HEADLINE = Why Indians need their Anzac moment

CAPTIONS
Old connections: British Gurkha soldiers training at New Zealands Lake Tekapo military camp.
Firepower: Of the 5010 Indian soldiers who served in Anzac, 1926 died and 3863 were wounded.
As military tributes go, two nations couldnt do things more differently. While New Zealand observes
Anzac Day to honour the 18,000 New Zealanders killed during World War I (and specifically the 2721
men killed at Gallipoli, Turkey), in marked contrast India, which lost 78,187 men during the same war,
ignores the contribution of its brave soldiers.
Gallipoli was a British military campaign that ended in disaster. Some Australians such as former Prime
Minister Paul Keating see World War I as a meat grinder into which Britains Winston Churchill callously
despatched tens of thousands of young men. In a speech (http://www.theage.com.au/national/paul-
keatings-speech-20081031-5f1h.html) delivered in October 2008 Keating said: The truth is that Gallipoli
was shocking for us. Dragged into service by the imperial government in an ill conceived and poorly
executed campaign, we were cut to ribbons and dispatched. And none of it in the defence of
Australia.we still go on as though the nation was born again or even, was redeemed there. An utter
and complete nonsense. For these reasons I have never been to Gallipoli and I never will.
However, many New Zealanders and Aussies believe Gallipoli was the defining moment that fostered a
sense of national identity in the two countries. Anzac Day is, therefore, a major event in New Zealand
and is marked by parades and remembrances.
However, Indias vital contribution to the Allied victory in the war rarely gets a mention home or away.
The war mobilisation in the subcontinent in terms of men and material was several orders of magnitude
greater than the contributions made by other nations.
India recruited over 1.4 million men and sent more than 1.3 million of them overseas to fight for the
British Empire between 1914 and 1918, saving Britain and her allies from an ignominious defeat, says a
report by the New Delhi-based Times of India. (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/British-better-
informed-about-Indias-key-role-in-World-War-I-Survey/articleshow/32933750.cms)
According to the report, When Great Britain declared war on Germany on August 4, 1914 it had only
about 150,000 combat-ready troops. It could commit only a little over 80,000 troops to the Western
Front in the initial days of the war. In comparison, France had an army of 1,290,000 while Germany had
an even bigger army of 1,900,000. The only professional standing army that Britain could bank upon in
that crisis was the Indian Army. Britain would use this imperial reserve to the fullest throughout the war,
and Indian troops would become the first fighting non-white colonial soldiers in Europe ever.
Of the over 1.3 million Indian troops, 700,000 were pitted against the Ottoman Empire. In Gallipoli they
formed part of the Australia New Zealand Division. Of the 5010 Indian soldiers who served in Anzac,
1926 died and 3863 were wounded.
Pradeep Kanthan, author and independent researcher, provides an excellent account of the Indian
involvement in Anzac and the wider conflict. He offers an enlightening quote
(http://www.freeperception.com/anzac-and-india/#sthash.GQvjpGIG.dpuf) from an Australian Imperial
Force commemoration of the Australia New Zealand Division:
This fighting force was complete only with the participation of troops from India. Several accounts of
the campaign remember the Indian soldiers and the camaraderie they shared, which alas is not
commemorated as much as it rightly deserves.
The great divide
The arrival of the Indian Army in Europe was fraught with several constraints. Britain was reluctant to
ship large numbers of Indian soldiers overseas because the colonial government knew it was sitting on
dynamite. For nearly 200 years Britain had employed Indian soldiers to expand the empire. It was the
Indian Army that ensured the safety of British lives in a country that was forever rebellious. The
moment Britain gets into trouble elsewhere, India, in her present temper, would burst into a blaze of
rebellion, wrote Scottish critic William Archer.
The main reason for the distrust was that just 57 years before the outbreak of World War I, Indian
soldiers of the British East India Company had revolted on a nationwide scale, sparking Indias First War
of Independence. The British were able to cling on to the second richest country in the world only by
their fingernails.
The horrendous bloodletting of the 1857 War had indelibly left a scar on the collective British psyche,
with even a humanist like Charles Dickens calling for the annihilation of the Indian race.
(http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/aug/24/india.randeepramesh) The Indian Army was
therefore, considered a double-edged sword it had to be wielded carefully for the preservation and
expansion of the British Empire.
