Talk:Indian National Army

The bone of contention

I am responding to a ping by user:Drmies on user:Bbb23's talk page.

The lead of the Indian National Army page has been afflicted by edit warring in which I see the main bone of contention to be the lead sentence, i.e. "... was a collaborationist armed unit of Indian collaborators that fought under the command of the Japanese Empire. It was founded by Mohan Singh in September 1942 in Southeast Asia during World War II."

For a long time, perhaps ten years, the article, which has been written almost entirely by user:Rueben lys began: "... was an armed force formed by Indian nationalists and Imperial Japan in 1942 in Southeast Asia during World War II. Its aim was to secure Indian independence from British rule. It fought alongside Japanese soldiers in the latter's campaign in the Southeast Asian theatre of WWII." (see, for example, this version of 26 February 2021).

The following day, User:Cordyceps-Zombie, who has since been blocking for abusing multiple accounts, changed "Indian nationalists" to "Indian collaborationists" in this edit, and since then periodically, like the plague bacillus forewarned about in the closing pages of Albert Camus's The Plague (novel), some version of: "collaborator", "collaborationist," "quisling," "traitor," or "deserter," reappears and the battle is thereafter joined by some of the editors—user:Orientls, user:Adiiitya, user:Abhishek0831996, user:Azuredivay, all of whom share the property of never having added any content to the article, only of having edit warred over its lead sentence. I have no desire to engage these editors in any manner, therefore, I have added some reliable sources to a later sentence (in the lead's third paragraph): "Under Bose's leadership, the INA drew ex-prisoners and thousands of civilian volunteers from the Indian expatriate population in Malaya (present-day Malaysia) and Burma Among the cited authors are: Christopher Bayly and Tim Harper (in particular their Forgotten Armies, Harvard University Press, 2005, Google Scholar citation index 322). Others include Barbara D. Metcalf, Thomas R. Metcalf, Leonard A. Gordon, and Sugata Bose, all major historians of South Asia. May I request one or more of the editors, both admins and others (some of whom have made good suggestions on the leads of articles): @Vanamonde93, RegentsPark, Tito Dutta, Drmies, DrKay, Joshua Jonathan, and Austronesier: to please rephrase and summarize the sentence already there in the third paragraph (to which I have added the sources) in order to rewrite the lead sentence? Otherwise, I fear that generative AI will sooner than we think kill Wikipedia, by summarizing secondary sources more accurately than the paragon of nonstandard diction that currently constitutes the lead sentence. Already, when you ask: "What is the Indian National Army?" Google takes you not to WP Indian National Army page, but to an AI overview, which avoids collaborationists and synonyms thereof. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

This is one of the many times you are being warned over your mass WP:CANVASSING. When you are involved in a content dispute, try WP:DR. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

There is a reason that I have soft pinged adminstrators and some seasoned editors who have not edited this page. It is that WP editors can see in plain sight what WP:Civil POV pushing is all about. You and your cohorts have contributed not one sentence to this article. But you feel entitled to holding up the lead sentence with one word, repeated twice in infirm syntax, and then littering a talk page thread with a wall of quotes, not a single one is from a major introductory textbook per WP:TERTIARY, which is WP policy in matters involving due weight, which is the issue here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• User:Fowler&fowler, thanks. I've read over a ton of material already, but not yet the sources, and I'm really kind of at a loss. Is at the heart of this the question of whether "collaborationist" applies? But no one argues there was no collaboration with Imperial Japan, right? Drmies (talk)
• I don't think there's reasonable dispute that there existed collaboration with Imperial Japan, but equally I don't see what adding "collaborationist" to the lead achieves - I don't even understand whether it's supposed to make the INA look good or bad. "armed unit that fought under the command of Imperial Japan" is clear enough - what does adding "collaborationist" add to the reader's understanding? Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler's reply to Drmies

• User:Drmies, if you have read up, you probably know all this already, but here's my two cents: "Collaborationist" on Wikipedia redirects to Wartime collaboration, i.e. "cooperation with the enemy against one's country of citizenship in wartime." Japan did not have an unconflicted interest in annexing India, even small parts of India, at least not to settle. India was South Asia, not Southeast- or East Asia, which the Japanese considered more properly to be part of their empire. India was already heavily populated and poor. It was also the land in which Buddhism had arisen; among some Japanese, it was sacred. These were some of the reasons the Japanese leadership dithered a full two years on advancing into northeast India after the Fall of Burma in the Spring of 1942.

