Indian soldiers during WW2

Site Issues 2007 Archive Room
#41

Sadly, the fact that a number of Indians travelled to the UK, and joined the RAF, is relatively unknown, even in the aviation fraternity. One example is S/L Pujji (my signature). However, to be fair, most memorials to the fighting forces mentioned are relatively recent. And there are two memorials to Indians that do stand out:

Coventry
http://www.asht.info/Coventry+Memorial.html

Memorial Gates - built in memory of the five million volunteers from the Indian subcontinent.
http://www.cwo.uk.com/projects/memorial_gate.html

#42

Nobody disputes that.

It’s a separate issue from the spectacular treachery of most Indian troops in Malaya.

Although, when you think about it, would you have fought for a country that occupied your own and discriminated you as a 2nd class citizen?

No.

I would always fight against any country that occupied, or tried to occupy, mine, as Japan aimed to do in WWII.

I can’t begin to imagine the mentality of anyone joining up with an occupying force in my own country, or any other country.

One of the reasons that such sentiments didn’t apply in India was that the vast bulk of its people didn’t have any concept of Indian nationality before and during WWII, which was largely a consequence of Indian history rather than anything done by the British.

Don’t think that the Indians were the only ones offered the easy way out in Malaya, or other conquered territories.

They’re just the only ones who took it in any serious percentages, outside Indonesia and pockets of the Philippines.

I think it was a purely a question of choosing the lesser of two evils, in your own mind that is.

Or just a question of honour.

The honourable Indians captured in Malaya suffered the same as their colonial masters.

The other Indians, who had taken the same oath of loyal service to the King, didn’t.

I don’t have a problem with them being heroes of Indian independence, if that’s what some people want to believe by ignoring reality as the reason for them being in Malaya in the first place, but they were shithouse examples of loyal soldiers in the first army they joined. After that, they were just traitors. And shithouse soldiers in Japan’s service, too, which tells you something about their quality and commitment to any cause they supposedly served.

And while we’re on the topic, where are the memorials for Indian aircrews, men who had to pay their own passage to get to England and fight in many cases. I see the Poles, the Czechs, Free French, Canadians and the Eagle Squadron mentioned, but the Indians? I’ve seen nothing!

I don’t know.

It may be a gross and unfair neglect of them.

As for turncoats: the Italians?

When?

The Departments of France that became Vichy France?

A government decision not comparable with individual soldiers betraying their oath.

The Russians before the Germans did the dirty and attacked them?

Ditto.

The Fins? We could go on and on…within the SS their were volunteers from many nations,

So?

including a small amount of British.

When did British turncoats put a few brigades, or any unit, into action the British, like the INA, and exactly where?

#43

Working on a painting right now, but will get back to you Rising Sun; interesting debate and educational, too

#44

The question of loyalty and oaths is an interesting one. The vast majority of Indians who joined the INA did so after the mass surrenders of the Allied forces in Singapore.

So, once they surrendered, do their oaths still stand? Do they still take orders from the supposed “legitimate” chain of command? Or can they make their own decisions about where their loyalties lie?

Now compare the possible responses to the above questions with ones asking the same thing of those who joined the Free French, and the other European Free Forces. In the cases of France, Belgium, Holland, Norway etc, the legitimate governements of those countries surrendered, and by rights, their armed forces should have ceased to fight. However, as we all know, many did not; they escaped and carried on fighting with the Allies. By the same logic that would have Indian soldiers fighting against their former masters and their own oath, then so did these European forces. And just as most the occupied countries had Governements-in-exile, so did India (and in all cases the legitimacy of these governments has always been questionable).

Where does one draw the line?

#45

what do you think was the reason for the mass anti British movements Sir.

#46

I can’t begin to imagine the mentality of anyone joining up with an occupying force in my own country, or any other country.

No disrespect Rising Sun, but with statements as those above and below, you appear to have a personal issue with Indian troops during WW2. I don’t think you could begin to imagine the mentality of people in their position to be honest.

Don’t think that the Indians were the only ones offered the easy way out in Malaya, or other conquered territories. [COLOR=“Red”]They’re just the only ones who took it in any serious percentages, outside Indonesia and pockets of the Philippines. [/COLOR]

It may be a gross and unfair neglect of them.

No maybe about it, it is unfair.

Quote:
As for turncoats: the Italians?
When?

