• Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Middle East logoCarnegie lettermark logo
LebanonIran
{
  "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

In The Media
Carnegie India

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.

Link Copied
By C. Raja Mohan
Published on Feb 6, 2015

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

C. Raja Mohan

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.

    Recent Work

  • Article
    Deepening the India-France Maritime Partnership

      C. Raja Mohan, Darshana M. Baruah

  • Commentary
    Shanghai Cooperation Organization at Crossroads: Views From Moscow, Beijing and New Delhi
      • Alexander Gabuev
      • +1

      Alexander Gabuev, Paul Haenle, C. Raja Mohan, …

C. Raja Mohan
Former Nonresident Senior Fellow, Carnegie India
South AsiaIndia

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 Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Disquiet on the West Asian Front

    In an interview, Abhinav Pandya discusses the multiple facets of India’s ties with the Middle East.

      Armenak Tokmajyan

  • Research
    The Military and Private Business Actors in the Global South: The Politics of Market Access

    The interaction of national armed forces and private business sectors offers a useful lens for viewing the politics of numerous countries of the so-called Global South. A rising trend of military political activism—often accompanied by military commercial activity—underlines the importance of drivers and outcomes in these relationships.

      Yezid Sayigh, Hamza Meddeb

  • Article
    The GCC’s Multipolar Pivot: From Shifting Trade Patterns to New Financial and Diplomatic Alliances

    The Gulf Cooperation Council has shifted its energy export focus to Asia, particularly India and China. This is part of a broader shift as GCC members look to expand their geopolitical alliances away from the West.

      Alexandre Kateb

  • Commentary
    The Gaza War and the Rest of the World

    Scholars from Carnegie’s global network comment on how the ongoing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is affecting their areas of interest, and what the implications of this may be.

      • +11

      Maha Yahya, Rosa Balfour, Judy Dempsey, …

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Calculations in Kabul

    Turkey’s success in finding a role in Afghanistan could bring its leadership valuable benefits.

      Marc Pierini

Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
Carnegie Middle East logo, white
  • Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.