The Indian National Army
The Indian National Army
Any assistance in locating information on the INA would be a great help for me. I do know that the army was formed under Japanese command in opposition to British rule of India. What I would like to know is, how were the members of the INA viewed by the Indian public at the time of the Anglo-Japanese war in the Pacific?
Thanks in advance...
Thanks in advance...
- Lawrence Tandy
- Member
- Posts: 1738
- Joined: 18 May 2002, 08:41
- Location: B.C, Canada
http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/free_india.htm
http://itclub.vs.moe.edu.sg/cyberfair20 ... narmy.html
I could only find a couple of links.
Hope it helps.
LT
http://itclub.vs.moe.edu.sg/cyberfair20 ... narmy.html
I could only find a couple of links.
Hope it helps.
LT
- Lawrence Tandy
- Member
- Posts: 1738
- Joined: 18 May 2002, 08:41
- Location: B.C, Canada
Well, through the use of a Google search, a far more detailed account can be found at the follwing URL:
http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/3/4/ ... 7-439.html
However, the site seems to display an open sympathy towards the INA, and strange contempt for their British opponents...
http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/3/4/ ... 7-439.html
However, the site seems to display an open sympathy towards the INA, and strange contempt for their British opponents...
A recent TV series, known as the "Forgotten Volunteers" also revealed some light on this subject. Although it's primary focus was on Indian forces loyal to the British Crown, the INA did feature substantially in the narration. A noteworthy (although not particularly surprising) fact is that for every one Indian who enlisted with the INA, 62 remained loyal to their oaths of allegiance to the Crown. Also, their appeared to be a reluctance on the part of the INA enlistees to engage their fellow countrymen in the British Indian Army. Messages were frequently passed from one opposing side to the other, each claiming that their movement was acting in the best interests of India.
One veteran of the INA claimed that he was "coerced" into enlisting by the Japanese, but many more rejected the formation, not wishing to align themselves with a foe who had treated their fellow countrymen with such contempt and brutality as POWs...
Unsurprisingly, for many, the Union Jack of Great Britain appealed far more than the Red Circle of Japan.
One veteran of the INA claimed that he was "coerced" into enlisting by the Japanese, but many more rejected the formation, not wishing to align themselves with a foe who had treated their fellow countrymen with such contempt and brutality as POWs...
Unsurprisingly, for many, the Union Jack of Great Britain appealed far more than the Red Circle of Japan.
Subhas Brigade
Does anyone know how the Subhas Brigade or Subhas Regiment was organized and armed? I know it had 3 battalions. Was it organized like the Indian Army equivalent?
It seems the Japanese said they could only arm 30000 men. So was that with old British equipment or with Japanese weapons or a mix?
It seems the Japanese said they could only arm 30000 men. So was that with old British equipment or with Japanese weapons or a mix?
- Gordon Bennett
- Member
- Posts: 63
- Joined: 23 Aug 2004, 08:35
- Location: Melbourne, Victoria, AUSTRALIA.
Hi Matt H,
Regarding your Google search and the article about the INA.
Be wary of these articles. The site is the 'Journal of Historical Reveiw' by Castle Hill Publishers. It openly supports 'revisionism'. While it's articles are sometimes an entertaining read you need to take them with a grain of salt.
http://vho.org/About.html
Above is a link to their 'about us' page. Well worth a read and tells you where they are coming from with regards to the articles they publish
Cheers,
AB.
Regarding your Google search and the article about the INA.
Be wary of these articles. The site is the 'Journal of Historical Reveiw' by Castle Hill Publishers. It openly supports 'revisionism'. While it's articles are sometimes an entertaining read you need to take them with a grain of salt.
http://vho.org/About.html
Above is a link to their 'about us' page. Well worth a read and tells you where they are coming from with regards to the articles they publish
Cheers,
AB.
- Wm. Harris
- Member
- Posts: 424
- Joined: 04 Mar 2003, 23:10
- Location: Festung Kanada
Recruiting for the INA initially went very well. After centuries of British influence, the sepoy and the Indian population at large had developed a strong respect for and confidence in the British army. After 1942, with the Japanese sweeping the British and Commonwealth forces before them, this confidence was severely shaken. A flood of Japanese propaganda advocating pan-Asian cooperation against European and American imperialists didn't help, either.Matt H. wrote:Any assistance in locating information on the INA would be a great help for me. I do know that the army was formed under Japanese command in opposition to British rule of India. What I would like to know is, how were the members of the INA viewed by the Indian public at the time of the Anglo-Japanese war in the Pacific?
This of course played right into Japanese hands, and even they were surprised by the onrush of volunteers. It is known that many joined simply because they knew how brutally they would be treated as POWs. When ideology was a factor, it generally was a belief the INA would soon be assisting the Japanese in liberating India, an attractive notion given the events of the previous 20 years or so. But as months passed, it became apparent to many in the INA that they were to be used as an instrument of Japanese imperialism, not as a partner to free India.
Japanese officers in charge of the INA also proved remarkably ineffective. For instance, almost none spoke Hindustani and few bothered to learn; by contrast, British officers in the Indian army were expected to have a basic command of the language their troops spoke, and had been doing so since the days of the Honourable East India Company. Little things like this quickly convinced many in the INA that the Japanese were even more distant and uninterested in Indian nationalism than the British had been.