3rd Sept 1943 surrendering to the Allies; Oct 13 declaring war on Germany.

Quote:
The Departments of France that became Vichy France?
A government decision not comparable with individual soldiers betraying their oath.
A government decision like this is worse. Soldiers, no matter what you say, are individuals and most know right from wrong. If that wasn’t the case, we couldn’t blame the SS for the atrocities committed in concentration camps, could we? After all, they were honourable following orders, and couldn’t break their oath.

Quote:
The Fins? We could go on and on…within the SS their were volunteers from many nations,
So?
So, we’re talking about switching sides. Being disloyal to principles, yet it seems governments swopped and changed to suit their needs. That’s okay is it?

Quote:
including a small amount of British.
When did British turncoats put a few brigades, or any unit, into action the British, like the INA, and exactly where?.
Splitting hairs, mate. I’m using them as example that some English themselves were disloyal to their own country. Whether they had a chance to fight is not relevant. Had they had the chance they would have.

The more I think of it, the more I think honour can be such a blinding quality. After all, the Kamikaze pilots of the IJN were apparently dying honorable deaths, yet there was nothing honorable in it, only the sad fact that they couldn’t think for themselves.

However, we’re all entitled to our own opinions. This thread has made interesting reading and I think I have gone off topic slightly, so back to you guys.

#47

The reasons for anti-British sentiment and activity are irrelevant to the conduct of soldiers who take an oath to serve a nation and then go over to the other side.

#48

Is it? But what if the Oath is to the King Emperor, and not the country? Indian soldiers never took an oath to India, and if they then decided (and don’t forget that they did not desert in the face of the enemy during combat, but made choices after their “leaders” had ordered them to surrunder) to choose to fight for Indian Independence, then was that traitorous?

Also don’t forget that at the same time that these soldiers were choosing to join the INA, in India Gandhi had started the Quit India Movement which advocated the non-cooperation with the British, and the war effort. As he stated:

Our quarrel is not with the British people, we fight their imperialism. The proposal for the withdrawal of British power did not come out of anger. It came to enable India to play its due part at the present critical juncture It is not a happy position for a big country like India to be merely helping with money and material obtained willy-nilly from her while the United Nations are conducting the war. We cannot evoke the true spirit of sacrifice and velour, so long as we are not free.

As soon as the movement started Gandhi, and 100,000 supporters were arrested and spent most of the war in prison. Gandhi’s wife died whilst incarcerated. So imagine how this played with the Indian soldiers, psychologically. Their foremost leader advocating disobediance unless Britain started discussions on Independence, and then for him to be imprisoned. And Japanese propaganda would have played on these issues.

And Japanese propaganda was actively pushing the message of Asia for the Asians - a message that was taken up by many nationalist movements across Asia.

#49

No disrespect Rising Sun, but with statements as those above and below, you appear to have a personal issue with Indian troops during WW2.

I don’t have any issue with Indian troops as such.

My issue is with traitors.

I have exactly the same view about soldiers in every army who switched sides.

If you want to see some really spectacular side switching, read up on the Chinese armies that switched sides from about 1930 to 1949. Those warlords make the Indians look like amateurs. At least the Indians only switched sides once.

I don’t think you could begin to imagine the mentality of people in their position to be honest.

Tens of thousands of American, Australian, British, and Dutch service men and women were in the same position. They didn’t switch sides, even when they were in a far worse position than the Indian traitors ever experienced.

It’s more relevant that about 10,000 out of 40,000 Indians captured in Malaya didn’t switch sides. They were in exactly the same position as those who did and, in time, in a lot worse position. The difference is that one lot were true to their oath as soldiers and the other lot weren’t.

3rd Sept 1943 surrendering to the Allies; Oct 13 declaring war on Germany.

There’s nothing wrong with surrender. It’s an entirely different thing to treason.

In any event, that was a national surrender that has nothing to do with individual treachery.

The same goes for the conflict between Italy and Germany after Italy surrendered. The conflict arose because Germany refused to recognise the surrender and remained in occupation of Italy for its own purposes.

A government decision like this is worse. Soldiers, no matter what you say, are individuals and most know right from wrong. If that wasn’t the case, we couldn’t blame the SS for the atrocities committed in concentration camps, could we? After all, they were honourable following orders, and couldn’t break their oath.

Individuals have moral sense.

Governments, and successful politicians in general, don’t.