Subhas Chandra Bose, a charismatic Indian anti-colonial nationalist—but unlike Gandhi, with few qualms about the end not justifying the means—felt that the overthrow of the British in India was not anti-Indian (i.e. only anti-colonial), and thus seeking the aid of Nazi Germany and Fascist Japan was justified. On the Subhas Chandra Bose page, whose lead I have written, we make abundantly clear in both the first and last paragraphs that Bose's legacy is ethically clouded. Bose's Indian National Army, however, is a somewhat different kettle of fish. Before Bose arrived in Southeast Asia from Nazi Germany, there had been a First Indian National Army. It had been "founded" by Iwaichi Fujiwara and Mohan Singh (military officer) and comprised Indian Army POWs in Japanese-occupied Malaya and Burma. Not all POWs were sold on fighting the British.

By the time Bose arrived in Southeast Asia in August 1943, the POWs who had not joined had experienced the grim conditions of the POW camps. Bose's speeches had also whipped up genuine fervor both among civilians in Malaya and Singapore (even among the non-Indians) and among the POWs. Very likely, Indians in Southeast Asia had heard stories of British officers requisitioning the army jeeps to make their escape into India from Burma and leaving the Indian civilians to their own devices. The second INA, revamped by Bose, moreover, had a contingent of Indian civilian volunteers, comprising a third, who had joined to liberate India and had no history of serving in the British Army that could be used to call them collaborators. Quite a few were not even Indian citizens; their families had lived in Malaya and Singapore for a few generations. A simple description of the second INA as being "collaborationist" is probably too simplistic for all these reasons.

PS Although I agree with user:Vanamonde93 that the simple description that existed before the "collaboration-ist" was inserted was probably good enough, I would prefer that we explicitly state what it was constituted of, i.e. "... an armed unit—composed chiefly of British Indian Army POWs but also crucially of enlisting civilians in Malaya and Singapore—that sought unsuccessfully under the military command of the Imperial Japanese Army and the civilian leadership of Subhas Chandra Bose to liberate India from British rule." To fuzz the distinction between the First INA and the Second as the article currently does by considering Mohan Singh to be the founder, even as it advertises up top that "this article is about the second INA," is very confusing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC) Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

The INA, while its association with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan is suspect, "Collaborationist" only loosely fits that association. Regardless of whether it was or not, the sourcing is rather weak since it is not discussed in the article body (except tangentially) and it is sourced in the lead to a book that addresses global post-war period rather than the period of its actual existence or of India during the war in particular ("an account of global history since 1945" writes the Monthly Review).RegentsPark (comment) 01:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Speaking of better sources, as user:RegentsPark implies, I would prefer a lead sentence with citations (that would eventually be stacked in one) along the lines of:

Proposed lead sentence of F&f

The Indian National Army was an armed force formed in Southeast Asia during World War II; it comprised British Indian Army prisoners of war captured by Japan and enlisting Tamil civilians; it was led by Indian nationalist Subhas Chandra Bose and furnished support to the Japanese Army during its unsuccessful attack on British India.

References

References

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

The cited authors

• Barbara D. Metcalf is Professor Emerita of History at the University of California, Davis, and the 2010 President of the American Historial Association.
• Thomas R. Metcalf is the Emeritus Sara Kailath Professor of India Studies and Professor of History at the University of California, Berkeley.
• Tarak Barkawi is a Professor of Political Science at Johns Hopkins University. His book Soldiers of the Empire: Indian and British Armies in World War II won the American Historical Association’s 2018 Paul Birdsall Prize.
• Leonard A. Gordon is an Emeritus Professor of History at Brooklyn College, City University of New York, and Director of the Southern Asia Institute at Columbia University.
• Sugata Bose is the Gardner Professor of Oceanic History and Affairs at Harvard University.
• Christopher Bayly was Vere Harmsworth Professor of Imperial and Naval History at the University of Cambridge from 1992 until his death in 2013
• Tim Harper is a Professor of Southeast Asian History and Head of the School of the Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Cambridge.
• Michael H. Fisher is the emeritus Robert S. Danforth Professor of History at Oberlin College.
• Michael Mann is head of South Asia Studies at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.
• Maria Misra is Professor of Global History at the University of Oxford
• Ishita Banerjee-Dube is a Professor of History at the Centre for Asian and African Studies, El Colegio de Mexico, Mexico City
• Ian Copland is Emeritus Professor of History at Monash University, Australia.
• David Ludden is a Professor of Political Economy and Globalization in the Department of History at New York University and also a Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Pennsylvania,
• Anthony Stockwell is Professor Emeritus of Imperial and Commonwealth History at Royal Holloway, University of London and was President of Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland from 2018 to 2021.
• Keith Jeffery was professor of British History at the Queen's University Belfast

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Section (The bone of contention) continued

My whole purpose was to undo a sudden and mass change made by an editor whom I didn't know and who reverted the graphic Changes like insignia and flags. Nothing to do with any type of lead text. ♘♞ 𝐀𝐃𝐈𝐈𝐈𝐓𝐘𝐀^{(𝓣𝓪𝓵𝓴)} 04:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

user:Adiiitya: I apologize. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Adiiitya, you made this edit, without explanation, because a picture was changed? You could have checked the history, or gotten to learn who the editor was, or looked at the talk page. Drmies (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

