of Indiansociety.” She adds,“The census administrationwas driven by the ideologicalneed to naturalise the absence of national unity and then institutionalise it byintegratingitintoroutineadministrativedecisionsandpolicies.”

Sir John Seeley, the author of the first censuswrote, “Themutinywas ingreatmeasure put down by turning the races of India against each other. So

longasthiscanbedone,thegovernmentofIndiafromEnglandispossible.But,if this were to change and should the population be moulded into a singlenationality, we would have to leave.” Risley rubbed it in further by saying,“Indiansdonothavethecapacitytodevelopanideaofnationality,letalonerulethemselves.”He ascribed it primarily to the institutionof caste. “So longasaregime of castes persists, it is difficult to see how the sentiments of unity andsolidaritycanpenetrateandinspireallclassesofthecommunity.”

Thispolarisationofcastewasbegunasthepursuitofsocialjusticeandwasthe primary colonial mechanism for splintering and dividing the Indianpopulation,ofwhichtheHindusthenconstitutedsome80%.

CommunitybasedElectoratesSubsequently thecolonialadministration tried todeepen thesesocialcleavagesandfaultlines,byinstitutingseparateelectoratesbaseduponreligionandcaste.Thus the Muslims were the first to get a separate electorate, and then theChristians, theSikhsandalso theSubalternCastes (Dalits).Risleywasagreatproponent of separate electorates based upon religion and caste to thoroughlydividetheIndianpopulation.

Asacounterpoisetheprimaryeffortofthesubsequentnationalistmovementin India was to craft a pan-Indian identity, beyond the pale of religion,community, language and caste. This sense of unity was strengthened by themassmobilisationofGandhi’sfreedommovementandpersistedforatimeevenintheinitialNehruvianphase.Thegreatpityisthat,post-independence,politicsin India sought to revive the divisions and faultlines of caste and creed as aprimarymechanismformobilisingvoters.Tosecurenarrowvotebanks,basedon promises of affirmative action for select caste groups, the Indian electionswereturnedintoareferendumofsegmentedmobilisationsbasedoncaste.Thissegmentedmobilisationcreatedavirtual“communismof caste” thatmilitatedagainstmeritandequity,anddeeplysplinteredtheIndianpsycheoncemoreinthepost-colonialperiod.

TheFreedomMovementThesurprisingfactaboutthefreedommovementinIndiawasthatitsleadershipwas predominantly composed of lawyers. They strongly supported the Britishcolonialconceptof imperial justiceasequity.Theydidnotconsider freedomarightbutaprivilegethattheBritishimperialmonarchwouldgifttohersubjects.Such an attitude stems from the a priori acceptance that Indian society washopelesslydividedandatwarwithitself.Assuch,theendsofjusticedemandedthat an extrinsic power enforce justice in an impartial and detachedmanner.Indiahadtoberuledfromwithout.ForeignrulewastheonlyantidotetoIndia’sinnatedivisionsandfragmentations.Theirmodeofseeking“HomeRule”fromthe British was entirely premised upon pleading and petitioning the imperialmonarchforjusticeagainstthecolonialadministration.TheFreedomMovementwasbegunby thisAnglophileclubof Indian lawyers,petitioningandpleadingthemonarchasasmallgroupofeducatedelite,onbehalfofthesubjectIndianpeople. Their goal was home rule and they could never envision the idea ofcompletefreedom.

Thus theCongress had been formed in 1885 byAllanOctavianHume, anEnglishman, and W. C. Bonnerjee, its first President, as a kind of an effetedebatingsocietywherethenativeswouldbetaughtthefundamentalsofaguideddemocracy of sorts. Legally they drew inspiration from the trial of WarrenHastingswhenthecrowninEnglandhadintercededonbehalfofhersubjectstodealwithanerrantadministrationinIndia.SoallappealsofthiseffeteClubofrichIndianLawyerswereaddressedtoherRoyalMajestytheQueenagainstthelocaladministrationanditsperceivedmisrule.TherewasnoquestionofaskingforfreedomoreverquestioningthepoweroftheBritishmonarch.Thefurthesttheywould go is HomeRule. Theywould thus address petitions to her royalhighness,beseechingherbenevolencetosetrightthewrongsperpetuatedbyherlocal, mindless minions. These petitions were couched in such slavish andingratiating language that itwouldmake theskinofanyself-respectingpeoplecrawl. Thatwas all these effete debating societies could do.The lawyers as aclassdominatedthissystemandsetthemselvesupastheelitewhowouldpleadwiththekingemperortoseekfavoursfortheIndianpeople.ThatwasallthattheearlyCongresswasallabout.

The British success in completely splintering the Indian population wasevidentduringtheyearsoftheFirstWorldWar,whentherewasnorebellionin

IndiaevenasthebulkoftheBritishIndianArmywasdeployedoverseas.BritishIntelligence(thehighlyprofessional,IB)hadthoroughlypenetratedtheGhadarMovement of revolutionaries based in Canada and USA and foiled all theirambitious plots to stir an uprising in India during the war. A branch of theGhadarites had planned tomarch on India via theEast (as the INAwould doduring theSecondWorldWar). Indiahadcontributed some1.3million Indiansoldiersand146millionpoundstothewareffort.Some72,000Indiansoldierslaiddowntheir livesand11receivedtheVictoriaCross—thehighestgallantryawardintheempire.

Service in such largeArmies has a homogenising impact and it somehowrevivedthemoribundideaofIndia.ThesetroopsservedoverseasaspartoftheBritish Indian Army. They were organised in Indian divisions as corporateentities. They fought as equals and were lionised in Europe. They heard theslogansofliberty,fraternityandequality,andsawtheircolonialmastersindirestraitsinthetrenchesofFranceandFlanders.TheyfoughtandprevailedagainsttheEuropeansoldiers (Germans,AustriansandTurks). Itwasa transformativeexperience for some1.3million troops from thePunjab andNorthernparts ofIndia. The least they expected from the British at the end of this war wasgratitudeandperhapssomeformofhomerule.Theresponsewasoneofcallousracism.In1919,whattheygotwasthemassacreofJallianwalaBagh.

TheSecondStrandoftheFreedomStruggle:GandhianNon-ViolenceJallianwalaBagh forms amajorwatershed in the Indian FreedomStruggle. Itwas Gandhi who plugged into the deep sense of outrage amongst the Indianpeople.HetookchargeoftheCongressandturneditintoagenuineinstrumentofmass-basedbutpassiveresistance.HemobilisedtheruralmassesofIndiaandbannedpractisinglawyersfromjoiningthenon-cooperationmovementlaunchedin1920.Hebrokefreefromthelawyers’discourseofpleadingandpetitioningthe imperialmonarch forhome rule.Heasked forgenuine freedomorPoornaSwarajya. He turned the non-cooperation movement into a mass-basedmobilisationthatwentoutofthetowns,reachedouttoandmobilisedtheIndianpeasantry.This reallyelectrified thenation.As inMao’sChina, thenationalistmovementwasnowbasednotontheindustrialproletariatinthecitiesandtownsbut upon the peasants in the countryside.Gandhi sought to subsume religiousdifferences by espousing theMuslim causes of theKhilafat, etc.However, hekept themovement strictly non-violent and propagated a renunciative form offreedom—somuchmoreintunewiththetraditionalIndianconceptsofMoksha

andNirvana,thatwentbeyondidentityperseintotheamorphousuniversalityofthe Brahman, as it were. This mass mobilisation was highly successful inreaching out to the Indian masses and deepening the idea of India. Gandhi,however, kept insisting that themovementbekeptnon-violent. It appears thattheBritishAdministrationfelt,atapointoftime,thatthisnon-violentresistancewouldnotposeadecisive threat toBritish rule in India.Theycould, theyfelt,have easily contained this non-violent movement and, therefore, they eventacitlyencouragedit,bypermittingit togainahighmediaprofileamongst theprintandradiomediumsofthatperiod.Theywereunderstandablykeenthatthestruggle for Indian independence should not turn violent and grim. The year1857 was their enduring civilisational nightmare and they did not want anyreplay or repetition. It is now evident, from hindsight, that the British tacitlyencouraged this non-violent, persuasive form of protest because they wereconvinced that it was not going to basically endanger their colonial rule. TheextensivepresscoveragegiventoMahatmaGandhiandhisnon-violentfreedommovementbasedonpeacefuldemonstrations,fastsanddharnas,wasdesignedtoreleasethepentupenergyofpopulardissatisfactionwithcolonialrulebutatthesame time, prevent it from turning very violent. That violence would haveendangered the colonial dispensation.Non-violence did not, and hence it wastolerated. It only served to establish the liberal credentials of British rule, itslevels of enlightenment and actually reinforced its legitimacy to rule a veryheterogeneouspopulationwhere thenatives, theyaverred,werenot capableofrulingthemselves.

So even while the Congress tom-tommed its nationalist credentials andabhorrenceofcolonialrule,theyopenlyadmiredtheBritishsystemandwereinturnseenbythecolonialmastersas“BrownSahibs”andclosetAnglophilesinanationalistdisguise—whowereveryconvenienttoolsfortheperpetuationoftheRaj. In theracial termsof thatera, theywereWOGs(anacronymforWesternOrientedGentlemen). In actual fact, however, as stated,wogswas the secondhalfof“Golliwogs,”apejorativeracialtermofabusewhichmeantaBlackDoll.These non-violent protests, therefore, acted as a safety valve for the popularsentimentsandpreventedtheoutbreakoflarge-scaleviolenceinIndia.

TheThirdStrandoftheFreedomStruggle:ViolenceofBoseandHisIndianNationalArmy(INA)The third strand in the Indianmovement for independence was led by NetajiSubhashChandraBoseandhisINAandtheearlier revolutionaries likeBhagat

Singh, Chandrashekhar Azad, Rajguru, etc. Bose was convinced that non-violencewascompletelywithinthetolerancethresholdsoftheEmpire.HeverycorrectlyidentifiedtheloyaltyofIndiansepoysastheKeyCentreofGravityoftheColonialEmpire.TheonlyIndianintheNationalCongresswhocouldreallychallengetheoverridingauthorityoftheMahatmawasSubhashChandraBose.Hewasarealist.Heclearlyforesawthatnon-violencewasabsolutelywithinthetolerance thresholds of the colonial regime. This could mount media andpsychological pressure but never of an order which would really compel theBritish to leave.After theFirstWorldWar, thedemobilised1.3millionstrongbodyofthenativeIndiansoldiersoftheBritishIndianArmyhadreallyspreadthe ideas of nationalism in India, especially into the villages and countrysidefromwhichthepeasantsoldierscame.Gandhijihadharvestedthisintoamassmovement but carefully directed it into non-violent channels that would notstrain the tolerance thresholds of the Empire, and only add to its feel-goodfactorof beinga liberal regime, open topublicpressureandpersuasion—butonlyuptoapoint.ThatpointstoppedwellshortofcompleteindependenceforIndia.

World War II had started in 1939. This time India had contributed astaggering2.5millionmen—thelargestall-volunteerArmyinthehistoryoftheworld—anArmyraisedwithoutconscription.Unwittingly,itwasthisthatreallydeepenedtheideaofIndia.OnceagainlargecorporatebodiesofIndiansoldiersfought overseas as Indiandivisions, thus unwittingly strengthening the idea ofIndia as a pan-Indian identity beyond the narrow confines of caste and creed.ThesteadyIndianisationoftheofficers’corpsdeepenedthisideaofIndiaevenfurther,andalsosharpenedthebitternessagainstracismintheranksoftheArmyand its officers’ messes and clubs. Gymkhana and other upper crust clubs inIndia in thosedayshadboardsat theentrancewhichproclaimed,“Indiansanddogsnotallowed.”ItwasthisracismthatwouldcosttheBritishtheirempire.

Bose differed radically fromGandhi. For him, thewar presented a goldenopportunity to reachout to theenemiesofBritain, toGermanyandJapan,andseektheirhelptofreeIndia.Gandhiopposedthisrealistmodeofthought.Bosewas completelymarginalised in theCongress.Gandhi ensured that he did notbecomePresidentoftheCongressforasecondterm.Single-handedly,however,BoseescapedtoGermanyandthereraisedtheIndischeLegion(IndianLegion)—a brigade size force formed from the Indian prisoners of war. He wasdismayed however by Hitler’s racism. Meanwhile, the Japanese had gainedspectacular success in the Asia-Pacific theatre. They had raised an Indian

NationalArmyfromtheprisonersofwartheyheld.Theywerehavingproblemsmanaging itand theyasked theGermans forBose.TheGermans took13 longmonthstotransferhim.

Finally,BoseundertookaperilousvoyagebySeainaGermanU-boat.OffthecourseofMadagascar,BosetransferredtoaJapanesesubmarineandreachedJapan.HedeeplyimpressedPrimeMinisterTojoandthetopJapaneseleadershipwith his transparent sincerity. He established the Provisional Government ofAzadHindanddeclaredWaronBritain.HeexpandedtheINAtoarespectablesize of 1,500 officers and 60,000men, and organised them in three divisions.Some 26,000 of these perished in the battles of Imphal and Kohima and thesubsequentretreatthroughBurma.TheINAlostthebattlesbutwontheWarforIndependence.Afterthewar,inamisplacedgestureoftriumphalism,theBritishputontrial9INAofficersattheiconicRedFortofDelhi.Theintentwastorubsalt into the Indianwounds. Itenraged thepeopleof India.Worse, it triggeredwidespreadmutiniesintheRoyalIndianNavy,theRoyalIndianAirForceandmanyunits of theBritish IndianArmy.TheBritishwere truly shaken to theircore. Some 2.5 million men of the British Indian Army were then beingdemobilisedpostWorldWar II,and theywereangryandenraged.TheBritishsaw the writing on the wall. Their white troops were tired, war-weary andhomesick.Theyhadnostomach for takingonsome2.5millionarmedmenoftheIndianArmyorlargepartsthereof.Theydecidedtoquitwithgraceandleftwithin twoyearsafter theendofWorldWarII.ThesunhadfinallysetontheBritishEmpire.

Thus,whathadbroughtabouttheendoftheempirereallyweretheINAandtheIndianArmedForces.TheFirstWarofIndependencehadbeenwagedbytheIndiansoldiersofthePresidencyarmiesin1857.TheBritishhadgoneallouttofragmentIndiansocietythereafter.ItwasthemassmobilisationsofWorldWarIandWorldWar II that coincidentally reinforced the idea of India through themammothBritishIndianArmedForcesthatwereraisedtofightoverseaswarsasanorganisationalentitythatwasIndianinessence.TheIndianArmynumbered1.3million in theFirstWorldWaranda staggering2.5million in theSecondWorldWar. It ismycontention that thesemammoth,pan-Indianorganisationsrevived the historical idea of India and, unwittingly, nurtured the trampledIndianidentity.Thefirststeptowardsnationbuildingistoraisestrongnationalarmedforcestoprotectthatstateandgiveitthemonopolyofviolence.

TheBritishunwittinglypromptedtheimpulsetowardsnationalismbyraisingthese huge National Armed Forces as corporate entities with a life and sub-

culture of their own. Itwas these armed forces in the end that offered violentresistancetothecolonialruleandforcedtheBritishtoleave.TheINAplayedapivotalroleandwasinstrumentalingettingIndiaherfreedom.Thesacrificeof26,000men(orevenless,butasignificantnumber)cannotbetermedasanon-violentstruggle.Theveryexampleofthesemen,whofoughtasIndianstofreeIndia,resuscitatedthedyingideaofIndia,andvirtuallycausedasecondrevoltinthe IndianArmedForces. Itwas this impending second revolt that caused theEmpire tounravel.Boseandhis INAhadmanaged toshake the loyaltyof theIndiansoldierstowardstheRajandthiswasamajorfeat.ThecentralideaoftheBosethesiswastosubvertandtransformtheorganisationalcultureofthesevastall-volunteer Armed Forces that the British had raised in India, and turn theprimaryinstrumentsofBritishsubjugationandcontrolagainstthem.

ThewilyBritishhadseenthewritingonthewall.Theyleft,butbeforethat,they cleverly “transferred power” to the Anglophile coterie of lawyers in theNehru-ledCongress.TheselawyerssoonmarginalisedGandhiandburiedBose.TheyrevivedthediscourseofimperialjusticebyadoptingtheBritishIndiaActof1935virtuallyasourConstitutionandenshrinedjusticeasthemostimportantidealoftheConstitution.Mukherjeesays,“theselawyersmadejusticethebasicfoundationof the IndianConstitution.Theother instrumentof Imperial Justice—theImperialMonarch—soonmanifesteditselfinthedynasticleadershipoftheCongress,nowrepresentedbytheNehru-Gandhifamily,whichcontinuedtobeapowerfulforceinIndianpoliticstill2014,whenitwasdecimatedintherecentparliamentaryelections,Mukherjeewrites:

Once, theBritish had left, theCongress by sheer force of the habit of thediscourseofimperialjusticeasequity,slowlyhadbeguntoelevateoneoftheirown,JawaharlalNehru,tooccupytheimperialpositionofmonarchasimperialjudge. Parliament (largely the Congress), now configured itself as a court ofequity centred on Nehru as the new monarch. The emergence of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty was a derivative of the British discourse of justice as equity.Nehru,theagnostic,wasthesecularmonarchofthisstate,yetstoodaloofandapart, as its new, extrinsicmonarch to give justice to its perpetually warringcommunitiesandcastes.

TheNehruvianNarrativeofStateFrom the point of view of national security, Nehru now crafted a deliberateNarrativeofStateforIndia.TodownplaytheviolentresistanceofINAandtherevoltoftheIndianArmedForcesthathadfinallysecuredindependence,NehrupropagatedthepatentfalsehoodthatIndiahadsecuredherindependenceentirelybynon-violentmeansandmethods.Assuch,force,hefelt,hadnoroletoplaywhatsoeverinthebirthandestablishmentoftheIndianRepublic.Nehruclaimedthat among the entire comity ofWestphalian nation states (based on the solemonopolyofviolence), Indiawasanexceptionalstate—as itwasnotbasedonhardpower—butthesoftpowerofAhimsa,Satyagraha,Non-violence,etc.Thiswaspatently incorrectas it refusedtofactor in thepivotalroleof theINAandthesubsequentmutiniesithadinstigated.Nevertheless,inhisbidtomarginaliseBose,Nehru strenuouslybuilt up thisnarrativeof state andwent to inordinatelengths to ingrain it in the national psyche. In keeping with the Indian statesallegedlypacificorigins,heclaimedthatIndiadidnotneedArmedForces,thatonlypolice forceswould suffice.He refused to rehabilitate the INApersonnelanddeniedthemtheirwartimepensions.

NehruvianParadoxNehru thus created a paradox. All Westphalian nation states are based on amonopolyofhardpower.Disputesbetweennationsarestillresolvedbytheuseof force.Asa lawyer,Nehrunowelevated the imperial conceptof justiceandascribed its preservation to the newly formed United Nations Organisation(UNO), and felt that itwould need lawyers like him to plead and petition thenew Global Body of supranational justice. Armed Forces had no rolewhatsoever. It was only the Realists like Patel who prevented him fromdamaginganddisbanding these inherited institutions. Inanycase, Indiahad tothreatentheuseofforcetomaketheprincelystatesaccedetotheUnionofIndia,andmake India a cohesive and contiguous state and not a quilt patchwork oflocal fiefdoms.Patel threatened tomarch in theIndianArmyintoanyprincelystatethatrefusedtoaccedetoIndia.Theprincessawthewritingonthewallandcavedintamely.ItwasPatel’sassertiveuseoftheinstrumentsofmilitaryforcethatreallyservedtounifyIndiaandmakeitacohesiveandgovernableentity.

ThePost-IndependenceNarrativeThe immediate challenges to India came in J&K and Hyderabad and in bothPatel marched in the Army despite Nehru’s reservations and Hamlet-likeindecision. Nehru subsequently tried to assert himself and took the case ofKashmir to theUNO. Itwas adisastrousdecisionand India is still paying forthat folly. Patel unfortunately died early andNehru soon had his way.Nehruarrogated to himself the role of peacemaker of the planet. This constructwasinitially fashionable in a war-weary world, and for a time allowed India topunchmuchaboveherweightinthevariousworldfora.Neutralitywaselevatedto the level of dogma—in terms of Non-Alignment. India sent peacekeepingmissions toallconflictspotsof theworld. IndiaadoptedahighlypreachyandmoralisttoneinitsinternationaldiscourseasittoutedthevaluesofAhimsaandSatyagraha to an increasingly violent world. Nehru ensconced himself as thenew globalmessiah of peace and non-violence. Thewhole ofBollywoodwasnow pressed into service for an information warfare offensive of impressiveproportions.FilmafterfilmbeingchurnedoutofBollywoodextolledIndiaasakindof a havenof universal peace andharmony, designed to bringpeace andsolicitude to awarringworld. Nehruwas built up as a great world statesmanpreachingpeacetoaconstantlywarringworld.

In1956,themilitarycouphappenedinPakistan.ThismadeNehruparanoid.He now completely marginalised the military and used the bureaucracy andIntelligenceservicestocutittosize.ItsGeneralswerepusheddownintheorderofprecedenceandmarginalisedfromalldecision-makingprocess.Nehrutreatedthemilitarycontemptuously,asthelastoutpostoftheRaj,andtriedtotameitbyeroding its professionalism and promoting sycophants and relations to keypositions.Worstofall,hecompletelystarved itof resources. India reduced itsdefence expenditure to just around one per cent of its GDP. This soft powermindsetledtothedisasterof1962,whenChinataughtIndiaahumiliatinglessoninrealpolitik.Nehruturnedhystericalandsoughtwesternmilitaryintervention.Itwasonly a tactical defeat but the spectacleof collapse in the soft statewasmost unedifying and disgraceful. Nehru, with his inordinate emphasis on softpower, had created a very weak state, incapable of defending itself or usingmilitary force to effect critical outcomes in terms of national security. Suchweaknesscouldimperilitsindependentexistence.ItwasastatethatdeliberatelychosenottothinkinstrategicalorNationalsecurityterms.TheinitialdefenceoftheIndia-ChinaborderwasassignedtothePoliceforcesandtheattemptwastobuildthePoliceassomesortofcounterpoisetotheuntrustworthymilitary.

TheOnsetofRealismThe 1962 debacle did occasion a significant course correction in India.Nehrudied heartbroken but his successors had learnt a bitter lesson in realism. TheIndian Armed Forces were rapidly expanded and modernised. The 1965Warcaughtthemhalf-wayintheirmodernisationprocess.However,itdidgivethemvery valuable hands-on professional experience.Russia stepped in, in amajorwaythereafter,tosubsidisetheIndianmilitarybuild-up.TheyprovidedIndiathecutting-edge military technology of that era. By 1971, India had arrived as astrongregionalpower.ItbrokePakistanintotwoandformedanewnationstatewiththeforceofarms.TheBangladeshwarwasadecisivetri-serviceblitzkriegthat saw a march on an enemy capital, mass surrender of armies (93,000prisonersofwar)andenforcedregimechange.ForthefirsttimeaftertheSecondWorldWar,anewnationhadbeencreatedbytheforceofarms.By1974IndiraGandhihadtestedanuclearweapon.Indiahadarrivedon theworldstageasamajormilitarypower.

The first oil shock of 1973, however, had derailed the Indian politicaleconomy and eroded Indira Gandhi’s political legitimacy. A Gandhian massmovement was unleashed against her by Jayaprakash Narayan (JP). DrMukherjeesaysthattheCongress’sattempttomakeanimperialmonarchoutofitsleadership,intheformofNehru-Gandhidynasty,wasnowcounteredbythesecond strainof theFreedomMovement—Gandhianmassmobilisation. In theface of this mass movement led by a Gandhian, Jayaprakash Narayan, IndiraGandhi panicked. Goaded by her inordinately ambitious younger son, Sanjay,sheimposedthehighlyunpopularnationalemergency.ThissawtheroutofSmt.IndiraGandhiinthe1977parliamentaryelections.However, theneo-Gandhiandispensation that followed was a weak and motley coalition that unravelledwithintwoyears.

Indira Gandhi returned to power and, with Soviet assistance, greatlystrengthened the IndianArmed Forces. Shewas an ardent nationalist and hadused Pakistan as the hostile other to generate a nationalist consolidation. TheWesternpowers felt threatenedbyhermuscularnationalism.TheAfghanWarhad started andPakistan had become a key frontline state for theCIA’s jihadagainst the Soviet Army. The Sikh terrorist movement for Khalistan wasinstigatedin thePunjab, tokeepIndiapreoccupiedandenablePakistan’sarmyto focus on Afghanistan. All the communities that had been given separate

electoratesbytheBritish,togivesaliencetotheirseparateidentities,werefullyexploitedinthepost-colonialphasebytheforeignintelligenceorganisationstoinstigateinsurgencies/localrebellionsinIndia.IndiraGandhiwasacharismaticand nationalist leader who was making India a strong regional power withgrowingambitions.TheWestwasdistinctlyunhappywithhermuscularbrandofnationalism.TheywerealarmedovertheruthlesswayinwhichshehadbrokenPakistan into two and then exploded a peaceful nuclear device. It is no secretthat inthe1980sIndiraGandhiwasspoilingforafightwithPakistantopayitbackforinstigatingterrorinthePunjab.

IndiraGandhiwasassassinatedonOctober31,1984.Her tech-savvyelderson, Rajiv Gandhi, took over with a massive sympathy mandate, but soonfrittered it away in pandering to all manner of pressure groups. The Nehru-Gandhidynastyasanimperial-monarchicalsurrogacyinstitutionwasfastlosingsteam.RajivGandhiwasassassinatedonMay22,1992andIndianowsteppedintoaneraofweakandunstablecoalitiongovernmentsbasedon the fracturedmandatesofidentitypolitics.