Soldiers serve and obey governments, subject supposedly to the laws of war and higher moral principles, which is something of a moral paradox given the nature of war.

Governments do what they like, invariably without regard to the interests of their own soldiers and people in other countries and frequently without regard to the best interests of all of their own people .

It’s a lousy system from a philosophical or moral point of view, but that’s the way it is.

So, we’re talking about switching sides. Being disloyal to principles, yet it seems governments swopped and changed to suit their needs. That’s okay is it?

Apparently it is, so far as governments are concerned. They do it all the time, without any sense of shame. Witness Japan being an Ally in WWI versus its position in WWII, which in part flowed from Britain renouncing its alliance with Japan a few years after WWI ended. Or, more recently, the West’s support for Saddam Hussein for years before we decided to invade his country and kill him.

The last thing I expect from any government or any successful politician is loyalty to anything but their own interests; consistency; and adherence to principle. Or even having principles other than advancing their own interest at the expense of everyone else, inside and outside their own country.

I think it’s a disgusting way to behave, which is why most decent people don’t get involved in serious politics. They’re just the bunnies who enlist and try to serve with honour when the politicians have got them into a war in pursuit of the politicians’ partisan interests.

Splitting hairs, mate. I’m using them as example that some English themselves were disloyal to their own country. Whether they had a chance to fight is not relevant. Had they had the chance they would have.

It wasn’t on anything like the same scale as the Indians in Malaya, no doubt because the Indians who switched sides in Malaya didn’t have the same commitment to Britain that most people of British origin did.

As for those who switched, regardless of nationality, they’re just as bad as the Indians who switched.

The more I think of it, the more I think honour can be such a blinding quality. After all, the Kamikaze pilots of the IJN were apparently dying honorable deaths, yet there was nothing honorable in it, only the sad fact that they couldn’t think for themselves.

The same applies to just about everyone who serves on any side in war.

We get sucked into it by the bloody politicians trying to advance their personal and national ambitions and then go off to war with ultimately pointless notions of honour and service to the nation by engaging in an orgy of violence and destruction which offends every decent human sentiment and every sound moral principle. Then when the soldiers come home after doing the government’s bidding, the government promptly shits on them after promising them a land fit for heroes while the heat was on. It was ever thus, and always will be.

#50

Yes, but as you point out yourself, they were fighting for their own country. Indians weren’t - they were fighting for the Imperial masters.

It’s more relevant that about 10,000 out of 40,000 Indians captured in Malaya didn’t switch sides. They were in exactly the same position as those who did and, in time, in a lot worse position. The difference is that one lot were true to their oath as soldiers and the other lot weren’t.

Interestingly, the very large part of the Indian contigent who surrendered in Malaya were new recruits - most of whom who hadn’t completed their training and had been rushed to Malaya. Though I don’t any research has been carried out, their is probably a correlation between those who stayed “loyal” and their length of service.

There’s nothing wrong with surrender. It’s an entirely different thing to treason

True, but RS, you have yet to address the question of whether the Indian troops were really commiting treason. Even the British authorities baulked at addressing this issue after the war, and as has been pointed out in an earlier post, most INA members were not charged thus. Even those who were deemed as the worst offenders were charged with criminal offences such as brutality. Even then, the British authorities knew that this was politically explosive. They knew that they were on shaky ground.

In any event, that was a national surrender that has nothing to do with individual treachery.

The same goes for the conflict between Italy and Germany after Italy surrendered. The conflict arose because Germany refused to recognise the surrender and remained in occupation of Italy for its own purposes.

The same way that Britain and the Allies did not recognise the surrender of the France, Belgium, Norway etc?

Governments do what they like, invariably without regard to the interests of their own soldiers and people in other countries and frequently without regard to the best interests of all of their own people .

EXACTLY - so if by your own logic, then individuals have to make their own decisions when asked to make a choice once they have been abandoned by their leaders/governments, such as after an order of surrender

As for those who switched, regardless of nationality, they’re just as bad as the Indians who switched.

Really - what about the Vichy troops who were persuaded to switch to the Free French? They are seen as heroes by the French, and the Allied nations.

#51

Amrit and others

I should make it clear that so far my comments have been addressed to the quite simple issue of whether or not the Indians who switched sides were traitors, in the sense of betraying their oath as soldiers and giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Obviously I think they were.

That was also the result of the trials of the few leaders who were tried in the Red Fort trials after the war.