That proposal is entirely misleading, and it entirely contradicts not just the scholarly consensus on this subject but also the essence of the subject itself. If you are really "speaking of better sources", then see how the scholarly sources (some of whom you are citing above) have described this unit:

User:Abhishek*'s sources

• Yuki Tanaka (2017). Hidden Horrors: Japanese War Crimes in World War II. Asian Voices. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 215. ISBN 978-1-5381-0270-1. Retrieved 2024-07-18. a puppet army under Japanese control
• Seaman, H. (1989). The Battle At Sangshak: Prelude to Kohima. L. Cooper. p. 23. ISBN 978-0-85052-720-9. puppet army composed of Indian prisoners of war
• Brayley, M.; Chappell, M. (2013). The British Army 1939–45 (3): The Far East. Men-at-Arms. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 13. ISBN 978-1-4728-0441-9. a Japanese puppet organisation
• Spencer C. Tucker (2016). World War II: The Definitive Encyclopedia and Document Collection [5 volumes]. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 110. ISBN 978-1-85109-969-6. The tanks then dashed to cut off Meiktila, easily sweeping aside Japanese-puppet Indian National Army forces.
• Lebra, J. (2008). The Indian National Army and Japan. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. p. 217. ISBN 978-981-230-806-1. For many staff offficers in IGHQ, particularly in the Operations Bureau, and for some staff officers in the field, the INA was a puppet army to be used for propaganda functions according to Japanese requirements.
• Marston, Daniel (2014). The Indian Army and the End of the Raj. Cambridge Studies in Indian History and Society. Cambridge University Press. p. 4. ISBN 978-0-521-89975-8. a Japanese-sponsored collaborationist force, the Indian National Army
• Arthur Herman (2010). Gandhi and Churchill: The Rivalry That Destroyed an Empire and Forged Our Age. Random House. p. 479. ISBN 978-1-4090-6363-6. puppet Indian National Army
• Farrell, B.; Hunter, S. (2009). A Great Betrayal: The Fall of Singapore Revisited. Marshall Cavendish International (Asia) Private Limited. p. 12. ISBN 978-981-4435-46-8. recruitment of many by the Japanese into their puppet Indian National Army

• Charles S. Maier (2008). History of Humanity: The Twentieth Century. Multiple History series. Routledge. p. 45. ISBN 978-92-3-104083-2. had found collaborators in the Philippines, Burma, and within the Indian National Army

• Lyon, Peter (2008). Conflict Between India and Pakistan: An Encyclopedia. Roots of Modern Conflict. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 14. ISBN 978-1-57607-713-9. Indian National Army, led by Subhas Chandra Bose, which had collaborated with the Japanese
• Theodore Ropp (2021). War in the Modern World. Plunkett Lake Press. p. 213. Indian National Army to fight alongside a similar Burma Defense Army, but the Japanese, like the Germans, used these collaborators chiefly to help them plunder the country.
• Gerhard Weinberg (2013). A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II. Cambridge University Press. p. 641. ISBN 978-0-511-25293-8. rebuilt the collaborationist Indian National Army

Also, since many of these INA members were " were given menial jobs and deployed to guard the concentration camps, construct airfields and act as camp followers to the Japanese Army", because of which "Mohan Singh protested and fell out with the Japanese", replacing the term "collaborators" with "fighters" was misleading. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Most of these sources use the term "puppet" rather than "collaborationist"; and what part of "puppet" is not conveyed by "Under Japanese command"? Besides, the first source I spotchecked was Lebra 2008, which doesn't support your point at all; you have taken a snippet out of context. As such I have little confidence in the interpretation of the rest of these, many of which google books does not let me access. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Then the term "puppet" needs to be laid out just like it has been done with many other collaborators of Japan and Germany. Since we have used the term "collaborationist" there should be no dispute over the present version at all.

Regarding Lebra, you have missed the discussion above. Lebra is being quoted to show that even many of the officials in Japan treated the unit as a "puppet army". This proves that this categorization is long term and totally universal. Nevertheless, we have used the term "collaborationist" because it is milder in comparison with "puppet".Abhishek0831996 (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I haven't read the lead yet, but I also feel doubts about the term "collaborationist." It's a term used in Europe for people who collaborated with an enemy which forcefully occupied and terrorized their country. Parts of the British Empire where occupied and terrorized by the Japanese - but does that make those Indians collaborators, as for them their country was occupied and terrorized by the British?