The British, therefore, constantly tweaked the composition of the Indian Army, in step with the shifting
alliances with Indian kingdoms and religious groups. In fact as early as 1843 a leading British educationist
named Thomas Macaulay had advised Britain to choose Muslims over Hindu idolaters because where
Hinduism seemed like a strange religion to colonial soldiers and administrators, many of who were
evangelists too, in their eyes Islam was a sister faith with ancient connections to Christianity.
The duty of our Government is, as I said, to take no part in the disputes between Mahometans and
idolaters, Macaulay said in a speech in the British parliament. But, if our Government does take a part,
there cannot be a doubt that Mahometanism is entitled to the preference.
(http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00generallinks/macaulay/txt_commons_somnauth_18
43.html)
The Indian Army at the time of the 1957 War was overwhelmingly Hindu. Once the lost territories were
re-conquered the colonial government adopted a policy of chipping away at the Hindu component of
the army.
When World War I started the Indian Army was starkly unrepresentative of India. The country was
nearly 80 per cent Hindu but Muslims formed around two-thirds of the Indian Army, with soldiers
recruited largely from Punjab and Baluchistan in present-day Pakistan. The British preferred Muslims
from these provinces because Punjabi Muslims and Balochs had offered the least resistance to British
colonial rule.
The outbreak of the war presented the British with a major conundrum they were apprehensive of
despatching tens of thousands of Muslim soldiers to fight against Turkey, which was the home of the
Islamic Caliphate, which Indian Muslims held in high esteem. So units with Muslim troops were moved
away to France, leaving the Hindu Gurkhas and some Sikhs to fight in Gallipoli
(http://www.freeperception.com/anzac-and-india/#sthash.GQvjpGIG.dpuf)
Indian Johnnys
Although the Indian Muslims troops were not comfortable fighting Turkey and some did revolt, largely
British fears proved to be baseless. M.K. Gandhi had played such a brilliant role in dousing Indian anger
against the colonial government that even those who were preparing for a final showdown with the
British security forces became influenced by his peacenik overtures.
During World War I the self-styled apostle of non-violence and peace urged Indians to enlist as
combatants in the British Army. He in fact set up recruitment camps to enlist Indians. For his efforts he
was awarded the Kaiser-i-Hind (Caesar of India), British Indias highest civilian award.
Much earlier Gandhi had written: Should the British be thrown out of India? Can it be done, even if we
wish to do so? To these two questions we can reply that we stand to lose by ending British rule and that,
even if we want, India is not in a position to end it.
The masses were won over by the half-naked man pretending to be fighting the mightiest empire of the
day, when in reality he was most likely collaborating with it.
Gandhis sales pitch aside, there was another reason why Indians volunteered in such massive numbers
to join the army. That was poverty. Industry and agriculture had been almost entirely destroyed under
colonial rule. The country that invented calculus before Isaac Newton and the Pythagoras theorem
before Pythagoras was now reduced to a nation of hewers of wood and drawers of water. In this
backdrop, for an illiterate peasant the army assured a steady monthly income.
Despite the brutality of the Raj, India came to the empires defence. The UK's History Learning site
(http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/india_and_world_war_one.htm) says: "When war was declared
on August 4, 1914, India rallied to the cause. Offers of financial and military help were made from all
over the country. Hugely wealthy princes offered great sums of money. Despite the pre-war fears of
unrest, Britain, in fact, could take many troops and most of her military equipment out of India as fears
of unrest subsided. Indian troops were ready for battle before most other troops in the dominions.
"They fought in most theatres of war including Gallipoli and North and East Africa. In all 47,746 were
classed as killed or missing with 65,000 wounded. The Indian Corps won 13,000 medals for gallantry
including 12 Victoria Crosses.
"Such was the cost of the war, that Indias economy was pushed to near bankruptcy."
The Indian support given to Britains cause surprised the establishment in Britain. The Times wrote: The
Indian empire has overwhelmed the British nation by the completeness and unanimity of its enthusiastic
aid.
There was a fair bit of camaraderie between Indian and Anzac troops. Major H.M. Alexander, Indian
Mule Transport, said: The Anzacs called every Indian Johnny and treated them like a brother, with the
consequences that the Indians liked them even more I often saw parties of Australians and New
Zealanders sitting in the lines, eating chuppatties and talking to the men.
Blanking out the Great War
The chief reason for the collective amnesia about the Indian contribution is that India itself does not
care to remember the conflict. Because mercenary Indian soldiers were fighting for the Raj, there was
hardly any interest in the war that was being fought a continent away.
