Seeing the ‘Colonial Troops’ WW special, this question inevitably came up in my mind.
Especially since there was heightened opposition to British colonial rule already for decades on the South Indian subcontinent, it really begs the question: why did so many join the army of an overlord many of them probably didn’t want in the first place?
This is a potientally lenghty topic, I imagine, with many possible spinoffs. To be honest, another WW2 Special on this topic would not be out of place, especially since the pivotal importance of Indian troops in one of the strategical hotspots of the war - Burma.
But I digress. In any case, I’d be more than happy if my question could get a place in OOTF
I surmise that it’s because of any of the following: loyalty, or the simple prospect of “a glorious endeavor”, or broad indifference to the independence movement, or protection for themselves (from either Axis incursion or British crackdown) and their home territory (especially after Dec. 1941).
In terms of Indian history, it wasn’t all roses and fighting.
Assuming the wiki about the Indian Independence history is accurate- while the majority of people did support Britain in the war effort, not every did- from people fighting against Britain to non-violent protests. It’s a big country- so it would be pretty easy to find a very diverse opinion on the war, even if the gross majority of people wanted to be independent from Great Britain.
Given the struggle previous to the war, I would not be surprised that many of the leaders of the movement saw the writing on the wall- there was no real way that GB could manage all of their colonies- from '45 to '65 more than 30 colonies separated from Great Britain.
So fight to prevent the spread of Japan, Italy, and Germany, and know that in the back of the situation, Britain would end up shrinking, too.
In theory… (I’m not a historian)
edit- as a future perspective, the 1951 Census in India was just about 319 million people. So it would an easy extrapolation (can’t find data) that the army was less than 1% of the population. Compare that to the US, were the 1940 population was 132M, and 16M served in WWII, which is over 10%. Kind of more data to suggest that the support for Great Britain was, well, good, but not universal.
Even today the Indians are well disposed towards the British in the main. Britain did much to improve India and took a series of corrupt princedoms and turned them into a single country where none had previously existed. While the British were racist and occasionally dangerously incompetent administrators, you need to understand the genocide and corruption of the Muslim occupation of India, and the efforts they made to exterminate Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism etc. While the British did make efforts to Christianize India periodically, the attempts were generally scotched as offensive quite quickly, and the attitude of religious tolerance prevailed, which was a breath of fresh air on the Sub-Continent. Also, Britain had promised India self-rule if they helped in WW2, and they ultimately honored the promise, despite trying to wriggle out of it. On the other hand, the British also created Pakistan and Bangladesh as a means of creating long term trouble in the area as a means of justifying a swift return. This tactic was used in Northern Ireland, Palestine, Kuwait, and a number of African nations, and has been an ongoing problem for the emerging nations involved.
First of, Norman, welcome to the Timeghost Army! I hope you will enjoy it as much as I do!
Actually your question seems very relevant and also very much actual at this day and age, as we also should question ourselves why so many Nepalese and Indian construction workers go to Qatar and die by the hundreds due to heat exchaustion, maltreatment and poor living facilities.
I see many similarities here: when you have nothing and want to have a little bit of something, there weren’t too much choices for many people. The army provided some money and security, even when you would perish, so it was an insurance to support your family, I guess.
lol, don’t know why I get the brief that you are a new member.
…something the moderates should look at maybe?
No, sorry, my bad, I was referring to the main poster. my apologies
Thanks for all the answers guys! Some very interesting angles from where to look at this question. Perhaps yeah, the silent majority are the ones filling up your army’s ranks, and certainly the army would have more to offer than just servitude & death
Hope Indy & Co will pick it up somewhere in the future
but thank you.
lol, don’t know why I get the brief that you are a new member.
my apologies