If the term "collaborationist" is relevant, it should be explained why - how was it relevant in that time and context? "Regarded by .... as collaborationist," idem to "treated as a puppet-army." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Imperial Japan had occupied the Asian regions and then this unit was created, thus "collaborationst" is correct and already described throughout the article. We can discuss whether we should use "puppet" or "collaborationist". Azuredivay (talk) 06:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Since Japan had not occupied India, this analogy is incorrect. The INA's stated aim was Indian independence and not necessarily to further Japanese hegemony in Asia. So collaborationist doesn't really fit. If Japan had occupied India and used the INA to run the country then, like the Vichy government, they would definitely have been collaborationist but that didn't happen. However, I agree that the INA's position in history is complicated. They were an army of sorts but had no independent control over their own actions and they were being used by the Japanese for their own purposes. I guess, this should be made clear in the lead. But by using whatever terms are used in the predominance of academic sources. RegentsPark (comment) 18:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

The problem as I see it user:RegentsPark is that these editors, especially Abhishek* and Azuredivay, have been engaging in very selective summarizing of the authors. These editors have made no contribution to the article (as they haven't to Mahatma Gandhi either), but on the talk pages they unload selective outputs of Google searches, for example in this instance of "collaborator" OR "puppet". So, Abhishek*, for example has given the example of Joyce Lebra for "puppet." But what she says is is quite a bit more qualified and involved:

"For many staff officers in IGHQ, particularly in the Operations Bureau, and for some staff officers in the field, the INA was a puppet army to be used for propaganda functions according to Japanese requirements. For others, at the top, like Sugiyama and Arisue, the INA was a revolutionary army so far as the Indians were concerned, but it had to be subordinated to the Japanese military and political objectives. For still others, mostly young idealists in the field like Fujiwara, the INA was a genuine revolutionary army which should receive real and sympathetic support from Japan."

The reference here is to Field Marshall Hajime Sugiyama, Chief of General Staff of the Imperial Japanese Army, Lieutenant General Arisue Seizo, chief of the intelligence department at Imperial General Headquarters, and Iwaichi Fujiwara, the founder of the First INA. Elsewhere, she says, Army Chief of General Staff Sugiyama Gen took a special interest in India derived from his service in India as a military attache. Sugiyama, like, Tojo and Shigemitsu , developed a special sympathy for Subhas Chandra Bose

So, while it is true that the Japanese were using Bose and the INA for their purposes, it is also true that to some extent Bose was using them for his purposes. I can't be sure, but based on all the sources I have read (and I have read the 14 cited above in the sentence in addition to Lebra (and others that have not been cited), I think the Japanese would very likely not have attacked India were Bose not egging them on, enthusing them on, or guilt-tripping them on, whatever the case might have been. Joyce Lebra speaks to this ambivalence in several places. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

PS Also, when we say only "collaborator" or "puppet," we pay no heed to how summarily the departing British officers left the Indian rank and file and the civilians when escaping from Singapore and later Burma. Of the one million Indian who trekked from Burma to India, a large percentage died from malnutrition and disease, in turn worsening the excess deaths in the Bengal famine of 1943. Not one Briton lost their life in that famine, in contrast, to somewhere between one million to three million Indians. I am not remotely in the camp of the subaltern historians or the usual left-wing critics of colonialism, but conversely, we can't completely ignore a reality of class and race that took the American GIs to point out and advertise when they returned to America. Keith Jeffery speaks to this in the quote in reference [14] above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I apologise for my edit. 𝐀𝐃𝐈𝐈𝐈𝐓𝐘𝐀 ♘♞ 16:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like the painstakingly neutral language I used to write the lead was accurate and NPOV afterall. Also the entire introduction section as it stands is very PoV, it keeps saying and using the word "puppet" and "puppet" and "puppet" it almost sounds ljme the person who constructed this has a personal animosity to the INA, and also seeks to strip in idea of potential legitimacy. It is also very bland, lacking in details, at times blends the first INA with second INA and repeatedly tries to establish in prose that "the INA" was being "handed over" from someone to the other. Also, the sources!!! OH.MY.WORD. The sources!!! A reference from Yuki Tanaka on the Batlle of Hogwarts, a reference from encyclopaedia of the world from 8am to 8pm for some thing else. And deliberately miss representing the sources. Although, this is hetter than the last reference from "Alternate History". It does a good job of stripping details that made its way into my version. The only PoV I can see here abuts the political attack of one particular Indian Political party (Not Hindu natioanlist) that tries to suppress and delegitimise any competing legacy. And to restate the obvious, Indians dont see INA as collaborators, as I had evidenced in the last version. Why dont the fellow editors who are neutral not compare the prose, source, and construction of the article as I wrote, compared to this unbalanced version? If this version stands, this would be the best ezample of a good article destroyed by wily PoV pushers while WP stood aside. As dar as I'm concerned, the WP version as it stands is not getting into any reviews of the unit. Joyce Lebra btw, used to think very highly of the version I wrote.rueben_lys (talk · contribs)