Based on monitoring of letters written by Indian soldiers to their families back home, Indian soldiers
were less likely to remark that they were fighting for 'India' than for the king says a BBC report.
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/india_wwone_01.shtml) The fact that these soldiers
were not fighting for India but for the Raj is one of the reasons World War I has never really touched a
chord in India despite the ultimate sacrifice by over 78,000 men.
Its a bit like boxing world champion Mohammad Ali refusing to be drafted in the US Army during the
Vietnam War, saying: No Vietcong ever called me nigger. Indeed, why would a black man fight for
America where he was a treated worse than an animal.
Similarly, in India there is a feeling that Gandhi should never have bailed out the British. Nearly all Indian
leaders unanimously said Britain must first treat Indian soldiers as equal, starting with equal pay for
equal rank. Also, Indian military officers who were expected to die for the Raj were not allowed to use
the swimming pools used by British officers in India. These demands were shot down.
The other quid pro quo insisted upon by Indian political leaders was that Britain should pack up its bags
after the war. The colonial government offered some vague promises including dominion status like
Britain had granted Canada. Of course, after the war, Britain backtracked on these assurances.
At any rate, European conflicts were too distant and rarely bothered the Indian masses. Even during
World War II (during which two million Indian soldiers fought for the British) the interest of the Indian
masses as well as the political leadership was limited to rejoicing at the setbacks received by the British
Army against Adolf Hitlers Germany. In fact, despite Hitlers contempt for Indians, many Indians
supported the Nazi leader and collaborated with the Fuhrer simply because he was the enemys enemy.
The reason why Indias contribution has been overlooked overseas is that as an erstwhile colony Indias
contribution was taken for granted and with no independent political resonance to back it up.
(http://www.freeperception.com/anzac-and-india/#sthash.GQvjpGIG.DFX0blqV.dpuf)
In France, for instance, 78 per cent believe India stayed neutral in the conflict and didn't send any
troops. The reality is that over 140,000 Indian soldiers fought to defend France and thousands died
while doing so.
Another reason for Indias cavalier attitude towards Gallipoli and the World War I is that in the Indian
consciousness these conflicts were hardly as cataclysmic as the wars fought by Indians in India. Over the
centuries Hindus had fought life-or-death battles against Islamic invaders from Arabia, Afghanistan,
Central Asia and Iran. In the 1857 War against the British, 10 million Indians were killed.
As Kanthan says, the Indian Army in its history from 1757 to 1914 had on many occasions suffered
heavier casualties where whole battalions were wiped out. Thus Gallipoli was not such a major
milestone for the Indian Army as it is for Anzac, he says. In fact, even during World War I much heavier
casualties were suffered in France and Flanders.
Turkeys Ataturk, who led the Turks to victory at Gallipoli, wrote: Those heroes that shed their blood,
and lost their lives, you are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore, rest in peace. There is
no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side here in this
country of ours. You, the mothers, who sent their sons from far away countries, wipe away your tears.
Your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land, they
have become our sons as well.
Dont abandon your fallen
Even though it was a lost cause and thousands of New Zealanders died in World War I, the country
continues to respect its dead. This is something the Indian political leadership needs to emulate. Last
week when a highly decorated Indian Army officer and another soldier died fighting Islamic terrorists in
Kashmir, the Indian media ran this headline: Major killed in Kashmir. No names, no mention of their
heroics. This is the pathetic depth to which Indian pride has fallen under the Nehru-Gandhi fat cats.
Indias participation in World War I should no longer be viewed as a shameful thing but needs to be
remembered as a great tragedy that claimed over 78,000 Indians lives. Those men fought bravely
despite fighting to save a foreign empire. Their sacrifices seem greater when you consider that Britain
didnt protect its own empire or its subjects when it mattered. In 1942 when Japan attacked Malaya,
tens of thousands of British soldiers melted away or surrendered before the Japanese Army.
Today, in India there is a growing sense of Indias re-rise. Memories of how Gandhi emasculated the
Indian freedom movement are giving way to new pride in missions to the moon and Mars. But with
power must come maturity. If Turkey can embrace its enemies, India should have no hesitation in
offering a final tribute to its own sons.
(Rakesh Krishnan is a Features Writer at Fairfax Media and writes a column on strategic affairs
for the Moscow-based Rossiyskaya Gazeta Group, Russia's leading media conglomerate)