The Bharatiya Janata party now started a Hindumajoritarian mobilisationwith the Ayodhya Ram Temple movement. To counter it, the then PrimeMinister,V.P.Singh,tookaleafstraightoutofthecolonialarmouryofdivisiveinstruments. He dusted out caste to deeply fracture and splinter the Hinducommunity and prevent its consolidation as a vote bank.He justified it as thesole way to promote justice between castes and creeds and thereby securesecularism.Thesocialjusticecardofthecolonialerawasnowtakenoutbythepoliticalleadershipofpost-colonialIndia,andasecondfracturingprogrammetosplinter thepan-Indianidentitywasnowunleashedafter1857, this timebytheIndians themselves.Theentirestatemachinerywaspressed in tosharpencasteidentitiesandpromiseindiscriminateaffirmativeactiononthebasisofcasteandcreedmarkers.Economicprice tagswerenowputon identitymarkersnowbythedeviceofreservation.Inabizarremove,50%oftheIndianpopulationwasbroughtintotheambitofcaste-basedreservations.Theentirenationalistprojectof the freedom struggle, to carve out a pan-Indian identity beyond caste andcreed,wasthusvirtuallydestroyed.

IdentityPoliticsWhat followed thereafterwasaneraofmostpettyanddivisive, identity-basedpoliticsbasedoncaste-mobilisationofadegreethatwouldhavelefttheBritishcolonial regimeenvious. Indiaoutdidher formercolonialmasters in fracturingandsplinteringitselfanddescendingintothetribalismofcaste.RomilaThapar,aprimecourtieroftheNehru-Gandhidynasty,emergedasthechieftheoreticianof thisnewideologyofsocial justiceandequitybasedonthepoliticsofcaste.ThisQueenofcasteproclaimedthattherewasnoreligionlikeHinduism,onlyaconglomerationofjatisandcastes.TopreventaconsolidationofthemajorityofIndianpopulation,thecolonialcardofcastehadbeeninvokedwithasplinteringintent that was odious and surprising in the lengths to which its proponentsmighthavegone.

The second Oil Shock of 1990 meanwhile completely derailed the Indianeconomy. The then Prime Minister, P.V. Narsimha Rao, was now forced torapidly liberalise the Indian economy and dismantle the license-permit Raj toenable the private sector in India to take its economy to the next level. ThisunleashedtheentrepreneurialenergiesofIndia’scorporatesector.ThiswasalsothestageinwhichtheAyodhyaRamtempleagitationpeaked.ItwastheBJP’scounter to the bid to fracture theHindu vote along the faultlines of caste andsomehow consolidate a majoritarian vote bank to counter the use of theminoritiesasacaptivevotebank.

DowagerEmpressSoniaGandhi,theItalianwidowofRajivGandhi,wasnowcastintotheroleofthe new Dowager Empress of India. The justice as equity discourse of thecolonial era was revived with a new fervour. Only a white-skinned foreignercouldbe impartial andneutral in the squabblesbetween India’smultiplicityofcastes and creeds. Sonia was now elevated to the status of the new queenempressoftheCongress,andtherebyofIndiaperse.CongresswontheelectionsandManmohanSinghwasmadethefigureheadPrimeMinistertoadministerthestate on Sonia’s behalf. Sonia, as the president of the Congress, was the realmonarchandthusadiarchyformofgovernmentwithdualpowercentrescameintobeinginNewDelhi.Sonia’sNationalAdvisoryCouncil(NAC)ofLeftist-Liberal intellectualsgoadedher topolicies thatwouldkeepthebulkofIndianshopelessly poor and dependent solely on the doles and freebies tossed by thenew Empress of India. India had revived the colonial discourse with a newvehemencethatwasastonishing.Howcouldafreenationregresssothoroughlyto the colonialmodes of governance? This unleashed a tyranny of short-termagendas, based on buying captive vote-banks through freebies, doles andtargetedaffirmative actionbasedoncaste/identitymarkers.Accentuating thesetendencies were Sonia’s possible subterranean support to agendas ofproselytisation aimed at converting large segments of the neglected tribalpopulations,whowereconsciouslypreventedfrommodernisingandenteringthenationalmainstream.ThisspateoffreebiescoupledwiththeOilShockof2013derailedtheIndianeconomyonceagain,forthethirdtimeinsuccession,muchonthelinesthataprofligatewelfarestatehadderailedtheGreekeconomy.

ThetwocompetingideologiesinIndiawerethediscourseofsocialjusticeasequity with a foreign national as Queen Empress or Monarch—the impartialoutsider,ensuringjusticeandequitybetweentheperpetuallywarringcastesandcreeds; and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), on the other hand, which wasattemptinganationalconsolidationbaseduponconsolidatingthe80%majorityofHindus.The social justice discoursewas doing its bit to splinter theHinduvote intoamultiplicityofcastesegmentsand therebymarginalise themajoritycommunityofthecountryentirelybyreducingittocompetingandhostilecastealignments.Pushedbeyondapoint,thismarginalisationalarmedandangeredtheHindu majority. From around 2008-13, the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh(RSS) and its affiliate organisations attempted to create a right wingconsolidation—a revival of nationalism as itwere. The image ofBharatMata

seatedonalionnowbegantoemergeinmoststreetcornersofmofussiltownsofNorthIndia.Thebuild-upto2014hadbegun.AhardrightHinduGovernmentfinally emerged from these elections with an overwhelming majority inparliament.

ThreeStrandsoftheFreedomStruggleTounderstandIndia’spresent,therefore,andtodeterminewherethenationstateisheaded,itishighlyessentialforustodeconstructourrecenthistory.Wemustunderstand the seamlessness of connectivity in our pre-and post-colonialnarrativesthatemergefromthewayIndiawascolonisedandthenhowpreciselyitgotitsfreedom.Weneedtounderstandthethreedistinctstrandsthatemergedinthecourseofourfreedomstruggle.Theseare:

The discourse of imperial justice as equity, practised by the Anglophilelawyerswhoremainedcravensubjectsoftheempire.TheirmethodwastopleadandpetitionthemonarchforHomeRule.The discourse of renunciative politics as practised by Mahatma Gandhithrough a mass mobilisation of the rural folk. This strand of mass-mobilisationmovementsre-emergedpost-EmergencyastheJPMovement,andlatertheAnnaHazareMovementagainstcorruptionin2012-13.The thirdstrandwas thatofviolentArmedResistance. IthadfirstbrokenoutamongsttheBritishIndianArmedForcesin1857,andthenintheformoftherevolutionarieslikeBhagatSingh,ChandraShekharAzadandRashBihariBosefinallyculminatedintheformoftheINAfrom1942to1945.Itculminated in the subsequent mutinies it inspired in the British IndianArmedForcesin1946.Theyear1857hadcomeveryclosetooverthrowingthe British. The INA, however, actually got us our freedom by inspiringphysicalmutinies in theRoyal IndianNavy, theBritish IndianArmyandtheRoyalIndianAirForceintheimmediatewakeofWorldWarII.ThatisthehistoricaltruthaboutIndia’sfreedom.

PatternsofthePastThese, then, are the patterns that tie our pre-colonial history with the post-colonial developments. Modern Indian History also clearly highlights thecoincidence of oil price shocks with deep-seated dislocations of the Indianpoliticaleconomy.ThreeoilshockshavetriggeredthreemajorpoliticalcrisesinIndia in 1973-75, 1990 and 2014. Dislocation of the political economydelegitimises the ruling elite and in the Indian case, dislocated the imperialjustice discourse through the medium of Gandhian mass mobilisation inmovementsliketheonetriggeredbyJPin1977andAnnaHazarein2013-14.Itis important for us to recognise that the Colonial empire did not grant Indiaindependence.They“transferredpower”toacoterieofAnglophilelawyerswhocontinuedwiththeideologyofimperialjusticeasequitybyenshriningJusticeasthecornerstonevirtuallyoftheIndianConstitution.TheIndianConstitutionwaslargelyacodificationoftheBritishIndiaActof1935.Itscornerstoneremainedthe fact that India was such a heterogeneous mixture of warring castes andcreeds that some external agency was needed to ensure justice and equitybetweenitsfeudingcommunities.ThisrolewasperformedbytheBritishQueenEmpressintheColonialperiod.ItwastakenoverbytheNehru-Gandhidynastyinthepost-colonialperiod.WheneveroilshocksdestabilisedtheIndianpoliticaleconomy, theRulingNehruGandhi dynastywas overthrownwith the help ofGandhian stylemassmovements like the ones led by JP in the 1970s and byAnna Hazare in 2013-14, as also the RSS inspired upsurge of Right WingNationalismthatculminatedintheModivictoryof2014.Thosearethepatternsthatemergefromananalysisofourrecentpre-andpost-colonialhistory.

3

TheAbjectFailureoftheQuitIndiaMovementofMahatmaGandhi

NullHypothesisHavingtakenanoverviewoftheentirefreedomstruggleletusnowreverttothequestion which we had posed at the outset of this book. Who really wasinstrumental in getting India its Freedom—Bose or Mahatma Gandhi? If wehavetoproceedempirically, itwouldbeessential toemployanullhypothesis.To settle thequestionofwhogotusour freedom itwouldbeessential to firstexamine thefinalpushof theCongress towardsfreedomthat tookplace in theForm of the Quit IndiaMovement in 1942. This was the final and allegedlydecisivephaseofthepeacefulfreedomstruggleofGandhi.So,diditsucceed?Itwouldbeessential toexaminehow it fared for thatalonecanhelpus to settlethishistoricaldebate ina logical fashion.Thesimplefact is that thoughitwasMahatmaGandhiwhohadinitiallyforcedBoseoutoftheNationalCongressandvirtuallyforcedhimtoleaveIndia,towardsthemid-pointoftheSecondWorldWar,bothmenhaddevelopedasneakingadmirationforoneanother.Bosehadcalled Gandhi the Father of the Nation because of his undisputed role ingraduatingthefreedomstruggleinIndiafromtheold-styleeffetedebatingclubsoftheoriginalCongresstoamass-basedgrass-rootsmovementthatGandhihadspreadtothevillages.HehadinvolvedtheIndianpeasantrytomakeitagenuinegrass-rootsmovementwithmassparticipation.AfterBosehadleftIndia,Gandhiopenlyadmiredhiscourage,willpowerand tenacityofpurpose.As timewenton,heincreasinglybegantoveertowardsBose’sviewthattheBritishwouldnotleaveunlesstheywerereallyforcedtogo.ThetragicexperienceofWorldWarIclearly indicated how ungrateful they could be after the war was won. EvenGandhirealised,astimewenton,thatWorldWarIIpresentedarareanduniqueopportunity for India to make an all-out attempt to win her freedom. Thispresentedanarrowwindowoftimeinwhichtoactandthiswouldlastonlyaslongasthewarlasted.

PolarisationintheCongressWenowseeadistinctanddisturbingpolarisationwithintheCongress.EvenasMahatmaGandhiveeredaroundtoBose’sviewofanoworneverchancetowinfreedom,NehruwasincreasinglyinclinedtogoalongwiththeBritish.Infact,hewentsofarastoproclaimthat ifBosewastocometoIndiawiththeJapaneseinvadingarmieshewouldpersonallygoforwardtofighthim.Thiswasnotedbythe astute British and after the Quit India Movement they began an all-outattempttocompletelymarginaliseGandhiandrelymoreandmoreonNehru.Bythe time of independence, themarginalisation of theMahatmawas sadly totaland complete. Let us therefore take a more detailed look at the Quit IndiaMovementof1942foritwastrulythelastchargeoftheCongress,anditwouldbenecessarytoevaluateitsoutcomeandresults.

QuitIndiaMovement:August1942To placate theAmericanswhowere pressurisingBritain tomake upwith theCongress, Churchill had sent the Cripps Mission in early April 1942 with avirtual plan for the partition of India. This was rejected by the Congress.Secretary of State L. S. Amery felt that Nehru and Azad would break withGandhi andhelp theBritish in theirwar against Japan, despite theCongress’srejectionoftheCrippsproposalsinApril1942.Infact,NehruhadtoldameetingatGuwahationApril24,1942thathewould“fightMr.SubhashBoseandhisparty along with Japan, if he comes to India.” Azad was noticing a clearhardening of Mahatma Gandhi’s position and how he was veering aroundcompletelytoNetaji’spointofviewonhowIndiashouldfightforitsfreedom.

Gandhi now openly admired Bose’s courage in escaping to Germany.Gandhifeltthetimehadcometo“DoorDie.”DespitereservationsexpressedbyNehru,Azadandothers,heinsistedonlaunchingtheQuitIndiaMovement.Infact,Gandhiji’s draft resolution sent to theCongressWorkingCommittee haddemanded immediatecessationofBritishRule inIndia.Thiswasprecisely theposition that Bose had urged him to take in his last meeting in the Wardhasession in 1940. Miffed by Gandhi’s new found truculence, the British hadapparentlybeenworkingonNehru.Amery,theBritishSecretaryofStatehadinfactsaid,“ThereisreasonablehopethattheCongressledbyNehruwillatanyrate try to help in its own curious fashion in opposing Japanese aggression”(SitanshuDas,p.520).NehruandAzadhoweverinitiallyquailedatsuchalevel

ofcollaboration.TheywerestillinaweofGandhijiandfinallytheywentalongwithhimtolaunchtheQuitIndiaMovementinAugust1942.ClearlyNehruwasinnopositionthentostrikeoutonhisownanddefyGandhijiatthisjuncture.

TheAugust 4, 1942 theCongressWorkingCommittee (CWC)Resolutionwasforcedtotakeahardlineposition.ItaskedforimmediatecessationofBritishRule in India. Churchill was furious. As Bose had noted, restlessness wasspreadinginIndia.TheCWCcouldnothavecontinuedwiththepolicyofdriftaftertheBritishWarCabinetrefusedtoimproveupontheCrippsproposalwhichtheCongresshadrejected.So,theQuitIndiaMovementwaslaunched.Gandhiwasarrestedandhislastmessagewas,“WegetourFreedomorweDie(KaroyaMaro).”

Churchill was livid. He was always full of venom against the “beastlyIndians and their beastly religion.”He told theBritishCabinet, “Wemust notsell India to theHindupriesthood and theCongress caucus.”Churchill in factwas ready to lose India temporarily to the Axis invaders rather than concededominion status to “non-white” India. It is noteworthy that Nehru, Azad,Rajagopalachari,SarojiniNaidu,SyedMuhammadandAsifAli—allmembersoftheCWChadexpressedreservationsabouttheQuitIndiaResolution.Becauseof Mahatma Gandhi’s prestige and stature, however, they were forced to goalong.TheBritishdisplayednoqualmsorreservations,however,incrushingthismovement as brutally as they could. Gandhiji’s fasts were now of no avail.Churchillhatedhimanywayandwasnotbotheredifhepassedawayinprison.

MilitaryReactiontoQuitIndiaMovementInAugust1942,tosuppresstheQuitIndiaMovementofMahatmaGandhi,theBritishusedatotalofeightBrigadeswithsomefifty-sevenandahalfbattalionsfor a period of 6 to 8weeks. Thesewere all-white troops of British or alliedextraction. Viceroy Linlithgow reported to Churchill that “this was the mostseriousrebellionsince1857,thegravityofwhichwehavesofarconcealedfromtheworldduetoreasonsofmilitarysecurity.”Toaidthisrevolt,Bosehadsentgold,USdollars, radiosetsandarms to India.Talwarandhisgangof traitors,however,leftmostoftheseattheSovietEmbassyinKabul.Thiswasnotgivento the associates ofBose and themoneywas dividedbetweenTalwar and theKirti/CPI workers (Sitanshu Das). The Quit India Movement thus entirelypetered out. All the Congress leadership was clapped in jail and draconianwartime censorship ensured that the Freedom Movement was completely

deprivedof theoxygenofmediapublicity.Within twomonths, itwasalloverfortheQuitIndiaMovementoftheCongress,bartheshouting.TheBritishhadbeenbrutalandruthlessandtheNon-ViolentMovementcollapsedentirelyintheface of such draconian and repressive measures. In the face of a brutal anddeterminedmilitarypowernon-violencehadunfortunatelyfailedentirelyforitisprimarilydirectedatastatusquoregimewithsomehumanistandliberalvalues.As an Americanmilitary writer put it recently, faced with a Stalinist kind ofruthlessrepression,“Gandhidies”beforeafiringsquadorinabrutalGulag.

So, does the Gandhian form of mass mobilisation and non-violent protestlackefficacy?Thesimplefactisthatinthepost-warperiodGandhianmethodswere followed by Martin Luther King in the United States itself withconsiderablesuccess.Thecounterpoint is that theUSAisa liberaldemocracy.Would this haveworked in Stalin’s Soviet Union or Hitler’s Germany? Suchmass mobilisations and non-violent protests however were repeated later inEastern Europe via a series of Spring revolutions. Then we had the colouredrevolutionsinEuropeandCentralAsiaandelsewhere,andthenofcoursecamethe Arab Spring. In all these cases the ruling regimes were relatively not astyrannical and ruthless and a collapse of the political economies of thesecountries had weakened the ruling dispensations and had led to widespreaddisaffectionandunrest.andnotjustthemassesbutthepolice,militaryandothersecurityagenciesaswell,werefairlydemoralised.Inrecenttimes,InformationTechnologyhas facilitatedmassmobilisationatahithertounprecedentedpace.Internetandtextmessagescangeneratehuge“Flashmobs”inamatterofdaysandhours.Buthowlastingaretheseeffects?TheArabSpringinEgypthassincebeenreversedandtheArmyisbackincharge.Thejuryhoweverisstilloutonthislargerissue.Thehistoricalfact isallAfricannationsthatadoptedthenon-violentmethodsfortheirFreedomStruggleonlygottheirliberationfrom1960-1970 onwards and even later. Nelson Mandela’s South Africa finally got itsfreedomonlyas late asApril 1994.HadBosenotactedashedid, even Indiawouldhavegottenitsindependencesome30-40yearsafteritfinallydidsecureitin1947bythethreatofmilitaryviolence.

LetusnowhowevergobacktotheeraofWorldWarII toseehoweventspannedoutthen.LetusnotforgetthatinChurchill’stime,Indiawasfacedwitharatherruthlessregimethatwasatwar,andhadnotbattedaneyelidas3millionIndiansdiedofstarvation,evenasitdestroyedallboatsandcountrycraftintheriverineterrainofwhatisnowBangladeshtopreventaJapaneseinvasionviathesea. It had also used some eight brigades ofwhite troops to brutally suppress

Mahatma Gandhi’s Quit India movement. This was not a dispensation thatwouldunderstandthelanguageofNon-violence.

TheGandhiwho came out of prison in 1944 seemed to be a brokenman.Largely broken in health and spirit. He had undertaken fasts in prison andChurchill hadmenacingly said let him die.With wartime censorship in placethey were confident they could handle the civil unrest that would followGandhi’sdeath.Theyhadafteralljustusedthe57whitebattalionstoverygoodeffect to crush whatever unrest that had followed. There was no second-tierCongress leadership that could guide a mass scale civilian unrest. Bose wasmakinghisbroadcastsfromTokyotoguidetheIndianpeopleonthetechniquesofsabotageandsubversionbuthisclandestineradiobroadcastshadbeenbannedandwere not readily available to themass of the Indian public. Sadly, all ofBose’sattemptstosmuggleinweaponsandexplosivesandgold,etc.,hadbeenbetrayed by double agents like Talwar. TheQuit Indiamovement had largelypeteredout.

However, even then, had the Japanese attacked in the summer of 1942 oreven after themonsoons or even in 1943, theywould have cut through like aknifethroughbutter.ThebulkoftheBritishandwhitetroopswereinvolvedininternal security duties inside India. Japan still had the edge in air power andnavalpower.By1944thetidehadturneddecisivelywithUSintervention.TheBritishhadrebuiltamassivenewIndianarmy.USsupporthadgiven themairandnavalsuperiority.By1944whentheJapanese-INAoffensivewaslauncheditwasa tragiccaseof too little too late.Despite theodds the JapanesealmostpulleditoffandthebattlesofImphal-KohimawerethehardestfoughtbattlesoftheBritishempire.Bythemonsoonof1944,however,thedangerwaspast.TheJapaneselogisticalsystemcollapsedinthemonsoonsandsoontheyandtheINAwere in amiserable retreat. The only thing that saved them from annihilationwas just the formidable reputationof the JapaneseArmy.TheBritishnowfeltconfidentthattheycouldnowreleasetheincarceratedCongressleadership.

StatementsofMahatmaGandhiafterHisReleaseDr Kalyan Kumar De in his inimitable book, Netaji Subhash: Liberator ofIndianSubcontinenthascarriedoutinvaluableresearchintotheBritishTransferof Power archives. He has uncovered a veritable treasure trove of excellenthistorical documents that clearly highlight with the help of authenticdocumentaryevidence, that itwasnot thenon-violentstruggleof theCongress

but the INA trialswhich hadunleashed awaveof violence all over India andshakenthe loyaltyof theBritishIndianarmedforces to theRaj thatforcedtheBritishtopanicandleave.AsconfirmatoryevidencefortheFailureoftheQuitIndiamovement, he has cited the statements ofMahatmaGandhi immediatelyafter his release from jail in 1944. He repeatedly cites instances ofMahatmaGandhisayingthathehadnomorelegalauthoritytocarryonwiththeQuitIndiaMovement and could not ask anyone to continue with the non-cooperationmovement.Inotherwords,theQuitIndiaMovementwasallover.Thiswasthemost tacitadmissionofdefeatfromthetopleaderof theQuitIndiaMovementhimself and is the final epitaph about the sad but abject failure of this non-violentmovement.Inthefaceofruthlessmilitaryactionit justpeteredoutandcollapsed.Thepowerofstatecoercionprevailedandthenon-violentmovementcollapsed altogether. The first-hand statements of Mahatma Gandhi clearlyhighlightthiscavinginandcollapseoftheQuitIndiaMovement.IwillnowcitethespecificstatementsofMahatmaGandhiquotedbyKalyanDe.HehastakentheseexcerptsfromtheCollectedWorksofMahatmaGandhi.

SpeechtoCongressmenatPoonaJune29,1944Gandhijisaid:“todayIdonotmeetyouinanyrepresentativecapacity.Intermsof Sataygraha, the moment I was imprisoned I ceased to wield the authorityreposedinmebyCongressandifIamnowoutofprison,itisnotbecauseofmystrength or yours but because ofmy illness…This fortuitous release does notrestoretometheauthoritythatlapsedwithmyimprisonment.”

InterviewwithStuartGelderJuly4,1944(BombayChronicle,July13,1944)WhenStuartaskedhim,“supposingyousawtheViceroywhatwouldyousaytohim?”Gandhireplied,“IwouldtellhimthatIsoughttheinterviewwithaviewtohelpingandnothinderingtheAlliedwareffort.ButIcandonothingwithoutseeing themembersof theWorkingCommittee for Ibelieve thatmyauthorityundertheAugustresolutionendedwithmyimprisonment.Itwasnotrevivedbymyrelease.”Furtherhesaidintheinterview,“historydoesnotrepeatitself.Theconditionsof1942donotexist today.Theworldhasmovedonduringthelasttwoyears.Thewholesituationhastobereneweddenovo.Thepoint,therefore,formetodiscusswiththeWorkingCommitteeistoknowhowtheyreacttotheknowledge that Igainedsincemyrelease.” It isnoteworthy that in1942whenthe bulk of the CWC had opposed the launch of the Quit India Movement,

Gandhji had overridden their objections. Suchwas his prestige then that nonecould stand against him or question his authority then. These statementsthereforemarkasadcontrast.

InterviewtoPress,Panchgani,July13,1944“Whatnoone cando in thenameof theCongress ismass civil disobedience,which was never started and which, as I have said, I cannot at the presentmoment,eveninmypersonalcapacity,start.”Thisisaclearacknowledgementof defeat. Gandhi was most unwilling to ask for a resumption of the civildisobediencemovement and after his release from jail strenuously denied anyplanstorelaunchit.Heofferedcomplexlegalsoundingargumentsastohowhehad,byvirtueofhisarrest,lostallauthorityandwouldhavetohavetheviewsoftheCWCbeforehecoulddoorsayanythingatall.TheQuit IndiaMovementwaslargelyover.

TalktoBombayCongressLeaders,Panchgani,July29-30,1944Gandhijisaid,“9Augustisagreatdayanditisthedutyofalltoobserveit.Butthe part of the resolution which speaks of mass civil disobedience cannot bebrought into forcebecause the authority toput it in forcevested solely inme.Today I see no possibility ofmass civil disobedience either according to thatauthority or according to circumstances.”This sadly is an admission of abjectdefeat.ItwasalloverasfarastheQuitIndiaMovementwasconcernedandthedoordiephasewasallbutfinished.

StatementtothePress,Sevagram,August5,1944Gandhijisaid,“ManyCongressmenaskedmehowtocelebrate9August.ThatdatewasaturningpointinIndia’sfightforfreedom.Ihadwantedtospendthatdate in peaceful introspection and to inaugurate negotiations for a peacefulsettlement. But the Government or fate willed it otherwise. The Governmentwentmadandsodidsomepeople.Sabotageand the likewere resorted toandmanythingsweredoneintheCongressnameorinmyname.IamawarethatIdonot represent theCongressmind always.ManyCongressmen repudiatemyNon-violence. The CWC is the only body which can legitimately and trulyrepresentCongress.”

Considering that the whole Working Committee in 1942 had seriousreservationsabout launching theQuit IndiaMovementandGandhijialonehad

brushed aside their objections and pushed the resolution through, itwas a sadclimb down. The British had broken his spirit in prison and possibly turnedaroundmanyoftheotherCongressleaderstheninincarceration.TheentireQuitIndiaMovement—thegrand finale as itwereof thenon-violent struggle—hadfizzledoutwithoutawhimper.IfthereisanydoubtwhatsoeverofabjectdefeatitshouldbeclearedbythelastpartofthestatementofMahatmaGandhiin1944:

“ThesecondthingthatIshouldlikedoneontheforthcoming9thofAugustisforthosewhohavegoneundergroundtodiscoverthemselves.Theycandosobyinformingtheauthoritiesof theirmovementsandwhereaboutsorbysimplyandnaturallydoingtheirworkintheopenwithoutanyattempttoevadeoreludethepolice.Togoundergroundistoeludethepolice.”Thisproclaimstheendofall resistance to the British Colonial power and coming out of hiding andvirtuallysurrenderingtothePolice.TheseslewofstatementsconcedecompletedefeatandfailureoftheBraveQuitIndiaMovementthathasbeentom-tommedasthelastdecisivechargeofthenon-violentbrigadethatreallypushedouttheBritish.Allthesestatementsdonotsuggestanyvictory.