I understand you are agrieved, but with respect user:Rueben lys, this is not helpful. We are trying to frame a lead sentence, not the lead, at least not in this thread. Bemoaning the loss of your work on the talk page will not magically bring it back. We are attempting to repair the phrasing in the lead sentence that is not representative of the broad-scale sources (such as introductory undergraduate and graduate textbooks in history), which have typically been vetted for due weight. What Joyce Lebra thought about this article when it bore more of your imprint is neither here nor there for WP's purposes. I hope you understand. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Not sure I am bemoaning anything other than the degradation of the article (not just the lead) into a PoV filled nonsense. That it was my work has little to do with it.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 07:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment @Drmies, Bbb23, Vanamonde93, and RegentsPark: I have now added the sentence proposed above as the first sentence in the article's lead. I have also added the INA's motivation, which was not one of betrayal in the way a British soldier in India might have had. In fact, Claude Auchinleck, C-in-C India during WW2, repeatedly made the point when the British Army in India was reformed after 1943 and became more accepting of Indians commanding white British officers. There was a feeling of resentment among the INA officers against the British, both their superiors and subordinates, for having been mistreated and then summarily "handed to the Japs," when Singapore fell. (See the last citation--to Keith Jeffery).

The sentence has four independent clauses separated by semi-colons and is cited to 14 very reliable sources. I am not completely confident that the editors who had edit warred with Rueben Llys before will not reappear on this page, if not right away, then during a lull. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

• F&F I love you like a brother, but I don't know what I am doing here. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Drmies: Fair enough. I've rewritten the lead sentence again and made a distinction between collaboration born of mutiny and collaboration with Japanese Fascism. Please read it. It is a lot better than simply throwing in the buzz-words "collaborationist" and "puppet," an activity my interlocutors were thus far engaged. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC) Also pinging @RegentsPark and Vanamonde93:. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

• It is understandable that people are not interested in whitewashing a Japanese puppet unit. What rueben_lys wants is a fan page supportive of POV mainly promoted by the likes of Hindutva speakers like G. D. Bakshi, given he wants us to ignore what "Indians dont see". I would just believe that Fowler is putting money on the wrong side here, because if he really believes in the POV of Reuben_lys then that would be really disappointing. Orientls (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  I don't work in postcolonial India, nor am I beholden to Rueban lys. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  I have revised the lead again. Please don't revert the page back to its buzz words version, written in nonstandard diction. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

You are edit warring to impose your version, but I would assure you that is unwise. You should read WP:DR. Azuredivay (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

A plea for nuance

Comment This is an article about an armed force in World War II, largely comprising Indian soldiers of a British-controlled army, the British Indian Army, who, after being captured by the Japanese, had attempted to piggyback the Japanese army in WWII to liberate India from colonial British rule. However, a third of this army comprised civilian volunteers from among the Indian community in Southeast Asia. Several editors here want "collaborationist" and "puppet" in the lead sentence of this article.  They have one source published by a red-linked publisher to which they keep reverting, a point mentioned by admin RegentsPark earlier.  They claim a past consensus and reject any change as out of hand.  They template me on my user talk page for edit-warring.  They are correct about the old longstanding version being a somewhat rose-tinted view, but they have gone over the top in the other direction.  They seem unable to understand that when a colonial power had employed its colonized population to fight its war, the usual black-and-white certainties of World War II and its aftermath need more nuance. I, who have marshalled scholarly sources and have a record of painstaking and NPOV writing, don't stand a chance.   There must be some justice in this world and room for nuance. Please view the recent page history, in particular my last version, which was summarily reverted, and the sources being disregarded in the process. Soft pinging some admins: Bishonen, Johnuniq, Black Kite, Vanamonde93, RegentsPark, DrKay, Drmies, Bbb23; some old South-Asia hands: Johnbod, Joshua Jonathan, and some folk from WP:RS/N: ActivelyDisinterested, S Marshall Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: I don't know what a "soft ping" is, but please stop pinging me.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

OK Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• You are simply ignoring the fact that this group has been described as a puppet or collaborationist unit of the Empire of Japan. I don't see any reason to overlook this fact. You are engaging in inappropriate WP:CANVASSING. Orientls (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  Please read WP:Civil POV pushing. The Wikipedia community is wise to it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

You have probably never read what you are linking. Orientls (talk) 07:57, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• Thank you for pinging me. After reviewing the sources that I can see, I am not convinced that "collaborationist" is the best adjective for the Indian National Army. Firstly, we don't say "collaborationist" about directly equivalent armies such as the Army of Vichy France or the Burma Independence Army; and secondly, "collaborationist" certainly isn't a fair description of what motivated Mohan Singh or Subhas Chandra Bose.

I accept that there is a source for "collaborationist" but I do not feel it's the best available source.