The reasons why they switched sides are a different issue that, in my view don’t have any bearing on whether or not they are to be judged as traitors. It does, however, bear on understanding their actions.

Something I’d forgotten is the further complicating factor that a good number of Indians who went over to the First INA chose to revert to POW status after Mohan Singh fell out with the Japanese, rather then join the Second INA.

It doesn’t alter their initial offence, but it puts them in a different category to those who proceeded with the Second INA under Chandra Bose and who went on to take up arms against British troops in Burma.

It’s a good point that the Indians weren’t British and weren’t in the British Army but in the Indian Army. However the King Emperor’s enemies, whether as King of England or King Emperor of India, were the Japanese, so I don’t think the distinction matters for practical purposes.

The oath was to the King Emperor and their duty was to fight his enemies. Breaching that oath and supporting his enemies was the basis of the Red Fort trials.

Also don’t forget that at the same time that these soldiers were choosing to join the INA, in India Gandhi had started the Quit India Movement which advocated the non-cooperation with the British, and the war effort.

Nehru (I don’t know about Gandhi) actually stated that he opposed an invasion of India by the INA, saying that Bose and Co had put themselves on the wrong side and that they were

“functioning under Japanese auspices. No person could come to India in this way under such foreign auspices. Therefore, whatever the motive behind these people, they had to be resisted inside and outside India”

Speech by Nehru in D. Y. Dev, Patriots not Traitors, New Delhi, 1945, p.3, cited by L. C. Green, The Indian National Army Trials, [1948] Modern Law Review , 47, at 49.

I think that Nehru’s position demonstrates that in serving Japan the INA troops were also traitors to the independent India to which Nehru, Gandhi and others aspired, in the sense that treason consists in giving aid and comfort to the enemy of one’s nation.

Nehru also kept former INA soldiers out of India’s army, although there was a lot of opposition to him on this point.

#52

True, and it’s understandable in the same way that indigenous Indonesian troops went over to the Japanese in the NEI, but it doesn’t alter the fact that they joined up voluntarily and breached their oath.

Interestingly, the very large part of the Indian contingent who surrendered in Malaya were new recruits - most of whom who hadn’t completed their training and had been rushed to Malaya. Though I don’t any research has been carried out, their is probably a correlation between those who stayed “loyal” and their length of service.

There is probably some correlation. After the Farrer Park address I think that a large proportion of officers declined to switch sides, and they’d be far more experienced than raw recruits. Many would also be much more likely to identify with the British interests they served, although clearly there were some like Mohan Singh who harboured resentment.

True, but RS, you have yet to address the question of whether the Indian troops were really committing treason. Even the British authorities baulked at addressing this issue after the war, and as has been pointed out in an earlier post, most INA members were not charged thus. Even those who were deemed as the worst offenders were charged with criminal offences such as brutality. Even then, the British authorities knew that this was politically explosive. They knew that they were on shaky ground.

I think the Red Fort trials establish that it was treason.

As for chasing the rest, it was probably ignored partly for the same reason that most Japanese war criminals were ignored. It was just too hard. The dominant purpose was probably to avoid inflaming matters even more than the Red Fort trials of a few INA leaders did. Britain needed to be trying, imprisoning and executing 40,000 to 50,000 soldiers widely seen as independence fighters like it needed the proverbial hole in the head.

EXACTLY - so if by your own logic, then individuals have to make their own decisions when asked to make a choice once they have been abandoned by their leaders/governments, such as after an order of surrender.

Not at all.

Surrender and captivity are consequences of war, which all soldiers have to accept. It’s not an act of abandonment by their government.

The overriding duties of a captured soldier, who remains subject at all times to the military law of his nation, are to co-operate as little as possible with the enemy and to escape back to his own lines.

Gen Gordon Bennet, the Australian commander who escaped from Singapore shortly after the surrender was widely reviled by his military peers for making his own decision to escape, without orders from Gen Percival, rather than remain with his troops in captivity.

Really - what about the Vichy troops who were persuaded to switch to the Free French? They are seen as heroes by the French, and the Allied nations.

Like everything, deciding whether or not something is right or wrong, or justifiable or not, depends upon one’s viewpoint.

However, I don’t think the Vichy comparison is apposite to the INA. The French troops continued to fight for France against its occupying conqueror. France wasn’t at war with Britain, so the French troops went over to France’s former ally rather than to its enemy.