They are sadly admissions of total failure and an abject sense of loss andcontrol.

4

TheClementAttlee-ChakrabartyDialogue

IdentifyingKeyDecisionMakersInoureffortstoresolvethishistoricaldebateabouttherealityoftheformationofapost-colonialstateinIndia,wewillhavetoidentifythekeydecisionmakerswho shaped the British decision to quit India finally. Who were these keydecisionmakers andwhat finally impelled them tomake the choices that theydid?Whatwasweighingmostupontheirminds?Wasitthecumulativepressuregeneratedbydecadesofapacificandnon-violentCivilDisobedienceMovementin India and the cumulative weight of the long and tortuous negotiationsprocess?That iswhatBipinChandraandothercourthistorianswouldhaveusbelieve.OrwasitplainandsimplethethreatofamajormilitaryrevoltinstigatedbythemassemotionsarousedbythetrialofINAofficers?Whatfinallyworked?Hardpower,thethreatofamilitaryrevolt,orthesoftpowerofnon-violenceandpersuasion?ItisvitaltodrawupthislistofkeyBritishdecisionmakersandthendispassionatelyexaminetheirviewsandtheactionstakenbythematthattime.ThekeyBritishdecisionmakerscanbelistedasunder:

LordClementAttlee,PrimeMinisterofGreatBritainfromAugust1945to1950.AlongwithhimwereLordPethick-Lawrence(SecretaryofStateforIndiaandBurma)andSirStaffordCripps(PresidentoftheBoardofTrade)inLondon.TheViceroyofIndia,FieldMarshalViscountLordWavell(atthetimeoftheINAtrialsandNavalmutiny)ThelastViceroyofIndia,LordLouisMountbatten(however,thedecisiontofreeIndiahadbeentakenbythetimehewasappointed.Itwashistasktoimplementthatdecisionandactualisetimeframes).Commander-in-Chief India, General (later, Field Marshal) ClaudeAuchinleck and his superiors in the Imperial General Staff in London.Communications between them would provide the vital input about themilitary impact of the INA and subsequentmutinies in the Royal IndianNavy,AirForceandsomeunitsoftheBritishIndianArmy.Thiswouldbethemostcriticalanddecisiveinput.The British Governors of the Indian Provinces and their reports to theViceroyontheinternalsituationinthewakeoftheINAtrialsalsoprovideclearinsightsintothedecision-makingprocessandthegroundsituationinvariousstatesinthewakeoftheINAtrialsandthenavalmutiny.Anothervaluable sourceof informationare the reportsof the Intelligence

Bureauwhose primary taskwas tomonitor the internal security situationandthreatsthereto.

The key and pivotal decision maker, however, remains the British PrimeMinisterofthatera,LordClementAttlee.EventhethenBritishMonarchKingGeorgewasboundtoactonhisadvice.Itisherethatwehaveaveryinterestinginput aboutwhatAttlee saidand felt about thegrantof Independence to Indiaandpreciselyhowitcameabout.BeforewegetontothatitwouldbeusefultorecapitulateinsomedetailthefinaleventsthatledtothedecisiontoFreeIndiaandTransferPower.

TheFinalMarchofEventsOnJuly26,1945,inasignificantparadox,asitwere,Churchill,thecelebratedBritishwarleader,losttheelectionsatthepeakofhisfameandpower.Hehadsuccessfully led theBritish inasix-year-longwar.Justwhen thefinal triumphcame, awar-weary population showed him the door. TheBritish peoplewerephysically, emotionally and psychologically drained by that war. As aconsequence, they showed their most celebrated and charismatic war leader,Winston Churchill, the door. On July 26, Churchill, conceding defeat in thegeneralelections,advisedtheKingtoaskAttleetoformaGovernment.EarlyinAugust1945,ClementAttleehadtakencharge.

TheworstpersonintheAttleeCabinet,Nehrufelt,wasSirStaffordCripps.Earlyin1942,CrippshadbroughtIndiansanoffer(thefamousCrippsOffer)ofDominion Status at the end of the war and participation in an All-IndiaGovernmentmeanwhile.Subsequent negotiations had failed over defence.TheBritish had insisted that defence remains their responsibility. Cripps hadpubliclyblamedtheCongressPartyforthisfailure.

Now the same Cripps was in Attlee’s Cabinet. When Attlee had beenofficiating PM in the wartime coalition government for a while, he had onAugust 9, 1942, approved the arrests and proscription of the Congress Party.Thereafter Attlee’s remarks had dwelt less on the necessity of bringingindependence to the subcontinent than on the difficulty of doing so (PeterW.Fay, The Forgotten Army, p. 430). Nehru therefore was most suspicious andsceptical of Attlee. Early indications after the formation of the new LabourGovernmentwerenotencouraging.InhisaddresstoParliament,GeorgeVhadpromised “to press onwith the “development ofMyColonialEmpire and thewelfare of its people.”Thatwas the tone and tenor of theAttleeGovernmentwhenittookchargein1945.TheLabourPartydidnothaveaclearmandatefordecisivechange.Thoughthegeneralelectionshadgivenitamajorityofalmost150seatsintheHouseofCommons,atthepollsithadreceivedonly2millionmorevotesthantheConservatives.Attleehadwonprimarilyonthebasisofhisdomestic programme. In the realm of Colonial and Foreign Policy, LabourwouldbemoreconservativethantheConservativesthemselves.

Iamrecountingthisspecifically,tofaultthethesisoftheCourtHistorians,thatbecauseofthecontinualnon-violentstruggleoftheCongressoverthepastseveral decades, a kind ofmomentum towards freedomhadbeenbuilt up and

what was germane or critical, was simply the process of negotiations, whichGandhiandNehruseemedtolead.Thisisveryfarfromthetruth.TheCongressParty’slastcharge,theQuitIndiaMovementof1942,hadunfortunatelypeteredoutcompletely.TheBritishhad totallyweathered thisstormand theyfelt theywere on top of the situation. They were absolutely in no mood to make anyconcessions/compromisesaboutIndia’sfreedom.

On August 13, 1945, Japan had surrendered. The provincial governmentsdeclared two to three days of holiday. The most joyous, however, were theAmericans andBritish servicemen, eager to go home.Warwearinesswas theprimary sentiment. On August 23, 1945, the Domei News Agency of JapanannouncedthedeathofBoseinanaircrash.Pickedupinstantly,ithadcreatedastirrightacrossthesubcontinent.Schoolsclosed,marketsshut;inBombay,thecotton mills stopped working; in Ahmedabad, there was a general “Hartal,”writesFay.

Attlee,meanwhile,hadselectedPethick-LawrenceashisSecretaryofStatefor India. Hewas old, amiable and did not rub Indians thewrongway. LordWavellwas immensely relieved.With the surrender of Japan, normal politicallife in the subcontinent could not be postponed indefinitely. The suddensurrender of Japan forced the issue by depriving Delhi of the postponementrationale.HenceonAugust 21, 1945,Wavell hadgivennotice for theCentraland Provincial elections, the first since 1937. On August 22, the CongressParty’sproscriptionwasended,toenableittoparticipateintheseelections.Thepartywasindisarray,asithadtonowcollectitsworkersandreopenitsoffices.AsIhavecited,itstopleadershiphademergedfromprison,virtuallybrokeninspirit andwith all fight seemingly knocked out of them. It needed an issue togalvanise itself and the Indianmasses. Luckily for theCongress, the ghost ofBoseseemedtorekindlethefreedomstrugglewithamajorbang.Theissuewasprovided by Bose and his INA. It put life back into a virtually moribundCongress. It was the ghost of Bose who rejuvenated the Congress and theFreedom Struggle. R. F. Mudie, the Home Member of Viceroy’s ExecutiveCouncil had written about Bose, “The Bengali’s influence over the INA wassubstantial. It affects all races, castes and communities.Men admired him fororganisingIndia’sFirst‘NationalArmy’andforsoconductinghimselfandthattheJapanesewereforcedtotreatIndiansasallies.Intheeyesofmany,hestoodonalevelwithGandhi.”

Nehruhadinitiallyopposedthelaunchofthe1942QuitIndiaMovement(ashadmost CWCmembers). They had virtually been bulldozed byGandhi into

launching this crusade.The simple fact is that by then the views of Bose andGandhi had begun to coincide markedly. Gandhi realised, in retrospect, thatBosehadbeenabsolutely right.Thiswas India’s lastanddesperatechance toattain freedom.Itwasnowornever. Itwas“DoorDie.”TheCongressPartyhad thereafter launched its final non-violent crusade. The British had usedunabashed violence to crush this popular uprising. To avoid any chances ofpeacefulagitations,theyhadusedfivedivisionsorsome57Battalionsofwhitetroops.ThathadcrushedtheQuitIndiaMovement.ThislastchargehadlefttheMahatmapsychologically exhausted and spent.He almost died inprison.Thiswasperhapswhen theBritishworkedonNehru inprison.When they releasedhim, theywere sure hewas going to be reasonable.After all, he had initiallyopposed the launch of the Quit India Movement during the war and he hadthreatenedtomarchagainstBoseifheinvadedIndiaalongwiththeJapanese.HewasperhapsthemostanglicisedofallIndianleaders.

Outof jail,Nehruand theCongressweresoonpushedbytherisingtideofangerandangstoverthedeathofNetajiandthetrialsoftheINA.Astormwasrising all over India and the Congress leaders including Nehru were simplyliftedbythisrisingtideofresentmentandanger.ThereturnoftheINAprisonershadstartedinJuly1945itself.Afterthewarended,thisprocesswasspeededup.TheBritishweremakingaseriousmistake.Inhindsight,theymayhavedecidedtoleavetheminBurmaandMalaya.ButtheybroughtthembackinshiploadstoChittagongandCalcutta.FromheretheyweresenttocampsinJhingugachaandNilganj (near Calcutta), to Kirkee (outside Pune) and Bahadurgarh (close toDelhi),toAttockandMultaninthePunjab(nowinPakistan).AtBahadurgarh,themenoftheIndischeLegionwerebroughtin.“Blacks”andthoserequiredtodeposeagainstthemwereconcentratedintheRedFortinDelhi.

ByearlySeptember1945,some7,000INAmenhadreachedIndia.ByearlyNovember,thishadrisento12,000.Some3,000hadbeenallowedtorejointheirfamilies. ByDecember 1945, releaseswere averagingmore than 600 aweek.The INAmenweregetting reinjected into thenationalbloodstream.Storiesoftheir glorious struggleswere now proliferating all across the land, alongwithmuchembellishment.The INAPOWcageswerearousingpubliccuriosityandanger.“Thesethousands,spreadingalloverthecountry,”saidNehrutoKrishnaMenon,“willmakeadifference,perhapsagreatdifference,fortheyarehardasnailsandveryanti-British.”Eventswerebuildingupforarepeatof1857.

TheviolencethatbrokeoutalloverIndiainthewakeoftheINAtrialswassimplyunprecedented.InDelhi,inCalcutta,inMumbaiandKarachithecrowds

pouredoutintothestreets.OveralakhofpeoplesurgedoutinCalcutta.Policefiringsimplyfailedtostopthem.Thecrowdswouldstopforafewsecondsthensimplysurgeforwardagain.InallhisyearstheMahatmahadneverbeenabletomobilise such large-scale and extremely agitatedmobs. The very scale of therioting left theBritishdazedandpetrified.Themostworrisomewas thesullenandominousmoodintheIndianmilitaryunits.TheBritishwereterrifiedofthestormthatwasbuildingupinSouthAsia.Wasitheadingforanother1857stylemutiny?Ifso,wherewerethewhiteBritishtroopstoquellsuchanuprising?Attheveryleast itneededfiveBritishDivisions.Butmostof themhadbeensentback to England for demobilisation. The American and British troops werehomesickandsimplywarweary.Theywereinnomoodtoattemptasecondre-conquest of India, this time in the face of 25 lakh combat hardened Indiansoldierswhohaddonesowellinthewarandwererightthenbeingdemobilised.

Unprecedentedly, the INA trials were very public, to strike terror into theheartsof thearmed forces.Due to thesympathy towardNetajiand the INA ingeneral,therewasaninstantandlargeoutpouringofpassionandpatriotisminIndians. It was almost like an explosion. These stories were being shared viawirelesssetsandthroughmedia ingeneralon theships,where thesailorswhowere discriminated against got inspired to revolt. TheBritish claimed that thecausesforthesubsequentNavalmutinywereentirelylocalandHygienefactorsbased, i.e., the bad quality of food, the thinness of the dal and badaccommodation,etc.Thathoweverwasjust thetipof theicebergofangerandhumiliation at racial slurs that had accumulated over the years. Just as thegreasedcartridgeswerenottheactualbutmerelytheprecipitatingcausesofthe1857uprising, food,etc.,seemedtobe the triggeringcauseof the1946revolt.ButithadbeenbrewingforlongandcouldbeclearlytracedbacktotheintenseresentmentbornoftheINAtrials.

RoyalIndianNavyRevoltTheINAtrialshadinflamedtheIndiansoldiers,sailorsandairmenoftheBritishIndianArmed Forces. The first to revoltwere the sailors of the Royal IndianNavy. It was a massive and widespread rebellion. At its peak some 20,000sailorson78 shipsand20 shoreestablishmentshad revolted.TheyhadpulleddowntheUnionJackandhoistedinitsstead,thetri-colourCongressFlag.Theyhad refused to obey their British officers, chased them out and manhandledthem. They had marched through the streets of Mumbai and Karachi withportraits ofNetaji, shouting the INA slogans of “JaiHind” and “ChaloDilli.”Therevolthadoccurredfirst intheRoyalIndianNavy,anAllIndia,All-ClassService. It spreadnext to theRoyal IndianAirForce (also all-Indian, all-classbased).Mostlyitwasthesignallerswhocouldcommunicatewithdiverseunits,who spearheaded this agitation. They had spread onwireless the news of theINAtrialsandgenerallycoordinatedtherevolt.TheBritishwerepetrified.Thiswasthespectrethathadbeenhauntingthemsofar,ofadamabouttoburst.

AuchinlecknowwarnedhisArmycommandersthattheycouldnolongerrelyon the soldiers of the Indian Army.Hewarned theGovernment in London tohastilyannounceadatefortheBritishdeparture.Boththesoldiers,WavellandAuchinleck,werenowcrystalclear,itwasalloverfortheRaj.Thesheetanchorforitscontinuance,itsverycentreofgravity,wastheloyaltyoftheIndiansepoytotheRaj.Withthisinseriousdoubt,theywereclearthatitwascurtainsfortheempire. Did they want to go with grace or did they want a very messy andbloodyexit?ForthistimetheCongressleadershadbeenabletobailtheBritishout. They had talked the navalmutineers into surrendering. The key questionwas,forhowlong?

RoyalIndianAirForceRevoltJusttwelvedaysbeforetheIndianNavalMutiny(whichstartedonFebruary18,1946), 600members, includingofficers of theRoyal IndianAirForce (RIAF)campsituatedclosebyonBombay’sMarineDrive,hadgoneonahungerstrikeasaprotest against a racial insultby theCampCommander.The revolt in theNavysoonspreadtotheranksof theRoyalIndianAirForce.Indianairmenatmanyairbaseswentonstrike.TheytoorefusedtoobeytheirBritishofficersandshoutedpro-INAslogansinKarachiandothercities.

JabalpurArmyMutinyThelaststrawthatbrokethecamel’sbackhoweverwasthespreadofthisarmedrevolt finally to the IndianArmy, the real sourceof the strengthof theRaj inIndia.OnthequietmorningofFebruary26,1946,asanaftermathofthenavalmutiny,some120armymenofthe“J”companyoftheSignalsTrainingCentre(STC), Jabalpur, defied their British superiors and broke free from theirbarracks. Part of a radio-signalling unit, theywere sick and tired of the racistabuse heaped on them by their paranoid British counterparts. There wascompletecommotionforsomedays.

Meanwhile Lord Pethick-Lawrence made a momentous declaration in theHouse of Lords on February 19, 1946 (just a day after the start of the navalmutiny)inwhichheannouncedthedecisionoftheBritishgovernmenttosendaspecialmission,consistingofhimself,SirStaffordCrippsandA.V.Alexanderto resolve the constitutional deadlock in India. This was the beginning of theend, the firstnail in thecoffinof theempire.MeanwhileBritishGeneralStaffhadbegunseriousplanningtocopewithwidermutiniesandunrestinthearmy.Someof the declassified documents of theBritish IndianArmyof that periodmakechillingreading.Samplethese:

If,however,theIndianArmedForcesdidnotremainloyal…wewouldbe facedwith thenecessityofproviding fiveBritishdivisions for India,withtheconsequentabandonmentofcommitmentsinotherareashithertoregarded as inescapable, serious effects on our import and exportprogrammes and worldwide repercussions on the release scheme. TheonlyalternativetothiswouldbeignominiouswithdrawalfromthewholeofIndia.FiveBritishdivisionsincidentallywerejustnotavailable.Mostdivisionswerebeinghurriedly shippedbackhomebecause the soldiersweredesperatelyhomesick.TheReport by theChiefs ofStaff is an important document that brings to

light several important points connected with India’s independence. It clearlybrings out the fact that the British Government was seriously considering theoptionofcreatingPakistan inJune1946,notbecauseof the lackofagreementwiththepoliticalparties—thiswasstillbeingnegotiatedbytheCabinetMission—butduetothethreatofdisaffectionintheIndianarmedforces.Atapointintime it was being considered that all British forces and families would firstconcentrateinPakistanandthenbeshipped/flownout.Thisoptionwasruledout

only because it did not serve British strategic interests. The disparity in theoutlookofBritishofficials inLondonandDelhi isalso clearly visible; for theformer, Britain’s long-term strategic interest dictated continuation of Britishrule,while thosecloser to thesceneofaction,suchasWavellandAuchinleck,realisedthatitwastimetogo.HadtheIndianarmedforcesremainedloyalorhadtherebeenenoughBritishdivisionstokeepthemincheck,theBritishwouldneverhaveleftIndia.

EarlyinSeptember1946theViceroyforwardedtoLondonaplanforphasedwithdrawal fromIndia,whichwasa revisedversionof theBreakdownPlanoftheCabinetMission.ThishadbeenrejectedbytheBritishGovernmentasitdidnot help British strategic interests. Wavell could see that the situation wassteadilydeteriorating,andunlessaclearpolicywasannounced,Indiacouldslideintoanarchy.Afterconsulting theGovernorsand theC-in-C,heestimated thattheBritishcouldholdonfornotmorethan18months.TheSecretaryofState,LordPethick-Lawrence,didnotagreewithWavell’sappreciation.Hefeltthatitwas still possible to hold on to India, and proposed further EuropeanrecruitmenttoaugmentBritishtroopsinIndia.Bythistime,seriouscommunalriots had broken out in East Bengal and in the Punjab, resulting in sizeablecasualties among Hindus as well as Muslims. A new Interim Governmentheaded by Jawaharlal Nehru had been installed at Delhi, with Sardar BaldevSingh as theDefencemember. In a letter dated September 12 toAuchinleck,who had recently been appointed a Field Marshal, Nehru discussed thewithdrawal of British forces from India; pulling out Indian troops from theNetherlands East Indies and Iraq; and the future of the Indian Army. In abroadcast to the Armed Forces on October 9, Baldev Singh announced thesetting up of a committee to accelerate the pace of nationalisation. In viewofthese developments, Pethick-Lawrence’s proposal to raise additional EuropeantroopsforIndiaappearedsurreal.

Refusingtotakenoforananswer,WavellsentastronglywordednotetotheSecretaryofStateonOctober23, inwhichhereiteratedhisdemandforafirmdeclaration of the policy of the British Government. His plan, he wrote, wasbasedontwomainassumptions:

TheobjectwastotransferpowertoIndiawithoutunduedelayandwiththeminimum of disorder and bloodshed; to secure the interests of theMinoritiesandtoprovideforthesafetyofthe90,000EuropeansinIndia;The power of the BritishGovernment in Indiawasweakening daily, and

could not be sustained beyond 18 months. Using exceptionally stronglanguage, Wavell made it clear that as the man on the spot, it was hisresponsibilitytoadvisetheGovernmentoftheactiontobetakentoachievetheseobjects.“IfHMGconsiderthatmyadviceshowslackofbalanceandjudgment,orthatIhavelostmynerve, it isofcoursetheirdutytoinformme of this and to replace me,” he wrote. “But they take a very graveresponsibility upon themselves if they simply neglectmy advice.”Wavellended by emphasising that they “must have an emergency plan inreadiness; and if it is agreed that we cannot hope to control events forlongerthan18monthsfromnow,weshallhavetomakeupourmindsandmake a definite pronouncement at least in the first half of 1947.While IagreethatweshouldnotleaveIndiatillwehaveexhaustedeverypossiblemeansofsecuringaconstitutionalsettlement,wecanmakenocontributiontoasettlementoncewehavelostallpowerofcontrol.”

In December 1946 the British Government invited Nehru, Baldev Singh,JinnahandLiaquatAliKhantoLondonfordiscussions,alongwiththeViceroy.During his visit, Wavell again pressed for adoption of the Breakdown Plan,urgingtheGovernment toannounce that theywouldwithdrawallcontrolfromIndia byMarch 1948. Some CabinetMinisters such as Bevin and Alexander,whowereimperialistsatheart,balkedattheprospectofastarkannouncementoftheendingoftheBritishRaj.PrimeMinisterAttleealsofeltstronglythattheBritishshouldnotrelinquishcontroluntilatleastaconstitutionalsettlementhadbeen reached. Since the chances of reaching an amicable settlement appeareddismal,Attlee’sviewsseemedillusory.Afteraseriesofmeetings,theIndiaandBurma Committee decided to recommend that March 32, 1948 should beannounced as the date bywhich the Britishwould hand over power in India.Wavell pressed for a firm announcement in this regard by the BritishGovernment. Attlee replied to Wavell on December 21, 1946, giving theimpressionthathisproposalhadbeenbyandlargeaccepted.

Though the freedommovement had developed considerable momentum bythe time the war ended, the assumption that it would have achievedindependenceon itsownwouldbe erroneous.With the vast resourcesat theirdisposal, itwouldnothavebeendifficult for theBritishauthorities in India tomuzzlethemovement,astheyhaddonein1930and1942.Theonlyreasonforthem not being able to resort to suchmeasures after 1945 was the uncertaindependability of the Army. Had the Indian soldier remained staunch, or

adequateBritish forces been available, it ismost unlikely that freedomwouldhave come in 1947. If nothing else, it would have been delayed by 10 to 15years.

The redoubtable Lt Gen Sinha, was one of the first Indian officers to bepostedatthemostprestigiousMilitaryOperations(MO)DirectorateinDelhiin1947.ThiswashithertomannedonlybyBritishofficers.TheoutgoingBritishofficer he was taking charge from handed over the keys of the Top Secretdocuments tohimand left inagreathurry,as itwere.ThereinGenSinhasawtwo Top Secret files meant for British officers only. One was a ContingencyPlantoflyinBritishtroopstodealwithanymutinyintheIndianarmedForces.This called for flying in some fiveBritish divisions to quell such an uprising.Theproblemreallywaswherewerethesefivedivisions?Ihadlearntthisfirst-handfromGenSinhahimself,afewmonthsbeforehepassedaway.

OperationGondolaThe second was Op Gondola—a plan to evacuate British civil and militarypersonnel from India in the event of a major armed uprising. This gives theclearestinsightintothestateofmindoftheBritishandtherealreasonwhytheyleftinsuchatearinghurryin1947.

PartitionLordLouisMountbattenhad takenover fromFieldMarshalWavell as India’slastViceroyand later its firstGovernorGeneral.Hehad, ratherarbitrarilyandwhimsically,advancedthedateofBritishwithdrawalfromIndiafromtheearliertargetdateofJune1948toAugust15,1947simplybecausethathappenedtobetheanniversaryofhisSouthEastAsiaCommand’sVictoryoverJapan.Thisledtotheholocaustofpartitioninwhichover2millionIndiansandPakistaniswerekilled and some 14.5 million were uprooted and displaced. It saw the mostmassivemassmigrationsinhumanhistory.Perhapstherealunderlyingintentionwas to seed such chaos that the newly formed Dominions would beg to bereincorporatedbackintotheempire.

TheAttleeTestimonyRanjanBhorainhiseminentlyresearchedpaperintheHistoricalJournalofIndiawrites:“Ramesh ChandraMajumdar, the eminent Indian historian who passedaway recently, andwhobyvirtueofhis challenges to severalhistoricalmythscanrightlybecalledtheDeanofnewhistoriansinIndia,observedinhisbook,ThreePhasesofIndia’sStruggleforFreedom:

‘Thereis,however,nobasisfortheclaimthattheCivilDisobedienceMovementdirectlyledtoindependence.ThecampaignsofGandhi...cametoanignobleendaboutfourteenyearsbeforeIndiaachievedindependence...DuringtheFirstWorldWartheIndianrevolutionariessoughttotakeadvantageofGermanhelpintheshapeofwarmaterialstofreethecountrybyarmedrevolt.Buttheattemptdidnotsucceed.DuringtheSecondWorldWar,SubhasBosefollowed the same method and created the INA. In spite of brilliant planning and initialsuccess,theviolentcampaignsofSubhasBosefailed...TheBattlesforIndia’sfreedomwerealsobeingfoughtagainstBritain,thoughindirectly,byHitlerinEuropeandJapaninAsia.Noneofthesescoreddirectsuccess,butfewwoulddenythatitwasthecumulativeeffectofall the threethatbrought freedomtoIndia.Inparticular, therevelationsmadebytheINAtrial, and the reaction it produced in India, made it quite plain to the British, alreadyexhaustedby thewar, that theycouldno longerdependupon the loyaltyof thesepoys formaintainingtheirauthorityinIndia.ThishadprobablythegreatestinfluenceupontheirfinaldecisiontoquitIndia.’”