I would prefer the language from Rafe McGregor writing in Military History Magazine, Vol 33, Issue 1 (May 2016), ISSN 0889-7328, p. 64, which you can access via the Wikipedia Library. This describes the INA as "Japanese allied and supported".—S Marshall T/C 17:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

S Marshall. Thank you for this very informative reply. I will look up that source very soon. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I just read McGregor. It is very well written. I'll have to think now how (and how much) to weave in with some judiciousness. Thank you. Very helpful. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry Fowler&fowler I have only a surface level knowledge of the issue, I don't think I can help much. I know that INA collaborated with the Japanese, that Bose had some similar world views, and that the situation is complicated by the British occupation of India, but I couldn't give a properly weighted summary of those issues. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for replying, AD. Completely understandable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• I think Fowler's formulation was quite good though, perhaps, breaking it up into shorter sentences might be a good idea. In its current form, it is a difficult read. Both aspects of Bose's army are included (fight for independent/collaboration). The current version reads as if the only purpose of the INA was to further the goals of the Japanese, which is very far from the truth. That said, the sourcing for "collaborationist" is terrible. Regardless of which version is used in the article, it should either be better sourced or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RegentsPark (talk • contribs) 21:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you RP. I too was worried about the length of the lead sentence. I will try to break it into shorter sentences. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  Some more nuance, adding to my previous comment: the qualification "collaborationist" is controversial, and should not be given as a statement of fact. Who regarded the INA as collaborators? An occupying force, the British, and their Indian collaborators. Compare the Finnish "collaborating" with the Germans to resist the Russians, who invaded Finland. Or the Georgian uprising on Texel, commemorated yearly at Texel, and honoured with a War Graveyard and a memorial. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

It is not controversial but is backed by many scholarly sources, and nobody sincerely disputes it. None of the sources cited above by Abhishek0831996 are from the British colonizers thus we cannot say that this group being a collaborationist unit was only British view.

Regarding your question that who regarded them as collaborators, I would say it is a universal view that this group can be best described as a puppet or collaborationist unit. They were recruited by the Empire of Japan for this purpose. There is a full Collaboration with Imperial Japan article here. Orientls (talk) 08:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I think rather that Imperial Japan recruited them for propaganda purposes. These were prisoners of war, and the IJA expected good soldiers to fight to the death. By the act of surrendering -- simply by being captured -- they made themselves contemptible in the eyes of the IJA. The IJA wouldn't trust them to do much heavy fighting.

But the word "collaborationist" is basically a judgement on the collaborator, not on the conqueror, and when we're deciding whether to say "collaborationist", we should therefore be interrogating the INA's motives, not the IJA's. My reading of the sources is that the INA's motives were more complex than just collaborationism and I do think we can find a better way of phrasing this.—S Marshall T/C 10:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

It's quite obvious that "universal view" is contentious, as shown by the discussion at this talkpage, and by the descriptions in the article, which states, multiple times, that the British, and their loyalists (who collaborated with what was regarded by many as an occupying force) viewed them as collaborationist; and that the British actively propagated to view them as collaborators. From the article:

• "Indians rapidly came to view the soldiers who enlisted as patriots and not enemy-collaborators. Philip Mason, then-Secretary of the War Department, later wrote that "in a matter of weeks ... in a wave of nationalist emotion, the INA were acclaimed heroes who fought for the freedom of India."[125]"
• "In Singapore, Indians – particularly those who were associated with the INA – were treated with disdain as they were "stigmatized as fascists and Japanese collaborators".[158][159]"
• "British and Commonwealth troops viewed the recruits as traitors and Axis collaborators.[3]"
• "Fay notes some officers like Shah Nawaz Khan were opposed to Mohan Singh's ideas and tried to hinder what they considered a collaborationist organisation.[199]"
• "He concludes that the Jiffs campaign promoted the view that INA recruits were weak-willed and traitorous Axis collaborators, motivated by selfish interests of greed and personal gain. He concludes that the allegations of torture were largely products of the Jiffs campaign.[100][201][202]"

Your comment nobody sincerely disputes it is a little bit odd in this regard.

Furthermore, Henry Heller (2006). The Cold War and the New Imperialism: A Global History, 1945–2005. Monthly Press. p. 87. is used only one time, in the lead; this WP:CHERRYPICKING a source to make a controversial statement violating WP:NPOV, instead of summarizing the contents of the article in which it is explained that there are various views on the INA. Actully, instead of "viewed" we could also write "stigmatized." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:42, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Not just the British but also a number of Japanese officials also viewed this unit as a puppet. Lebra has been quoted a few times above and the quote is "For many staff officers in IGHQ, particularly in the Operations Bureau, and for some staff officers in the field, the INA was a puppet army to be used for propaganda functions according to Japanese requirements." Azuredivay (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