#53

And it was the same Nehru who put forward the motion at the National Congress Meeting that the INA men who were to be tried should be defended by the Party. And it was in this motion that he stated “not a hair on the heads of the brave soldiers of Indian freedom must be touched…it would be tragic if these men were to be punished” (The Forgotten Army" by Fay pg 446).

Fay then quotes from the message sent by Gandhi to Wavell (pg 450) “Though not at one with those who would resort to arms even in self defence, [Gandhi] could not be blind to the courage and patriotism often displayed by persons who did, ‘as seems to be the case here’. Could the Viceroy afford to ignore what Indians were thinking? ‘India adores these men…No doubt the Government have overwhelming might on their side. But it will be a misuse of that power if it is used in the teeth of universal Indian opposition’” (Italics indicate Gandhi’s words)

Not exactly words or actions of men who thought the INA were traitors.

#54

Well, at least it demonstrates my point about politicians and governments lacking consistency and adherence to principle. :smiley:

#55

Rising Sun, with all due respect to your knowledge, you seem to have very opinionated views about this topic; the way wars are started! You counter everything with quotes and seem to question every single comment made, as though you are some kind of oracle of WW2.

Thinking about it, I have no desire to be part of this thread any longer, as your inflexible thinking and obvious negative sentiments towards Indians make me feel uncomfortable. I also think you have given other readers a very tainted view of what were on the whole, a brave and loyal fighting force to Great Britain.

Good day to you, sir!

#56

Come now, ww2artist, don’t be like that. I think RS is merely taking a stance that many have and do take - the question of former allies joining the “enemy” is indeed an emotive one, and the INA is a very good case in point. If you really want to see emotions you should read the newspapers of the time - boy, battle-lines really were drawn back then. Flicking through the British and Indian papers, one would think that the Indians and the Brits were going for all out war.

So far, I feel that RS has shown restraint (considering his position :slight_smile: ) and I’ve quite enjoyed the debate. Being of Indian origins, and a partial supporter of the INA ideal (rather than their methods), I can’t say that I have been offended.

So, ww2artist, come back and enjoy this debate, because at the end of the day, that’s all it is.

A

#57

Sorry.

First, I thought that politicians started wars, unless we want to go back to some oddities like the medieval Anglo-French fishing wars. Obviously someone else starts them. Could you let me know who, apart from the governments of the major Axis and Allied combatants in WWII started, controlled and set grand strategy for the European, China and Pacific wars?

Second, I didn’t realise that I wasn’t allowed to challege other people’s views and, worse, do it by by referring to facts and quotes.

What would you prefer to be used instead of historical facts in historical discussion which, by definition, involves an exchange of views?

As you’re so offended by my practice of using quotes, perhaps you should rebuke Amrit for challenging my posts with his own facts and quotes, for which I’m grateful because in challenging my views and providing new information he makes me think and learn. I wonder why you find the same practice acceptable for him and objectionable when I do it?

Do you just want quotes that support your preferred view, to avoid thinking and learning about a very difficult subject?

Thinking about it, I have no desire to be part of this thread any longer, as your inflexible thinking and obvious negative sentiments towards Indians make me feel uncomfortable.

Read my posts, for Chrissake!

It’s got nothing to do with Indians, it’s to do with traitors, who in Malaya happened to be Indians in very large numbers.

I suspect you’re uncomfortable not because of what I’ve said, but because it forces you to recognise some unpalatable facts that contradict your rosy view of the noble and unanimously loyal Indian forces in WWII. Well, some of them weren’t, any more than they were in the Indian Mutiny.

One of the unpleasant things about military history is that, if one approaches it objectively, it often teaches one unpalatable facts about one’s own nation and people, which contradicts the reams of propaganda put out by governments during and after the war, as well as contradicting the positive beliefs we all like to have about ourselves and our nations.

I don’t have any problem in accepting discreditable acts by Australians in various wars. I don’t know why you’re so reluctant to accept discreditable acts by Indians. Or did I misunderstand the thread title as being code for the silent sub-title “But don’t mention anything about the INA etc”?

I also think you have given other readers a very tainted view of what were on the whole, a brave and loyal fighting force to Great Britain.

Really?

So the only fighting force that India put in the field was the INA, which has been the subject of most of my posts? It may have been brave but it certainly wasn’t loyal to Great Britain.