Bhora continues: “apart from revisionist historians, itwas none other thanLord Clement Attlee himself, the British Prime Minster responsible forconcedingindependencetoIndia,whogaveashatteringblowtothemythsoughttobeperpetuatedbycourthistorians,thatGandhiandhismovementhadledthecountrytofreedom.ChiefJusticeP.B.ChakrabortyofCalcuttaHighCourt,whohadalso servedas theactingGovernorofWestBengal in India,disclosed thefollowinginaletteraddressedtothepublisherofDr.R.C.Majumdar’sbook,AHistoryofBengal.TheChiefJusticewrote:

“YouhavefulfilledanobletaskbypersuadingDr.MajumdartowritethishistoryofBengalandpublishingit ... IntheprefaceofthebookDr.MajumdarhaswrittenthathecouldnotacceptthethesisthatIndianindependencewasbroughtaboutsolely,orpredominantlybythenon-violentcivildisobediencemovementofGandhi.

“When I was the acting Governor, Lord Attlee, who had given us independence bywithdrawingtheBritishrulefromIndia,spenttwodaysintheGovernor’spalaceatCalcuttaduringhis tourof India.At that time Ihadaprolongeddiscussionwithhimregarding the

real factors thathad led theBritish toquit India.Mydirectquestion tohimwas thatsinceGandhi’s‘QuitIndia’movementhadtaperedoffquitesometimeagoandin1947nosuchnewcompellingsituationhadarisenthatwouldnecessitateahastyBritishdeparture,whydidtheyhavetoleave?

“In his replyAttlee cited several reasons, the principal among them being the erosion ofloyaltytotheBritishCrownamongtheIndianArmyandNavypersonnelasaresultofthemilitaryactivitiesofNetaji.Toward theendofourdiscussion IaskedAttleewhatwas theextentofGandhi’s influenceupontheBritishdecisiontoquitIndia.Hearingthisquestion,Attlee’slipsbecametwistedinasarcasticsmileasheslowlychewedouttheword,‘m-i-n-i-m-a-l!’”[46]

Bhora concludes: “When the new version of the history of the TwentiethCentury India, and especially the episode of the country’s unique struggle forindependence comes to bewritten, it will no doubt single out but one personwho made the most significant and outstanding contribution among all hiscompatriotstowardtheemancipationofhismotherlandfromtheshacklesofanalienbondage.DuringWorldWarIIthismanstrodeacrosstwocontinentslikeacolossus, and the footsteps of his army of liberation reverberated through theforestsandplainsofEuropeandthejunglesandmountainsofAsia.HisarmedassaultsshooktheveryfoundationsoftheBritishEmpire.

HisnamewasSubhasChandraBose.”This assesment is echoedbyDrBalashibAmbedkar, the framer of India’s

Constitution and its first Law Minister. Babasaheb would not have beensurprisedwithSirAttlee’sadmission,forhehadforeseenit.HetoldtheBBCin1955 that from his “own analysis” he had concluded that “two things led theLabour party to take this decision” [to free India].Ambedkar continued: “Thenational army thatwas raised by SubhasChandraBose. TheBritish had beenrulingthecountryinthefirmbeliefthatwhatevermayhappeninthecountryorwhatever the politicians do, they will never be able to change the loyalty ofsoldiers.Thatwasoneproponwhichtheywerecarryingontheadministration.And thatwas completely dashed to pieces. They found that soldiers could beseducedtoformaparty—abattaliontoblowofftheBritish.”

Bohra writes: “This ‘unimpeachable’ truth will come as a shock to mostIndians brought up to believe that the Congress movement driven by the‘spiritualforce’ofMahatmaGandhiforcedtheBritishtoleaveIndia.Butboththe evidence and the logic of history are against this beautiful but childishfantasy; it was the fear of mutiny by the Indian armed forces—and not any

‘spiritual force’—that forced the issue of freedom. The British saw that thesoonertheyleftIndiathebetterforthemselves,for,attheendofthewar,Indiahadsomethreemillionmenunderarms.”

Majumdarhadreachedthesameconclusionyearsago.

7

ReportsoftheProvincialGovernors

Introduction

ThethirdsetofcriticaldecisionmakersinIndiaweretheBritishGovernorsofthe various provinces. In this chapter we examine a set of Reports from theGovernors to theViceroyabout thesituation in theirownrespectiveprovincesjustbeforeandaftertheINAtrialsinNovember-December1945.Thesereportsarenoteworthyfortheirtoneofgenuinealarmandapprehension.Nodoubttheseground reportsdeeply influenced theViceroy’sperceptionof the situationandreinforced his own sense of great unease—which had finally impelled him tovirtually give an ultimatum to London to make a substantive announcementabout Independence. In the absence of such a commitment, hewas very clearthattimewasrunningoutfortheBritishempireinIndia.Itcouldatbestholdonfor another 18months (till June 1948).After that theRaj couldwell lose thepower to influence events on the ground in India. Itwas better to departwithgracethangetinvolvedinarunningbattle.Thus:

Sir Twynam—Governor, Central Provinces—warned in end November1945:“IdofeeluneasinessastotheattitudeIndiantroopsmightadoptifcalleduponto fireonmobs.Hecompares thesituationto thedaysof themutinyandrecollectshowunitswhichwerethoughttobeperfectlyloyalsuddenlydecidedto throw their lot with themutineers. He lists out the total number of Britishofficials that he had to cover an area of 100,000 sq miles in the face of 18millionhostileIndiansandfindsthemwoefullyinadequate.

Sir G. Cunnigham, Governor, NWFP: recommended around the sametimethat,“TheCommander-in-ChiefshouldimmediatelycalloffthetrialsasthethingisbecomingmoreandmoreIndiansversustheBritish.Hecommiserates:“IfeelterriblyforyourExcellencyandforClaudeA(Commander-in-Chief)inthis.ItisthemostdifficultproblemtotacklethatIhaveeverknowninIndia.The

bestthingtodo…istocutourlosses.”SirA.Hope,GovernorMadras:StatedinDecember1945:“Wehaveput

ourselvesinanimpossiblesituation…atremendousattempthasbeenmadetomakenationalheroesof the INAand theattempthashadconsiderablesuccessamongalargeandemotionallyunstablesectionofthepublic.Iftheaccusedareexecutedorgivenlongtermsofimprisonment,thereisthedangerofapopularoutburst.ThecardinalerrorwasmadebybringingthesementoIndiaandnotdealing with the leaders in summary courts martial on the spot. He talks ofwidespreadfeelingsoffearamongstEuropeansinOotywhoarefearingseriousdisturbances,mutiny,etc.

Mr.Casey,Governor,Bengal:HedescribedinJanuary1946theimpactoftheseriousdisturbancesinCalcuttafromNovember21-23,1945.Hestated:“31were killed and 179 wounded. The forces actually employed were alwayshopelessly outnumbered and often in a very tight corner in the face of anunusually determined and fanaticalmob. Themost disturbing feature of theseriots he pointed outwas that:The crowdswhen fired on generally stood theirgroundoratmostrecededjustalittle,toreturnagaintotheattack.

SirB.Glancy,Governor,Punjab:WroteinJanuary1946:TheconclusionoftheINAtrialandthearrivalofthesethree“heroes”inLahoregaverisetoacontinual orgy of extravagant welcomes, speeches and entertainments. Onedisturbing feature is the attendance of Indian army personnel in uniform atmeetingsheldinhonouroftheaccused.

BelowIamadducingthefulltextoftheselettersfromtheGovernorsoftheprovinces to theViceroy.Theyprovideexcellentdocumentaryevidenceof theoverwhelmingpsychologicalimpactoftheINAtrialsandtheirviolentaftermathonthemindsoftheBritishadministrationinIndia.Trulythisisconvincingandclinching evidence to settle this historical dispute on the nature and scale ofpsychological impact thatdecisivelyshapedBritishdecisionmakingbeforethegrantofindependence.

SOMEGOVERNOR’SREPORTONI.N.A.TRIALS

Thereportsaregivenhereastheyappearedin“TransferofPower,”Volume6,pages542,546,631,724,807.

I.SIRH.TWYNAM(CENTRALPROVINCESANDBERAR)TOFIELDMARSHALVISCOUNT

WAVELL(EXTRACT)

GOVERNOR’SCAMP,CENTRALPROVINCESANDBERAR

SECRET

26NOVEMBER1945

RuikarhasbeenveryprominentatmeetingsandhasdeclaredifanyI.N.A.menare executed 20 patriots will arise and that the atrocities committed by theBritishsurpassedthehorrorsoftheBelsenConcentrationCamp.Iamhavinghisspeechexaminedwithaviewtoapossibleprosecutionundertheordinarylaw.AtJubbulporewhenaspeakersaidthattheI.N.A.wasthearmyofCongressandaskedwhowouldjoin,allraisedtheirhands.

From the same source it is reported that Congress is jubilant at the by follyGovernment in trying the I.N.A.menatDelhi.Congressmenconsider that thishasgiventhemachancetowinthesupportoftheIndianArmy.Iamboundtosay that I do feel some uneasiness as to the attitudewhich Indian troopsmayadoptifcalledupontofireonmobs.Thedispositiontowardsasuddenchangeofattitudeinatensepoliticalatmosphereispresentnow,Ithink,asitwasinthedays of the mutiny. I have recently been reading some of the original reportsprintedinselectStatedocumentsandextremelyinterestingtheyare.ItisextraordinaryhowUnitswhichwerethoughttobeperfectlyloyalsuddenlydecidedtothrowintheirlotwiththemutineers.

I do not for one moment suggest that there is any widespread disposition onthese lines but a slight uneasiness remains in my mind when I envisage thepossibilityoftheProvincebeingcompletelydenudedofBritishtroops.MySpecialBranchofficer reports thathis impression is that sympathy for theI.N.A.variesinverselyaccordingtothedegreeofcloseassociationwiththewar;thecloser theassociationtheless thesympathy.Healsoreports thatsofarour

Policeforceareapparentlynotinterested.

2.A formerCongressMinister in thisProvince, oneD.K.Mehta, claims thatCongresshasmanyadherentsamongGovernmentofficialsprobablyexists.Theeffect, of course, of the recent campaign is most marked on our EuropeanGovernmentservantsandmanyof themareundoubtedlyunsettled.Atpresent,in thisProvince, Ihave3EuropeanCommissioners,5DeputyCommissioners,noSessionsJudges,noAssistantCommissionersand7DistrictSuperintendentsofPolice.Altogether I have available 17 European I.C.S. officers, including 3 Judicialofficers,and19EuropeanmembersoftheIndianPolice.These figures exclude people serving in the Government of India but includepeopleonleave.

ThishandfulofEuropeanshastodealwithapopulationof18ormoremillionsoveranareaof100,000squaremiles.Itwillbereadilyappreciatedhowdifficultit will be for the administration if the present “hymn of hate” leads to theretirementofanysubstantialproportionofthishandfulofofficers.Possiblytheefforts of the Provincial Governors and others to secure a more moderateatmospheremaybereinforcedwhen theSecretaryofStatemakeshisexpectedstatementinParliament.

II.SIRG.CUNNINGHAM(NORTH-WESTFRONTIERPROVINCE)TOFIELDMARSHALVISCOUNTWAVELL

WAVELLPAPERS.OFFICIALCORRESPONDENCE:INDIA,JANUARY-DECEMBER1945,Pages383-84

PESHAWAR,27NOVEMBER1945

SECRET

DearLordWavell,

Iamgoingsomewhatoutsidemyproper sphere inwriting toYourExcellencyabouttheI.N.A.trial,butthematterisoneonwhichIhavebeentryingtogaugeopinionofallsortsandIhavenowcometoadefiniteconclusion.It isthattheC.-in-C.shouldatonceannouncethat,asIndianopinionisopposedtothetrialofthesepersons,hewipesthewholethingoutandtakesnofurtherproceedingsagainstanyone.NoonecandoitbuttheC.-in-C.,ofhisownvolitionandonhisownresponsibility.Donebyanyoneelse,evenbytheKing,itwillnothavethesameeffect—particularlyontheArmy.SomeArmyOfficersofgreatexperiencewithwhomIhavediscussed thematter—DickO’Connorwasone—havesaidthatleniencyatthisstagewouldhaveadisastrouseffectontheArmy.Idonotbelievethatistrue.

SomeIndianofficersandsoldiers,whoserelationsorclosefriendshavesufferedundertheI.N.A.leaders,arenodoubtthirstingfortheirblood.

ButIamcertainthattheyarecomparativelyfewandthattheirresentmentatanyclemencyshownnowwouldnotaffectArmydisciplineasawhole.

MostIndiansoldierswhohavesaidtome“Hangthelot”have, inmyopinion,said sobecause they thought itwaswhat Iwanted tohear; and this applies tocommentbyIndiansonmostoccasions.

The thing is daily becomingmore andmore purely Indian versusBritish, andlessandlessill-disposedIndiansversusBritish-cum-well-disposedIndians.

Ithinkthateverydaythatpassesnowbringsovermoreandmorewell-disposedIndiansintotheanti-Britishcampand,whatevertheoutcomeofthetrialmaybe,thisanti-Britishbiaswillpersistineachman’smind.Theonlywayofstoppingtherotisbyacleancut,asIhavesaid,andatonce.

Idislikesayingthisintensely.Itistantamounttosurrenderingtothreats,andnoreasonablemandoubtsforamomentthattheworstoftheI.N.A.leadersoughttohavebeenshotoutofhand.

Congressmen—Dr.KhanSahibamongthem—havesaidtome,“Ifonlytheyhad

beenshotinRangoonorSingapore,everyonewouldhavebeenpleased.”

Butthatfeelinghasgoneandcannotnowberevived.

IfeelterriblyforYourExcellencyandforClaudeA.inthis.ItisthemostdifficultproblemtotacklethatIhaveeverknowninIndia.ButIamcertain,fromwhatIhaveheardfromaverywidevarietyofpeoplehere,BritishandIndian,thatthebestthingtodoistocutourlosses.

Yourssincerely,G.CUNNINGHAM

III.SIRA.HOPE(MADRAS)TOFIELDMARSHALVISCOUNTWAVELL(EXTRACT)

GUINDY,10DECEMBER1945SECRET

2.CloselylinkedwiththeelectioncampaignhasbeenthequestionoftheI.N.A.trials.AfterthetroubleinMadura,wherethepoliceopenedfire,IthoughtitwisetobanallmeetingsandprocessionsheldprimarilyinsympathywiththeI.N.A.prisoners;but,naturally,theywereboundtofindtheirwayintogeneralelectionspeeches.

Intelligent opinion here is bewildered or jubilant, according to the politicaloutlookofthepersonconcerned.Thegeneralviewisthatwehavehandedfirst-rateelectionpropagandatothepartiesatlargeandthattheCongressaremakingthemostof it—inspiteof theirstatements to thecontrary—asa focalpointofexpressingnationalistfeelingagainsttheBritish.

Secondly,itisconsideredthatwehaveputourselvesinanimpossiblesituation;thanks to Nehru & Co., whose example is being followed down here, atremendousattempthasbeenmadetomakenationalheroesoftheI.N.A.andtheattempthashadconsiderablesuccessamonga largeandemotionallyunstablesectionofthepublic.

If the accused are executed or given long terms of imprisonment, there is thedangerofapopularoutburst;if,ontheotherhand,theyarepardonedweshallbelettingdownourloyalmen,withtheresultthattheymaywellfeelthatloyaltydoesnotpay.Peopleheredonotseewhatthesolutioncanbe,andtheyconsiderthatthecardinalerrorwasmadebybringingthesementoIndiaandnotdealingwiththeleadersinsummarycourtsmartialonthespot.

Europeans, particularly in Ootacamund, are getting very jumpy indeed and Ihearaboutpeoplewhohadintendedstayingonforayearorsomorewantingtogetpassagesearlierforfearofseriousdisturbances,mutiny,etc.

Thissoundsunjustifiablyalarmist,butitisquiteawidespreadfeeling.

IV.MR.CASEY(BENGAL)TOFIELDMARSHAL

VISCOUNTWAVELL

CALCUTTA,2JANUARY1946

DisturbancesinCalcutta&Howrah,21stto23rdNovember1945

MydearLordWavell

IhavealreadyforwardedtoyouwithmytelegramNo.413ofthe28thNovemberthetextofafactualstatementaboutthesedisturbanceswhichwassubsequentlyissuedtothePressforpublicationonthe30thNovember.

(ForconvenienceofreferenceIencloseacopy).

TheCommissionerofPolicehasnowcompletedtheprescribedinquiriesintothefourteenseparateincidentsinwhichfiringwasresortedtobytheCalcuttaPoliceandIhavealsojustseenhisreportonthedisturbancesasawhole.Inthelightofthesethereislittletosaybywayofmodificationofthatcontemporarystatementwhich, I believe, still gives a reliable picture of the course of events both in

CalcuttaandinHowrah.SofarasHowrahisconcernedIhavenothingtoadd,andthefollowingobservationsprimarilyconcernCalcutta.

2. It isnowclear that the initialclashwith thePolice, inDharamtalaStreetonthe afternoon of the 21st November, while it was deliberately sought by thestudents concerned was not the result of a widespread conspiracy to plungeCalcuttaintoanarchy.Thestudentorganisationwhichsponsoredthemeetingandprocessionhadbeenwarned on both 20th and 21st November that entry into the prohibited areawould not be permitted. The procession was a deliberate act of defiance ofauthority by students, primarily those associatedwith Subhas Bose’s ForwardBlock, worked up to a state bordering on hysteria by previous propaganda infavouroftheI.N.A.

3.Itisnotclearthatthestudentelementintheoriginalprocessionwasthefirstin the crowd to have recourse to brickbats but it is clear that, in the trial ofpatiencebetweenthemselvesandthepolice, thestudents’patienceranoutfirstand they precipitated the riot by trying to force the cordon and attacking thepolice.

Whendefiancehadledtobloodsheditwasnotdifficultforthestudents,intheprevailing exacerbation of public feeling, to bring about widespreaddisturbances.Onceriotinghadcommenced,studentstooktheirfullshareinit.

4.Thetwoincidents,of21stand22ndNovember,inDharamtalawereprimarilystudent processions; though naturally a considerable accretion of hangers-on,supportersandhooligansjoinedinwhentroublebegan.Thestudentsalsowerethe principal agency by which the stoppage of all means of transport wasenforcednextdaythoughinthistheywerespeedilyassistedbyotherelements,includinganumberofSikhtaxidrivers,thetramsweretakenoffthestreetsbytheactiveinterventionofthecommunist-controlledtramwaymen’sUnion.Interferencewithtransportwasatfirstmainlybypersuasion,thoughbacked,ofcourse, by threat of force.As the dayproceeded, interference became steadilymoreviolent in character.The studentsmust bear their share of the blame forthis but the actual violence was probably perpetrated more often by Sikhs,“upcountry”mechanicsandthehooliganelementgenerally.Thisisparticularly

true of the areamost affected, Bhowanipore, in South Calcutta. Themobs inNorthCalcuttacontainedahigherproportionofstudentsandbhadralogandweredefinitelylessdangerous,lessexpertandapparentlylessdeterminedthanthoseinSouthCalcuttawhere(includingthetwoDharamtalaincidents)thirteenofthefourteenshootingincidentsoccurred.

5.BothinNorthandSouthCalcuttaafeatureofthedisturbancescomparativelynewtoBengalwasthatthecrowdswhenfiredonlargelystoodtheirgroundoratmostonlyrecededalittle,toreturnagaintotheattack.Thisispartlybecausefiringwascarriedoutmainlywithrevolversandinself-defence,bysmallgroupsofsergeantsdetachedfromsupportoroperatingfortheextricationofwoundedpersons (often military personnel hauled off lorries) or to extinguish burningvehicles. There was comparatively little firing to disperse the crowds finally.The armed forces were not called upon to open fire for this purpose. Thecomparativelysuddencollapseofthedisturbances,thoughapparentlycapableofbearingasomewhatsinisterimplication,seemsinfactattributablenottounifiedplanningandcontrolofthewholemovementbuttotheinteractionofanumberof factors. Chief among these was the fact that the disorders, coming at themomenttheydid,suitedthebookofnoneofthemainpoliticalparties.SomeCongressleadersfromthefirsttriedtorestraintheviolenceofthestudentelement,withoutinitialsuccess.Throughouttheforenoonandearlyafternoonofthe 23rd, Congress and someCommunist propaganda cars toured the affectedareas dissuading the students from further participation. At the same timeresoluteactionbythepoliceinclearingroadblocksonthemorningofthe23rd,thewarninginthePressthesamemorningthatadequatestepshadbeentakentoprotectmilitaryvehiclesandpropertyandabroadcastIgavethatnight(inwhichI made it plain that we should not shrink from utilising the armed forces insupport of the civil power) all had their part in bringing about the suddencollapseofthetroubleandthespeedyreturntonormalconditions.

6. So far as casualties and damage are concerned the figures given in theStatementalreadypublishedmaybetakenassubstantiallycorrect,aswillappearfromtherevisedstatementenclosed.Onthesideoftherioters,hospitalrecordsshowthat31werekilled(allbygunshot):ofthose27aredefinitelyattributabletopolice firing: the remaindermayhavebeencausedbymilitarypersonnelonvehicles who, it is known, had, on occasion, to shoot their way out of

roadblocks.179 members of the public were treated in hospital for injuries caused bygunshotwounds,lathiblowsorbrickbats.Bothonthesideoftheforcesoflawandorderandonthesideoftheriotersthereweredoubtlessmanyminorinjurieswhichdidnotcometonotice.

7. The result of the Commissioner’s inquiries has been, in all cases but one,explicitly to exonerate the police from blame as regards opening fire and thequantumoffiringthattookplace.Inalmosteverycasefiringwasresortedtoindefence of life or of Government property. In the one case in which theCommissioner’s finding is less definite as to the control of the firing and itsquantum, the evidence is being reviewed by my Chief Secretary. TheCommissioner’s report indicates very clearly that a very grave degree ofdisorderprevailed,especiallyinSouthCalcutta,forthrity-sixhoursonthe22ndand23rdNovemberandwhiletheremaybereasontodoubt(andthisisamatterwe are inquiring into) whether all the forces at the disposal of the C.P. wereadequatelyutilised,therecanbenodoubtthattheforcesactuallyemployedwerealwayshopelesslyoutnumbered,andofteninaverytightcornerinthefaceofanunusuallydeterminedandfanaticalmob.

8.Wehavetriedtodrawforourselvesthenecessarylessonsfromtheeventsofthese threehectic days. I think the first lesson is that, though thedisturbanceswerenotplanned,atalleventsonthescaleonwhichtheytookplace,thereisaspirit of lawlessness abroad which, as in 1942, can, on a slight and suddencause,beworkedupwithremarkablespeedtoproduce,overaverywideareasimultaneously,manifestationsparalysingtothelifeofthecommunity.Itisclearalso that with every one of these outbreaks, the technique of the mob isimproving; this was noticeable also in the methods of temporary sabotageindulged in by the water-works staff in the unconnected but simultaneousCorporationemployees’strike.

This is a feature that may be expected to be even more marked in futuredisturbances, with the return to India of persons trained in sabotage, like themembersoftheI.N.A.

9. As I have already indicated, we are looking into the question whether the

presentsystemofemployingsergeantsasastrikingforceandkeepingtheArmedPoliceinreserveisthatbestcalculatedtoproducesatisfactoryresults.

10.AnotherlessonisthatourPolicetransportwasfoundtobeinbadshape.Wearereplacingaconsiderablenumberofvehicles.

11. Of one thing we are all convinced—inter-communication between Policeforces, police stations and outposts and police headquarters must be greatlyimproved, preferably by wireless. This applies both to Calcutta and to theProvince as a whole, and we are in course of making the necessaryimprovementsandinnovationsinourcommunications.

12. So far as the mofussil is concerned, air transport may well exercise adeterminingforceinnippingtroubleinthebud.Thankstothewar,wealreadyhaveanumberofgoodaerodromes:weareexaminingurgentlytheprovisionoffurtherairstripstopermitofquickreinforcementofourpoliceinanydistrictoftheProvince.A problem to be facedwill be that of keeping these landing grounds clear ofdeliberateobstructionwhentheyareneeded.

13. I am sending copies of this letter to the Governors of Bihar, Orissa andAssam.

Iam,yourssincerely,R.GCASEY

V.SIRB.GLANCY(PUNJAB)TOFIELDMARSHALVISCOUNTWAVELL(EXTRACT)

16JANUARY1946SECRET

Relationsbetweenthedifferentcommunitiesaregettingmoreandmorestrained.The Deputy Commissioner of Ambala writes that “increasing reports of adeterioration in the communal situation, consequent on the poisonouspropaganda of political parties, especially of the Muslim League, are being

receivedfromruralareas.

OneveryobjectionabletypeofpropagandaindulgedinbytheMuslimLeagueisto threatenMuslim voters with excommunication including a refusal to allowtheirdeadtobeburiedinMuslimgraveyardsandtodebarthemfromjoininginmassMuslimprayersintheeventoftheirvotingagainsttheLeague.”MuchthesamethingishappeninginLahoreandotherplaces.

Criesof“JaiHind”aregreetedwithshoutsof“Pakistan.”TheconclusionofthefirstI.N.A. trialandthearrivalof the three“heroes”inLahoregaverise toacontinual orgy of extravagant welcomes, speeches and entertainments. TheCongress Press has been full of jubilations. One disturbing feature is theattendanceof IndianArmypersonnel inuniformatmeetingsheld inhonouroftheI.N.A.accused.

AprominentHindu,whoisinclosetouchwiththedefencecounsel,tellsmethatthe most which they expected by way of commutation was that the sentencewouldbereducedtofiveyears’imprisonment;Idonotknowtowhatextentthisistrue.