By the time of the Imphal-Kohima offensive, most of the INA had been relegated to guarding supply depots and railheads behind the Japanese lines. Only about 6,000 actually joined the Japanese at the front; of these about a tenth soon deserted back to the British, 400 were KIA, 800 surrendered, 1,500 died of malaria and dysentery and 1,400 were invalided.
I'm not sure about the war years, but when INA members were brought to trial for treason late in 1945 and 1946, there were mass protests in various parts of India. The feeling seems to have been that the INA men were patriots, not traitors. Both Hindus and Moslems were united in their defense of the turncoats, one of the few things they agreed upon. The INA leader, Subhas Chandra Bose, was a nationalist hero, even though he opposed much of what the Indian National Congress stood for. Today the INA remains a topic of nationalist adoration in India (as far as I can tell, anyway), and as such is subject to the same distortions we find regarding George Washington in American history.
It is funny, though, that the reservations many INA men felt towards their employment by the Japanese were not shared (even with hindsight) by nationalists at home.
Hope this helps,
Bill
Last edited by Wm. Harris on 06 Oct 2004, 23:59, edited 1 time in total.
- Wm. Harris
- Member
- Posts: 424
- Joined: 04 Mar 2003, 23:10
- Location: Festung Kanada
Re: Subhas Brigade
The Japanese had a difficult time arming and equipping the INA, since there had really been no planning about what to do with them. Initially they were given rifles described as "old and in poor condition" -- I would assume logistical concerns would have meant these would be of Japanese manufacture. They were also given khaki uniforms, unlike the Japanese and British who wore jungle green. Altogether they were treated rather shabbily by the Japanese, which perhaps wasn't entirely intentional, but which may explain why so many deserted back to the British.asiaticus wrote:Does anyone know how the Subhas Brigade or Subhas Regiment was organized and armed? I know it had 3 battalions. Was it organized like the Indian Army equivalent?
It seems the Japanese said they could only arm 30000 men. So was that with old British equipment or with Japanese weapons or a mix?
Source: The Forgotten Army by Peter Ward Fay
Bill
Few heavy weapons existed.asiaticus wrote:Interesting. Did Bhose get this armament improved for the that he raised in 1944? I mean the units at the front? Or were they too all just rifle armed units, with no light or heavy machineguns and mortars?
Interestingly, one of the female volunteers for the INA - Ms. Lakshmi Sehegal recently was one of the candidates for the President of India (defeated by the current President Dr. A P J Abdul Kalam)
regards,
Here is what I have fouind out, mostly from Taki who has this website on the IJA http://www3.plala.or.jp/takihome/
We had a discussion on the Pacific War forum http://www.f16.parsimony.net/forum27947/
1st Guerilla Division participated in the Imphal campaign. It was a light-armed unit to be used only for auxiliary duty. 1st Guerilla Division consisted of three guerilla regiments. 1st Guerilla Division consisted only of infantry and lacked support units. They were armed with MG, LMG, automatic rifle (Probably the Thompson SMG) and rifle.
Later, two field divisions armed with heavy equipment were organized. But, they did not participate in the Imphal campaign.
These two field divisions were designated 2nd and 3rd Divisions. The OOB of the field divisions are as follows:
Field Division HQ
3 Infantry Battalions
-3 Infantry Companies
-MG Company
Battalion Gun Company
AT Gun Platoon
Armor Battalion
Armored Car Company
Tank Company
Artillery Battalion
-2 Batteries
AA Gun Battery
Engineer Company
Signal Company
Medic Unit
Transport Company
The infantry were armed with MG, LMG, rifle grenade discharger and rifles. There were also infantry mortar units, an AT gun unit and HMG unit. They used captured British weapons.
The armoured units used captured vehicles. The tank company used Bren carriers and the armored car company used Marmon-Harrington armored cars.
We had a discussion on the Pacific War forum http://www.f16.parsimony.net/forum27947/
1st Guerilla Division participated in the Imphal campaign. It was a light-armed unit to be used only for auxiliary duty. 1st Guerilla Division consisted of three guerilla regiments. 1st Guerilla Division consisted only of infantry and lacked support units. They were armed with MG, LMG, automatic rifle (Probably the Thompson SMG) and rifle.
Later, two field divisions armed with heavy equipment were organized. But, they did not participate in the Imphal campaign.
These two field divisions were designated 2nd and 3rd Divisions. The OOB of the field divisions are as follows:
Field Division HQ
3 Infantry Battalions
-3 Infantry Companies
-MG Company
Battalion Gun Company
AT Gun Platoon
Armor Battalion
Armored Car Company
Tank Company
Artillery Battalion
-2 Batteries
AA Gun Battery
Engineer Company
Signal Company
Medic Unit
Transport Company
The infantry were armed with MG, LMG, rifle grenade discharger and rifles. There were also infantry mortar units, an AT gun unit and HMG unit. They used captured British weapons.
The armoured units used captured vehicles. The tank company used Bren carriers and the armored car company used Marmon-Harrington armored cars.
- Wm. Harris
- Member
- Posts: 424
- Joined: 04 Mar 2003, 23:10
- Location: Festung Kanada