We're talking here about "collaborationist," not "puppet." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I have read Rafe McGregor once. I will read him again after fully awakened with coffee. I note S Marshall's renewed emphasis on the middle ground, especially the INA's recruitment for propaganda purposes, a point echoed by A. J. Stockwell in citation [3] in my last version (see here), where he says, "the principal contribution of the INA was to the propaganda subverting British India." I note Joshua Jonathan's good points about the waters of expository or descriptive prose muddying in the context of colonialism. I have made a note of their helpful citations. But before I put all this together, I do strenuously object to the sentence after the lead sentence about the INA being founded by Mohan Singh. That was the First Indian National Army. Besides, it was not founded by Mohan Singh alone but by Iwaichi Fujiwara and Mohan Singh, which speaks to a Japanese role in recruitment. The top of the article proclaims that this is the Second INA, not the first. So, before I do anything, I will correct this error. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• Maybe say it was founded by Mohan Singh et. al. and then re-founded by Bose?—S Marshall T/C 12:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry, I didn't see this earlier. I have written "revived," but "refounded" gives Bose a deservedly bigger role. Happy to change. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• @Joshua Jonathan and S Marshall: I don't see a reason to dispute the stable lead, however, as S Marshall suggests that we need to find better wording then I have something in my mind. Given all the recent messages here, it seems that the dispute here is only over the single word "collaborationist". What if we remove that word from the first paragraph and use the 2nd paragraph to describe that this unit has been widely labelled as puppet and collaborationist? I don't think that would need anything like "which was viewed as collaborationist by the British[2][3][4][5] and some of their Indian loyalists". We can simply say "varyingly described as a collaborationist or a puppet unit..." Azuredivay (talk) 13:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• That would be the conventional Wikipedia approach but I personally dislike it. I hope we can say what it was, not what it was described as; I am averse to the he-said-she-said that plagues fraught topics. The truth is that the INA was more anti-colonial than pro-fascist, although fascists likely did exist within it, and I hope we can find a form of words that captures that idea succinctly.—S Marshall T/C 13:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• There isn't anything wrong with providing a balanced view on lead. This unit getting termed as "collaborationist" or "puppet" can be pointed out on lead. Do you have any proposal that can make way for that? See the lead of Subhas Chandra Bose. It also points out what "many" believe. Azuredivay (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

  I have written the entire lead of Subhas Chandra Bose, every word of it. Please don't misemploy my effort there by proposing a cherry picked formulation of undue weight here to be its equivalent. I have already proposed a version of the lead sentence here, which I will soon modify with S Marshall, Joshua Jonathan, and RegentsPark's inputs. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

  Removing "collaborationist" from the first paragraph would be fine with me. The sixth paragraph of the lead already says "The INA's members were viewed as Axis collaborators and traitors by British soldiers and Indian PoWs who did not join the army, but after the war they were seen as patriots by many Indians." The sentence "varyingly described as a collaborationist or a puppet unit..." is not an adequate description of the controversy surrounding this unit, I think. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

  A legitimate criticism not so much of the INA, but of the men of the INA after their release into civilian life in 1946 is that the religious pluralism, if not outright secularism, of the INA although admirable did not penetrate more than skin deep among some in the rank and file. For in this civilian afterlife some of them (as well as ex-Indian Army soldiers), participated in the religious violence of India's partition, employing military tactics and lethality on unarmed civilians. See 1947 Amritsar train massacre and the quote from Ian Talbot in footnote 8 there. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

There is no need to make an issue just because I mentioned the article on Subhas Chandra Bose. You don't own that article.

As pointed out by Joshua Jonathan, the sentence is already mentioned, and the 2nd and 6th paragraph of the lead is already describing the controversy as well. I have removed the word "collaborationist" from the lead altogether and also removed the spam done here by anon on 1 January. Yes you have "proposed a version of the lead sentence here" but it is too problematic to keep here because it is burying the key points.

At the end of the lead, we can mention the acts related to INA after the independence which include 1947 Jammu massacres, 1947 Amritsar train massacre and fighting in favor of Pakistan during the Indo-Pakistani war of 1947–1948. Azuredivay (talk) 06:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

No, Azuredivay, we've been very patient with your behaviour but this is unacceptable. Kindly allow the article to be edited.

It is not up to you to decide what the key points are.—S Marshall T/C 09:50, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

No, that would be nothing more than a unilateral edit. To state INA's view when the opposing view hasn't been mentioned on the first paragraph would make the page look biased. The current lead is good enough. Orientls (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