8

IntelligenceBureau’sReportonINATrials

The1857mutinyhadthoroughlyshakentheBritishempireinIndia.Theywereterrifiedof the spectreof such large-scaleviolence re-emerging in India.Theystrovetheirutmostthereaftertopreventthevariouscastes,creedsandethnicitiesof India from coming together again to stage another revolt. They sought toexploiteveryfaultlineinIndiawhetherofcaste,creedorreligionandlanguage.

In 1887, Maj Gen Charles MacGregor was appointed QMG and head ofIntelligenceDepartmentoftheBritishIndianArmyatSimla.Itstasklargelywasto monitor the Russian troop deployments in Afghanistan. On December 23,1887theIntelligenceBureau(IB)wasformedinIndiabytheBritishSecretaryofState.BytheturnofthecenturytheBritishweregettingthoroughlyalarmedwiththeriseofviolentIndianrevolutionaryactivities.In1909,IndianPoliticalIntelligence Office was established in London to counter the threat of Indianrevolutionaries.TheIndianIntelligenceBureauhadinthemeantimebecomeoneof the most efficient and effective Counter-Intelligence organisations in theworld.ItwassuccessfullyabletopenetratemostoftheGhadrrevolutionarycellsbeing set up by Indian revolutionaries in the USA and England. All therevolutionaryIndianplanstofomenttroubleinIndiaduringtheFirstWorldWarwereruthlesslyfoiled.TherewasnouprisingwhatsoeverinIndia—evenas1.3millionIndiansoldiersweresenttothevariousbattlefieldsoftheworld.Itwasthe result of amassive effort todivide and rule India andplayoff thevariouscaste, creed, religious, ethnic and language groups against one another. IndiawaskeptthoroughlydividedandRevolutionarygroupskeptunderveryeffectivewatchandsurveillancetoensurethatIndiaremainedabsolutelyquietandtroublefreeduringthefirstGreatWar.

ThesuccessmustbeattributedtotheIndianIntelligenceBureauwhichhadbecomethemosteffectiveinstrumentsoftheRaj.InBritishMilitaryintelligencecirclestherewasagreatdealofrespectforthe“India-wallas.”Evenmorethan

the British Indian Army perhaps, the IB was the primary instrument to keepIndia under subjugation. The success of the IB in keeping India trouble freeduring the Great War made the British thoroughly arrogant and somewhatcomplacent.The Indians expected theBritish to be grateful after theWar andperhapsgrantHomeRule toIndia.What theIndiansgot insteadwas theracialarrogance of JallianwalaBaghmassacre in Punjab—the heartland fromwherethebulkoftheIndianarmywasrecruited.Thisgeneratedagreatwaveofangerand indignation in India. It broughtMahatmaGandhi to the foreof the Indianindependence movement. He changed the Congress party from an effetedebatingsocietyof richIndian lawyers toamass-based,grass-rootsmovementthatspreadfromthetownstotheruralcountryside.Hestartedcivildisobedienceand escalated demands for home rule to Poorna Svarajya—or totalindependence.Howeverhiswasanon-violent andpeacefulmovement.Britishpolitical strategists and the Intelligence Bureau now felt that this non-violentmovementwasentirelymanageableandthebestbetforpreventingtheoutbreakof large-scale violence as had happened in theMutiny of 1857 (FirstWar ofIndependence). So they tacitly encouragedMahatmaGandhi and his brand ofNon-violenceovertheviolenceoftherevolutionaries.

By 1920 this had started to rise again. In 1921, The Indian PoliticalIntelligence (IPI) was established as a state-run surveillance and monitoringagency.ItwasrunjointlybytheIndiaOfficeandtheGovt.ofIndia.ItreportedjointlytotheSecretaryofPublicandJudicialDepartmentoftheIndiaOfficeandthe IntelligenceBureau in India.All the attempts of IndianRevolutionaries togetarmssupportfromGermanyandEuropewerefoiledbythedoubleagentsofthe IB in India. Itwasonly theJapanesespreeofconquest inSouthEastAsiathat shook the Raj and gave rise to a far more effective INA which nowactualised the revolutionaries dreams andWorldWar I era plans of invadingIndiafromtheEast.Bosewasabletoraisea60,000-strongINAwiththehelpoftheJapaneseArmyandjointheirinvasionofIndiain1944.

The IBwasat the forefrontof theBritishcampaign todestroyandsubverttheINA.TheIBthuswasthemosteffectiveinstrumentoftheRajinsuppressingallmovements for Indian independence.Hence it is vital to see the IB reportabout the impact of the INA trials. This report from Director, IntelligenceBureau is most informative and telling as far as the impact of the INA isconcerned. Even itsmeasured and clinical tone gives a clear indication of thelevels of disquiet. This report datedNovember 20, 1945 states inter alia that,“SardarPatelwantedtheINAtobethenucleusofthenewIndianArmy.”(Itwas

Nehruwholater,onMountbatten’sadviceandpressure,refusedtotaketheINAmen back into the IndianArmy and treated them as traitors.He stopped theirpensions.)Thereportclearlyhighlightsthat“thepublicfeelinginIndiaisoneofsympathyandsupport for the INA.This sympathy isnotconfined to the townsbut spreads to villages and across communities. It warns that this is likely tointensify. It warns clearly of the development of the agitation in dangerousdirectionsandaboveallhighlights that the threat to thesecurityof the IndianArmyisonewhichitwouldbeunwisetoIgnore.”

The Director, Intelligence Bureau’s Report of November 20, 1945 isreproducedbelowinfull.

WhatiscauseforconsiderabledisquietistheroleoftheIndianIntelligenceBureau immediately after the grant of independence. This organisation soondisplacedthearmyandbegantoplayapivotalroleinIndia’ssecuritydecisionmaking.OvertimeitcompletelymarginalisedtheArmedForcesfromanyroleinnationalsecuritydecisionmaking.Worse,someofitsseniorofficialsseemedtoretainaresidualloyaltytotheRaj.Institutionalmechanismswereestablishedto maintain links with the British MI5 via a liason office in New Delhi.Amazingly the IB continued to report to London about the activities of therelativesofBoseandex-INApersonneltilllateintothe1960s.Thisraisessomeseriousquestionsabout theresidual loyaltiesofsomeof thesenior IBOfficersand bureaucrats of that era. Tragically in more ways than one, it was not somuch the IndianArmy thatwas the last bastion of theRaj but sections of itshighlycompetentandeffectiveIBthatretainedresidualloyaltiestotheRaj.TheIntelligence agencies seem to have freed themselves of these colonial apronstringsonlyby thedecadeof1970when India truly asserted its independenceandautonomyandactedaggressively toshapeoutcomes inSouthAsia. In thisthe newly created R&AW under R. N. Kao played a stellar role. Let us nowanalysethereportoftheDirector,IntelligenceBureauinIndiadatedNovember20, 1945 that analyses the impact of the INA trials on the internal securityscenarioinIndia.

IntelligenceBureau’s(GovernmentofIndia,HomeDepartment)ReportonI.N.A.Trials

Thereportisgivenhereasitappearedin“TransferofPower,”Volume6,page512.

GovernmentofIndia,HomeDepartmenttotheSecretary,PoliticalDepartment,Indiaoffice

NewDelhi,20thNovember1945

Sir,

I am directed to forward for information a copy of a note prepared by theDirector,IntelligenceBureau,ontheI.N.A.situation.

Ihavethehonourtobe,

Sir,

Yourmostobedientservant,

F.G.Cracknell,

DeputySecretarytotheGovtofIndia

Enclosure

Secret

IntelligenceBureau

HomeDepartment

The situation in respect of the Indian National Army is one which warrantsdisquiet.Therehas seldombeenamatterwhichhasattracted somuch Indianpublicinterestand,itissafetosay,sympathy.Public feeling is based on political, racial, and sentimental considerations andhasbeeninfluencedinaverygreatextentbythePressandplatformwritingsandspeechesofpoliticalleadersandorganisations.ThegeneralNationalistPressiscompletely in accord with political outcry and the effect the publications inquestionhaveisundoubted,formanyofthemaremostpopularandwidelyreadeveninruralareas.ThegenerallineofthenationalistcaseisthatthemenoftheI.N. A.were actuated by patrioticmotives and the demand ismade that noneshall be punished. If there is punishment the result attending it will be racialbitterness which will last down through the ages. The combined emphasis ofcurrent propaganda is on the treason aspect of the cases and other crimes areignored. The way of propagandists is made easier because they have nocounteractingpropagandawithwhichtocontend,andit isdifficult toconceivenow that counter effort could be effective in circumstances in which thecountry’s ear has largely been captured.Congress has led this outcry since itscommencementandcontinuestodoso.

Whatever the motives of Congress may be, there is no doubt of the vastimportancewhich isgiven to the subject inCongress’sestimationand there isnothing to suggest thatCongressmightminimise its efforts or be delivered inany degree from the course it has adopted without complete Governmentalacceptanceofthedemandsputforward.

On the contrary there is every indication thatCongresswill use all themeansavailable to it to create a still greater countrywidedemand and inflamepublicopinion and that it will contribute it will continue to pursue this linedeterminedly throughout the election period and beyond and until events haveexhausted their course. The fact that election propaganda is now in progressprovidesaconvenientplatformandgrowingaudiences.

Atmostofthe160politicalmeetingsheldintheCentralprovinceduringthefirst

half of October demands were made for the abandonment of action againstI.N.A. Similar demands were made at manymeetings in other provinces. Thenumberofmeetingsbeingheldalloverthecountryisnowincreasing.

OtherpoliticalpartieshavefollowedCongress’sleadsomeofthemwithmarkeddeterminationandthiscanbesaidoftheSikhsandtheHinduMahasabha.Theinfluenceof theSikhson theCentralPunjab rural recruitingareas isgreatanddailymeetingsarebeingheldbythematwhichdemandsonbehalfoftheI.N.A.arevoiced.TheHinduMahasabhalackstheruralinfluenceoftheSikhsbuttheirobservanceofanI.N.A.Dayandtheirstronglywordedappealshavehadeffect.

The Muslim League is in the forum with others but in the case of thisorganisation there is some reason to believe that as a party it is moved byconsiderations of expediency. However, the trial of Muslims may make theireffectincreasinglyfeltontheMuslimpublicandLeaguealike.

ReportsrecentlyreceivedhavestatedthatgrowingenthusiasmisobviousatthemeetingsheldinconnectionwithI.N.A.WeeksandI.N.A.Daysand that this isnotonly trueof the townsbutalsoof thevillages. Itwasrecentlysaidaboutpoliticiansactiveintheirelectioncampaignsthattheyhadtospeak of the I.N.A. in appreciative terms to interest their audiences. Thiswasattributedpartlytoawaveofanti-Britishfeelingwhichisnowbeingdeliberatelyfostered,partlytoagenuinesympathyfor theI.N.A.andpartlytothefact thatArmymenon leavefromAssamandBurmahadnot troubledenough tomaketheirfeelingsknown.The source from which this information came also mentioned that there wassurprisethatspeakerswerebeingpermittedsomuchlicencebyGovernmentandthat has been followed by the feelings that tongues could now wag withimpunity.Thatsomuchcanbesaidwithoutretributionhashadabadeffectonthosewhomight otherwise have supported the Government openly but now feel thatsilenceistheirbestpolicy.One thing seems clear and that is that sympathy for the I.N.A. is not themonopolyofthosewhoareordinarilyagainstGovernment.It isequallyclear that thisparticularbrandofsympathycutsacrosscommunalbarriers.This is explained to someextentby the fact that the thousands in the

I.N.A.havemanythousandrelationswhoareanxiousabouttheirfate.Thereis,therefore, support for the political bodies who are helping the I.N.A. and agrowing general bitterness. In many cases officers of the I.N.A. belong toinfluentialfamiliesandthiscreatesmuchlocalinterest.Ifthefamiliesconcerneddo have traditions of loyalty, which is usually the case, the interest shown isintensifiedandalsotheill-effectsthatattendit.

There is alreadyevidenceof some rather surprising approachesbeingmade toCongress for assistance and the fact of ex-judge of the High Courts andgentlemenwith titles joiningopenly in the defenceof cases inwhichwartimetreasonisthechargeisnotnegligible.

In reports received any public appreciation of Government’s need to act andpunishishardlyeverseen.SofarthecampaigninfavouroftheI.N.A.hasnotresultedinanyovertactionagainst the IndianArmymenorEuropeans. In respectof the former therehasbeennohintofsocialboycottoranythingoftheofthekindanditmaybethatnothingofthatcharacterisintended.

Theappearanceofthreateningposters,however,doesnotmakethepositioninrespect of Europeans as satisfactory as could be wished. Some respect foranonymous warning of this character has resulted from experience gained inearlier terroristmovements in India.Recentlypostershaveappeared inLahoreandCalcuttaandinthelatterplacewereparticularlyobjectionable.Atthisstage,however,itisunnecessarytotakethematteroftheposterstooseriously.

Mention has already been made in this note of an opinion expressed thatheretoforeArmymenonleavehavenotreallymadetheirviewsknownwithasmuchforceastheycouldhaveused.TherehavebeennumerousreportsfromArmysourcesthatArmypersonnelandparticularly returned prisoners of war feel very bitterly about the attitude thecountry and its politicians have adopted and that their animosity towards theI.N.A. is deep-seated. Intelligence so far received does not show that theinfluence of returned prisoners of war may not have returned in sufficientnumbers yet tomake their presence felt. In this connexion, however, it seemsdesirable to remember that servingmenhavealso relation in the I.N.A.which

mayaffecttheminsomedegree.

At thesame time,with“Blacks”and“Greys”beingenlarged in largenumberstheyarenotgoingtohavethevillagefieldalltothemselves.Indeedtheformerwillhavetheadvantageinsomerespectsformanyofthemwillremainintheirvillagespermanentlyandnottemporarilyasisthecasewithservingpersonnel.Meanwhile, therehavebeenoneor twonewspaper reportsofmilitaryclericalstaffandmenoftheR.I.A.F.givingdonationstodefencefunds.Onthewhole,the speeches of nationalist leaders on the subject of the I.N.A. give theimpressionthatcarefulthoughthasbeengiventowordingandiftheyhaveanyplansinvolvingI.N.A.,meninfuturetheyhaveavoidedpublicisingthemwhichisbutprudent.

However,itisinterestinginthisconnexiontonotethatiscertainofhisspeechesinBombay,PatelhasdeclaredthatwhatGovernmentoughttodotheI.N.AistomakeitthenucleusofthenewIndianArmy,whichmaybeanindicationofthelinesonwhichhismindistravelling.

At the same time, Nehru, who has publicly referred to I.N.A. personnel asinstructors in volunteer bodies. A more definite indication of a move in anunwarranteddirectioniscontainedinarecentreportwhichallegesthataSabhais being formed in the north of India with the object of making contact withreleasedI.N.A.officersandmeninordertoenrolthemasmembersandeducateandtrainthemintheexpectationthattheywillbeofusetoCongressinitsday-to-dayactivitiesandinthetimeofemergency.Eveniftheinformationiscorrectitmaybethattheinspirationtoactontheselinesislocalincharacter.Itisclear,however,thatdangerouspossibilitiesexistwhichmeritverycarefulattention.

Insummingupthereseemsjustificationsforattemptingthat:

(1)ThepublicfeelingwhichexistsisoneofsympathyfortheI.N.A.andgenuinedisapprovalofitsconductislacking.

(2)Themeasureof sympathy is substantial and isnot confined to townsor toany particular community, and that day by day it is beingwhipped up by thespeechesofthenationalistleadersandthewritingsofthenationalistPress.This

islikelytocontinueandintensify.

(3) In the absence of counter propaganda the nationalist campaign is havingmattersitsownway,andthatcounterpropagandawouldbeofdoubtfulvalueatthisstage.

(4)Thepossibilityof thedevelopmentof theagitation indangerousdirectionsexistsinadegreewhichdemandsconstantwatchfulness,and

(5)ThethreattothesecurityoftheIndianArmyisonewhichitwouldbeunwisetoignore.

10

ASummation:RectifyingHistory

Thepurposeofthisbookwastoexaminepreciselyhowthepost-colonialregimeemerged in India. A deliberate narrative has beenwoven around our freedomstruggle to carefully censor out any role of violence in what is deliberatelypackagedandsoldasaunique,oneofitskind,freedomstrugglebasedonnon-violence, ahimsa and the psychological pressure methodology advocated byMahatma Gandhi. He had begun this mode of civil disobedience and massprotest in South Africa. It was later followed there by Nelson Mandela. Weforget to notice one sad fact. Despite following Gandhis non-violent strugglemethods, South Africa became free only in April 1994—almost towards thecloseofthetwentiethcentury.HadIndiastucktonon-violencealone,thereisagoodchancethatwewouldhavereceivedourfreedomaroundthesametime,ifatall.

ThesimplefactIhavetriedtoestablishinthisbookisthatthefinalchargeofMahtmaGandhi’snon-violentmovementhadfaileddismally in1942andafterthat the Congress was largely a spent force. The new Labour Government inLondonwas as determined as theConservatives not to grant independence toIndia.LordClementAttlee, infacthadjailed theentireCongress leadership in1942.Sowhatchangedsosuddenly?HowandwhydidIndia,andotherAsianstates, obtain their freedom from 1947 onwards? The answer is simple. TheBritishempireinAsiawasfatallywoundedbyitsviolentmilitarystrugglewithNaziGermanyandJapan. Itwasparticularly thewarwithJapan inSouthEastAsiathathadreallyuprootedtheEmpireasitsufferedhumiliatingdefeatsinonecountry after another. In virtually under a year, the British empire had beenrolled out ofMalaya, Singapore andBurma. Themilitary defeat of theWhitecolonial power at the hands of anAsianmilitary, broke thatmyth ofmilitaryinvincibilityoftheempireandthewhiteraces.ThesurrenderingBritishofficerssimply abandoned their men to the Japanese. Major Fujiwara, the Japanese

LawrenceofArabiaasitwere,helpedraisethefirstINAfromIndianprisonersofwarwiththehelpofManmohanSingh.

Meanwhile in India, Subhash Bose had clearly seen that World War IIprovidedagolden,once-in-a-lifetimeopportunityforIndiatogainitsfreedom.ThereisalotofmoralisingthathetookthehelpofthegenocidalNazipowerinGermanyandImperialJapan.Thesimplefact is thathewasbeinganabsoluterealistwhorealisedthetruthoftheKautilyandictum—anenemy’senemyismyfriend.HerealisedthatitwasfutiletoexpectBritishgratitudebyassistingtheirwar effort. At the end ofWorldWar I, the British attitude was one of cruderacial superiority. The Indianswere then expecting gratitude for their servicesduringtheWar,wheresome80,000Indianshadlaiddowntheirlives.Whattheygotinsteadwasamassacre.IthadresultedintheJallianwalaBaghmassacreinthe prime recruiting area of the British Indian Army that had contributed somuchinthatwar.Indianexpectationsofgratitudeafter theSecondWorldWarwereasmisplaced.Infact,ChurchillwasonrecordtostatethatanyassurancesgiventotheIndiansduringtheSecondWorldWarneednotbehonouredafteritwasover.

BosehadcorrectlyidentifiedtheloyaltyofthenativeIndiansepoytotheRajasitsrealcentreofgravity.Ifthiscouldbeshaken,theRajwouldnotlastaday.TheBritishcolonialenterprisehadsucceededsobrilliantlyinIndiaasaresultofthesuccessoftheirNativisationdrive.Theywereabletoraiseavastarmyoflocal native sepoys, trained on modern European lines and led by Britishofficers.ItwaswiththesenativeIndianarmyofsepoysthattheyhadconqueredand ruled India for over two hundred years. At any given time in India, theBritishwhitetroopshardlynumberedmorethan40,000.TheIndiansepoyswere150,000innumberbeforethewar.InWorldWarItheBritishIndianArmywasrapidly expanded to 1.3million. InWorldWar II it was raised to an all-timerecordlevelof2.5millionmen—thelargestall-volunteerarmyinthehistoryoftheworld. TheBritish, however, could rule only as long as the native sepoysremainedloyaltotheRaj.Bosehadclearlyunderstoodthis.InGermanyhehadraisedtheIndischeLegionfromtheIndianprisonersofwar.Asthetideofwarturnedherealisedthathehadbeenstuckinthewrongtheatre.TheJapanesenowbegantoaskforBoseasBritisheffortsatsubversionhadcausedproblemsinthefirstINA.

BosewasnowsentbysubmarinetoSouthEastAsia.Itwastheonlycaseofsubmarine to submarine transfer in the Second World War. Bose now tookchargeoftheINAandexpandedittothreedivisionsworth—some60,000men.

HeestablishedaFreeIndiaGovernment-in-exileinSingaporeinOctober1943.Itwasrecognisedby11countries—includingtheSovietUnion.HedeclaredwarontheBritishandAmericans.HejoinedtheJapaneseinvasionofIndiain1944.Unfortunately, by then the tide of the war had turned fully with the entry ofAmericaonthesideoftheAllies.Itwastoolittle,toolate.Hadthesameattackcomein1942,oreven1943,itwouldhavegonelikeaknifethroughbutter.Bosewas certain that themoment the news of the INA on Indian soil reached theIndian people, it would galvanise them magically and cause an uprising.Unfortunately, the British wartime censorship kept the INA one of the bestsecretsofthewar.AfterthewartheBritishactedwithtypicalracialarrogance.Inaveryfoolishgestureoftriumphalismdesignedtooverawethenatives,theycarriedouthighlypublicisedtrialsofthreeINAofficersattheiconicRedFortinNewDelhi. The news of the INAnow tumbled out of thewartime closet.AsBose had predicted so accurately, it galvanised the nation, and caused anationwide uprising. The very knowledge of the INA—an army of dedicatedIndians fighting and dying to free India—was enough to put the towns andcountrysideonfire.TheveryracialarroganceofthisgestureinflamedthepeopleofIndia. Ithitat theverycentreofgravityof theRajandforeverchanged theloyaltyoftheIndiansoldier.TheBritishwereexhaustedandwar-wearyaftersixyears of bloodletting. Their armieswere desperately homesick andwar-wearyandinnomoodnowtofight2.5millionIndiansoldierswhohaddonesowellonthevariousbattlefieldsoftheSecondWorldWar.

Wavell andAuchinleck realised that the loyalty of the Indian sepoy to theRajwas nowamajor questionmark. Itwas all over for theRaj.They rightlyadvisedLondonthattheBritishshouldcuttheirlossesandleavewithgrace.ThiswasnotacceptedinitiallybytheimperialistsinLondon.However,byFebruary1946mutinieshadactuallybrokenoutintheRoyalIndianNavyandsomeunitsofthearmy.TheRajinLondonnowsawthedirewarningsoftheirViceroyandCommander-in-ChiefinIndiacomingtrueandactualisingbeforetheirveryeyes.Theythrewinthetowelanddecidedtoquit.Mountbattenwassentintooverseetheprocessofextricationandthewindingupoftheempire.So,intheend,itwasold-fashionedviolence,andthethreatofitonanevengreaterscale,thatresultedin awithdrawalofBritishpower fromSouthAsia.Despitewhatever romanticillusionsthathavebeencreatedbycourthistorians,non-violenceandsoftpowerhadlittletocontributetonation-stateformationinpost-colonialIndia.

SummaryofFindingsIn this book, we have examined this hypothesis in a very logical andacademicallyrigorousformat.WefirstidentifiedthekeydecisionmakersoftheBritishEmpire.WethenexaminedthevoluminousdetailsavailableinthenowdeclassifiedTransferofPowerarchivesinLondon.Theentiredocumentarytrailofevidencehasbeenverywellpreservedforposterity.Aclinicalandempiricalexamination of the voluminous documentary evidence clearly highlights thefailureof thenon-violentmovement and theoverwhelming impactof the INAtrialsandsubsequentmutiniesontheBritishdecisiontoquit.WithouttheINAtrials and the subsequent large-scale violence and actual mutinies, there wassimplynoquestionoftheBritishleavingwhentheydid.Asstated,weidentifiedthekeyBritishdecisionmakersas:

Prime Minister Lord Clement Attlee who was then also the DefenceMinister. He was the critical and overall the key decisionmaker. So fartherewasonlyasecondorthird-handreportofwhathehadsaidinprivatetoJusticeP.B.Chakraborty,theactingGovernorofWestBengalin1956.Nowwe have examined awhole body of his correspondence during thatcritical period, which has been duly preserved in the Transfer of PowerarchivesinLondon.Wenowhaveclearprimaryevidenceandanauthenticpaper trail thatunravels the entiremysteryand laysbare the essentialsoftheBritishprocessofdecisionmaking.Thisissoliddocumentaryevidencethatneedsnowtobemeticulouslyanalysed.ThisclinchingevidenceleavesnoscopefordoubtatallandconclusivelyestablishesmythesisthatitwasprimarilytheINAtrialsthatprecipitatedtheBritishwithdrawal.OthertwokeydecisionmakersinLondonwereSecretaryofStateforIndiaandBurmaLordPethick-LawrenceandtoalesserextentLordG.H.Hall,Secretary of State for Colonies. The Secretary of State, Lord Pethick-Lawrence,didnotinitiallyagreewithWavell’sappreciation.Hefeltthatitwas still possible to hold on to India, and proposed further Europeanrecruitment toaugmentBritishtroopsinIndia.Hisgratuitousadvicewas,however,rapidlyovertakenbyevents.The key Decision makers in India were of course the two highlyexperienced India hands—LordWavell theViceroy and FdMshl ClaudeAuchinleck, theCommander-in-Chief.Theirwritten reports and above allthe clinical military Appreciation of the Situation by Auchinleck in end

November1945,provideclinchingandoverridingdocumentaryevidenceofthe massive psychological impact of the INA trials on the final Britishdecisiontoquit.TheirwrittenreportsconstitutethemostclinchingproofoftheoverwhelmingimpactoftheINAontheBritishdecisiontoQuit.The reportsof theGovernorsof theProvincesprovideclinchingevidenceoftheoverwhelmingimpactoftheseINAtrialsinthevariouspartsofIndia.All the Governors were unanimous that the impact cut across caste andcommunity lines, across urban and rural terrains and was all-India incharacter and impact. They have all echoed that the reliability of Indiantroops to act against their ownpeople,was nowa serious questionmark.Casey of Bengal graphically described how mobs in Calcutta were notdeterredbysmallarmsfirebutwhenfiredupon,justwaveredabitandthenmovedontoresumetheattack.Lastly we have the clinical and objective report of the Director ofIntelligence (IB) in the wake of the INA trials. In a measured andunderstated tone, it sets out clearly that the post INA trials situation hadcreatedaseriousinternalsecurityproblemandhighlightsthatitsimpactontheIndianArmysimplycouldnotbeignored.TheINAwasgrowingmorepopular by the day and any action against them would lead to seriousconsequences. Indianservingsoldiers inuniformwereattendingmeetingsto felicitate the returning INA soldiers who were now being universallytreatedasnationalheroes.To thisexhaustive listweneed toadd theMilitary Intelligence reportsoftheArmy.ThesewerepersonallyseenbyLtGenS.N.Sinha,whowasthefirst IndianOfficer to be posted to theMilitaryOperationsDirectorate in1947. Thiswas, till then, the exclusive preserve ofwhite British officersonly.TheDirector,MilitaryIntelligencehadclearlyconcludedin1945thatIndian troops could no longer be relied upon to act against their owncountrymen.GenSinhahadalsoseentheContingencyplansforflyingandshipping in five divisions worth of White troops in case of large-scalemutinies and Op Gandola, the plan to evacuate all white military andcivilianpersonnelandtheirfamiliesincaseofageneraluprising.Theseareallindicativeofageneralairofalarmandpanicandforebodingaboutwhatwas to come. These clearly highlight the massive and decisivepsychologicalimpactoftheINAandBoseontheBritishdecisionmakers.