Or should I shut up about that, because it offends your desire to have an India of pure and unsullied service to the King Emperor?

Good day to you, sir!

If you disagree with what I’ve said, offer some contradictory facts instead of just taking your bat and ball and going home in a huff like a petulant little kid who can’t get his own way.

This is a forum.

It involves discussion, not just blind rooting for the home team.

#58

Thanks.

You posted while I was composing, and I didn’t see your post before posting my last.

We’re agreed that Indians made a huge contribution to the British war effort in various ways, both in India and elsewhere.

It’s in the nature of military history that great victories, great defeats, and other unusual events are of much greater interest than the ‘routine’ slogging that comprises most of what happens in war.

The INA interests me for a whole range of reasons, not least the background in India before, during and after WWII up to Partition, and the ambivalent treatment its members got after the war.

India was a boiling cauldron of pro and anti British sentiment and movements during that period, not to mention internal tensions which expressed themselves in another violent fashion during Partition.

In case it’s not clear :), I condemn any soldier who goes over to the other side. It’s wrong.

However, in the case of the INA, there are so many factors that make it understandable and yet so many that make it incomprehensible that Indians were even in Malaya.

You may know the answer to this, but was one factor in Indian recruitment just an economic one of getting a better job for the poor?

I’m wondering if there is a sort of parallel with Australia’s enlistment rates in WWII, particularly in the early part. Many men had not recovered from the Depression. We had militia bases called drill halls. One of our politicians famously described some of the men who joined up early as “economic conscripts sitting on the drill hall steps”.

#59

Very true. WW2 was unique not only because of the enormity of the conflict but because so many social and political issues arose during and after the war. In many ways that interests me more than the “bang bang” parts of the war.

The INA interests me for a whole range of reasons, not least the background in India before, during and after WWII up to Partition, and the ambivalent treatment its members got after the war.

India was a boiling cauldron of pro and anti British sentiment and movements during that period, not to mention internal tensions which expressed themselves in another violent fashion during Partition.

Again very true. However, the internal tensions did not merely erupt after the war, but can be seen to have done so during the war.

The Quit India Movement is one example. Though Gandhi was a great Anglophile, he strongly believed that the British should not expect “blind” support from India unless they were willing to start the debates of India’s reward for such support. Though India had declared war on Germany, that decision was not made by the Indian government (which at that time had been going through a 20 year period of Indianisation) but by the Viceroy, without consultation of the Indian parliamentarians who had minority positions in local and national governments.

At the beginning Gandhi, and Congress, supported the fight against what they believed to be a great evil. But in Indian eyes, the British refusal to open negotiations, lead to disenchantment. What is really interesting about this is that Jinnah and the Muslim League saw this as an opportunity to openly break from Congress, and he stated his support for Britain - as you would say, RS, politicians can be devious. Jinnah knew that such open support would hold him in good stead after the war. So one could say that the roots of post-war communal problems started then

You may know the answer to this, but was one factor in Indian recruitment just an economic one of getting a better job for the poor?

I’m wondering if there is a sort of parallel with Australia’s enlistment rates in WWII, particularly in the early part. Many men had not recovered from the Depression. We had militia bases called drill halls. One of our politicians described some of the men who joined up early as “economic conscripts sitting on the drill hall steps”.

The way that Indians were recruited is both economic and social roots. Though it tended to be the poor that were recruited, this is not really comparable with the West. The additional factor of what the British called the “Martial Races” (which has been mentioned in an earlier post) played a major part in who and from where the British recruited.

The main factor, though, that played badly for the British and Indians in Malaya, and later Burma, was that from 1939 to 1941, the Indian Army was so badly organised, and the administrators so relaxed about the possibility of a future war with Japan, that they only implemented minimal increases in recruitment and training facilities.

#60

This has just occurred to me on scanning earlier posts.

You could also have pointed out the Nehru appeared as a barrister for at least one of the accused in the Red Fort trials (can’t recall details).

Normally that isn’t significant as a lawyer isn’t endorsing his client’s actions by appearing for him, but in Nehru’s case my recollection is that he hadn’t practised as a barrister for a long time (or ever?) before making a hugely important and symbolic appearance in that case.

I think Nehru’s inconsistent statements and actions illustrate the shifting nature of attitudes towards the INA in some influential independence circles, although my understanding is that there was a lot more unequivocal popular support for the INA.