During a recent discussion about World War I, historians Srinath Raghavan and Mridula Mukherjee spoke about India's participation and how it eventually shaped the nation. Shrabasti Mallik reports
One hundred years ago the World War I set the course for the modern world — for the countries that took part nothing was ever the same again. The Indian army was the key to the British Military effort in the war where more than a million men served on the Western Front at Gallipolli, the Middle East and Africa. There were far more Indian soldiers defending the Empire than there were British men in the field. Some were forced to enlist but a great many were moved by a genuine desire to come to Britain’s aid at its time of need.
These and many unknown and forgotten facts were part of the discussion held by the BBC World Service and the British Council.
Conducted by Razia Iqbal it brought forth the impact the war had in the country. “India’s contribution had been a key factor to the allied victory, yet this war was a part of an independent India’s imperial legacy and its difficult associations have led it to be sometimes called India’s forgotten war,” she said.
Srinath added, “The war was between empires. All clearly targeted each other’s imperial possessions. Which is why it became a world war, otherwise it would have been any other European war. In fact even before Britain had declared war on August 4, a letter from Germany had stated ‘We have to ensure that if we are going to ship German blood then Britain should at least use India’.”
Imperial resources to the Empire were in the form of soldiers. Troops came in from West Indies right up to Sri lanka and India. It was kind of a melting pot which brought in different kind of forces. But how India’s volunteer force came about, nobody knows.
“People were encouraged to volunteer, that motivated people to feel that this was something they were prepared to do and take part in. It is important to understand that it is not the conscription and it is technically a volunteer army,” said Mridula adding that one had yet to understand it was profession. “It was not like fighting a war for the country — they took it as a given that they were a colony,” she said.
There was a time when Gandhi had encouraged recruits, saying, “We are not entitled to self rule until we come forward and enlist in the army.” Home rule was not granted, however, discontent grew and the war and its aftermath had a huge effect on India and Imperialism.
There was also a sense of loyalty to the Empire among the soldiers. Srinath explained, “There was a very strong personal identification with the figure of the king emperor. So people were not fighting for the kingdom or the country they certainly had a sense that they were fighting for the king. And that is quite interesting and intriguing. That needs a bit of unpacking than the notion that will clearly express that it was not India’s war. When wounded soldiers were admitted with an injury sometimes the king would come for a visit. And the letters back home carried ecstatic expressions filled with gratitude towards the king.”
The debate also focussed on the Jallianwala Bagh massacre of 1919, which resulted in Rabindranath Tagore giving up his knighthood and also the passing of the Rowlatt Act. Srinath also touched the sentiment that the soldiers had towards the word izzat. He said, “It had two extreme meanings: honour and also shame. People fought because they did not want to let down their village, caste, religion. So, there were many levels as to what constituted izzat.”
The audience was encouraged to share stories of any family members who were part of the war.