TheRoleofMahatmaGandhiWhatthenwastheroleofMahatmaGandhiintheBritishdecisiontoquitIndia?Muchdependsuponhowthisquestionisframed.JusticeP.B.Chakrabortyhadframed thisquestion in rather straightforward terms toLordClementAttlee in1956.He had contextualised it in terms of the abject failure of theQuit IndiaMovement in 1942.Why then did the British have to leave in such a tearinghurryin1947?Attleehadansweredtruthfullythatitwastheviolencegeneratedby the INA trials as also the impact it had on the loyalty of the native Indiantroops,andthemutiniesintheRoyalIndianNavy,etc.,whichforcedtheBritishtoleave.Asalegalluminary,theChiefJusticepersistedandaskedanotherbluntquestion—what, then,wasMahatmaGandhi’s non-violentmovement’s role inthe British decision to quit. Attlee’s cryptic and sarcastic response is nowfamous all over the socialmedia—he saidAttlee’s face twisted in a sarcasticsmileashespeltouttheword“minimal.”

It is an emphatic and clear-cut response. The only problem is thesecondary/tertiarynatureofthisevidence.JusticeChakrabortytoldthistoR.C.Majumdarthehistorian,aboutwhatAttleehadsaidtohim.Assuchtheabsoluteveracityofthisstatementcouldbequestionedbyscepticalscholars,thoughbothinterlocutorsweremenofunimpeachable integrity.This,however,couldneveramount to be the sole evidence to settle such a vital debate about the historicoriginsofthepost-colonialstateinIndia.

ThatiswhyinthisbooktroublehasbeentakentoexamineawholebodyofdocumentaryevidencecontainedinthedeclassifiedTransferofPowerArchives.There is a wealth of material there, first-hand evidence that is clinching andincontrovertibleandwhichsettlesthisdebateconclusively,onceandforall.

However,intheinterestsofobjectivityandfairplaywemayhavetoreframethe original question. What was Mahatma Gandhi’s role in the FreedomStruggleofIndia? (This isdifferentfromquestionsaboutfinaloutcome.)Herewe can truthfully answer—a great deal. He was a saintly figure whometamorphosed the Congress from an effete debating club of rich lawyerspetitioning theQueenonbehalf of her uneducated Indian subjects, against theminions who ran her empire. Gandhi came at a critical turning point in theFreedomStruggle—themassacreofJallianwalaBaghin(1919).

The British racial arrogance was at its peak then. The highly efficientIntelligence Bureau had foiled each and every violent revolutionary plot to

overthrowtheempire.Indiahadbeenkeptpeacefulandincidentfreeduringthewar even as 1.3million troops had been sent out to fight the war in Europe,MiddleEastandAfrica.TherehadbeenafearthatiftheIndianarmywastakenout in substantial numbers, it could result in large-scale violence erupting inIndia.Nothingof that sorthappened. Indiansocietyhadbeenmost thoroughlydividedoncasteandcreedlinesandtheveryideaofIndiahadbeendestroyed.TherewasthereforenoneedfortheBritishtoshowanygratitudetothenativesfor theirsupportduring thewar.Thenativeshadnobloodychoiceand if theyhadanynotionsof anon-whitepeoplegettingDominion status, thatwouldberuthlesslyextinguished.

Gandhicameupon thesceneat thiscritical juncture.Hestudied the IndiansituationandtransformedtheelitistCongressintoamass-basedorganisationthatreached out to the grass-roots level in the villages of Indiawhere 70%of theIndianpopulation lived.Thismassmobilisationwasamassiveand impressiveexercise that revived the idea of a grass-roots India that lived largely in hervillagesthatwerepoorandimpoverished.GandhirealisedthattheIndianswereinnopositionthentoofferarmedresistance.Sohemadeavirtueoutofnecessityandchosenon-violence,non-cooperationandcivildisobedienceashismethods.He gave the largelyUrban Indian freedommovement a rural and egalitarianbias.Gandhi’smovementattractedmanybrilliantandsincereIndiansofthatera—like Nehru, Azad, Patel and Bose. Unfortunately, even this non-violentstrugglewascarriedoutinfitsandstarts.Gandhiwasverycarefulnottocrossthe British tolerance thresholds and he personally intervened to prevent thismovementfromturningviolent.Thatwasthefailingofthismassmovement.ItcouldnevergeneratecumulativepressureofanorderthatwouldforcetheRajtocapitulate.

BritishManipulationoftheGandhianMovementThe pity is that the British strategists soon realised the non-decisive and thelargely ineffectual nature of this non-violent movement. It could bedisconcerting and disruptive but could never generate the sustained level ofpressurethatcouldunraveltheempire.Onthecontraryitpreventedtheoutbreakof large-scaleviolence.Gandhihimselfwouldensure thatashewasgenuinelywedded to non-violence.TheBritish nowvery cleverlymanipulated thismassmovementbyactuallygivinganinordinatemediabuild-uptoMahatmaGandhiandhis uniquebut ineffectualmovement.Thiswas a threat they couldhandleand as such they hugely preferred it over violent revolutionary movements

which posed a very real danger to theRaj.Ahinsa kept themasses timid andnon-violent. In that condition the Raj could deal with such a movement fordecades,ifnotacenturyormore.InactualpracticeNelsonMandelacarriedoutpreciselysuchapeacefulmassmovement inSouthAfrica. It took thatcountrytill April 1994 to get their freedom. In actual fact, the non-violent exampleactuallydelayedtheonsetoffreedomintheEuropeancoloniesinAfrica.

It was Bose who saw this with astonishing clarity. The effete non-violentmovement could continue forever without achieving any concrete results. Itcouldsputteronineffectuallyfordecades.TheBritishsuccessinIndiawasoneof Nativisation. They had used an Indian army of natives to establish andmaintaintheirempireinIndia.ThekeycentreofgravityoftheempirewastheloyaltyofthenativesepoytotheRaj.Ifthiswassubverted,theRajwouldcometoan immediateand ingloriousend.Gandhi initiallyhadBosehoundedoutoftheCongressforhisrebellion.ButBosewasright.Themostopportunetimeforlaunching a violent liberation movement was the war itself. Britain now hadpowerfulenemiespreparedtohelpsuchaviolentmovementtoemergeinIndia.TheJapanesehadgiventhisseriousthoughtandultimatelyhelpedtocreatetheINA. Just two years after driving Bose out, Gandhi veered very close to theviewsofBose,especiallyas to timings.Thesaintcould stillnotbringhimselfaroundtoendorsehisviolentmethods.GandhiforcedtheCongresstolaunchthefinalQuitIndiaMovementevenwhilethewarwason.LoyalistsoftheempirelikeNehruandAzaddifferedwithGandhibutwereoverruled.Thenon-violentmovementwassnuffedoutbytheBritishwhomobilised57whitebattalionstodo this. The Congress leadership was rounded up and jailed and blanked outentirely from the print and radio media of that era using draconian wartimecensorshipofthenews.Intermsoftiming,hadtheJapaneseArmyandtheINAattacked then (in1942-43) theywouldhavemademincemeatof the empire inIndia.

ForoncethetraditionallyboldJapanesemilitaryhierarchyhadlostitsnerveandditheredfatally.WhentheydidgetdowntoattackingIndiain1944,itwasaclassiccaseoftoolittle,toolate.Themiracleisthatdespitetheoddstheyalmostpulleditoff.ThebattlesofImphal-Kohimawereoneofthemostbitterlyfoughtbattlesofthatwar.Butintheenditculminatedinamajordefeatandmiseryforthe combined Japanese-INA forces. As we have seen, precisely as Bose hadpredicted,theINAlostthebattlesbutwonthewarforIndianindependence.Wehaveseenindetail justhow.TheoutcomeoftheIndianwarfor independence,Bosehadsaid,wouldbeindependentoftheoutcomeoftheSecondWorldWar.

Thatwaspreciselyhowitcameabout.Bosethusprovedtobeoneofthegreatstrategicthinkersandpractionersofthatera.Hisinsightwasremarkableforitspenetrationintotheessenceoftheproblemandhisanlaysisalwaysprovedtobeobjective and firmly rooted in reality. The solutions he advocated deliveredconcreteresults.

BothBoseandGandhiwerehighlycharismatic leaderswithadeep insightinto the Indian psyche. Gandhi was a great organiser who created anegalitarian,rural,mass-basedmovementforfreedominIndia.Howeverintermsofachievingoutcomes, thismovementfailedtodelivertillBoseintervenedandredirected it into the classical violent channels. The modern nation state ispremiseduponthemonopolyofviolenceandBosecreatedtheinstrumentalitiesfor aviolentoverthrowof theempire in the formof the INA. Itsuseby itselfgalvanisedIndiaandawokeitsdormantsenseofself.ItwasBoseandhisviolentmethods that ultimately liberated India in 1947 itself—just twoyears after theSecond World War which the British had finally won. The war left Britainexhaustedandspentanddrainedofthewilltomaintainitsempire,especiallyinthefaceofmassivearmedrebellion.Bose’sstellarcontributionwastomakethatthreatbecomeveryrealandcredible.TheINAtrialsshooktheempireinIndia.Themutinies that followed in February 1946 sounded the death knell of thatempire. In the end, the same Armies that had subjugated the Indian people,helpedtoget themtheirfreedom.Letusnotforget itwastheIndianarmythathadrevoltedin1857asalsoin1946(RoyalIndianNavy).ThepitywasthattheBritish succeeded in transferring power to their handpicked set ofAngloPhilebrownsahibswhoremainedbeholdentotheRajforagoodhalfcenturyaftertheBritishhadleft.

TheNehruvianNarrativeTheCongresspartyhadelectedSardarPatelas thefirstPrimeMinisteroffreeIndia.Howeverinasurprisingactofwilfulness,Gandhiensuredthatthemantlewas given to Nehru—an avowed Anglophile who was so very close toMountbattenandhiswife.Nehruclearlyhadaproblemofpolitical legitimacy.ThevotinghadgoneinSardarPatel’sfavour.ButevenmorethanPatel,Nehruwaswrestlingwith theGhost ofBose. Thewhole nation knew that India hadfinallywonitsfreedomonlybecauseofBoseandtheINA,26,000ofwhomhadlaiddowntheirlives.Suchascaleofcasualtieshardlyjustifiedthefictionofanentirely non-violentmovement for freedom.Both the departingBritish empireandthenewNehruviandispensation,nowworkedenergeticallytocraftabrandnewnarrative—Indiahadwonitsfreedomsolelyandonlyduetothenon-violentFreedomMovement of theNehru-Gandhi dispensation. Force or violence hadsimplynoroletoplayingettingIndiaherfreedom.TheBritishempirealsotom-tommed the fiction of a non-violent struggle so that the remaining colonies inAfricawouldemulatethisbrilliantnewmodel.Asasadoutcome,thefreedomofthe African colonies was inordinately delayed by a couple of decades. TheBritishRajnowacquiredanew-foundhaloof liberalismandbenevolence thatmaskeditstrueexploitativeandrapaciouscharacter.

Hence Nehru’s political legitimacy stemmed from the fiction of this non-violentstruggle.Tosupportthisfictionalnarrative,NehrunowputontheairsofagreatPacifistwhoabhorredwarandviolenceanddidnotevenwantIndia tohaveanArmy.Heonlyneeded thePolice!Fortunately for India, the farmorerealisticSardarPatelpreventedNehrufromactualisinghispacifistfancies.Thetragedy was he passed away too soon. A whole host of court historians, likeBipinChandraandtherest,weredraftedtodismisstheroleofBoseandhisINAandclaimall credit for India’s freedomsolelyvia the agencyof aunique andone of its kind freedom struggle that was absolutely non-violent in character.Therealleadershipofthis,one-of-a-kindfreedomstruggle,ofcoursehadcomefromGandhi andNehrualoneandhence this familywasnowdestined to ruleIndiaforever.

ThesumandsubstanceofthisnewnarrativespeltoutbyBipinChandraandthe Court Historians is as follows: that because of the continual non-violentstruggle of the Congress over the past several decades, a kind of momentumtowards freedom had been built up and what was germane or critical, was

simplytheprocessofnegotiations,whichGandhiandNehruseemedtolead.SoBose and the INAhadnothing todowith IndiagettingherFreedom. itwas afailednon-event,notevenafootnoteintherealFreedomStruggleledbyGandhiandNehruthatwasentirelypeaceful.

This thesis merits a specific examination and refutation. I would list thefollowingpointsagainstit:

Thenon-violentFreedomstrugglehadproceededinfitsandstarts.Itspeaksorspurtscamein1930and1942withlargegapsofinactivityin-between.Hencenosustainedmomentumwasgeneratedasalleged.Thefinal,culminationpointofthismovementcameinAugust1942whenthe British mobilised some 57 battalions of White troops to crush itdecisively. The entire Congress leadership was jailed and nothing washeard thereafter of them till 1944 when the Japanese invasion had beenrepelledandtheycouldbesafelyreleased.WhenGandhi emerged fromprison in 1944 hewas largely a spent forceand a man broken in health and spirit. He presented many legalisticargumentsthentostatethathewasnolongerinchargeoftheCongressandcould take no decisions. He said he had no authority to start the civildisobediencemovementandwouldsupportthewareffort.Heinfactaskedhisfollowerswhohadgoneundergroundtocomeoutofhiding.Thiswasasadadmissionofdefeatandtotalcapitulation.Churchill lost the elections immediately after the war. The LabourGovernment however had no intentions of giving up the empire. LordClementAttlee, thenewPrimeMinisterhadbeenofficiatingasPMfor awhilein1942inthewartimeCoalitionGovernment,andhadgivenordersfortheviciouscrackdownontheQuitIndiaMovementandproscribingoftheCongressand jailingof its entire top leadership.Hewasnobleeding-heartliberal,asfarastheempirewasconcerned.Thus all the so-called “momentum towards Freedom” had clearly andcompletely petered out by the end of the War. The court historians arebeing less than objective and honest when they talk of the inexorablemomentumbuiltupbythelong-windednon-violentmovement.However,thingschangedsuddenlyandabruptlyduetotheINAtrialswhichgalvanisedthewholeofIndia.Seriousdisturbancesbrokeout in thewakeof these trials in November-December 1945. These greatly alarmed theBritish military and political leadership in India. Both Wavell and

Auchinleck, seasoned India hands, realised the gravity of the change thathad taken place. The Indian troops could no longer be counted upon todefendthetotteringRaj.Intheirabsence,theRajjustdidnothaveadequateBritishtroopstoholdontoeventhemaintownsandcitiesofIndiaandtheairports from which they could be flown out in an emergency of awidespread revolt. They asked that a clear-cut decision to Quit India beformulatedandmadeknown toall. In simple terms theyasked theRaj toQuitwithgraceasitwasnowallover.Nativisationhadnowfailed.The simple fact is that the imperialists in London initially did not agreewiththisapparentlydefeatistargument.Thenon-violentmovementhadputnosuchpressureonNewDelhiorLondon.Evenlarge-scaleviolentprotestsbythecivilianpopulationinthewakeoftheINAtrialsfailedtomovethemsufficiently.LordPethick-LawrencedisagreedwithWavellandAuchinleckandasked forenrolmentofEuropean troops tohangon to India. itwasacivilian’spipedreamandthesoldiersrightlyscoffedatit.Howlongwouldit take London to recruit and train this brand new army of Europeanmercenariestofightthebeastlynatives?FromwhereinEuropewouldthisArmyofmercenariesberecruited?Whowouldpayforthem?ThewholeofEuropewasdevastatedbythewarandsickandtiredoffightingthen.TheBritishtroopsthemselvesweredrainedandexhaustedaftersixyearsofwarand in no mood or shape to re-conquer India in the face of doggedresistancebythe2.5milliondemobilisedIndiansoldiers.Sotheargumentsofsustainedpressurebuiltupbythenon-violentmovementaresimplyandpurelyunteneble.HerewasaRaj thatwasunwilling tocapitulateeven inthewakeofwidespreadviolenceinIndia.ThefinaltippingpointinLondoncamewiththeNavalMutinyofFebruary1946.ItclearlyhighlightedtoLondonthattheirGeneralsonthegroundinIndiawerenotimaginingthingsandconjuringuphorrorscenariosthatwereunrealistic or alarmist. Theywere now struck by the coldwater of harshrealityandtheyfinallycavedin.TheRajthrewinthetowelonlyafterthenavalmutiny.Thegreat pity is that theCongress jumped in to douse the flamesof thisNavalmutiny.Theyweretheself-styledgreatnegotiatorswhofeltthattheyhadfinallyworntheBritishRajdownbytheirsheeroratoryandnegotiatingskills!Withallthedetailsofthedecision-makingprocessinNewDelhiandLondon from1945 to1947nowavailable,wecan treat these self-servingestimatesandhighlyexaggeratedandinsufficientlycontextualclaimswith

thecontempttheydeserve.Theverysadpartishowasetofself-servingcourthistorianshaveblithelyignoredavastbodyofdocumentaryevidenceavailable in theTransferofPowerarchivesandhowtheyhavebeenallowedtogounchallengedsofar.Inthisbookwehavepresentedthatwholebodyofempiricalandirrefutableevidence thatwasavailableallalong.Wehavenot justquotedselectivelybut reproduced the entire letters and correspondence for perusal andanalysis.It is timenowtorescueourhistoryasanationstatefromaself-seeking bunch of sycophants and shameless spin-doctors still faithfullyservingtheRajanditssuccessordynasty.The arguments in this book are not emotive but empirical and based onprimaryandmostauthenticsources fromtheBritisharchives.Thesehavenot just been cited but reproduced in their entirety. We have cited thecorrespondenceandestimatesofthekeyBritishdecisionmakersofthaterathemselvestounravelthedetailsoftheprocessofdecisionmakingthatledto India becoming free.The role ofBose and INA stands out as clear asdaylightthroughthisentiresetofcorrespondence.

11

Epilogue:NationStateandNationalisminIndia

Ihadstatedattheoutsetofthisbook,thatfewnationsinhistoryhavehadtheirsense of self and identity as a civilisational nation state so comprehensivelydestroyed as India’s was. Over two centuries, the British Colonial stateundertookahighlyeffectivecampaigntoexploiteveryfaultlineinIndia’sbodypolitic—to divide and rule, to abjectly divide India on the basis of caste andcreed, religion, race and language. As Dr. Mithi Mukherjee writes: “If theBritish Empire had to survive in India… it had to destroy and dismantle allsources of Indian unity and identity—cultural, political and historical; andrendertheveryideaofIndiaasmeaningless....Tornbyinternalconflict,itwasclaimedthatIndiawasindesperateneedofaneutralandimpartialpoweratthehelm of the state to secure justice and order (or justice as order).Given thatIndiansocietywasdeeplydividedintocommunitiesinconflictwitheachother,onlyanalien,foreignpowercouldbetrustedtobeneutralandimpartial.”

Whatwasworsewas a concerted campaign to psychologically destroy thevery idea of India and impose in the minds of the subject races a congenitalsense of inferiority of civilisational values and culture. Everything Indianwasnowdeemedaslowlyandinferiorbythevictimsofthisconcertedpsychologicalwarfarecampaign,tomakethenativesfeellowdownandinferior.Thevictimsof this mass programming of subject minds led them to deeply ingrain thesecolonialnarratives.InfactMacaulaywasrecruitedbytheBritishtodestroythenative Brahmanical based system of education and replace it with a Colonialmodelwhichwouldchurnoutloyalanddevotedclerks,scribesandcooliesfortheempire.Everythingdesiornativewasautomaticallydeemedtobeinferiortowhat industrialised Great Britain had to offer. This encompassed all fields—whethercultural,politicalandhistorical,orevenintherealmofartsandcrafts.India had no tradition of high art—Indians were just craftsmen who blindlyfollowed archaic traditions and formulae by rote and could produce nothing

creativeororiginal. Itwasacivilisationalassaultofascopeandscale thathasnever been seen before. It virtually succeeded in destroying the very Indianidentity and sense of self so very comprehensively that even 70 years afterindependence, Indians remain in thrall of those pernicious colonial narrativesthatarerepeatedbythosebrownsahibhistorians.

ThusMaxMuellerwas employed by the East India company towrite thehistoryof India for thenativesandfeed themaverydeliberatesetofColonialnarratives. The Aryan invasion theory was propagated by him—to justify theimposition of foreign rule in India.TheAryans themselveswere invaders andforeignersinthisland.HowcouldtheygrudgetheBritishthesameprivilegeofinvadingandconqueringIndia?TheyfoistedracialconstructsonIndianhistorybycreatingthemythof theWhiteAryanandBlackDravidianraces—aNorth-Southracialdividethat is totallyillusoryandnotborneoutbyempiricalgene-mappingstudies.NorthandSouthoftheVindhyasIndianssharethesamesetofgenes.TheattackhasbeenontheveryideaofIndia.AskmosteducatedIndianstoday,andtheywillforcefullyassertthattherewasnonationcalledIndiabefore1947. Nationhood was a gift bestowed upon us by the British empire. In allhistorytherewasneveranentitycalledanIndiannation,notevenacivilisationalstate.ThetrenchantholdofcolonialismanditsnarrativesofinferiorityofIndianculture is borne out by the fact that almost every Indian village today has anEnglish-medium school where natives learn the English language to feelemancipated. Themost trenchant colonial narrative that has been ingrained intheIndianmindisthatIndiawasneveranationstate.Nationhoodwasimpostedfromoutsideby theempire.Thus Indiabecameanation stateonly in1947. Itwasneveroneearlier. It is thismyth thatweneed toquestion in anempiricalfashion.Henceitbecomesessentialtounderstandfirstwhatpreciselyisanationand how does it become a nation state. That is the coremyth of the colonialperiod that still has a trenchant hold upon the Indian imagination.TheBritishclaimed India was never a nation or even a civilizational state. It was acompetingcauldronofcastesandcreedsforeveratwaramongst themselves.Itneededanexternalagencytoruleandprovidejusticeandordertothecompetingcastesandcreeds.

In recent times, the leftist intellectuals have come upwith bizarre notionsabout the very concept of nation state and nationalism.A nation state, as perthem,ismerelyacollectionofnationalitieswhoarefreetocomeandgoastheyplease(ascrowdsmoveintoandoutofarailwayplatform).Whatthenaboutthenotions of territoriality and nativity that are central to the concept of a nation

state?Peoplearebornintoanationstatebyvirtueofthefactthattheywerebornon its territory. Territory is sacred and nations fight wars to defend theirboundaries.IamacitizenbecauseIamborntoparentswhowereinturncitizensof India—the aspect of nativity comes to the fore. Today the very concept ofnation and nation state are being deliberately redefined toweaken large stateslike India.Hence,at theendof thisbook, itwouldbemostessential to takealook at these very notions of nation state and nationalism as they relatespecificallytoIndia.Bosewasanardentnationalistandhelpedtocrystallisethevery ideaof a strongnation state in Indiabeyond thedivisionsof caste, creedand language.Today India is indireneed to revive its fadingnationalismandinculcate the burning patriotism of Bose and his INA, into its citizens. TheBritishcolonialregimehadpropagatedthebeliefthatIndiawasneveranation.Thisnowneedstobeanalysedandrefutedindetail.

NationalismThere is a need to clearly understand what nationalism means and what itimplies.Keytotheexistenceofnationstatesareracialmemoriesthataresharedamongst the people who constitute that state. Thus, every nation has its ownunderstandingofitsdistinctivepastthatisconveyedthroughstories,mythsandhistory. These stories and myths may not be historically accurate. The keyhowever is the trenchant strength of these shared beliefs. So, whetherhistorically accurate or otherwise, these memories contribute to theunderstandingof thepresent. It is thiscontinuityof thenarrativesbetween thepast and present that provides the nation state its key characteristic—temporaldepthandpersistenceovertime.

NationWith this as a backdrop, let us now try to definewhatwemean by the term,nation?StevenGrosby,ProfessoratClemsonUniversity,states,“Thenationisaterritorial communityof nativity.One is born intoanation.Thenation is oneamong a number of forms of kinship (e.g., family, tribe, city, state or variousethnic groups). It differs because of the greater extent of its territory but alsobecause of its relatively uniform culture that provides stability and acontinuation—overtime.”Nations have their own understandings of their distinctive past. This iswhatseparates“us” from“them”or fromahostileand threatening“non-self,” the“other.” This shared past is conveyed through stories, myths and history. InIndiawehavethenationalepicoftheMahabharata—whichtellsthestoryofacountry called Bharat and the wars that it fought over the idea of politicallegitimacyandpoliticalsystems.WhilemostIndiankingdomsweremonarchies,therewerealsoRepublicsinthatancientera.AboveallwastheconceptoftheChakravartin ruler who, like the Chinese Emperor, loosely ruled “all underheaven”andprovidedlegitimacytothenotionofanationcalledBharat.

