C. Raja Mohan, Darshana M. Baruah
{
"authors": [
"C. Raja Mohan"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie India"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie India",
"programAffiliation": "SAP",
"programs": [
"South Asia"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"South Asia",
"India"
],
"topics": []
}Source: Getty
The Second World War: Time to Mark India’s Contributions
The time has come for political India to put the second World War in its proper historical context and celebrate the extraordinary contributions of the Indian people in defeating fascism and making of the modern world order.
Source: Indian Express
Little noticed in the joint statement issued by External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj earlier this week in Beijing along with her Chinese and Russian counterparts was a brief paragraph urging all nations to mark the 70th anniversary of Allied victory in the Second World War.
On the face of it, the sentiment seems entirely unexceptionable. Not quite. While Russia and China see the Second World War as a defining moment in their national histories, the political leadership of independent India has tended to dissociate itself from the commemorations despite the massive contribution of its people to the war.
It is therefore welcome that India, along with Russia and China, chose to pay “tribute to all those who fought against Fascism and freedom”. “Russia, India and China affirmed the need to solemnly commemorate those historic moments of great significance in human history”, the three ministers added.For Russia, the victory over fascist Germany in the second world war is a sacred national memory. For Beijing the Second World War is about the liberation of China from Japanese imperialism.
For both Russia and China, their special position in the international system as permanent members of the United Nations Security Council comes from their participation in the victorious coalition against fascist powers. Moscow and Beijing also won special concessions as great powers in the post war territorial settlements of of Europe and Asia.
The Indian national movement, however, had a problem. It was deeply divided on how to deal with the Second World War and the rapidly shifting alliances among the great powers. For Russia and China, the Allied war against fascism coincided with their national struggle against foreign occupiers—Germany and Japan respectively.
India, however, was torn between ousting the British Raj and joining the larger cause of defeating fascism. The Indian National Congress, refused to back the British war effort after negotiations with the Raj on the terms of support collapsed. Unlike the Congress, the Muslim League did not obstruct the Indian effort and won much support for the idea of Pakistan during the war.
The Indian communists tacked themselves to Soviet Russia’s shifting positions in the war. The called it an “inter-imperialist war” when it broke out in 1939. After Germany attacked Soviet Union in 1941, the Communist Party of India changed the tune, called it people’s war and fully collaborated with the British Raj in the war effort against fascism.
A section of the national movement led by Subhas Chandra Bose, chose to ally with the Germans and Japanese and formed the Indian National Army in the quest to oust the British colonial rulers from India.
The Raj of course mobilised all the resources of the undivided subcontinent in the war against Germany and Japan. The Indian army saw action on fronts ranging from Italy and North Africa to East Africa, the Middle East and the Far East.
In South-East Asia alone, 700,000 Indian troops joined the effort to oust Japanese armies from Burma, Malaya and Indo-China. By the time the war ended, the Indian army numbered a massive 2.5 million men, the largest all-volunteer force the world had ever seen.
Thanks to the incoherent Indian nationalist response to the war, it got few rewards in the peace settlement that followed. Given its decisive contribution to the war, India should have been permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.
If the world rapidly forgot about the Indian role in the Second World War, independent India did a lot worse. Its political leaders trivialised the war by dismissing it a colonial enterprise.
Seventy years later, the time has come for political India to put the war in its proper historical context and celebrate the extraordinary contributions of the Indian people in defeating fascism and making of the modern world order.
This article was originally published in the Indian Express.
About the Author
Former Nonresident Senior Fellow, Carnegie India
A leading analyst of India’s foreign policy, Mohan is also an expert on South Asian security, great-power relations in Asia, and arms control.
- Deepening the India-France Maritime PartnershipArticle
- Shanghai Cooperation Organization at Crossroads: Views From Moscow, Beijing and New DelhiCommentary
- +1
Alexander Gabuev, Paul Haenle, C. Raja Mohan, …
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Europe
- The EU and India in TandemCommentary
As European leadership prepares for the sixteenth EU-India Summit, both sides must reckon with trade-offs in order to secure a mutually beneficial Free Trade Agreement.
Dinakar Peri
- Learning to Do No Harm to Democracy in Engagement With Authoritarian StatesArticle
The ways in which democracies interact with autocracies can also play a role in sustaining repressive regimes. Democratic governments must adopt more holistic approaches that offset the negative implications of international engagement.
Nic Cheeseman, Marie-Eve Desrosiers
- Development Assistance in Different Political Regime ContextsArticle
In the last decade, nondemocratic regimes have received more development assistance than democratic countries. This reveals how donors struggle with autocratization despite a rhetorical commitment to democracy.
Marc de Tollenaere
- Democratic Innovations From Around the World: Lessons for the WestArticle
Countries around the world are struggling to bridge the gap between citizens and political elites. Innovative practices outside the West, while far from ideal, should be considered in debates about democratic renewal in Europe.
Richard Youngs, Ken Godfrey
- Rewiring GlobalizationResearch
Dissatisfaction with globalization has turned into a powerful force, with unchecked globalism increasingly seen as a threat to the integrity of democratic rule. Policymakers must reframe globalization to mitigate its negative consequences while keeping its core growth-enhancing dynamics intact.
Sinan Ülgen