In the discussion above, a number of experienced editors explain why it isn't good enough.—S Marshall T/C 18:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I have now rewritten the first two paragraphs, factoring in the inputs of most everyone here. The sentences are cited to the best-known historians of late colonial India, among them Barbara D. Metcalf, Thomas R. Metcalf, Christopher Bayly, Sugata Bose, Joyce Lebra, Leonard A. Gordon, Daniel Marston, David Ludden, A. J. Stockwell, Keith Jeffery. I have also used the superbly-written piece in Military History by Rafe McGregor. I have removed the flag in the infobox as the Indian National Congress had first dibs from December 1929 onward, when Nehru hoisted it on the banks of the Ravi river in Lahore. Even if Bose used it after 1943 to represent a militaristic effort, it most certainly did not have the blessings of the Congress' nonviolent campaign for India's independence. I have also removed the picture of the INA "memorial" in Calcutta whose notability I fail to understand. There were no Bengalis to speak of, let alone residents of Calcutta in the INA other than Bose. The INA never set foot in Calcutta as it did in or around Imphal and Kohima. I have therefore replaced the Calcutta picture with one of the INA Martyrs' Memorial Complex in Moirang, just outside Imphal, Manipur, where in April 1944, the INA opened its first HQ on Indian soil, the caption stating so cited to Rafe McGregor. I have to say I enjoyed reading the sources. Thank you all. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Thankyou @Fowler&fowler for an excellent effort. I would highlight, however, the sentence "did not oppose Japanese Fascism" sits uneasily in that part of the introduction. Either qualify it with a lead ("controversial legacy" or some variation thereof) or alternatively, note that the controversy is covered in the last paragraph of the lead. I am not aware however that INA's lack of opposing Japanese atrocities (whether on purpose or by ignorance) has generated much view (amongst native Malay population, etc), debate (in post-war Southeast Asia, noting that Malay Indian Congress was led by INA members), or historical analysis (amongst historians including Lebra, Sengupta, and others). I am therefore fairly surprised this sentence made it's way, and I do wonder if this is one of those "Fascist-adjacence" arguments that again is "tarnish-by-association" in its interpretation

. The sentence on wartime influence similarly feels ill-seated, and requires an intro as a qualifier ("is accepted to have little influence on the field of battle" etc") as it seems otherwise to be a point of view that is notnout of place with William Slim. Nonetheless, one must give credit for a superb effort, where credit is due. To Fowler.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 06:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

• Analysing the recent edits of Fowler, I think instead of saying "was a Japanese-allied and -supported armed force", we can simply say "was a Japanese organised armed force". Lastly, I don't see a point in adding "and led by Indian anti-colonial nationalist Subhas Chandra Bose" on the first paragraph because it was formerly led by Mohan Singh with thousands of members, and later it was revamped by Subhas Chandra Bose. This sentence should be removed. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
• Note Thank you all. I have just woken up. Once replenished with coffee, I will examine the scholarly sources again, especially tertiary sources, such as introductory textbooks and review articles, to ascertain I have due weight-backup, and perhaps replenish the sources if need be. You might find some clues to my approach in my edit summaries hereafter. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  PS Of the four lead paragraphs, I have rewritten the first three. I will return another time to rewrite the last. This is all I can do in a page I came to seriously look at only as a result of a ping by user:Drmies. I thank them as I do user:RegentsPark, user:Joshua Jonathan, user:S Marshall for their suggestions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

  PPS I thank user:Rueben_lys for their comments as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

biased

this article is baised against INA is probably written by a leftist he clevely quotes all british sources but gives no value to indigenous accounts or even the account of british which show INA in good light. Just a message to the writer we know your kind here what tricks you do how you hide the truth its just not working 103.172.73.153 (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

your comment provides no evidence or citation for your claims. Your affection towards the INA does not change its actions, and to be more pedantic, there isn't one writer collating all of the information. There is no obligation to show the INA in a good light. This page isn't court of public opinion; it is intended to report and inform about the subject. Thehazardcat (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Opening Line of Article

The opening line of the page reads "The Indian National Army... was a Japanese-allied and -supported armed force constituted in Southeast Asia..."

I know the topic has been extensively deliberated on above, and all parties involved agree to significant Japanese cooperation and interference in INA activities. The question that follows is whether the INA had justifiable sovereignty to warrant the moniker of ally, and the the answer to that is clearly no. Christopher Bayly himself notes that the INA had little autonomy; nominal control over the land 'allotted' to them. In no way can the INA be described as an independent force, and subsequently cannot be called an ally or "Japanese force" when they were entirely dependant on the Japanese for everything but personnel. Thehazardcat (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Grammar Error in Intro

I don’t have the permissions to do so, but can someone replace “… some victorious soldiers in the Indian Army not taking INA battlefield surrender kindly.” with something like “ with some British Indian Army forces not taking kindly to the surrender of INA troops.”

Basically, the word victorious needs to be removed because it appears to glorify one side of this conflict (reducing objectivity), the grammar mechanics for this phrase need to fixed (to improve readability and flow), and “Indian Army” should be qualified with “British” to clear up confusion with Bose’s “Indian National Army” (While the British themselves referring to their colonial Indian forces as such at the time, it is now often referred to as the British Indian Army as seen in the title of the Wikipedia page for it). StochasticSaki (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 April 2026

~2026-25840-07 (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Allies: [Empire of Japan] not allegiance

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. Day Creature (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2026 (UTC)