TheJapanesenationstate,forexample,tracesitsdescenttothemythoftheworshipof theSunGoddess,Amaterasu,whose temple isat Ise.TheJapaneseEmperorissaidtohavedescendedfromtheSunGoddessandsiredtheJapaneserace. The historical accuracy of thismyth or otherwise is not germane to theissue.Whatisfarmoregermaneisthetenacityandstrengthofthesharedbeliefoverspaceandtime.

Zionism, the Jewish national movement, had as its goal the creation of aJewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews. ThoughZionismoriginatedinthenineteenthcentury,itgotanimpetuswiththeBalfourDeclaration in 1919 and the unimaginable horrors that were visited upon theJewish people in Europe during the Nazi reign which finally resulted in thecreationof thestateof Israelby theUnitedNations in1948.ThisJewishstaterepresentsacontinuationoftheancientattachmentoftheJewsandoftheJewishreligiontothehistoricalregionofPalestine.

Nations are thus formed around shared, self-designating beliefs that havesuchastructure.Theseself-designatingandsharedbeliefsarecalledcollectiveself-consciousness or a distinctive culture and tradition. This culture serves todistinguishitfromalltherest.

Nationsformedaroundthesesharedbeliefsarenotmerelyaboutadistinctivebut a spatially sharedpast.There is a spatial focus to the relationbetween theindividualswhoconstituteanation.The ideaof thenation is linked toagivengeographicspaceorexpanseofterritory.

TerritorialInstinctAt the basis of the nation state, howsoever anachronistic itmay sound, is theanimal instinct for territory. Even animals mark out their territory by scentmarkers of droppings and urination. All animals need a particular geographicspacetoliveandfeed/forageandexpressthemselves.Thebiggertheanimalthemorespaceitneedstoexpressandsustainitself.Thisterritoryinstinctisatthebasisoftheanimals’“Fight-Flight”response.Neartheperipheryofitsterritorialspace,ananimalwillflee.Atitscoreoritscentre,itwillfighttoitsdeath.Theanimalkingdomthereforeisdeeplyprogrammedgeneticallytothinkintermsofownershipofgeographicalspaceor territory.That is thebasisof the territorialinstinct thatmankind seems tohave inherited in the courseof its evolutionarydescent.Itisaprimalinstinctandaverypowerfuloneatthat.Itisthecoreofthepresent-dayconceptofnationalismandnationstates.

The termnation, therefore, refersboth to the landand itspeople.Theyareunifiedbythenotionof territoryandbirth.Thecitizensof thenationandtheirancestors were all born into this Homeland. The nation therefore is a socialrelationwithbothtemporaldepthandboundedterritory.

Thenationalconsciousnessissustainedbyrituals,symbols(flags,emblems,anthems) and a shared history. Parents transfer to their offspring not onlyphysicalgenes,butalsoculturalmemes—theculturalinheritancesfromadistantpast—theirlanguage,customs,religion,etc.,ofthelargergroup.Birthwithinitsterritory confers citizenship. It is recognised as the primary criterion for themembershipofthenation.Thenationcominglestwolinesofdescent—descentinthe territory of the nation (the Homeland concept) and genetic descent fromparents who are members of the nation. The focus of the nation is territorialdescent.Patriotismisaconsequenceofthepreoccupationwiththecontinuationoftheself,bothinitsbiologicalandculturalcomponents.Thelovethatonehasfor the nation is designated by this term “patriotism.” It is an incrediblypowerfulemotion for ithas its roots in thedeep-seated territorial instinct thatcan lead a person to fight to his or her death in the protection of the spaceidentified as an extension of the self. It has led to amazing deeds of self-sacrificial altruism as also brutalmassacres. Patriotism leads one to transcendthenarrowegoandidentifywith thefarlargerculturalconstructofthenationthat extends not only through space but also through time. One is nowidentifyingtheselfwithafar largerentity that transcends theselfandchanges

the very mode of self-centred behaviour devoted to purely preserving theorganism.Thisself-transcendenceandidentificationcanreachextremelevels.

ErnestRenan,theFrenchscholar,asksinhisessay“Whatisanation?”andanswers, “It is a coming together over time of previously distinct populationsthat have much in common. It implies a bounded, territorial community ofcustoms and laws.” The term nation implies a continuation over time of arelativelyuniformterritorialculture.Anationneedsthefollowing:

ExtensiveterritoryaAself-designatingNameA centre (a National Capital Region) with national institutions, e.g.,

monuments,temples,aParliament,aSupremeCourt,aNationalArmy,etc.AhistorythatassertsandexpressesitstemporalcontinuityRelatively uniform culture—often based on a common language, religion

andlawEach of these characteristics, however, is rarely found to be absolute or

complete.

TheNationStateThe nation now seeks to express itself through a nation state out of a direnecessitytoprotectandpreservethelivesofitsmembers.Thenation,throughitsrepresentativesandinstitutions,canacttosecureitsprotectionandpreservationin theworld. To do this, nations invent trans-individual traditions. They buildmonuments, mausoleums, museums and temples. They hold celebratory massrituals,pageantsandparades.Thereaffirmationoftraditionsanditstransmissionfrom one generation to the next necessarily involves modification to thetradition.Nevertheless,therehastobeacoreofcontinuitythatimpartstemporaldepth to the idea of the nation state. Legal developments support theestablishment of a territorial relation of the nation and this must invariablyincludetheformationofaNationalArmy.

Anation therefore isdefinedas a relativelyextensive territorial relationofnativity. The purpose of the state is – as a territorially extensive yet boundedsocial-relation for the generation, transmission and sustenance of life.When itbecomes a nation state, it is also a structure for the protection of life. Themodern nation state that emerged after the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 ischaracterised by a total monopolisation of violence within its territory. It ischaracterisedbyatriangularrelationshipbetweenthestate,itsuniformedArmedandPoliceForces(thathave thesole right tobearandusearms)andawhollydisarmed population. All modern nation states must thoroughly disarm theirpopulationtoenforceamonopolyofviolence.Thisisaprimalconditionforthecomingintobeingofanationstate.

Britain for example has an Armed Forces Covenant that sets out therelationship between the nation, the government and the armed forces. Itrecognises that the whole nation has a moral obligation to members of thearmedforcesandtheirfamilies,anditestablisheshowtheyshouldexpecttobetreated.

Thecovenant’stwoprinciplesarethat:the armed forces community should not face disadvantage compared toothercitizensintheprovisionofpublicandcommercialservicesspecialconsiderationisappropriateinsomecases,especiallyforthosewhohavegivenmost,suchastheinjuredandthebereaved.

The primary characteristic of a nation state is its complete monopoly on

violence. It has to disarm all its people and retain the capability for violencesolely for themembers of its uniformedArmed forces and police forceswhoalonearepermittedtobeararms—fortheprotectionofthestateanditspeople.Nation states likePakistan, on theother hand, that indiscriminatelyweaponisetheirsocietiescouldunravelasadirectconsequenceofthenegationofthisvitalprincipleofnationstate formation.Theprobleminpostcolonial Indiawas theinsistenceofitselitethatIndiaasanationhadbeenformedbythetoolsofsoftpower.Assuchithadnoneedtomonopoliseviolence.Itdidnotneedanyarmedforces!Itdidnotbelieveinviolence!

ThustheNehruvianconstructofnationhoodflewstronglyinthefaceoftheWestphalian model of nation states that has been in vogue since 1648 (TheTreaty ofWestphalia). Sardar Patel preventedNehru from disarming the newbornnationstate.TragicallyhediedsoonafterIndiabecameaRepublic.

Fortunatelytheveryreal threatfromPakistanandthehumiliatingdefeatof1962 by the Chinese forced India to rearm and expand its military forces. Anation states prime duty is to defend itself and its people. If a nation statedisarmsitself–itwillceasetobeanation.Thatpreciselyhasbeentheverybaneof India historically.A refusal to pay attention to itsmilitary. This has led tosuccessivedefeatsandenslavement.InsuchascenarioGandhianNon-violencecanprovetobeextremelydangerous.

HomelandGiven its vast cultural diversity andheterogeneity,what suits India best is theconstruct of the nation as Homeland, and by extension theFatherland/Motherland.Itishomelandorterritoryintowhicheachofusisborn—whether Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian, or belonging to any faith orbelongingtonofaithatall,isnotgermanetotheconceptofnationalism.Birthina territory, toparentswhowerebornhere,qualifiesone for thecitizenshiporbelongingtoaHomeland.Theimageoftheterritorybecomesaconceptualpointofreferenceinthetrans-individualmeaningofrelationswithinthenation.Thisimage is not only spatially expansive but is also temporally deep. Theterritorially extensive homeland of the nation is viewed as a home. It too is astructureofanxietyreducing—familiarity.

Thusapartof theselfhasbeenput into thespatialstructures(the familialhome or one’s national homeland). These are perceived to be locationalframeworksfortheverygenerationandtransmissionoflife.Forthefamily,theprimary focus is the parents but for the nation it is the territory. Spatialattachment to the family home can be quite pronounced, especially when afamilyhas lived in thesamehomeforgenerationsandwhenone’sparentsareburied/crematedintheimmediateareaofthehome.Inthelattercase,apartofoneself,thosewhoimpartedlifetoyou,hasliterallybeenputintotheinanimateland. This deeply strengthens the territorial instinct and enhances the culturalsignificance of the spatial territory of the nation to its citizens.Most patrioticpoemsanddittiescitethe“ashesofthefathersandthetemplesoftheGods”asanobjectofreverence.TheJapaneseworshiptheancestorsandbyextension,thelandtheypeopled.Thelandisdeemedanextensionoftheselfandislifegivingandsustaining.NotonlydoestheHomelandsustainphysicallifeandnature,italso sustains the cultural memes and habits of nurture and ensures theirtransmissionandcontinuationovertime.

IsIndiaaNation?Thisbringsus to theseminalquestion—isIndiaanation?There isaviewthatthere was really no historical nation like India and it is only the British whoforged itsdiverseandsquabblingpopulations intoaNationState thatemergedonlyin1947.Thisisoneofthemosttrenchantcolonialnarrativeshandeddowntous,andeven70years laterwehavenotbeenable togrowoutof this thesis

andmindset.Theneed for foreign rulewas justifiedon the solebasisof Indiabeing a combustiblemixof somany races, reigions, ethnicities, castes, creedsand languages.The tame acceptanceof foreign rule stemmed froman a prioriacceptanceof thedeeplyfracturedanddividednatureof theIndianpolity.TheBritishhad,over twocenturies, succeeded indestroying thevery Ideaof Indiaitself.

In India, this remarkable continuity over time, however, spans over fivemillennia.EightmillenniumsifwegobythelatestcarbondatingofRakhigandAarhanaIthassurvivedrepeatedinvasionsandcolonialcampaignstostampoutthe very idea of India. The very concerted colonial campaign to eradicate thepan-Indian identity, failed to prevent the re-emergence of the nation state inIndia.India,asastate,however,isyettorecoverfullyfromtheterriblydivisivestrategies inflictedupon it during the twocenturies longcolonial era.A largenumberofeducatedIndiansstillsubscribe to thecolonialhypothesis that Indiawasneveranationstate.TheyaverthatonlytheBritishEmpirehadweldedthewarringcastesandclansintoagovernableentity.Thisis testimonytotheverysuccessful British colonial establishments attempt to destroy the very idea ofIndia and to reduce it to a welter of castes, creeds, tribes and linguisticcommunities.

This colonial construct needs to be contested strongly. The idea of thenation, actually, has deep roots in India. The Indian civilisation is the oldestliving civilisation on the face of this earth. The threads of continuity can betracedbacktothesealsoftheIndusvalleycivilisationthatdepictaprotoShivainaYogicpostureofmeditation.Surroundedbyanimals,hecanberecognisedas the Pashupatinath—the Lord of animals, or the Shiva of today, who isconsidered the archetypal Yogi. There are the ancient Vedas, thousands ofexquisitehymns thatwerememorisedandpassedonorally fromgeneration togeneration for over a thousand years. It was the most incredible feat of thepreservation of collectivememories in any culture. The last of theVedas, theAtharvaVeda,clearlyspeaksoftheRashtraornation.Thereare,inaddition,theepicsofRamayanaandMahabharata,thatstillexerciseapowerfulholduponthecollectiveimaginationoftheIndianpeople.TheseepicsdescribeanddemarcatethegeographicandculturalspaceoftheIndiansubcontinent.Theyhaveaself-designatingnamefor thisnation.Itwascalled“Bharat,”anamethathascomedown to us even today.Till this day, this self-designating name is used in allimportantHindu rituals. JambuDweepe Bharat Khande is an incantation thatsituatestheperformeroftheHinduritualsintheworldislandofJambuDweep

(Asia)andtheterritoryofanationcalledBharat.TheproblemintheIndiancontextis,thatthiscivilisationalandculturalunity

hasveryrarelybeentransformedintopoliticalunification.Inthese5000years,the entire territory of India was unified only thrice for three episodes thatroughlylastedsometwocenturieseach.Theseweretheunificationseffectedbythe South Asian empires of the Mauryas, the Mughals and the British. Thepresent IndianRepublic is the successor entity of the British Empire, albeit apartitioned(trifurcated)successor.Therewereproblemswiththelonginterludesofbreak-upanddisarray that came in-between theunificationsof theempires.Despite this, the ideaofIndia(Bharat)and theIndiccivilisationhoweverhavebeenanundeniablehistoricalfact.ThetemporalcontinuityoftheideaofIndiaisspatial as well as over long periods of time stretching into aeons. There is astreamofculturalcontinuityoverspaceandtimethatisremarkableforitsextentandduration.Indiaisacivilisationalstate,evenlikeChina.

TheMahabharatatalksofwarriorsfromAssamandNagaland(Gatokkatchisa Naga warrior and Bhagadatta is a king of Assamwho is the best Elephantwarrior in thewhole country), as also fromAfghanistan (Gandhara),Mathura,Maghada,Kuru,Panchala,KambojandVangadesha (present-dayBengal)andmany other provinces of present-day India. ThusKautilya, a Brahmin scholarreputedly from South India (Kerela), was the National Security Advisor ofChandragupta Maurya, the first emperor, who founded the Mauryan Empirefrom Pataliputra in East India. The Adi Shankaracharya best highlighted thisculturalunityintheseventhcenturyAD,whenheconstructedfourmonasteriesinthefourremotecornersofIndia(inallfourcardinaldirections).Interestingly,to highlight the unity of the idea of India, he appointed abbots to thesemonasteries from diametrically opposite areas/regions of India. Thus an abbotfromNorth India presided over themonastery in South India (Kanchipuram),andonefromtheWestintheEastcoastmonasteryatPuri.Similarly,theabbotattheBadrinathDhamintheNorthisalwayschosenfromSouthIndia.TheAdiShankaracharya himself came from the deep South, from the state of Kerala.Theseweredeliberateattempts tohighlight thedeepculturalunityof theIndiccivilisationanditsremarkablecontinuityoverspaceandtime.

Indiahasbeenaculturalmeltingpot,alandofsynthesis.Countlessracesandtribes have poured from all over Asia into its fertile plains. Whatever theirorigins, theycameto thisvasthomeland inwaveafterwave,andsettleddownhere.Indiabecametheir“Homeland”anditistheconceptofthisHomelandthatmakes India a nation, despite its bewildering diversity of languages, races,

religionsandtribes.Thecommonpoolofmemoriesisspatiallysharedacrosstheculturalandtemporalextentof theIndiansubcontinent.WhatdefinestheIndiccivilisationisitswonderfulassimilativeabilitytosynthesisediversestrandsintoacultureofunitythatstillmanagestopreservethediversity.

Therewas,however,onesignificantdeparturefromthishomelandtradition.TheBritishEmpirewas runbyaEuropean race that refused to settledown inIndia permanently and become a part of this Homeland. To overcome theforeignnessandexteriorityof their rule, theypropagatedan insidious ideologythatsoughttodestroytheveryideaofIndia.TheyclaimedthatIndiahadneverbeenanationand that itsbadlydividedpeoplewere somuchatwarwithoneanotherthatonlyaForeignpowercouldbeimpartialandobjectiveandprovideImperial justiceandfairplay to itswarringpopulations.For twocenturies, theBritishEmpireexpendeditstremendousenergiesincreatingandwideningmajorfaultlines in theIndianbodypolitik.They justifiedforeignrule in Indiaon thepremise that Indiawas never a nation but a huge cauldron of disparate races,castes and ethnicities, forever at war with one another. Such a heterogeneouspopulation was incapable of ruling itself. One or two pernicious practices insome sections of society like child marriage, sati, etc., and territorial spatsbetweencompetingfiefdomswerehighlightedtojustifythistheorythatonlyanexternalpowercouldprovideimperialjusticetothewarringreligions,castesandtribes of India.Only external rule could be impartial and objective and hencejust.ThuswaspropagatedaconceptofImperialJusticeasthecornerstoneofthecolonialempirethatwasinherentlyextrinsic,extractiveandhugelyexploitative.Over a period of almost two centuries, the victims of this colonial narrativecompletely and thoroughly internalised this pernicious discourse of inferiorityand divisiveness. India, a prosperous land of contented people and plentitude,wasnowplaguedby famines. Its self-sufficient political economywaswilfulydestroyedbythecolonisersbyplunder,efficientextractionoflootanddumpingofitsownindustrialisedgoodsinthesecaptivemarkets.

No other nation state in recent history has ever been subjected to twocenturies of such a concerted cultural assault, designed to destroy its self-consciousnessofitselfasanation.Noothernationstatehaseverbeensubjecttosuchaconcertedassaultupontheveryfundamentalideaofitsbeingandhadtheconsiderableenergiesofanempireexpendedprimarilytodivideandsplinteritspopulation along the faultlines of religion, caste, tribe and language. Thecolonial administration did everything in its power to divide and fracture thepopulation;encouragecompetinggroupstofightforBritishpatronage,humiliate

the natives and instil in them a deep feeling of inferiority about their ownheritageandculture.TheBritishattemptwastoeffectivelydestroytheveryideaof India and make sure that after the great uprising of 1857, its diversepopulationswouldneveragainunitetothreatenthecolonialholdoftheBritishEmpire. Despite all their efforts to prevent it, however, this is preciselywhathappenedintheend.

There were three distinct strands in the freedom struggle of India. TheAnglophileIndianelitehadbegunthefreedomstruggleinaveryeffetewaybyappealingtoImperialJustice—pleadingandputtinguppetitionsandmemorandatotheQueenEmpressforameasureofautonomyorhomerule.TheyconsideredthemselvesasloyalsubjectsoftheEmpireandpetitionedthequeenagainsttheirlocalcolonial rulers.Even this request forHomeRuleorDominionstatuswasturned down on racist grounds. India participated enthusiastically in the FirstWorldWar, in the fond hope of earningBritish gratitude.What it got insteadwastheracistmassacreofJallianwalaBaghinAmritsar.This, justayearafterthewar,inwhich1.3millionIndianshadparticipatedandsome72,000hadlaiddowntheirlives.ThiswasacriticalturningpointinIndia’sFreedomStruggle.

MahatmaGandhiappearedonthesceneatthisstageandcarriedoutamassmobilisationof the Indianpeasantry.Thiswasamovementofnon-cooperationwith the British rulers.How could they rule the people of Indiawithout theirconsent? He asked the people of India to boycott British goods. This massmobilisation shook the British. Gandhi however kept it non-violent, and theBritishsoonfoundnon-violencetobeentirelywithintheirtolerancethresholds.In fact, theyeven tacitlyencouraged thisstrainof the freedomstruggle.Whilepractisingdemocracyathome,theycouldnotallowthemselvestobeseenasnotencouragingitintheircolonies.

ThethirdstrandofthisstrugglewastheviolenceoftheRevolutionarieslikeBhagat Singh and Chandra Shekhar Azad. This worried the British and theywere ruthless in its suppression.What finally led to the eclipse of the BritishEmpireinIndia,however,wastheviolenceofNetajiSubhashChandraBoseandhis Indian National Army (INA). Though it lost the battles of Imphal andKohima,itwontheWarforIndia’sIndependencebyinstigatingmassivearmedrebellion in the Indian Armed Forces. The military men of the INA and theregular armed forces were however rapidly marginalised, by a set ofcollaboratorsandclosetAnglophiles,aswasMahatmaGandhi.

AbenignmovementledbyAnglophilelawyers,mostofwhomhadstudiedlawinBritain,tookchargeinNewDelhi.TheymodelledtheIndianConstitution

ontheBritishIndiaActof1935andmadesocialJusticetheforemostprincipleenshrinedintheIndianConstitution.Itwasathinlydisguisedideagraftedfromthe concept of Imperial Justice as the cornerstoneof the empire.The amazingfacthowever is thatevenafter twocenturiesofabject racialhumiliationandamostconcertedattemptbytheBritishEmpiretostampouttheveryideaofIndia—itresurfacedstrongly in theFreedomStruggle,andby1947,Indiawasonceagain a free nation state. Strong nationalist leaders like Sardar Patel moveddecisivelytoforcetheIndianprincelystatestomergewithIndiaandthuscreateacoherentandcontiguous,territorialnationstate.

Proto-NationsandModernNationsAshighlightedearlier, thecaseofIndiaasanationisunique.Noothernationhas been subjected to such a sustained cultural assault to destroy its identity.Thiscolonialassaultwasall-pervasive.Itusedthetoolsofgovernancebywayofcensus exercises to highlight caste differences; it created separate electoratesfor religious groups and then created the scheduled castes and tribes. It alsoincludedtheverysystemofeducationthatwasmouldedtoshapetheattitudesoftheIndiansubjectsasalsoinartandculturetohighlighttheso-calledcongenitalinferiority of the Indic civilisation, and its constantlywarring conglomerate ofcastesandcreeds.PavanK.Varmawritesin“BecomingIndian:theUnfinishedRevolutionofCulture&Identity,”“Colonialismwassuchadeeplydislocatingeventbecauseitscritiquewasinternalisedbyitsvictims…Insuchaprocess,…anentirecultureattemptstoreinterpretitselfintermsthatwillsomehowwinthedominantoutsiders’ (colonisers’)approval.They finallyendupascaricatures,divorcedfromtheirownculturalmilieuandperpetuallyalone—inspiteoftheirbesteffortsatemulation(oftheircolonisers).”

Britisheducationists likeMacaulayhadensuredthat thecolonisationof theIndian mind was so thorough and complete that over seven decades afterindependence, the dominant colonial narrative of imperial justice and inducedcivilisationalinferiority,stillhauntstheIndiannarrative.Underthecloakofleft-wingliberalism,theentireintellectualdiscourseinIndiaisstillpremisedaroundthecolonialanchorof Imperial Justice. It refuses tosee Indiaasanationstateandcontinuestoemphasisethedisruptivediscourseofcasteandcreedtodivideand fragment the pan-Indian identity.This is a crass attempt to perpetuate thecolonial legacyofdivideandrule. Itscentralconstruct is that Indiansociety isdeeplydividedandfractured.

The British were finally forced to leave because escalating revolts in theBritishIndianArmedForcesmadeitimpossibleforthemtocontinuetogovernIndia.Theyleftfinally,butthecolonialnarrativethattheyleftbehind,continuestodominateinvariouswaystheintellectuallandscapeinIndiatothisday.

NationsandProto-NationsThereisaschoolofthoughtwhichfeelsthattheproto-nationsofhistory—evenhistoricnationslikeChinaandJapan—werenotnationstatesintherealsenseofthe term.Nation states, they aver, could only come into beingwith themajoradvances in communications brought about by printed books, newspapers andperiodicals and then the radioandTVmediumsalongwith the telephone; andnowthemobile,Internetandthedark-net.Thesecommunicationmediaresultedin the creation of literate populations and thereby stabilised previously oralcultures and their languages through the print media. They also served todisseminate that language throughout the nation’s territory. Thus, these newcommunication media promoted the national culture and consolidatedterritoriallybounded linguisticcommunities.All these factorshavecontributedtothedefinitionoftheselfinthecollectiveconsciousofthenation.Itisthisthatleads somany scholars to conclude that nation states are a historically recentphenomenon and the proto-nations of the past were never really true nationstates.

ThatiswhymostintellectualsinIndiaareconvincedthatthenationstateinIndiaemergedonlyafter1947andthattheProto-nationsofthepastformedbytheMauryanandMughalempires(thatunifiedtheterritory,enabledacommonlegalsystem,createdacentralarmyandmonetisedtheIndianeconomyonthesilverstandard)wereneverreallynationstatesinthetruesenseoftheword.Assuch they fully subscribe to the colonial discourse of the empire, whichmaintained that India was never a nation and in fact, its population was sodividedandfracturedthatitcouldnevergovernitselfbutneededtobegovernedby an external foreign power to ensure justice and equity to its constantlywarringpopulationsegments,dividedsothoroughlybycasteandcreed.

Pre-ModernNationsThecurrentnarrativethenisthatpre-modernnationsthatlackedthesemultiplemediafornationalconsolidation,werereallynotnationsinthetruesenseoftheword.Pre-Modernnationswerecreatedbymyths—mythsliketheSunGoddess

myth of Japan and theMahabharata of India. Thesemyths contributed to theformation of the image of a bounded, territorial relation of temporal duration.These formativemyths,which are really beliefswith no empirical foundation,accomplish this unification by formulating connections between historicallyactual societies toaperceivedorderof theuniverse (through theactofGods),e.g.,formationoftheJapanesenationbytheSunGoddessthroughtheagencyofthe Emperor. By this process, the historical uniqueness of the territorialcommunity is justified. Thus, the historianDelmarBrownobserves that in theprocess of the formation of nations, we see the device of makingmythsmorehistorical andmaking actual eventsmoremythical. It is through its history—broadlyunderstoodhere, toalso includetheformativemyths, thatassuchblurthe distinction between fact and meaningful fancy—that a nation uses tounderstanditselfandinsodoing,constitutesitself.

Thecultureofthesepre-modernsocietieswasfragmentedbothverticallyandhorizontally. Vertically, differences existed between the educated elite (whoknew Sanskrit in the Indian context) and the illiterate peasants who were farmoreattachedtotheirseparatelocalities.Thus,ancientsocietiesexhibitedsharpcultural and political distinction between the ruling centre and the host ofculturally isolated localities. This iswhat impels modern scholars to questionhow pre-modern states could become national communities. These need theunifyingagenciesofthemodernmeansofcommunications,publiceducation,auniform territory and pervasive laws and democratic citizenship. A lot ofemphasis is basedon the last-named factor. In fact, thedemocratic concept ofcitizenship has contributed massively to the establishment of nation states.Democracypromotesabeliefintheequalityofthemembersofanation,therebycontributing in a significantway to the senseofnationas a community.Whatthenreallyweldsamodernnationtogetherarethreecriticalfactors:

DemocraticConceptionofCitizenshipExtensivemarketformanufacturedgoodsandservices

AdvancesinCommunicationsWithout these modern prerequisites, nation state formation is impossible,

averthescholars.HenceIndiawasneveranationstatebefore1947.Thisviewisnowbeingchallengedbyamorenuancedandaccurateappraisal

of pre-modern societies. The spread ofmajorworld religions in antiquity likeBuddhism,ChristianityandlaterIslamcallsintoquestionthesupposedculturalisolation of populations thatwere largely illiterate. In fact, thousands of yearsago, the simple tenets of Shamanism had propagated to all continents of theworld—fromAsiatoAfrica, theAmericasandAustralia, insocieties thatwerewholly illiterate. There was an amazing degree of commonality between theshamanic theory and practices in the diverse continents of the world. ThemagnificentspreadofBuddhismacrossthewholeofAsiabyasaffroncladarmyofIndianmonksisyetanotherfeatofcommunicationthatwouldbedifficulttoreplicateevenintoday’seraoftheInternetandsatellitecommunications.

In fact, the spread of world religions in antiquity, indicates that extensiverelations throughout vast populations and across great distances can indeed beformedevenintheabsenceofmass-producedbooks,newspapers,railwaysandmarkets for industrial goods.Moreover, a study of history highlights that lawcodes were found throughout antiquity and the Middle ages—as well asconceptionsofterritorieswithfairlywelldefinedboundaries.

To sum up this discussion, therefore, ancient or modern, the followingcharacteristicsareneededfortheformationofanationstate:

Aself-designatingname

AwrittenhistoryAdegreeofculturaluniformity,oftenasaresultofandsustainedbyreligion

LegalCodes

AnauthoritativecentreTheconceptionofaboundedterritory

On each of these criteria, ancient India qualifies as a nation. Its self-designating namewasBharat and laterHindustan (from theArabic forHindubasedonSindhu—thecradleriveroftheIndiancivilisation).Ithadanextensiveoralandwrittenhistory in theformof theVedas, thePuranasand thenationalepics of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, which still exercise such anextensiveholduponthepopularimagination.Iqbalwrote,“HaiRamkewajoodpar Hindustan ko Naaz” (India is proud of the legacy of Rama). The Hindureligionprovidesagreatmodicumofculturaluniformity.Beyondthat(andoftenbecause of the mystical nature of Hinduism per se), we see an astonishingculture of tolerance and cross-cultural synthesis. Hinduism recognised thedifference between men and outlined different paths to union with thetranscendentreality,bywayofBhakti—Yoga,GyanYoga,KarmaYogaandRajYogasdesigned to suit verydifferent psychological temperaments.ThisVedicstanza sums up this integrative tendency, “ekam sad, vipra bahuda vadanti—Thattruthisone,thewisecallhimbymanynames.”Allthemultifariouspathsthatare,ultimatelyleadtothesame,self-transcendentreality.Hinduism,unlikesematic religions of the desert, has what Rajiv Malhotra calls “an openarchitecture”.

Coming to the legal codes and their widespread applicability,the codes ofManudatebacktotheVedas.TheArthashastracodifiesthelawsthatgovernedtheMauryanEmpire.TheMughalshadelaboratecodesforjurisprudenceandthedelivery of justice. The authoritative power centre in India has oscillatedbetweenPataliputra andDelhi, and the conceptionof abounded territorygoesback to Jambu Dweepe-Bharat Khande—the Sanskrit incantation aboutterritorialdesignationthatischantedbeforeperformingeveryHinduritualeventoday.Quiteincidentally,theAtharvaVedatalksofRashtraornation.

ThusIndiawasnotentirelyacolonialconstruct.ItwascertainlynotagiftoftheBritishEmpire.NorwasdemocracyaBritishtransplantinIndiansoil.Therewereclan republics in India in the timesofMahabharataand theBuddha.TheIndianempireoftheMauryasspreadtheIndianideologyofBuddhismtoeverycorner ofAsia. India is a significant historical entity deeply entrenched in thecollectiveconsciousoftheIndiccivilisationofSouthAsia.Itfacedthechallengeof Muslim invasions—largely by absorbing and synthesising the Muslim

populationinitsmeltingpot.Themostsignificantchallenge,however,wasnowfrom theBritishEmpire,whichconsciously sought todestroy thevery ideaofIndia andmounted themost vicious challenge by systematically fracturing itspopulationalongcasteandcreed faultlines.Thepartinggiftof theempirewasthepartitionofIndiabycarvingouttheMuslimhomelandofPakistan.PakistantodayhasbrokenupandIndianowhasthesecondlargestMuslimpopulationinthewholeworld—ingestedrelativelypeacefully into its fabric.TheBritishhadtriedtodestroytheideaofIndiabuttheyfailed.

Today, the idea of India has resurrected itself. Wars with China andPakistan (the hostile other) have deepened the idea of India by projecting itagainst a hostile non-self—the other. The problem in India is that pettypoliticianshadrevivedthecolonialprojectoffracturingtheIndianpolityagainon caste and creed lines for purely personal gain. That is why the revival ofright-wing nationalism in 2014 has been such a significant historicalphenomenonbutonethatsadlyseemstobelosingitsinitialmomentum.

FailuretoMilitariseThelegacyofthenon-violentGandhianstruggleledtothecomingtopowerofaverypacificelitewhoprofessedtoabhortheuseofviolence.Indiaisacountrythathasbeen invaded, looted, rapedandconquered forover eight centuries. Itneeded tomilitarise and protect itself from grave external threats and internalchallenges.AseriesofforeigninvasionsandattacksforcedIndiatomilitarise–expand and modernise its military and for a time (in the Shastri and IndiraGandhi eras) and evenwithRajivGandhianismwas quietly given the gobye.TheFirstNDAgovernmentofAtalBihariVajpayeemadeIndiaanuclearpowerand was quick to employ fairly massive military force in Kargil and OpParakram.ThesecondNDAregimeofModiwasperceivedashardright.Itwasexpectedtoputmajoremphasisuponstrengtheningandenhancingtheroleofthemilitary in its dealings with external and internal challenges. To the nationsintensesurpriseithassoughttorevivethelegacyofMahatmaGandhi–evenasittalksofSardarPatelandhisrealpolitik.HoweverNucleardeterrenceinSouthAsia,unfortunately,seemstohaveconvinceditthat,useoflargescalemilitaryforce isno longerpossible.Theuseof tactical scale surgical strikesof limitedviolenceanddepthsseemstobethepreferredoptionandthattooverysparingly. There is surprising emphasis being given to the Gandhian ideology of non-violence. There has been an apparent marginalisation of the military and fargreater emphasis on the Police and Intelligence operations. The new foundnotionseemstobeconvincedthatthisisallthatisneededtodefendIndia.Largescale use ofmilitary force has apparently been ruled out.One hopes this is atemporaryphasestemmingfromIndia’sgreatlydelayedmilitarymodernisation.What is causing concern however is a refusal to usemore that tokenmilitaryforce in J&K and the insurgents in the North East on the plea of preservinghuman rights. There is major emphasis on peace building through politicalinitiatives which are inordinately stretched out and have emboldened hostileelements. Indian force usage in CI/CT operations has been confined to smallarmsalong.ThisisinsharpcontrasttowhattheUSA,Russia,China,Pakistan,Myanmar and Sri Lanka have done. They have used major military force tocrush armed rebellions. India has been constraining use of military force andadoptinganoverlypacificstancethatisactuallyhamperingpeacebuildinginthetroubled state. Less Mizoram and Punjab, no other insurgency has beendecisivelyquelled.The simplequestion is, a nation that hasbeen invaded andconqueredfor800yearsneedstoprotect itself.That is theverypurposeof the

nation state. Gandhian ideology seriouslyweakens the resolve to use force toprotectitscitizensfromexternalandinternalthreats.ThatiswhytheideologyofBoseandtheINAwillhavetoprevailoverthepacificideologyofGandhiannonviolence.That had, unfortunately failed to get us our freedom.Revival of thisGandhian anachronism today, could endanger the survival of the IndianRepublic. We must heed the lessons of our history and devise the means toprotectourselves.OtherdemocracieslikeUSAandevenGreatBritainputveryheavy emphasis on military power to protect the nation state. 70 per cent ofAmericanPresidentshavebeenmilitarymen.ThemilitaryhasgreatinfluenceinNationalSecuritypolicyformulationintheUSAandUK.India’spacificcultureprovidesastarkcontrastwheretheIndianmilitaryissadlymarginalised.IndiaasanationstatehastocometotermswiththenotionsofviolenceanduseofForceto protect the Westphalian nation state. Voluntarily disarming the state orrefusingtousetheforceavailablecanendangertheverysurvivalofthestateinIndia.

Appendix

THEBRITISHCOMMANDANDCONTROLSTRUCTURELONDONANDINDIA

(1945-1947)INDIAOFFICE:LONDON

Secretary of State: Lord Pethick-Lawrence (cr. Baron 16 August 1945)PermanentUnder-Secretary:SirDavidMonteath

Parliamentary Under-Secretary: Mr Arthur Henderson Deputy Under-Secretaries: Sir William Croft (from 2 January 1946 on his return from theTreasury)AssistantUnder-Secretaries:MrP.J.Patrick

MrG.J.Baxter

Private Secretary to Secretary of State: Mr F. F. Turnbull (until 13 February1946whenappointedSecretarytotheCabinetMission)MrM.J.Clauson(from14February1946)

INDIA

Viceroy, Governor-General and Crown Representative: Field MarshalViscountWavell (Sir John Colville acted from 25 August15 September 1945duringLondWavell’sabsenceinLondon)PrivateSecretarytotheViceroy:SirEvan Jenkins Mr G. E. B. Abell (from 16 November 1945) ReformsCommissioner:MrV.P.Menon.

EXECUTIVECOUNCIL

Commander-in Chief: General Sir Claude Auchinleck Home: Sir FrancisMudie, I.C.S. Sir John Thorne, I.C.S. (from 15 October 1945) Finance: SirArchibaldRowlands

War Transport: Sir Edward Benthall (Sir Arthur Griffin acting 9 August–9October1945)PostsandAir:SirMahomedUsman

Education,HealthandLands:SirJogendraSinghCommerce,andIndustriesandCivilSupplies:SirM.AzizulHaqueFood:SirJ.P.Srivastava

Labour:DrB.R.Ambedkar

Law:SirAsokaKumarRoy

CommonwealthRelations:DrN.B.Khare

InformationandBroadcasting:SirSultanAhmed(until31October1945)SirAkbarHydari, I.C.S. (acting

from31October1945)Supply:SirRamaswamiDefence:Mudaliar (MrA.A.Waugh, I.C.S. actingFrom17November1945)SirFirozKhanNoon(until15September1945afterwhichportfoliowasheldinabeyance) Planning and Development: Sir Ardeshir Dalal (until 28 January1946;SirAkbarHydariactingthereafter)

GOVERNORSOFPROVINCES

Madras: TheHon. SirArthurHope (SirHenryKnight, I.C.S. acting from26February1946)Bombay:Sir JohnColville (SirC.H.Bristow, I.C.S.acting25August-14September1945)Bengal:CaptainRt.Hon.R.G.Casey(SirHenryTwynam,I.C.S.acting13September-11October1945)SirFrederickBurrows(from 19 February 1946) United Provinces: Sir Maurice Hallett, I.C.S. SirFrancis Wylie, I.C.S. (from 7 December 1945) Punjab: Sir Bertrand Glancy,I.C.S

Central Provinces andBerar: Sir Henry Twynam, I.C.S. (Mr F. C. Bourne,I.C.S.actinguntil11October1945)Assam:SirAndrewClow,I.C.S.

Bihar:SirThomasRutherford,I.C.S.

North-West Frontier Province: Sir George Cunningham, I.C.S., Sir OlafCaroe,I.C.S.(from3March1946)Orissa:SirHawthorneLewis.

Sind:SirHughDowSirFrancisMudie(from15January1946)

PRIMEMINISTERSOFPROVINCES

Punjab:MalikKhizarHyat

KhanTiwana

Assam:SirMuhammadSa’adulla

MrGopinathBardoloi(from11February1946)

North-WestFrontierProvince:DrKhanSahibSindSirGhulamHussainHidayatullah

TheremainingProvinceswereadministeredbytheirGovernorsunderSection93oftheGovernmentofIndiaAct1935

PRINCIPALHOLDERSOFOFFICE

UNITEDKINGDOMCABINET

Announced 28 July and 4 August 1945 (Members of the India and BurmaCommitteeareitalicised)PrimeMinisterandFirstLordof

the Treasury, Minister of Defence: Mr Clement Attlee Lord President of theCouncilandLeaderoftheHouseofCommons:MrHerbertMorrisonSecretaryof State for Foreign Affairs: Mr Ernest Bevin Lord Privy Seal: Mr ArthurGreenwood.

ChancelloroftheExchequer:MrHughDalton

President of the Board of Trade: Sir Stafford Cripps Lord Chancellor: LordJowitt

First Lord of the Admiralty: Mr A. V. Alexander Secretary of State for theHome:MrJamesChuterDepartmentSecretaryofStateforIndiaandforBurma:Lord Pethick-Lawrence (cr. Baron by Letters Patent dated 16 August 1945)SecretaryofStatefortheColonies:MrG.H.HallSecretaryofStateforWar:MrJ.J.Lawson

SecretaryofState forAir:ViscountStansgateSecretaryofState forScotland:MrJ.WestwoodMinisterofFuelandPower:MrE.Shinwell

MinisterofEducation:MissEllenWilkinson

MinisterofHealth:MrAneurinBevan

Minister ofAgriculture andFisheries:MrT.WilliamsOTHERMINISTERSMENTIONEDINTHISVOLUME

MinisterofFood:SirBenSmith

Postmaster-General:EarlofListowel

Bibliography

Archives“TransferofPower,”Vol.6,HerMajesty’sStationeryOffice.London,1971.Fd Mshl Auchinleck’s Reports to Viceroy, Appreciation of the Situation December 1945 and

correspondencewithChiefofImperialGeneralStaff.“TransferofPower,”Vol.6,pp.530,939,638,673,675,975.(ReferstoChapter5ofthisbook)ViceroyViscountFdMshlWavellsReporttoHMtheKing,PrimeMinisterAttlee,LordPethick-Lawrence,etc.“TransferofPower,”Vol.6,pp.713,1054. ( See Chapter 6)Wavell’s Papers, Private Correspondence:HM the King pp. 100-2. (SeeChapter 6)Governors of Various Provinces: Report to Viceroy Fd Mshl Wavell on RIN Mutiny.“Transfer of Power,” Vol. 6, pp. 542, 546, 631, 724, 807, 1071, 1079. (See Chapter 7)DirectorIntelligenceBureau,ReportonINAtrials.“TransferofPower,”Vol.6,p.512.(SeeChapter8)TheCollectedWorksofMahatmaGandhi,Vol.77.ThePublicationsDivision,GovernmentofIndia,NewDelhi, 1979.StatementsofMahatmaGandhi to thepresson release from jail, July1944,Pp. 247,276, 338, 417, 433 (See Chapter 3) The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol. 78. ThePublicationsDivision,GovernmentofIndia,NewDelhi,1979,p.9.(SeeChapter3)Books

1.Allen,Louis.Burma:TheLongestWar1941-1945.St.MartinsPubl.,NewYork,1984.2.Ibid.,Sittang:TheLastBattle.TBSTheBookServiceLtd.,UK,April2,1973.3. Ayer, S. A.Unto Him a Witness: the Story of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose in East Asia. Thacker

Publishers,Bombay,1951.4.Barker,A.J.TheMarchonDelhi.FaberandFaber,London,UK,1963.5.Batliwal,S.S.andV.K.Jhaveri.JaiHind:TheDiaryofaRebelDaughterofIndiawiththeRaniJhansi

Regiment.JanmabhoomiPrakashanMandir,Bombay,1945.6.Bose,Mihir.TheLastHero:ABiographyofSubhashBose.QuartetBooks,London,1982.7.Bose,SubhashChandra.AnIndianPilgrim:AnUnfinishedAutobiographyandCollectedLectures1897-

1921.Calcutta,1965.8.Bose,SubhashChandra.ImpressionsinLife.Lahore,1947.9.Bose,SubhashChandra.TheIndianStruggle:1920-34.Lahore,1935.10.Caffrey,Kale,OutintheMandalaySun:Singapore1941-45.London,1974.11.Chatterjee,A.C.India’sStruggleforFreedom.ChuckerverttyChatterjee&Co.,Calcutta,India,1947.12.Cohen,StephenP.The IndianArmy: ItsContribution to theDevelopmentofaNation.Universityof

CaliforniaPress,Berkeley,LosAngeles,USA.13.TheConstituentAssemblyDebates1946-1949.14.Corr,GerardH.TheWaroftheSpringingTiger.JaicoPublishingHouse,Delhi,1975.15.Crosby,Steven.“Nationalism:AVeryShortIntroduction.OxfordUniversityPress,NewDelhi,2005.16.Das,Sitanshu.SubhashChandraBose:APoliticalBiography.RupaPublications,NewDelhi,2006.17.DeKalyanKumar“NetajiSubhash:TheLiberatoroftheIndianSubcontinent”.BengalLokmatPrinters

PvtLtd,Kolkata,2015.18.Dhar,Anuj.BackfromtheDead:InsidetheSubhashBoseMystery.ManasPublications,Delhi,2007.19.Dhar,Anuj.India’sBiggestCoverUp.VitastaPublishers,NewDelhi,2012.20.Evans,SirGeoffreyandJamesAnthonyBrett.Imphal:AFloweronLoftyHeights.London,1962.21. Fay, Peter Ward. The Forgotten Army: India’s Armed Struggle for Independence 1942-1945. The

UniversityofMichiganPress;Reprintedition,October31,1995.22.Ganpuley,N.G.NetajiinGermany:ALittleKnownChapter.Bombay,1959.23.Ghosh,KalyanKumar.TheIndianNationalArmy.MeenakshiPrakashan,Meerut,1969.

24.Giani,KesarSingh.IndianIndependenceMovementinEastAsia.AnarkaliPublishers:SinghBrothers;1stsedition,Lahore,1947.

25. Goebbels, Joseph, translated by Lochner P. Louis. The Goebbels Diaries, 1942-1943. Reprinted byGreenwoodPressGroup,Westport,Connecticut,USA,1970.

26.Gordon,LeonardA.“Brothersagainst theRaj:ABiographyofIndianNationalistsSarat&SubhashChandraBose.VikingPenguin,NewDelhi,1990.

27. Gordon, Leonard A. The Nationalist Movement 1823-1940. Columbia University Press, New York,1974.

28.Griffiths,SirPercivalJoseph.TheBritishinIndia.RobertHalePublishers,London,1946.29. INAHeroes:Autobiographies ofMajGen ShahnawazKhan,Col. PremK. Sehgal andCol.Gurbax

SinghDhillonoftheAzadHindFauj.HeroPublications,Lahore,1946.30.Isemonger,F.C.andJ.Slattery.AnAccountoftheGhadrConspiracy.Lahore,1921.31.Iwaichi,LtGenFujiwara,YojiAkashi(translated).F.Kikan:JapaneseArmyIntelligenceOperationsin

SoutheastAsiaduringWorldWarII.HeinemannAsiaPublishers,HongKong,May1983.32.James,D.H.TheRiseandFalloftheJapaneseEmpire.London,1951.33.Khan,MajGenShahNawaz.MyMemoriesoftheINA&itsNetaji.RajkamalPublications,Delhi,1946.34.TheINAHeroes:AutobiographiesofMajGenShahnawazKhan,Col.PremK.SehgalandCol.Gurbax

SinghDhillonoftheAzadHindFauj.HeroPublications,Lahore,1946.35. Khosla, Justice G. D. Inquiry into the Death of Subhash Chandra Bose. Khosla Commission 1970,

Govt.ofIndia,1970.36.Kiani,MajGenMohammadZaman.EditedbySisirKumarBose. India’sFreedomStruggleand the

GreatINA.ReliancePublishingHouse,NewDelhi,1994.37.Kirby,MajGenS.Woodburn,CaptC.T.Addis,ColG.T.Wards,BrigM.R.Roberts,N.L.Desoer.

TheWarAgainstJapanVolIII:TheDecisiveBattles.London,1961.38. Kirby, Maj Gen S. Woodburn et al. The War Against Japan: The Reconquest of Burma, Vol. IV.

London,1965.39.Kulkarni,V.S.andK.S.N.Murty.FirstIndianNationalArmyTrial.MangalSahityaPrakashan,Pune,

1946.40.Lebra,JoyceChapman.JapaneseTrainedArmiesinSouthEastAsia.ColumbiaUniversityPress,New

York,1977.41. Lebra, Joyce Chapman. Jungle Alliance: Japan and the Indian National Army. Asia Pacific Press,

Singapore,1971.42. Madan, Gopal. Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose: The Last Phase (in his own words), Har-Anand

Publications,NewDelhi,1994.43.Majumdar.R.C.HistoryoftheFreedomMovementinIndia-3vols.FirmaKLMPvt.Ltd.,Calcutta,

January1,2004.44.Montagu,EdwinSamuel.AnIndianDiary.WilliamHeinemannPubl.,Germany,1930.45.Mukherjee,Mithi. India in the Shadow of Empire: A Legal&PoliticalHistory, 1914-1950.Oxford

UniversityPress,NewDelhi,2010.46.Nag,Kingshuk.Netaji:LivingDangerously.AuthorsUpfrontPublishingServices,PL,November16,

2015.47.Ohsawa,Georges.TheTwoGreatIndiansinJapan:SriRashBehariBoseandSubhashChandraBose.

KusaPublications,Calcutta,1954.48.Palta,KrishanRaj.MyAdventureswiththeINA.LionPress,Lahore,1946.49.Percival,LtGenArthurE.TheWarinMalaya.OrientLongmansPubl.,London,1949.

50.Prasad.Amba.TheIndianRevoltof1942.Delhi,1958.51.Ram,Moti.TwoHistoricTrialsinRedFort.RoxyPrintingPress,NewDelhi,1946.52.Safrani,AbidHasan.TheMenfromImphal.NetajiOration,NetajiResearchBureau,Calcutta,1971.53.Singh,MajGenMohan.Soldiers’ContributiontoIndianIndependence.ArmyEducationalStores,New

Delhi,1974.54.Singh,Randhir.TheGhodanHeroes.Lahore,1921.55.Sivaram,M.TheRoadtoDelhi.TuttlePublishing,NorthClarendon,VT,USA,June15,1967.56.Slim,FieldMarshallViscount.DefeatintoVictory.CassellPublishers,London,1956.57.Swinson,Arthur.FourSamurai:AQuartetofJapaneseArmyCommandersintheSecondWorldWar.

Hutchinson,London,1968.58.TheGovt.ofIndia.NetajiEnquiryCommissionReport.Govt.ofIndia,1956.59.Thivy,JohnAloysius.AShortSketchoftheIndianIndependenceMovementinSoutheastAsia.Netaji

ResearchBureau,Calcutta.60.Thivy,JohnAloysius.TheStruggleinEastAsia.NetajiResearchBureau,Calcutta,1971.61.Toye,Hugh.TheSpringingTiger.CassellPublishers,London,1959.62. Toye, Hugh. Subhash Chandra Bose: The Springing Tiger. Jaico Publishing House Reprint, Delhi,

2015.63.Hayashida,Tatsuo.NetajiSubhashChandraBose.AlliedPublishers,1970.64.Tsuji,ColMasanobu.Singapore:TheJapaneseVersion.St.Martin’sPress,Sydney,1960.65.Tuker,LtGenSirFrancis.WhileMemoryServes:TheStoryof theLastTwoYearsofBritishRule in

India.London,1956.66.Yadav,CaptS.S.INA.ForgottenWarriorsofIndianWarofIndependence(1941-46).IndianNational

Army,vol.1.PublishedbyAllIndiaINACommittee,Delhi,2005.67.Nehru,JawaharLal.AnAutobiography.PenguinIndia,newed.,2004.68.Nehru,JawaharLal.TheDiscoveryofIndia,PenguinIndia,newed.,2008.

ArticlesandPapers69. Bohra, Ranjan. “Subhash Bose, the INA and the War of Indian Liberation,” Journal of Historical

Review(Vol.No.3,1982).70.Bose,Dr.SisirK.“TheGreatEscape,”TheIllustratedweeklyofIndia,April14,1974.71.Griffiths,SirPercivalJoseph.“TheBritishinIndia,”RobertHalePubl.,London,1946.72.Malhotra,Iqbal.“Stalin’sPrisoner,”OpenMagazine,December2016.73.Mondal,B.“TheINA’sValiantBattleinTheArakans,”Caravan,October1,1973.74.YoungIndia,WeeklyPaperpublishedbytheIndianIndependenceLeague,1943-45.